One Artist, Slightly Worn

RSS

Posts tagged with "sexism"

So I was reading Worm, and at one point, a Nice Guy™ appeared. Not the real-world “guy who isn’t noticed by women even though he thinks he should be”, but the Internet-stereotype”misogynist man who doesn’t care about a woman just because he was friendzoned”. Just to underline the point, the person in question was a near-literal evil twin of a normal guy. He also wanted to kill everyone else. The narrative even stops dead so we can deliver character exposition, (“The clones are actually sentient, but horrible people! Feel pathos! Paaaathooosss!”) of which this Nice Guy thing is the trigger.
There was also an earlier chapter when a male UK character mentions that he couldn’t find a men’s shelter because no one could believe a woman could hurt a man. I hear this sort of thing a lot from tumblrfems trying to rationalize why F>M abuse erasure is “really” misogyny, even when it benefits the woman. The real reason is that there are people with a vested interest in abuse being seen as M>F, and they command millions from US and UK governments. Also, women hitting men is seen as normal or deserved; think of all the times a woman has slapped a man on TV, as some sort of punishment. Heck, the policies in many places assume a woman who hit a man was acting in “pre-emptive self-defense”, so incidents of F>M abuse are counted as M>F. And those laws were usually pushed for by people trying to keep women from being punished for defending themselves. They just forgot to keep men in mind.*
Seriously, did y’all not see Chicago? This was basically the central point of Roxy’s defense. And the Cell Block Tango. “Yes, I killed him, but he was asking for it.”
Between these incidents and the “rape culture” thing earlier, I’m pretty sure the writer has a Tumblr account.
* The usual rationale is that “women” got money for shelters for themselves, and men should just stop whining, which displays a staggering lack of knowledge of the amount of gov’t funding women’s shelters get, or the many rich men who gave shedloads to Erin Pizzey to help women, but not men, or what happened to Earl Silverman when he tried to keep the only men’s center in Canada open. Spoiler: He got bupkis. Then he closed the place down. Then he killed himself.
It also displays a staggering lack of basic human decency, but that’s just my opinion.

So I was reading Worm, and at one point, a Nice Guy™ appeared. Not the real-world “guy who isn’t noticed by women even though he thinks he should be”, but the Internet-stereotype”misogynist man who doesn’t care about a woman just because he was friendzoned”. Just to underline the point, the person in question was a near-literal evil twin of a normal guy. He also wanted to kill everyone else. The narrative even stops dead so we can deliver character exposition, (“The clones are actually sentient, but horrible people! Feel pathos! Paaaathooosss!”) of which this Nice Guy thing is the trigger.

There was also an earlier chapter when a male UK character mentions that he couldn’t find a men’s shelter because no one could believe a woman could hurt a man. I hear this sort of thing a lot from tumblrfems trying to rationalize why F>M abuse erasure is “really” misogyny, even when it benefits the woman. The real reason is that there are people with a vested interest in abuse being seen as M>F, and they command millions from US and UK governments. Also, women hitting men is seen as normal or deserved; think of all the times a woman has slapped a man on TV, as some sort of punishment. Heck, the policies in many places assume a woman who hit a man was acting in “pre-emptive self-defense”, so incidents of F>M abuse are counted as M>F. And those laws were usually pushed for by people trying to keep women from being punished for defending themselves. They just forgot to keep men in mind.*

Seriously, did y’all not see Chicago? This was basically the central point of Roxy’s defense. And the Cell Block Tango. “Yes, I killed him, but he was asking for it.”

Between these incidents and the “rape culture” thing earlier, I’m pretty sure the writer has a Tumblr account.

* The usual rationale is that “women” got money for shelters for themselves, and men should just stop whining, which displays a staggering lack of knowledge of the amount of gov’t funding women’s shelters get, or the many rich men who gave shedloads to Erin Pizzey to help women, but not men, or what happened to Earl Silverman when he tried to keep the only men’s center in Canada open. Spoiler: He got bupkis. Then he closed the place down. Then he killed himself.

It also displays a staggering lack of basic human decency, but that’s just my opinion.

