Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Philbert)
    They want to be entertained, and they're the ones buying games where men are killed/seriously hurt.
    So, when men are portrayed in a certain way/certain things happen to them, it's because of the demand for the game; when women are portrayed in a certain way, it's not the demand for the game, it's some misogynistic ploy, and the games producers are unwittingly isolating 50% of their potential market? Convenient......

    A woman doesn't need to have her ass and tits out to fight, so why are women put in skipmy clothing in fighting games? Why are they modelled in weird, backbreaking poses when that has nothing to do with the content of the game?
    As has been said a million times, most gamers are young men, most young men like pretty young women; that's economics, business and nature, like it or lump it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    i) I said 'potential audience'. I know only a minority of women play games at the moment but perhaps that could be changed if games developers stopped portraying us in such a degrading way? I would guess the Tomb Raider games have a bigger female audience because the protagonist is a woman - she is the hero, rather than existing as an object for the hero to rescue. And why do you think The Sims 2 is the biggest selling PC game of all time?
    So, you know the video games market, better than video games producers? Well done. You're wasted, on this thread, with this amazing insight. Maybe you ought to go and get a job working for them. It's amazing how feminists always seem to lay claim to know more about this, that and the other, than people working within these areas. They know more about keeping business costs down, than managers do (claiming that men get paid more than women, for the same productivity and experience); they know about how to improve the revenue of the video games industry (by increasing the number of powerful female characters). Trouble is, though, if the last bit happens, chances are it will only lead to a decline in sales, as the increase in interest from women, is less than the decrease in interest from men.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    That's because we believe that most of the issues of gender inequality are a product of patriarchy. If you want to 'win', find a way of attacking that argument. I don't think Lara Croft is perfect, but she's definitely an improvement on many other representations of women in video games.
    WHAT argument? "This is down to the patriarchy, the end". That's not an argument; that's speculation/propaganda.

    No, The Sims 2 is the best selling PC game of all time. So out of all PC games, it has sold the most copies. I believe part of its success is because it appeals to both men and women so it's potential audience is much larger.
    Is this just because it would support your ideas? Just because it's lacking in the 'stereotypical female character' department, doesn't necessarily make it popular with women. Could be down to other factors. And how many of its market ARE women? The best selling, does not necessarily equal the one with the lowest male:female ratio.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Philbert)
    Why do men always complain that feminists aren't exploring men's issues when they talk about women's issues? Why can't Anita just leave those issues for someone else to exlpre?
    Because always talking about women's issues, and never about men's, is not conducive to 'equality'.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by truffle_girl)
    WHAT argument? "This is down to the patriarchy, the end". That's not an argument; that's speculation/propaganda.



    Is this just because it would support your ideas? Just because it's lacking in the 'stereotypical female character' department, doesn't necessarily make it popular with women. Could be down to other factors. And how many of its market ARE women? The best selling, does not necessarily equal the one with the lowest male:female ratio.
    You do know that the patriarchy isn't a debatable concept, right? It's not just something brought up by feminists, it is (to quote wiki) "a social system in which the male is the primary authority figure central to social organization and the central roles of political leadership, moral authority, and control of property, and where fathers hold authority over women and children. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and entails female subordination. Many patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage."

    Britain has had a patriarchal structure in society for the past thousand years, it's a very important part of our history and why society has developed to what it is today. Whether you agree with the feminist argument that patriarchal society is to blame for a lot of sexism in the world is one point. But if you truly believe that patriarchy is feminist propaganda, then frankly how can one have a relevant debate with you about feminism? It's not debatable, it's fact. Feminists are not the only people who think so.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    You do know that the patriarchy isn't a debatable concept, right?
    Yes, I know you don't like actually DEBATING feminism.

    It's not just something brought up by feminists, it is (to quote wiki) "a social system in which the male is the primary authority figure central to social organization and the central roles of political leadership, moral authority, and control of property, and where fathers hold authority over women and children. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and entails female subordination. Many patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage."
    So, Wikipedia explains the term, and that means it's valid? Because Wikipedia acknowledges a feminist theory, that makes it valid? And in what context? So, it exists, or existed, somewhere, some time? That's not the same as "exists now, and here, and explains this, this and this".

    Britain has had a patriarchal structure in society for the past thousand years
    No evidence, no elaboration.

    it's a very important part of our history and why society has developed to what it is today.
    See above.

    Whether you agree with the feminist argument that patriarchal society is to blame for a lot of sexism in the world is one point. But if you truly believe that patriarchy is feminist propaganda, then frankly how can one have a relevant debate with you about feminism?
    Er, that's like saying, "if you don't agree that immigration is a bad thing, then frankly, how can one have a relevant debate with you about the policies of the BNP?".

