Female gamers having a hard time in gaming communites

[BruceVC]

 

 

But lets focus  on the topic at hand, are you suggesting that nowadays and historically white, heterosexual males have been equally discriminated against compared to other minority groups? Now in the interests of clarity minority groups include non-whites, women, gays and all other groups that are typically the victim of discrimination ?

 

 

Bruce saying historically that white males have not been discriminated against is extremely foolish, I know that you feel the need to parrot the latest popular slogans but please think about what you're saying. Ceaser's invasion of Gaul for instance, with casualties and those enslaved in the millions all commited by Mediterraneans against Germanic folk, hardly a comfortable and easy life being slaughtered or condemned to a living death in the slave mines of Syria. The young Englishman and Americans starved, beaten, worked to death or beheaded during the far eastern operations of World War 2. The vast multitudes who died in agony when the Bubonic Plague swept into Europe. The working classes who slaved away in the factories of the early Industrial Revolution for a pittance, and died in their thousands, but were an acceptable statistic.

 

I could go on to cite hundreds of examples, and many of them would be present day problems amongst white heterosexual men, indeed there are millions of unemployed and unemployable men in England who must rely on foodbanks to support their families. A shameful situation in one of the richest countries on Earth. If one is rich, gainfully employed and fits within societies roles then one may indeed have an easy life, that is the benefit of having our forefathers work hard, sacrifice and die for their childrens betterment. That sacrifice should not be forgotten or looked upon as a bad thing, they gave greatly to help their countries, and were not rewarded for it. But still there are endemic problems in western society and they affect white men just as much as any minority, to say otherwise is the blinkered rhetoric of spoiled idiots with no experience of the real world.

 

There is a problem with a privileged elite ruling society in England at least, and the current state of politics ensures that whomever is voted for they will still rule, but that is a seperate matter for discussion. Saying that white men face no problems is silly, they are discriminated against in their own country, which their forefathers fought and died for. Just the same as a poor African in a shanty town is discriminated against by his own people, that is the broken nature of society. The sensible thing is to raise everybody not cry guilt and privilege, and to see a safe, orderly and respected existence as the basic right of everybody.

 

Equality not segregation as you argue for.

 

 

No Nonek, I am surprised that you have misunderstood my posts. I thought I was unequivocal

 

I have used words like "generally and " equally " meaning of course there are examples  of discrimination against white males but not to the same degree as minority groups. I live in a country where Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) is legislated and enforced and arguably this is a form of discrimination as the color of your skin determines if you can get a job in many cases . This is done to address historical economic injustices

 

But once again the overall discrimination is worse and more prevalent towards minority groups

[Nonek]

No Bruce you don't understand i'm afraid, the issue is not about which group is discriminated against the most, or white guilt because of their previous successes. The issue is about making any differences irrelevant, rather than highlighting and enforcing them, otherwise you're just adding to the problem. Saying a certain group needs help because of their pigmentation is racist in the extreme.

 

Edit: And once again the point is that historically white men have been discriminated against and suffered just as much as any other group, only somebody totally ignorant of history would make a statement to the opposite.

Edited May 17, 2014 by Nonek

[Volourn]

"No Monte  despite what you think and how you see yourself when I raise issues of social justice its not about me at all. I am a white, heterosexual male. My life is great and I generally don't get discriminated against"

 

Actually, your posts are all about you. Nothing wrong with that, but it's true.

[Orogun01]

 

I thought you considered yourself a focus of interesting debate and that's the best you can come up with?

 

My work here is done.

 

No Monte  despite what you think and how you see yourself when I raise issues of social justice its not about me at all. I am a white, heterosexual male. My life is great and I generally don't get discriminated against

 

Well, we don't take kindly to your types around here.

[SusurrusParadox]

 

"Female", not necessarily.

(There are valid usages for that, though they've been few & far between in this thread.)

"Females", yes.

 

It comes from the clinical/biological usage of it.

Connotations of reducing people to their body, which.. is a bit of a problem with women in society.

(Also a potential transphobic element if emphasis is placed on the biology/body.)

 

Any species can be female, only humans can be women.

(Assuming current real-world perspective. Fictional species need not apply.)

That adds a dehumanising element as well.

