This is why women are socialized to carefully dance around these issues, disagreeing with men in an extremely gentle manner. Not because women are nicer creatures than men. But because our very survival can depend on it.... Growing a thicker skin isn't the answer, nor is it a proper response. Listening, and making the industry safer for the existence of visible women is the best, and only, way forward."
These days, it's men who are being 'carefully socialized' to dance around feminist gynocentric expectations and value systems. I believe HR departments call it 'sensitivity training.' Since proof of guilt is rarely required, employment for men is now a mad dash in a mine field of passive aggressive barbs just waiting to trigger whenever a woman is pissed enough to throw the book at a man. we're told this is justified because men alone engage in this behavior en masse, and that women are (ironically) damsels in distress who have no say or part in their situations, nor are they capable of similar behavior. This crap flooded hollywood and tv in the 90s, and now we're getting the full deluge of the same propaganda in the gaming scene. What bullshit. Polygon loves it, though, as they post a lot of it. The fact they shut off comments for this article speaks volumes about its logical and probably factual integrity.
We don't give people respect who haven't earned it and/or have given us reason to take it from them. Derek smart anyone? People still give john romero shit for daikatana even though he was a big part of the success of doom. He's revered for the good he's done and demonized for his stillborn shitpiles. This is how it's supposed to work. We're not supposed to hold some people above reproach based on their sexual organs or their race or any other irrelevant attribute, as that is the very definition of privilege. This makes the whole article 180 degrees out from the truth. Growing a thicker skin IS the answer as it allows one to stop and look at criticism objectively instead of immediately flying into a tantrum and/or a flurry of passive aggressive countermaneuvers. It allows one to ignore the ad hominems and other fallacies from any communication, whether it's well written constructive criticism or vitriolic trolling, and extract any truth from it.
These days, we are seeing more and more extreme reactions for ever more mundane situations from a culture bred to be as intolerant of criticism as possible. Everything has to be positive. All the time. No 'negative nancies' or 'debbie downers' allowed. The fact this precludes talking about the truth of things more than 50% of the time is lost on these social engineers. All that matters to them are feelings and consensus; the facts and truth be damned.
The term 'safer' here is used in place of 'more amenable' to make the situation sound more dire than it is. The bottom line is, very very very few men are truly guilty of assaulting women. I believe the stats on college campuses nationwide is 53 in one year...53 out of millions of students on thousands of campuses. This is NOT an epidemic, and I'll bet it's more than the number of assaults by male game developers and staff. If you are assaulted, don't whine on the internet. Call the police. The reason most of these women don't is because they know their claims are bullshit. Otherwise, they should act like the adults they want to be treated as, taking warranted criticism for what it is, regardless of format, and discarding the rest.
and if he grabbed a man by the throat, what would've happened? what if she assaulted him? what then? The difference in responses would be astronomical. 'Real companies' just don't want lawsuits. The lawsuits come from badly written laws that give one side the upper hand by default, truth be damned, for the sake of votes. Those laws are sexist and should be stricken from the books. Real companies don't let the stakes get to the point where passive-aggressive social dynamics are causing employees to assault each other.
Scenario 2 is basically what feminists are doing to men. A few men do something, and now suddenly we need pervasive, invasive, due process rights destroying changes to the law, making it toxic for ALL men. We're also supposed to accept the denigration of masculinity in all aspects of culture and life as some kind of penance. Those who question it are labeled misogynists. Fuck that.
I'll bet that the anecdotes depicted in this article were actually subjected to scenario 1, and took it personally instead of constructively. The reality is that ALL developers get trash talk like that, not just women. I don't see why they should be singled out for special sympathy. Even developers of successful games get vitriol from some players. If the game sucks, the devs get more. We don't sympathize with derek smart do we?
I'm tired of being told both that women are 'equals' while also being told that I'm responsible for their emotional well being. Either women are adults or they are children. They need to decide which way they want to be treated. The fact that comments have been disabled on the article speaks volumes about the logical integrity of the post.