    It's not debatable, it's fact. Feminists are not the only people who think so.
    I'm sorry, but the above basically reads: "it's true, because I say so", in very arrogant a tone. You just don't seem to understand the concept of properly DEBATING, using logic, you really don't.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by truffle_girl)
    Yes, I know you don't like actually DEBATING feminism.



    So, Wikipedia explains the term, and that means it's valid? Because Wikipedia acknowledges a feminist theory, that makes it valid?



    No evidence, no elaboration.



    See above.



    I'm sorry, but the above basically reads: "it's true, because I say so". You just don't seem to understand the concept of properly DEBATING, using logic, you really don't.
    What kind of society do you think Britain has had then? A matriarchy? An equality?

    As I said, patriarchy is NOT a feminist construct. It's been noted in societies as far back as 3100BC (again, from wikipedia - it may be a public domain but if you can find a source to REFUTE my point, then you can't exactly complain) and if you aren't aware of the culture of male lineage (sons get the inheritance, continue on the family name etc etc) which is a direct product of patriarchy, then can you prove that's wrong too?

    As I said, patriarchy is a society where males are the main authority figures. Are you really trying to argue that that has not been the case throughout history for Britain?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    What kind of society do you think Britain has had then? A matriarchy? An equality?
    HAS had? Yes, at some point, a patriarchy; not today, however.

    As I said, patriarchy is NOT a feminist construct.
    But it's sure as Hell something they like to talk about more than does any other group.

    It's been noted in societies as far back as 3100BC (again, from wikipedia
    So it may have been, and and so societies MAY have been, back then; just not sure as to what the case scenario was in 3100BC, or even one-hundred years ago, necessarily has to do with 2013 video games?

    - it may be a public domain but if you can find a source to REFUTE my point, then you can't exactly complain) and if you aren't aware of the culture of male lineage (sons get the inheritance, continue on the family name etc etc)
    What inheritance do sons get, in the UK, today, specifically? You mean the throne? Isn't there even talk of that changing, in view of Prince William and Kate Middleton expecting a girl?

    which is a direct product of patriarchy, then can you prove that's wrong too?
    I always thought that the onus of proof was on the one making the claim? I can't PROVE there aren't pigs doing loop-the-loop outside your window; but if you're going to make such a claim, you'd better be prepared to back it up. Same principle applies to this.

    As I said, patriarchy is a society where males are the main authority figures. Are you really trying to argue that that has not been the case throughout history for Britain?
    In HOUSEHOLDS, I'd say women were. According to this link: http://www.gingerbread.org.uk/conten...CategoryID=365, 26 per cent of households with dependent children are single-parent families; the vast majority of which, being fatherless. So I don't see much patriarchy, there. And in households with mixed-gendered couples, I'd say that women are more likely to "wear the trousers", these days. Women also, it is believed, tend to make more financial decisions, in households, as well as day-to-day spending (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...cisions.html); which explains why more advertisments are aimed at women, than men.

    More men hold high governmental positions, granted, but it is debatable, as to how much this advantages men, per se, given that 52% of voters are female. It also doesn't necessarily result from discrimination.

    Throughout history, your points hold more ground. However, this is a thread about 2013; not 1913, 1813 or any other year.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by truffle_girl)
    HAS had? Yes, at some point, a patriarchy; not today, however.



    But it's sure as Hell something they like to talk about more than does any other group.



    So it may have been, and and so societies MAY have been, back then; just not sure as to what the case scenario was in 3100BC, or even one-hundred years ago, necessarily has to do with 2013 video games?



    What inheritance do sons get, in the UK, today, specifically? You mean the throne? Isn't there even talk of that changing, in view of Prince William and Kate Middleton expecting a girl?



    I always thought that the onus of proof was on the one making the claim? I can't PROVE there aren't pigs doing loop-the-loop outside your window; but if you're going to make such a claim, you'd better be prepared to back it up. Same principle applies to this.



    In HOUSEHOLDS, I'd say women were. According to this link: http://www.gingerbread.org.uk/conten...CategoryID=365, 26 per cent of households with dependent children are single-parent families; the vast majority of which, being fatherless. So I don't see much patriarchy, there. And in households with mixed-gendered couples, I'd say that women are more likely to "wear the trousers", these days. Women also, it is believed, tend to make more financial decisions, in households, as well as day-to-day spending (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...cisions.html); which explains why more advertisments are aimed at women, than men.