(Not a great indicator for discourse on treating people as equals, is it?)

 

Female/male are adjectives, woman/man/person are nouns.

So it's also grammatically... less-than-optimal.

 

(Part of it is also from the sort of person that typically refers to women as "females", because they aren't exactly the sort to harbour uh.. 21st century views.)

 

Repeated usage of "females" from some users was definitely coming off as a bit weird at the very least.

 

 

"Female" and "male" flow off the tongue better for me than "man" and "woman". I've never liked the latter two so I generally do not use them, (with the rare case of "man" as part of a phrase, such as, "What were you thinking, man?").

 

Define female: noun: female; plural noun: females 1. a female person, animal, or plant.

 

Usage defines, unfortunately. The "weirdness" is kind of your own making - the same could be said for my dislike of "man" and "woman", true, but I'm not preaching at others for it.

 

Not quite.

"Female [x]" is adjective. "[x]ing women" is noun.

The difference in descriptors was what I was referring to with that part.

(I realise I was unclear on that, so I do apologise for not clarifying better.)

It's all about where the stress/emphasis is placed, which can be revealing when it comes to thought-patterns (conscious or subconscious).

 

Additionally, that was just one component & the others still apply.

 

That said, I wasn't actually saying "YOU SHOULD NEVER USE THAT WORD EVER".

Just pointing out it (as all words) comes with certain baggage and may not be ideal.

[SusurrusParadox]

More importantly what should the taglines be for the next thread dedicated to the SJW's preaching at us like we're remedial ten year olds? Now there are obvious ones such as: Check ones privilege, self righteous, sayeth the preacher, but i'm thinking something more humorous may be warranted, pot calls kettle, speck of dust in my eye and a log in thy own, proto fascists, Goebbels would be proud etcetera? I think the forums could come up with some better one, any suggestions?

You seem surprisingly.. oh how do I put this... oversensitive, Nonek.

 

As others have queried, are you feeling guilty about something?

 

(I didn't quite expect this reaction from you, given that your comments in the update threads have been very reasonable and insightful. Strange how a topic about sexism and the like can suddenly get some people acting so out-of-sorts.)

[Nonek]

 

More importantly what should the taglines be for the next thread dedicated to the SJW's preaching at us like we're remedial ten year olds? Now there are obvious ones such as: Check ones privilege, self righteous, sayeth the preacher, but i'm thinking something more humorous may be warranted, pot calls kettle, speck of dust in my eye and a log in thy own, proto fascists, Goebbels would be proud etcetera? I think the forums could come up with some better one, any suggestions?

You seem surprisingly.. oh how do I put this... oversensitive, Nonek.

 

As others have queried, are you feeling guilty about something?

 

(I didn't quite expect this reaction from you, given that your comments in the update threads have been very reasonable and insightful. Strange how a topic about sexism and the like can suddenly get some people acting so out-of-sorts.)

 

 

Well what else can one expect from an abusive backwards caveman Mr Paradox?

 

No just having a little fun at the expense of the preachers, keeps the tone nice and light rather than po faced and serious at all times, let alone making generally abusive comments aimed at everybody.

[SusurrusParadox]

 

 

Sorry.

 

Edit: In general I agree with Ms Lightfoot however, isolation and preferential treatment do not create a harmonious melange. If there are womens group then for parities sake there should be a simlar group for the other gender, though personally I would say both are harmful to creating a successful mixed virtual society.

No.

 

See, what you're not understanding here is that (assuming you are male yourself) men already predominate.

What is ensured through 'safe spaces' is that there is a place outside of that for people to feel safe.

(The same applies to LGBTQIA groups, or in other circumstances to non-white individuals. It's not about "special clubs", it's about being protected from the abuses and threats that society in general poses.)

 

You don't need a club of your own.Yo

You need to change your behaviour, and that of fellow men, so that people don't feel the need to have a separate safe space.

 

Seriously, the response to "These people don't feel safe in the world at large" should not be "BUT HOW COME THEY GET-".

It should be working out why they feel that way and then trying to fix the flaws in the system.

(& once you've done that, I think you'll find you will get a "successful mixed virtual society". As well as a much happier and friendlier one, I reckon. Diminished bigotry and abuse benefits everyone, since it shows there's no tolerance for that sort of obnoxious harmful behaviour in the community.)

