Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 23 of 23
  1. #21
    Community Member Dawnsfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009


    Thanks Mem it was an interesting read.

    Games have had a history of treating men and women differently. I do suspect the young lady is correct that it empowered young men partly because they were the ones playing at the time. I do hope she has fun analysing this phenomenon but I really think she already has it solved. Games cater to men because the game maker assumes that is their audience. As game makers wake up and realize that there are:

    1: More woman then men
    2: They enjoy games too
    3: 'Hello Kitty Online' does not count

    I suspect games will become more and more welcoming of women. As soon as they figure out that there is money there, they will serve the market because they are greedy

    I had a bit of trouble with the author's need to call those he disagreed with 'Taliban' though. Yes the h8ers are pretty thick and nasty there but if he wants to stop 'the bullies' he really needs to drop the **** himself (unless of course he has caught them actually stoning or beheading folks).

    Quote Originally Posted by Torc View Post
    I’m only nerfing you now so I can buff you later.

  2. #22
    Scholar Of Adventure & Hero Missing_Minds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006


    Quote Originally Posted by Archangel666 View Post
    While her video was well made and cogent, I got the feeling that she may be guilty of over-analyzing a bit. I studied basic level Psychology when I was younger and when I got to the Sigmund Freud section I shuddered the whole way through it, but he did say one thing that stuck in my mind. What he said was this "Sometimes a Cigar is just a Cigar". In other words sometimes we read more into a subject than is either warranted or even necessary.
    This is why, not because of Freud though, I hated Symbolism in high school English classes and called bullcarp on it every single time. The only person who actually knows what they were intending to signify is the creator themself. Anyone else is only guessing and placing their personal perspective on the matter as if it were fact.

    And look at all the issues created in the past and today that are caused by such. If they want to treat it as a philosopy and creative thinking? Hey, sweet, I like it. But to treat it as fact? bullarky.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dhalgren
    Sarkeesian is not on a pedestal. She is on a soapbox.
    The interesting thing about that is that now, because she got attention and a subsequent fanbase, she is placed on a pedestal.
    Like many of the forumites here, they started on a soapbox, then after a time they became a "champion" of some of the others and then placed on a pedestal.

    Everyone starts somewhere.

    Me... I came to all this realization 10+ years ago, only the methods to have a soapbox didn't exist as they do today. Nor did I care about being vocal about such when I knew I wouldn't be able to make a different because I didn't have the energy to bother with it. Does this make me better than them? Nope. Just means it is old news to me.

  3. #23
    Community Member FestusHood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011


    I agree that bullying is unfortunate, there is no excuse for it. That being said, and having watched the video about the subject 'damsel in distress', i can see why someone would disagree somewhat with her viewpoint.

    Personally, i dislike when people put political correctness above reality. Near the end of the video, she mentions that there is some fallacy involved with portraying women as needing to be protected by men. That the idea that women are not as strong as men is a myth. Huh?

    In any real life situation where a man and a woman face an actual violent situation, in 99% percent of cases, the man will be expected to face the antagonist, if physical violence is called for. If a man stood by and watched his wife or girlfriend being beaten, he would be a parriah. Hell, even if he watched it happen to a woman he didn't know. Now reverse the roles. A woman comes across a man being beaten to a pulp by another man, and she physically beats down the attacker to rescue him. You see that story all the time. Oh wait, you don't.

    There is a reason all sporting events are divided into womens and mens divisions. Due to biology, not stereotyping, women simply are not as strong as men. Can you find an exception where a woman who devotes her life to working out is stronger than an unusually out of shape male? Of course. But let's be real here, the average woman is not going to be able to beat the average man in a fight. Not without involving weapons.

    Her example, which seemed to really bother her, was Double Dragon, where a woman is punched in the stomach before she is kidnapped. Now most people might be bothered by this because of the depiction of a woman being brutalized, generally considered to be a heinous act, second only to brutalizing a child. Her problem seemed to stem from the idea that the thug was able to beat her up, not the criminal nature of it.

    I guess if she's right, all of the uproar about battered women must be some kind of a scam. There must certainly be just as many battered men.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.