    More men hold high governmental positions, granted, but it is debatable, as to how much this advantages men, per se, given that 52% of voters are female. It also doesn't necessarily result from discrimination.

    Throughout history, your points hold more ground. However, this is a thread about 2013; not 1913, 1813 or any other year.
    My entire problem in the first place was that you seemed unable to distinguish the word "patriarchy" from the feminist argument that patriarchy oppresses women. I believe that patriarchy does just that, but my intention was simply to make sure you know what you're talking about - every time the patriarchy is mentioned in any context, you seem to be using it in the feminist context and referring to it negatively (because you disagree with feminism, that much is very clear).

    I'm not here to debate feminism, simply to point out that you look a little misinformed when you call patriarchy propaganda, and to point it out so that you can refine your arguments further. I actually think it's really interesting, I'm a history student and we look at lots of societies throughout Britain, particularly in the Medieval ages, and patriarchy has always been part of our history. The Vikings were pretty cool with women though, they let them join in with fighting and become warmaidens and generally do the cool fun stuff that medieval men did, and they had divorce rights for both genders that were far more common-sense than the Christian ideals that came post 1000AD. Woo Vikings
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    My entire problem in the first place was that you seemed unable to distinguish the word "patriarchy" from the feminist argument that patriarchy oppresses women. I believe that patriarchy does just that, but my intention was simply to make sure you know what you're talking about - every time the patriarchy is mentioned in any context, you seem to be using it in the feminist context and referring to it negatively (because you disagree with feminism, that much is very clear).
    But if, whenever I see it mentioned, it clearly IS in the context of supposedly oppressing women, then................I'm going to refer to it, in the context in which the person I'm quoting is also referring to it, no?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by truffle_girl)
    But if, whenever I see it mentioned, it clearly IS in the context of supposedly oppressing women, then................I'm going to refer to it, in the context in which the person I'm quoting is also referring to it, no?
    I've seen you mention the "patriarchy myth" a few times. I just wanted to throw in my two cents about it, that's all.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    I've seen you mention the "patriarchy myth" a few times. I just wanted to throw in my two cents about it, that's all.
    I've argued against the existence of the "patriarchy", as feminists talk of it, today, yes.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ultimate1)
    Wut?

    Making sense, not even ONCE.

    I'm tired of feminists butting in things which are dominated by men and things in which other women have no interest with. Games are basically played and made by entirely men. I don't like a feminist telling my game developers what to do. I want developers to listen to their consumers as opposed to an ideological nut. This also happens in many other areas such as the army, boy scouts [in America, was dominated by boys, girls had no interest, now it's basically 99% girls, forced by feminists and hardly any boys], sports, firemen [Yes, Firemen not firefighter], police [In regards to standards being dropped just to accommodate women smh.] etc.

    It's almost as if women can't bare to see men having their own space. Men don't seem to care about women and what happens in their spaces, so I think many men would also like women to keep out of their business.
    In regards to this and that video you posted, you do realise the fire brigade does a lot more than barging down doors and carrying people away from burning buildings, right? Just today while walking through town I saw a fire engine with no fewer than 5 firefighters rescuing a pigeon who had become ensnared in the wire pigeon netting on the wall of a building. At the top of a ladder? A female firefighter! Who is anyone to say women should be excluded from such things? It's crazy to think feminism is such a powerful force in this country that the fire brigade is putting lives in danger by sending out firefighters unsuited for the role. I bet you can't find one example of firefighting gone wrong due to the changing of standards to accommodate women. Women have been recruited as front line firefighters since the 70s and as far as I'm aware firefighting is more effective than ever. But let's draw our conclusions from some asinine youtube video instead, shall we? REAL LIFE NOT EVEN ONCE LOL

    As for the army, I really don't know what you want at this point. You're always the first to bring up how men have always been super oppressed because they have to fight and die in wars, but now you're like "THOSE ACCURSED FEEEEEMALES, BUTTING IN ON OUR ARMY, DYING IN OUR WARS, WHEN WILL US MEN CATCH A BREAK?"

    Also girls are not allowed to join the boy scouts in America. I have no idea what you're talking and neither do you. Thoroughly idiotic thing to say.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    You do know that the patriarchy isn't a debatable concept, right? It's not just something brought up by feminists, it is (to quote wiki) "a social system in which the male is the primary authority figure central to social organization and the central roles of political leadership, moral authority, and control of property, and where fathers hold authority over women and children. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and entails female subordination. Many patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage."