Feminism is the radical idea that women are people, and it receives a great deal of controversy because that one small idea implies that men can be wrong.

permutationofninjas:

Not necessarily true.  Feminism is an ideological movement that claims to hold the notion that “women are people”.  It receives a great deal of controversy not because that one small idea implies that men can be wrong, but because a lot of the time it’s non-intersectional, dogmatic, and quite frankly sexist.  Many of its campaigns, (the “1-in-4” program, for example) erase vast numbers of victims while indirectly sheltering their attackers.  It also tends to have an extremely one-sided view of the current gender privilege situation.

But we can see why you didn’t pick that definition.  Not pithy enough for a catchphrase.

(Source: goodbyeheaven)

Dec 8
Samus Aran by *juliedillon

I felt like drawing some Metroid fanart between other projects. And I wanted to draw Samus Aran in her armor (although I took a few liberties with the suit design), to help counterbalance all the other art with her wearing that ridiculous “zero suit” or some other revealing outfit. Which… that’s fine and all (who doesn’t like a little cheesecake now and then?), but not every single female character in video games has to be reduced down to how good they look in skimpy clothing. Samus is a badass. She’s one of the few female characters out there who gets to wear armor that has a purpose aside from showing off her figure. Let her have her big awesome armor. 

While the art is nice, I’d like to point out that most of the people assuming a female character loses all depth because she’s dressed sexily are largely, um, social justice warriors. Samus in the Zero suit is the same woman who blows up planets, she’s just in a skintight suit. The Queen in her bathtub is still the Queen. And if you’re playing Smash Bros, which is where she’s spent most of her time featured in the Zero Suit, Samus is just as capable in her the Suit as she is normally. Visually, it allows for easier emoting and a clearer read on her body language, which might make it appealing for fanartists.
I’ve seen people like Jim Sterling actively ignore female characters who apply boot to rear and look sexy in order to claim said characters they’re being objectified. In one case, Sterling literally had to crop the female character’s weapons out of the image.
Also, few female characters not in skimpy armor? Like Faith? Chell? Glados? Jade? Clem? The new Lara Croft? The female characters in Dead Island and Left 4 Dead? Gaige, Lilith, Maya, and pretty much every female character in Borderlands except Moxxi? Alice? Almost every female character in Sleeping Dogs? Every female character in Alan Wake? What if she wears skimpy clothing and kicks butt, Dillon, like Nariko from Heavenly Sword, or many fighting game characters, or Rachel from Ninja Gaiden?
That said, ve do not talk of Other M. Ve do not speak of Other M. Ve do not write of Other M. And even if we did, most people hated it

Samus Aran by *juliedillon

I felt like drawing some Metroid fanart between other projects. And I wanted to draw Samus Aran in her armor (although I took a few liberties with the suit design), to help counterbalance all the other art with her wearing that ridiculous “zero suit” or some other revealing outfit. Which… that’s fine and all (who doesn’t like a little cheesecake now and then?), but not every single female character in video games has to be reduced down to how good they look in skimpy clothing. Samus is a badass. She’s one of the few female characters out there who gets to wear armor that has a purpose aside from showing off her figure. Let her have her big awesome armor. 

While the art is nice, I’d like to point out that most of the people assuming a female character loses all depth because she’s dressed sexily are largely, um, social justice warriors. Samus in the Zero suit is the same woman who blows up planets, she’s just in a skintight suit. The Queen in her bathtub is still the Queen. And if you’re playing Smash Bros, which is where she’s spent most of her time featured in the Zero Suit, Samus is just as capable in her the Suit as she is normally. Visually, it allows for easier emoting and a clearer read on her body language, which might make it appealing for fanartists.

I’ve seen people like Jim Sterling actively ignore female characters who apply boot to rear and look sexy in order to claim said characters they’re being objectified. In one case, Sterling literally had to crop the female character’s weapons out of the image.