That is not juvenile "boys will be boys" behavior.
Yes it is. Grow up. Stop crying like a baby. Learn to deal with internet trash talk for what it is. You whine just like those anita sarkeesian feminists. It's much more likely that you are lashing out for being owned by those players, than it is they actually intend to hunt anyone down.
Perhaps, but adults need to take some responsibility for the situations they put themselves in. End of story. Crying victim every time you're criticized does not encourage respect, and that's what these professional victim blog articles are all about.
.. there's a reason paranoia is a typical stereotype associated with eastern bloc societies....and the united states these days. Corporates cannot dominate without a powerful state willing to back them.
You mean things like internet access and cable tv? those are expensive services and they're full of ads. It's gotten so bad that ads are displayed around the edges of content on tv shows, and sites want internet customers to use their limited bandwidth allocations to download fat flash ads and wait for them to play....on so called 'premium' services. Fuck that.
The issue is that male focused groups are criticized for it while female groups are lauded. Sure, the society for male nurses might be mostly male, but try building a society specifically for male engineers. What happens? The SJWs come out in droves clamoring for the death of the 'patriarchy.' Meanwhile the last 50 years of new laws and social reforms lobbied for by feminists force organizations to select for women because of their sex and not their accomplishments.
Criticism of feminism's hypocrisy is often taken as misogyny when it is not, which is what a lot of feminist critics deal with on slashdot and the mainstream media. These arguments are just ad hominem attacks (eg calling them misogynists) and other fallacies (like taking it as 'proof' of patriarchy) because feminists don't have sound justifications for granting women privilege in society under the guise of fighting for everyone's equal opportunity. This cannot be true as long as feminists only concern themselves with the needs and whims of one sex. Many of them have no qualms about 'redefining' masculinity as well, which is ironic considering how they don't want men dictating what a woman should be in any sense.
You're right, though, people should be able to concern themselves with their own interests and ally as they see fit, but it is wrong to have the state dictate which cross sections are permitted to do this, labeling some as 'oppressors' and others as 'oppressed,' by default. This 'chicktech' initiative is no more or less discriminatory than my male engineering society example above. If one should be allowed then so should the other.
The litmus test is in applying the opposite logic. What would the situation be if they were promoting boys instead, and someone like yourself came along and answered feminist criticism with "but see they accept women too!" Even if they did, their primary discriminator is still the sex of the student instead of relevant discriminators, like aptitude and interest. The bottom line is you (or some other feminist) would have called someone out for saying
"While they're overwhelmingly male in structure, you're absolutely wrong in your made up assertion that they don't accept women."
Promoting access based on sex is sexually discriminating. Whether it's men or women, for or against, it doesn't matter. Building bias into the system under the guise of promoting 'diversity' and/or 'equality' is even worse than the original discrimination it claims to fight because it adds hypocrisy to the pile.
The reality is that 'diversity' and 'equality' are mutually exclusive. To feminists, it should be the ('empowered' female run) state that decides how and when one trumps the other, building privilege for women into the system. A system that encourages use of relevant discriminators when making decisions doesn't need any of this because it would treat everyone justly. Of course, this would also put a lot of politicians and lawyers out of a job.
Superman is a DC property. Superwoman was a counterpart for him, not a replacement. Good thing too because the demand for her just isn't as great. Same goes for all the other versions of the character. Bait-and-switch never goes over well with the customer. Character development and evolution is fine, but swapping out core traits arbitrarily for the sake of disingenuous politics does not count.
A lot of that increased 'demand' is coming from 'social justice warriors' claiming to speak for unrepresented majorities. The reality is that a lot of women prefer a male in such roles as well, but I guess the market will decide whether the female thor story arc sells..
I suggest you read the article as it makes the motivation for the change quite clear.
Feminism is cultural marxism across sex (males are the oppressor class, females, the oppressed). I'm sure marvel loves to make as much money as they can, but they're also using their platform to push disingenuous politics. I'm criticizing them for it. Of course, they're welcome to do what they want with their business.