    Britain has had a patriarchal structure in society for the past thousand years, it's a very important part of our history and why society has developed to what it is today. Whether you agree with the feminist argument that patriarchal society is to blame for a lot of sexism in the world is one point. But if you truly believe that patriarchy is feminist propaganda, then frankly how can one have a relevant debate with you about feminism? It's not debatable, it's fact. Feminists are not the only people who think so.
    Yes it is debatable in modern society, since you missed out one obvious flaw in your argument,1) women are the majority of voters so issues the government are going to focus on are going to be more in women's interests,

    2)women have more rights over their biological child than men do by far a man can't abort his child or give it up for adoption however women can,
    3)custody courts severely favor women,

    4) adverts target women because women make up 75-80% of the spending power and women make the major financial decisions in the home.

    And the actual definition of patriarchy is: 1. A social system in which the father is the head of the family and men have authority over women and children.

    The thing is women have authority over children now, not men, but neither men OR women have authority over eachother anymore. So... This means that the idea of a patriarchy in modern British society is very very short sighted.

    It's starting to not sound in your favor because what I just wrote sounds rather non-patriarchal really.

    Note: where this is wrong, past, not present, men used to be the head of households in the past, and when a man divorced a woman, the man would keep the children by default, now though it's the opposite to that and the women almost always keep the children by default.

    Your statement is not doing very well about patriarchy existing in modern society.....

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jreid1994)
    Yes it is debatable in modern society, since you missed out one obvious flaw in your argument,1) women are the majority of voters so issues the government are going to focus on are going to be more in women's interests,

    2)women have more rights over their biological child than men do by far a man can't abort his child or give it up for adoption however women can,
    3)custody courts severely favor women,

    4) adverts target women because women make up 75-80% of the spending power and women make the major financial decisions in the home.

    And the actual definition of patriarchy is: 1. A social system in which the father is the head of the family and men have authority over women and children.

    The thing is women have authority over children now, not men, but neither men OR women have authority over eachother anymore. So... This means that the idea of a patriarchy in modern British society is very very short sighted.

    It's starting to not sound in your favor because what I just wrote sounds rather non-patriarchal really.

    Note: where this is wrong, past, not present, men used to be the head of households in the past, and when a man divorced a woman, the man would keep the children by default, now though it's the opposite to that and the women almost always keep the children by default.

    Your statement is not doing very well about patriarchy existing in modern society.....

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Nowhere in her post did edithwashere say our society is currently a patriarchal one so your post is a big irrelevant rant against nothing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ronove)
    Nowhere in her post did edithwashere say our society is currently a patriarchal one so your post is a big irrelevant rant against nothing.
    :rolleyes: I know that she's a feminist.
    And do you know what? She said "the patriarchal society of Britain has shaped it into what it is today" so, yes that's exactly what she means, tell me then, do you actually believe there is an actual patriarchal family structure in the modern western world?
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jreid1994)
    :rolleyes: I know that she's a feminist.
    And do you know what? She said "the patriarchal society of Britain has shaped it into what it is today" so, yes that's exactly what she means, tell me then, do you actually believe there is an actual patriarchal family structure in the modern western world?
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    There are still many families in the West that still have the old patriarchal setup but I do not believe we still live in a patriarchy as such. Neither does edithwashere. Her being a feminist has no bearing on that. When feminists argue about the effects of the patriarchy it's not implied that they think our society is still patriarchal in structure.

    As for the sentence you quoted, I'd say it supports the idea she doesn't think we still live in a patriarchy more than it supports what you seem to want to read into it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ronove)
    There are still many families in the West that still have the old patriarchal setup but I do not believe we still live in a patriarchy as such. Neither does edithwashere. Her being a feminist has no bearing on that. When feminists argue about the effects of the patriarchy it's not implied that they think our society is still patriarchal in structure.

    As for the sentence you quoted, I'd say it supports the idea she doesn't think we still live in a patriarchy more than it supports what you seem to want to read into it.
    So, do father's have more rights over children than mothers do? Because that's the definition of patriarchy.

    Also, when you say patriarchal in structure, do you mean stay at home mum? One word, choice. That's what you seem to forget, no one is forcing her, neither does she have less legal rights over her child than the father, if anything he has less than her.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tabzqt)
    You have a clear lack of understanding of these people. These are not normal people. These are the kinds of people that go on Facebook memorial pages and spam hate comments. This doesn't mean that disrespecting the dead is a widespread problem. These people do not care about your agenda, and they couldn't give a flying **** if your feelings are hurt.