Also, few female characters not in skimpy armor? Like Faith? Chell? Glados? Jade? Clem? The new Lara Croft? The female characters in Dead Island and Left 4 Dead? Gaige, Lilith, Maya, and pretty much every female character in Borderlands except Moxxi? Alice? Almost every female character in Sleeping Dogs? Every female character in Alan Wake? What if she wears skimpy clothing and kicks butt, Dillon, like Nariko from Heavenly Sword, or many fighting game characters, or Rachel from Ninja Gaiden?

That said, ve do not talk of Other M. Ve do not speak of Other M. Ve do not write of Other M. And even if we did, most people hated it

Dec 6

What I cannot understand (TW:serious business)

atropadigitalis:

is how Feminism can claim to be about equality. Things that are called “women’s issues” are just about always not just women’s issues, but human issues. Feminism only cares about one part of much more complex issues. Sexual assault is not just a women’s issue, nor is abuse. These are problems that can’t be worked at from one side. Human’s issues must brought out completely, in full detail, and dealt with as a complete problem. Everyone should be for equal rights of women yes, but the same is true for men’s rights. Things like casually talking about male genital mutilation on daytime talk shows is not acceptable.

Culture is something that you do and is done to you, you decide what goes into it, and you choose what to take out of it. Women are just as responsible for our zeitgeist as men. Surely positive change can be had, but sensitivity is needed by both sides for anything to be successful.  

For my readers; the incident in question involved an episode of The Talk where a woman who cut her husband’s penis off was treated like a joke. Similar treatment was found in the Lorena Bobbett incident in the 90s. And over and over again.

Disclaimer: I am not an MRA.

Read More

Why are so many gaming journalists quick to condemn and attack the entire consumer base of games?

Anonymous

hpgross:

badwasabi:

hpgross:

loltaku:

Because the gaming press exists to get consumers to purchase things. Not good things. Not valuable things. Any things. And when consumers get uppity by voicing their complaints they snarl and bare their teeth and attack them.

Ever notice how gamers are a diverse group of many different races, nationalities, and beliefs, EXCEPT when someone like Sessler or Marcus Beer are clicking their tongues and crying about something? Whenever they do that all gamers are racist 19 year old white males living in their parent’s basement. Can’t have it both ways, champs.

They like to pretend ‘gamers’ are some microcosm that consume no other media and have no other hobby, because that’s the only way their bullshit makes any sense. If these same people they decry as venomous savages consumed other media they’d have to answer the question of ‘why doesn’t the tv and movie viewing audience respond as venomously as gamers’. Why don’t the editors of Field and Stream ever get attacked?  Or Empire Magazine?

And since they won’t, I will. The collusion of publishers and the press has created an abrasive, venomous consumer base. This is entirely unique to video games. In a perfect world, if someone completely fails as a result of their own incompetence, they either resign in shame, are penalized by their employer, or are lambasted by the press. They are, for lack of a better term, disciplined for their failing. If a terrible movie is made, it will be savaged by critics and the studio will probably fire some people and be more wary of working with the director and actors in the future. Same for books, and TV, and everything else.

This doesn’t happen with video games. Just look at what’s happening. Microsoft rushed out an expensive underpowered console that’s already having performance problems and what’s the response from the press? IT DOESN’T MATTER STOP CARING ABOUT BUY IT ANYWAY IT’S STILL GOOD WAAAH.  So consumers get pissed off and attack the ‘journalists’ they (correctly) perceive as fucking them over and then the company they (correctly) think is trying to screw them.

Or, to shorten this to a single sentence: In every other industry, the press serves the public. In video games, the press serves the corporations, which causes consumers to become venomous.

This is why I thank god for Jim Sterling.

You mean the guy who was talking about sexism in games and held up DOA Beach Volleyball as something other than a joke to most gamers? And talked about the sexually objectification of Rachel from Ninja Gaiden while cropping out the giant war axe and machine gun in the very picture he used and not mentioning that she has her own gameplay segments where she’s just as capable as Ryu?

Yes.

http://www.gamingaswomen.com/posts/2013/06/an-interview-with-jim-sterling-about-sexism-in-game-culture/

Because he admits he’s fucked up. He was a tool in the past, and is working to try and change that. He refuses to be bought by big companies to shill their games. Which was what the original post was about.