Notice how I responded without personal attacks? Try it on for size.
Also the god of protection, strength, thunder/lightning/storms, etc. Those are masculine traits. If marvel wants a female character based on norse mythos, pick a female deity to base it on or make one up. Hell, they already have Storm, right? She's not based on norse mythos, but so what? There are plenty of strong women characters already, and it's pretty obvious they've been softening the male characters for quite some time. They shouldn't do this. Who wants a whiny passive aggressive male superhero character emoting all the time?
You're right, though, it is the perfect choice, if the goal is to stamp out positive male roles in entertainment.
You might see it as a problem. I consider the fact you see it as a problem, as the problem (if this was meant as sarcasm, I apologize). What's wrong with white, straight males? Norse mythology comes from scandinavian culture. They are/were largely white. Seems reasonable to me for them to depict their deities as such.
The name 'Thor' is masculine too. If marvel wanted a new female character, why not create a new one? Either borrow from existing norse mythos like they did with thor, or come up with all new material. I know, what a concept, right? It's pretty clear from the language of the article that this was done for 'grrl power' political correctness and not for any legitimate creative reason.
Either you are being misogynistic, or stupid. Pick at least one.
Nope. False dilemma used as ad hominem.
Cluebat -- The thor comic is based on the norse mythology, making it reasonable for the character to be male. The narrative in the article makes it clear this change is being done for 'grrl power' political reasons.
Stop using your platforms to push marxist propaganda. It's so blatant when history is so blatantly contradicted for no good reason. The mythos always depicted thor as male. Why is it so terrible to have a dominant male in a protagonist role? It's not misogyny.
Slashdot Mirror
This is why women are socialized to carefully dance around these issues, disagreeing with men in an extremely gentle manner. Not because women are nicer creatures than men. But because our very survival can depend on it. ... Growing a thicker skin isn't the answer, nor is it a proper response. Listening, and making the industry safer for the existence of visible women is the best, and only, way forward."
These days, it's men who are being 'carefully socialized' to dance around feminist gynocentric expectations and value systems. I believe HR departments call it 'sensitivity training.' Since proof of guilt is rarely required, employment for men is now a mad dash in a mine field of passive aggressive barbs just waiting to trigger whenever a woman is pissed enough to throw the book at a man. we're told this is justified because men alone engage in this behavior en masse, and that women are (ironically) damsels in distress who have no say or part in their situations, nor are they capable of similar behavior. This crap flooded hollywood and tv in the 90s, and now we're getting the full deluge of the same propaganda in the gaming scene. What bullshit. Polygon loves it, though, as they post a lot of it. The fact they shut off comments for this article speaks volumes about its logical and probably factual integrity.
We don't give people respect who haven't earned it and/or have given us reason to take it from them. Derek smart anyone? People still give john romero shit for daikatana even though he was a big part of the success of doom. He's revered for the good he's done and demonized for his stillborn shitpiles. This is how it's supposed to work. We're not supposed to hold some people above reproach based on their sexual organs or their race or any other irrelevant attribute, as that is the very definition of privilege. This makes the whole article 180 degrees out from the truth. Growing a thicker skin IS the answer as it allows one to stop and look at criticism objectively instead of immediately flying into a tantrum and/or a flurry of passive aggressive countermaneuvers. It allows one to ignore the ad hominems and other fallacies from any communication, whether it's well written constructive criticism or vitriolic trolling, and extract any truth from it.
These days, we are seeing more and more extreme reactions for ever more mundane situations from a culture bred to be as intolerant of criticism as possible. Everything has to be positive. All the time. No 'negative nancies' or 'debbie downers' allowed. The fact this precludes talking about the truth of things more than 50% of the time is lost on these social engineers. All that matters to them are feelings and consensus; the facts and truth be damned.