 

(As a disclaimer, I'm a white cis male that likes women. So I'm pretty much the archetype of the privileged gamer myself.)

 

First of all, the concept of a "Safe Space" on the internet is hilarious. If you feel "unsafe" on the internet, I submit to you that you have a problem that all of the safe spaces in the world is never going to fix.

 

Second and more importantly, just because someone -- or a group of someones -- has a feeling, doesn't mean that feeling is valid, or even worth paying attention to. This is harsh, I know, but it is reality. A million people can complain about feeling "unsafe" on the internet, but the first question we should ask is not "How do we make these people feel safe?!" but "What the hell does that even mean?" Feelings are not arguments. Feelings are not proof of a systemic problem. Feelings are not enough to demand compliance to a way of doing things.

 

Feelings are feelings, and we all have them every day, and many of them are quite dumb and irrational. Just because a bunch of people all have the same feeling and are vocalizing it on the internet doesn't make that feeling any less dumb or any less irrational.

 

First of all, why is it ridiculous?

Why else do moderators exist, hm?

I would suggest your argument is ridiculous.

 

Secondly, and more importantly, just because something involves ~feelings~ doesn't mean anything about it is invalid or incorrect or not worth paying attention to.

This is a challenge for those with stunted emotional development, I know, but it is reality.

A million people can point out that those attitudes don't merely exist "online" and they do translate to physical violence, but the first question we should ask is not "What the hell does that even mean?" because we should already be aware of the existence and prevalence of violence and harassment and sexual assault but "How do we make the communities we are a part of less viciously hostile to minorities and less supportive of abusive/bigoted behaviours?".

Statistical evidence and the demonstrable effects upon large swathes of the human populace is proof of a systemic problem. Requesting compliance as far as maintaining a basic level of respect and consideration for others, in terms of equal treatment under the law and judgement based on character in social exchanges certainly seems reasonable.

 

Feelings are not arguments, but they tend to be motivations for (and results of) them.

You appear to be drawing some sort of weird 'Straw Vulcan' up as an ideal when people quite clearly don't act in isolation of their emotions.

It's possible (and I think reasonable) to maintain control, but to pretend they don't exist or are always devoid of merit is utter nonsense.

 

Feelings are feelings, and most of us have them every waking moment, and some of them do tend to be irrational. (This is why critical thinking & awareness are important skills to develop.) Just because a bunch of people (some men) all have the same feeling (fear/offence/anger) on the internet (and in meatspace) doesn't make that feeling any less foolish or any less derivative of ignorance, and it certainly doesn't make it rational nor reasonable nor justifiable.

 

(Thanks for ticking at least two boxes on that 'derailment bingo' card someone shared earlier.)

 

[IndiraLightfoot]

BruceVC: Monte and Nonek argue strongly for something I also see as pivotal in social power relations: the importance of context.

Context always trumps concepts and categories (especially ones being wielded from the comfort of armchair academics, from the communiqué harping of journalists, and from the staged delusions of audience-enthralling demagogues). Context is harsh; It's down and dirty; it's vital priorities made on the fly.

 

Another thing that I'd like to steer clear of is letting categories almost get a life of their own: It's called reification, the fallacy of treating an abstract category like a real thing.

 

I agree with Nonek that it is indeed sensible to see a safe, orderly and respected existence as the basic right of everybody, and may I add in whatever context?! This makes the isolation of certain categories a dangerous enterprise, which very rarely leads to good thing, neither short-term nor long-term.

 

Other than that, I just hope you guys get along fine and don't let stuff get personal or other your skins. No need, even if a lot of fishing in that department is taking place in discussions like these.

Edited May 17, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[SusurrusParadox]

 

 

 

But compared to all other types of people in the world, straight white men face and have faced the fewest specific forms of derogatory and dehumanizing treatment.

Nah. They face less discrimination, certainly. But as to who faces "derogatory" and "dehumanizing" treatment? How can you even being to quantify that?

 

 

"Specific forms" is my real point there.  I'm not contesting for a single second that everyone in the world can be the target of terrible things done by other people.  But how many forms of derogatory and dehumanizing treatment have specifically targeted the straight white male?  Compared to, say, black people, or gay men?  That's what I'm getting at.