I haven’t read the articles you have mentioned, though I am willing to if you will link me, because I can’t seem to find them using a naive google search for “Jim Sterling” and “DOA Beach Volleyball” or “Rachel Ninja Gaiden”.

Actually, it was a video. SYABM has a link to the full picture.

I also don’t like his Find-the-lady game with his definitions of “objectification” and “idealization”, which are both…non-standard. Objectification is about seeing someone as an object, not a person, and someone can be both objectified and idealized quite easily. They’re not binaries. Or maybe he’s confusing the latter with idolized.

Ironically, for someone who says in that very article you linked that viewers call him more logical than Anita Sarkeesian, he’s also using a non-standard definition of “objectification”. Her definition, in the Damsel In Distress series, was basically “well, if the woman was acted upon in the narrative, that means she’s the object in the subject/object dichotomy*, therefore she’s objectified”. She then went on to claim that male characters who literally go through hell for the sake of a woman only saw them as objects, possessions to be retrieved. AFAIK, at no point in any of the videos did she say that the male protagonist might want to rescue the female character because he actually cares about her wellbeing. Which is odd, because in one of the games she used as an example (The Darkness and The Darkness 2), the male lead both goes on a date with said Damsel, clearly cares about her, and explicitly says he loves her. In the second game, he’s still upset about her death two years later.

Getting back to Jim, I’d really like to know how many gamers he thinks want to be a chubby, moustachio’d italian plumber. Or Kratos, who is less “power fantasy” and more “Greek Tragedy protagonist with flaming swords in”. How many gamers think “Boy, I’d sure love to paint myself red and white, put on a loincloth, and have magic swords painfully chained to my wrists!” Heck, the guys from Gears of War are often mocked for their exaggerated muscles, not idealized.

*Which, I’d like to point out, is a grammatical term used to refer to the subject and object of a sentence, not a media analysis term.

Jun 6

Jon Wood's Bad Wasabi: Art-o-stration: k4ll0: Jon Wood’s Bad Wasabi: Art-o-stration: k4ll0: badwasabi said:...

Honestk4ll0:

k4ll0:

Jon Wood’s Bad Wasabi: Art-o-stration: k4ll0: badwasabi said: I’ve seen worse. I just finished arguing with…

k4ll0:

badwasabi said:

I’ve seen worse. I just finished arguing with someone who basically said men being expected to protect women and…

There’s a few evo-psych theories. One is that since men can effectively reproduce in minutes, and women take nine months, it made sense to risk the men rather than women. Which led to men getting stronger.

I rather meant my confusion from a social standpoint, to me lives of both genders are equal. I understand the biological and cultural history, but it’s really hard to say it should hold any stance these days. I really don’t, so it’s hard for me to understand people who think otherwise when my reason is simply ‘duh, because’.

As traditionalism requires of them. After cloaking it in words like “duty” and “honor”, of course. Luckily, they give medals posthumously.

‘Traditionalism’ was pretty much created by men. I’ve hate the whole concept of it my whole life so I just really hope people would get rid of it already. The ‘traditional’ guys I know are generally asshats who can’t think for themselves. Also bible, the goddamn bible.

Interesting fact; for all the talk about how there need to be more women in combat in the US, few people have noticed that women have lower physical standards than men, including women’s rights folks.

Is this a good or a bad thing? Men and women are generally physically different, and I definitely know that I wouldn’t be useful in physical combat because, physically, I am weak and not ashamed to say it. But heyyy good thing modern military has multiple career opportunities, and not all of them include running around in battlefield with a 30kg backpack.

Also, Selective Service for men in the US is still, technically, mandatory. It’s just not prosecuted, and the actual draft is something different. Few women’s rights advocates talk about it, even after women were allowed in combat.

And this is a thing than mainly men have to change. As long as majority of the military’s people (men) are alright with the unequal practises, is there honestly anything you can do? Finland is pretty much the same, there are a group of people who think mandatory service is bad, but as long as the majority of the men serving in military think otherwise there’s not much to do. When asked, a really common reason for the popularity is that since [random dude] has already suffered the service, other [random dudes] should too. It’s a vicious cycle. Women’s rights movement didn’t really start with men suddenly realizing how wrong things were, change always has to come from the inside.