The term 'safer' here is used in place of 'more amenable' to make the situation sound more dire than it is. The bottom line is, very very very few men are truly guilty of assaulting women. I believe the stats on college campuses nationwide is 53 in one year...53 out of millions of students on thousands of campuses. This is NOT an epidemic, and I'll bet it's more than the number of assaults by male game developers and staff. If you are assaulted, don't whine on the internet. Call the police. The reason most of these women don't is because they know their claims are bullshit. Otherwise, they should act like the adults they want to be treated as, taking warranted criticism for what it is, regardless of format, and discarding the rest.
and if he grabbed a man by the throat, what would've happened? what if she assaulted him? what then? The difference in responses would be astronomical. 'Real companies' just don't want lawsuits. The lawsuits come from badly written laws that give one side the upper hand by default, truth be damned, for the sake of votes. Those laws are sexist and should be stricken from the books. Real companies don't let the stakes get to the point where passive-aggressive social dynamics are causing employees to assault each other.
Scenario 2 is basically what feminists are doing to men. A few men do something, and now suddenly we need pervasive, invasive, due process rights destroying changes to the law, making it toxic for ALL men. We're also supposed to accept the denigration of masculinity in all aspects of culture and life as some kind of penance. Those who question it are labeled misogynists. Fuck that.
I'll bet that the anecdotes depicted in this article were actually subjected to scenario 1, and took it personally instead of constructively. The reality is that ALL developers get trash talk like that, not just women. I don't see why they should be singled out for special sympathy. Even developers of successful games get vitriol from some players. If the game sucks, the devs get more. We don't sympathize with derek smart do we?
I'm tired of being told both that women are 'equals' while also being told that I'm responsible for their emotional well being. Either women are adults or they are children. They need to decide which way they want to be treated. The fact that comments have been disabled on the article speaks volumes about the logical integrity of the post.
That is not juvenile "boys will be boys" behavior.
Yes it is. Grow up. Stop crying like a baby. Learn to deal with internet trash talk for what it is. You whine just like those anita sarkeesian feminists. It's much more likely that you are lashing out for being owned by those players, than it is they actually intend to hunt anyone down.
Perhaps, but adults need to take some responsibility for the situations they put themselves in. End of story. Crying victim every time you're criticized does not encourage respect, and that's what these professional victim blog articles are all about.
A couple of anecdotes from a few troll posts do not qualify as 'daily harassment of women.'
That's true.
ah.. no true scotsman would...
.. there's a reason paranoia is a typical stereotype associated with eastern bloc societies. ...and the united states these days. Corporates cannot dominate without a powerful state willing to back them.
Refusing to acknowledge the icky parts doesn't make them go away.
and democrats want expression contrary to their image and ideology censored and punished. We'll probably have both by 2050.
Because 'free' tv isn't really free anymore.
you either get rid of advertising and pay to watch each video, or you put up with advertising.
False dilemma. We could watch the video with adblock plus installed and not let you waste our time with some ad selling bullshit we don't care about.
i would stop very fast if i didn't get paid.
Good. Take your ball and go home. The internet could use a few less for-profit entities twisting their content in order to maximize cashflow.
You mean things like internet access and cable tv? those are expensive services and they're full of ads. It's gotten so bad that ads are displayed around the edges of content on tv shows, and sites want internet customers to use their limited bandwidth allocations to download fat flash ads and wait for them to play....on so called 'premium' services. Fuck that.
I have no sympathy for advertisers at this point.
The issue is that male focused groups are criticized for it while female groups are lauded. Sure, the society for male nurses might be mostly male, but try building a society specifically for male engineers. What happens? The SJWs come out in droves clamoring for the death of the 'patriarchy.' Meanwhile the last 50 years of new laws and social reforms lobbied for by feminists force organizations to select for women because of their sex and not their accomplishments.
Criticism of feminism's hypocrisy is often taken as misogyny when it is not, which is what a lot of feminist critics deal with on slashdot and the mainstream media. These arguments are just ad hominem attacks (eg calling them misogynists) and other fallacies (like taking it as 'proof' of patriarchy) because feminists don't have sound justifications for granting women privilege in society under the guise of fighting for everyone's equal opportunity. This cannot be true as long as feminists only concern themselves with the needs and whims of one sex. Many of them have no qualms about 'redefining' masculinity as well, which is ironic considering how they don't want men dictating what a woman should be in any sense.