 

This doesn't really help your argument, though. Every white male who has ever been through US military bootcamp has been dehumanized and faced with derogatory comments. Every white male who has been through high school in the United States has been dehumanized and faced derogatory comments. You keep using these two words, but I think you want to use other words. You're basically saying that white men don't get insulted or treated like ****. Of course they do, and it is usually from other white males. Focusing on this is waste of time and effort.

 

 

See the part I switched to bold text?

Nailed it.

 

When men also suffer the perpetrators are themselves overwhelmingly the same gender (& often the same race) as the victim.

Not so along other lines.

(That's the key point to take away from that.)

 

On a related note, women going through high school and the U.S. military suffer at least the same and often worse.

(The statistics on military rape are absolutely repulsive, and members of the military have spoken out about female squaddies receiving abuse and it being down to sexist misogynistic rectums that refuse to get with the damn times.)

 

Further note: Those guys (& women) in the military chose to enter that system, with a certain level of dehumanising treatment expected. That doesn't mean they endure it equally, and the evidence supports that.

[SusurrusParadox]

Of the 6000000 Jews murdered by the Germans during the Second World War, let's assume roughly half of them were white and male.

 

I know you're being facetious, but the Jews weren't considered "white" by the Nazi regime.

(Race being a social construct, the definition of who is 'white' and who is 'black' and who is whatever other bloody colour varies culturally.)

[Note: Being a social construct doesn't make something functionally meaningless, it just means it's a cultural thing rather than a biological thing. For so long as people still recognise it and the consequences of that sort of thinking in modern society, it will have to be approached as if true. Treating the symptoms, as it were.]

 

Also, ironically enough, "Aryan" would more accurately refer to the region that is modern-day Iran.

[Nonek]

 

"How do we make the communities we are a part of less viciously hostile to minorities and less supportive of abusive/bigoted behaviours?".

 

This is a challenge for those with stunted emotional development, I know, but it is reality.

 

 

Just stop being abusive and insulting people, seems to be a rather good place to start. For instance don't accuse people you don't know or have just started interacting with of having stunted emotional development or being abusive backwards cavemen.

[Bartimaeus]

Not quite.

"Female [x]" is adjective. "[x]ing women" is noun.

The difference in descriptors was what I was referring to with that part.

(I realise I was unclear on that, so I do apologise for not clarifying better.)

It's all about where the stress/emphasis is placed, which can be revealing when it comes to thought-patterns (conscious or subconscious).

 

Additionally, that was just one component & the others still apply.

 

That said, I wasn't actually saying "YOU SHOULD NEVER USE THAT WORD EVER".

Just pointing out it (as all words) comes with certain baggage and may not be ideal.

 

Sorry: I'm not entirely sure what I was thinking when I posted that, as you were mostly correct. I simply felt as though you were giving much more importance to those rather minor (in my opinion) connotations than was appropriate, (to my credit, at least, I didn't actually *contest* those connotations specifically). Obviously, the context is important, too, as you have rightfully pointed out. Apologies.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

 

"How do we make the communities we are a part of less viciously hostile to minorities and less supportive of abusive/bigoted behaviours?".

 

This is a challenge for those with stunted emotional development, I know, but it is reality.

 

 

Just stop being abusive and insulting people, seems to be a rather good place to start. For instance don't accuse people you don't know or have just started interacting with of having stunted emotional development or being abusive backwards cavemen.

 

 

Indeed.

[SusurrusParadox]

 

 

More importantly what should the taglines be for the next thread dedicated to the SJW's preaching at us like we're remedial ten year olds? Now there are obvious ones such as: Check ones privilege, self righteous, sayeth the preacher, but i'm thinking something more humorous may be warranted, pot calls kettle, speck of dust in my eye and a log in thy own, proto fascists, Goebbels would be proud etcetera? I think the forums could come up with some better one, any suggestions?

You seem surprisingly.. oh how do I put this... oversensitive, Nonek.

 

As others have queried, are you feeling guilty about something?