    I never said it was acceptable. I said you are clearly wrong when you are taking TROLL comments as an accurate representation of attitudes towards her videos. But who cares? Anything to further your agenda, right?
    The fact that you think the hundreds of people threatening her rape and murder are all completely serious says a lot about you.
    My agenda? What the **** are you on about?

    They may not be completely serious, but trying to silence someone in such a way for doing something that you don't like the sound of should always be taken seriously. The fact that people think it's ok do threaten rape and violence because they won't be found out is disturbing, to say the least. It's happened before, and there's no reason it won't happen again.

    You think that money is all going to be used on the video? Haha, good one. She's laughing all the way the bank and most sensible people can see it.
    She only asked for the first $6K. She got the rest because of the trolling, because of people willingly giving it to a cause they thought worthy, they donated to prove that online harassment shouldn't affect her kickstarter. A lot of people are calling for her to give a breakdown of what she intends to do with the money, and I'd like to see that too (even though I didn't contribute), but in the end, there's no reason that anyone other than the contributors should get to see how their money was spent. She never promised to be transparent about anything other than the $6K she asked for.

    I'd like you to answer my questions. Why do you think she is a "lying scumbag" and how did she scam people out of their money?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by truffle_girl)
    So, you know the video games market, better than video games producers? Well done. You're wasted, on this thread, with this amazing insight. Maybe you ought to go and get a job working for them. It's amazing how feminists always seem to lay claim to know more about this, that and the other, than people working within these areas. They know more about keeping business costs down, than managers do (claiming that men get paid more than women, for the same productivity and experience); they know about how to improve the revenue of the video games industry (by increasing the number of powerful female characters). Trouble is, though, if the last bit happens, chances are it will only lead to a decline in sales, as the increase in interest from women, is less than the decrease in interest from men.
    I was speculating - that's why I used words like 'perhaps' and 'guess'. But I did a bit of research and here is what I found:

    At the same time, recent publications suggest that the amount of female game playing has increased, at least in the U.K. and the U.S. (see, e.g., Bryce & Rutter, 2002; Jenkins, 1998). According to current user data for the U.S. market (ESA, 2005), 43% of all video game players are female (in contrast to the gender gap in Germany). Online games as a "new" form of video game playing have been adopted by many female players as well (44% of all online-players are female, ESA, 2005). The Sims' success as a top selling video game has been attributed to its attractiveness to female players (cf. Carr, 2005); this adds to the discussion of female-targeted game design (Cassell, 1998; Cassell & Jenkins, 1998b; Graner-Ray, 2003; Gorriz & Medina, 2000; Miller, Chaika, & Groppe, 1996), but does not explain females' lower interest in video games per se.
    Source: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue4/hartmann.html

    So it seems there is a market for female gamers after all. Even more surprisingly, in the US 43% of gamers are female which suggests that games developers should be taking their views into consideration. If your last point is indeed correct and male gamers wouldn't buy a game with a female lead who is not there for sexual gratification, then we have a real problem in our society. I think that the reason why female gamers are happy to play games with male leads but men are not happy to play a female character is because being male is the default position in our society. Women are the 'Other' and in that way men feel they cannot relate to women, whereas for women relating to men is normal. This makes it difficult to explain what people want through market principles.

    (Original post by truffle_girl)
    WHAT argument? "This is down to the patriarchy, the end". That's not an argument; that's speculation/propaganda.
    This has already been covered very well by other people in this thread, but I'm just going to add that the argument isn't "this is patriarchy, end of discussion". We explain how certain aspects of society have been influenced by the patriarchal structure and how this can be rectified so everyone is treated fairly. For example, this argument is brought up in regard to child residence and contact after a separation. We explain that it is often the mother who gets residence of the child because patriarchy determines that women are supposed to be mothers before any other duties. This is shutting down the discussion. This is explaining the cause of the inequality and how we think it can best be resolved.

    Is this just because it would support your ideas? Just because it's lacking in the 'stereotypical female character' department, doesn't necessarily make it popular with women. Could be down to other factors. And how many of its market ARE women? The best selling, does not necessarily equal the one with the lowest male:female ratio.
    I think I've already covered most of this, but I agree that lacking a stereotypical female character does not make it a success on its on. The Sims 2 is also a fantastic game, and it wouldn't be so successful if it wasn't. But of course a game that is aimed at men and women (and also spans age ranges, which the Sims does more successfully than most games) is going to be more popular. Its potential audience doubles. Interestingly, the best selling Xbox 360 game is Kinect Adventures (aimed to men and women) and the best selling Playstation 3 game is Gran Turismo (aimed at men).
 
 
 
Poll
Should MenACWY vaccination be compulsory at uni?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.