You're right, though, people should be able to concern themselves with their own interests and ally as they see fit, but it is wrong to have the state dictate which cross sections are permitted to do this, labeling some as 'oppressors' and others as 'oppressed,' by default. This 'chicktech' initiative is no more or less discriminatory than my male engineering society example above. If one should be allowed then so should the other.
The litmus test is in applying the opposite logic. What would the situation be if they were promoting boys instead, and someone like yourself came along and answered feminist criticism with "but see they accept women too!" Even if they did, their primary discriminator is still the sex of the student instead of relevant discriminators, like aptitude and interest. The bottom line is you (or some other feminist) would have called someone out for saying
"While they're overwhelmingly male in structure, you're absolutely wrong in your made up assertion that they don't accept women."
Promoting access based on sex is sexually discriminating. Whether it's men or women, for or against, it doesn't matter. Building bias into the system under the guise of promoting 'diversity' and/or 'equality' is even worse than the original discrimination it claims to fight because it adds hypocrisy to the pile.
The reality is that 'diversity' and 'equality' are mutually exclusive. To feminists, it should be the ('empowered' female run) state that decides how and when one trumps the other, building privilege for women into the system. A system that encourages use of relevant discriminators when making decisions doesn't need any of this because it would treat everyone justly. Of course, this would also put a lot of politicians and lawyers out of a job.
Superman is a DC property. Superwoman was a counterpart for him, not a replacement. Good thing too because the demand for her just isn't as great. Same goes for all the other versions of the character. Bait-and-switch never goes over well with the customer. Character development and evolution is fine, but swapping out core traits arbitrarily for the sake of disingenuous politics does not count.
A lot of that increased 'demand' is coming from 'social justice warriors' claiming to speak for unrepresented majorities. The reality is that a lot of women prefer a male in such roles as well, but I guess the market will decide whether the female thor story arc sells..
I suggest you read the article as it makes the motivation for the change quite clear.
Feminism is cultural marxism across sex (males are the oppressor class, females, the oppressed). I'm sure marvel loves to make as much money as they can, but they're also using their platform to push disingenuous politics. I'm criticizing them for it. Of course, they're welcome to do what they want with their business.
Notice how I responded without personal attacks? Try it on for size.
Also the god of protection, strength, thunder/lightning/storms, etc. Those are masculine traits. If marvel wants a female character based on norse mythos, pick a female deity to base it on or make one up. Hell, they already have Storm, right? She's not based on norse mythos, but so what? There are plenty of strong women characters already, and it's pretty obvious they've been softening the male characters for quite some time. They shouldn't do this. Who wants a whiny passive aggressive male superhero character emoting all the time?
You're right, though, it is the perfect choice, if the goal is to stamp out positive male roles in entertainment.
You might see it as a problem. I consider the fact you see it as a problem, as the problem (if this was meant as sarcasm, I apologize). What's wrong with white, straight males? Norse mythology comes from scandinavian culture. They are/were largely white. Seems reasonable to me for them to depict their deities as such.
The name 'Thor' is masculine too. If marvel wanted a new female character, why not create a new one? Either borrow from existing norse mythos like they did with thor, or come up with all new material. I know, what a concept, right? It's pretty clear from the language of the article that this was done for 'grrl power' political correctness and not for any legitimate creative reason.
Either you are being misogynistic, or stupid. Pick at least one.
Nope. False dilemma used as ad hominem.
Cluebat -- The thor comic is based on the norse mythology, making it reasonable for the character to be male. The narrative in the article makes it clear this change is being done for 'grrl power' political reasons.
Yes.
Stop using your platforms to push marxist propaganda. It's so blatant when history is so blatantly contradicted for no good reason. The mythos always depicted thor as male. Why is it so terrible to have a dominant male in a protagonist role? It's not misogyny.
to the cloud with you!