 

(I didn't quite expect this reaction from you, given that your comments in the update threads have been very reasonable and insightful. Strange how a topic about sexism and the like can suddenly get some people acting so out-of-sorts.)

 

 

Well what else can one expect from an abusive backwards caveman Mr Paradox?

 

No just having a little fun at the expense of the preachers, keeps the tone nice and light rather than po faced and serious at all times, let alone making generally abusive comments aimed at everybody.

 

 

Did you ignore that the comment you're referring to was not actually aimed at you or are you just going to continue to throw a bloody tantrum over it?

(If you must know, I'd say that particular label gravitates most greatly towards Volo.)

 

Comparing people that would like sexist/racist/etc. nonsense to stop being supported by general society and kindly go away to the Nazis and to Fascism seems.. intellectually bankrupt.

Almost certainly ethically unsound considering how it diminishes the atrocities committed under such regimes.

 

Then again, what else would one expect from an Englishman?

(Frankly, better; especially considering the side the British were on during that war. Unfortunately it does appear like the existence of the English Defence League and the British National Party and their successes "south of the border" speak to a certain malignant sentiment amongst white English people.)

[i'd apologise for the potentially insulting and ad hominem nature of that remark, but it's just intended to keep the tone "nice and light" with a bit of friendly intra-British banter. Right?]

[Nonek]

And it just keeps getting better.

[SusurrusParadox]

 

 

"How do we make the communities we are a part of less viciously hostile to minorities and less supportive of abusive/bigoted behaviours?".

 

This is a challenge for those with stunted emotional development, I know, but it is reality.

 

 

Just stop being abusive and insulting people, seems to be a rather good place to start. For instance don't accuse people you don't know or have just started interacting with of having stunted emotional development or being abusive backwards cavemen.

 

 

Oh, I do (insincerely) apologise if my directly mimicking the format of another user's post seemed at all insulting to your delicate sensitivities, Nonek.

 

One might think if you were so concerned about rudeness then you might have called out those very same instead of arguing that my throwing in snarky remarks is somehow demolishing the towers of textual argument with some sort of miraculous explosive force.

 

If you think that the inability to properly empathise and the complete dismissal of the role of human emotions in decision-making and the part they play therein is not equivalent to emotionally stunting then I'd love to hear your argument.

(Though you.. don't seem to be making one. Hm. How strange. Could it be that you lack one and are instead substituting for that with weak ad hominem remarks about comments which have already been covered as not applying to you?)

 

Jeez. I know you're not an idiot, Nonek.

Are you trying to convince me otherwise or something?

Your behaviour is baffling.

[Nonek]

Should this thread be ported over to the funny things thread?

 

Edit: Personally i've not had such a chuckle in quite a while.

Edited May 17, 2014 by Nonek

[Meshugger]

My god, thanks for the laughs

 

//EDIT: Nonek, you better behave, mistah!. Someone's who is fighting for the justice for feelings might accidently start generalising you and your fellow country-men. Better shut down the Internet.

Edited May 17, 2014 by Meshugger

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Should this thread be ported over to the funny things thread?

No, it is best to keep the SJWs inane ranting confined to as few threads as possible.

[Volourn]

"Then again, what else would one expect from an Englishman?"

 

Bigot.

[Monte Carlo]

So SP is a chippy Scot, Irishman or Welsh person? Quel surprise!

Edited May 17, 2014 by Monte Carlo

[decado]

 

It is my belief that a lot of these trends are dictated by our biology and the way we have evolved, since human males evolved to engage in aggressive, risk-taking behavior (thanks, testosterone!). I tend to view our position in society (however great or poor it may be) as an expression of our innate qualities as males, which are determined by hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary pressure.

hmmm. hate to do this, but seems necessary. your reasoning were used quite frequently as an excuse to prolong the disparate treatment o' blacks and asians and other minority groups in this country.

 

You are supposing that my idea is prescriptive, when in fact I think it is descriptive. I'm not making a value judgement. I'm making an observation.

Edited May 17, 2014 by decado

[decado]

But lets focus  on the topic at hand, are you suggesting that nowadays and historically white, heterosexual males have been equally discriminated against compared to other minority groups?

No. And anyone who makes that argument is an asshatted moron.

[ManifestedISO]

I'm saying Ulster.