I really don’t know much about the domestic violence situation in US, I’d need a lot more actual studies and source links about the whole matter to decide if it’s a major problem or not. Of cource there are problems in the system, I’m not denying that, but whether or not they’re actually widespread is a different matter. And again, don’t really know anything about US expect that it’s big enough country to have a lot of problems no matter where you look.

Basically almost everything would be solved if men and women would stop being so stupid and just talk about things. Goddamn humanity.

image

>I rather meant my confusion from a social standpoint, to me lives of both genders are equal. I understand the biological and cultural history, but it’s really hard to say it should hold any stance these days. I really don’t, so it’s hard for me to understand people who think otherwise when my reason is simply ‘duh, because’.

In case I’m not clear; I think the whole thing is nonsense too.

>Is this a good or a bad thing? Men and women are generally physically different, and I definitely know that I wouldn’t be useful in physical combat because, physically, I am weak and not ashamed to say it. But heyyy good thing modern military has multiple career opportunities, and not all of them include running around in battlefield with a 30kg backpack.

The basic physical requirements for entry are the same, IIRC. Even desk jockeys have to pass physicals. They’re supposedly working on making standards gender-neutral, thankfully. Problem is, the only way to do that without losing potential female soldiers is to lower men’s standards.

>And this is a thing than mainly men have to change. As long as majority of the military’s people (men) are alright with the unequal practises, is there honestly anything you can do?

Actually, it’s more like political pressure applied to the military, indirectly, by women’s rights lobbyists. Also, I suspect, Obama, since he’s shown a very strong bias toward this sort of stuff, as much as I hate the cliche of blaming the guy. I’m not American, so all I can do is seethe. I currently live in the UK, which also has misandric laws, such as - you may not want to finish reading this sentence - saying rape can only be legally committed by a man (unless a woman assists). Strictly speaking, it says “penis”, but I don’t think there’s been a transsexual test case.

>Finland is pretty much the same, there are a group of people who think mandatory service is bad, but as long as the majority of the men serving in military think otherwise there’s not much to do. When asked, a really common reason for the popularity is that since [random dude] has already suffered the service, other [random dudes] should too. It’s a vicious cycle. Women’s rights movement didn’t really start with men suddenly realizing how wrong things were, change always has to come from the inside.

The American military is very politics-driven. I’m not sure how much in comparison to Finland.

>I really don’t know much about the domestic violence situation in US, I’d need a lot more actual studies and source links about the whole matter to decide if it’s a major problem or not. Of cource there are problems in the system, I’m not denying that, but whether or not they’re actually widespread is a different matter. And again, don’t really know anything about US expect that it’s big enough country to have a lot of problems no matter where you look.

Here’s a list from a men’s rights site. Here’s a PDF report with a history of the subject.

Turning to lighter topics, how do you come up with those color patterns on your aliens?

Jun 6

k4ll0:

Jon Wood’s Bad Wasabi: Art-o-stration: k4ll0: badwasabi said: I’ve seen worse. I just finished arguing with…

k4ll0:

badwasabi said:

I’ve seen worse. I just finished arguing with someone who basically said men being expected to protect women and children with their lives is because they’re considered property and weak.

Well that has been pretty much true until just…

See this is where I lose you, I just don’t understand why people see men as something less valuable. If I had to choose between a man and a woman which one would have to die, I’d probably want to do a huge background check on them before I could make a decision, and it would not be based on gender.

I am really sorry for the men who feel like the society doesn’t appreciate their lives as much as women in this matter. And it is partly true. In Finland we have a mandatory military service, but only for men. I’ve always been against that because it shows men are more expendable and I’d love to change that. But ironically the people who are most for the current service tend to be the usual ‘men are strong protectors’, ‘women need protecting’ misogynistic types. I’d hope they’d realize how hurtful that is to both genders. Women are against service because they’re lazy, but hey what can you expect, men would do the same in their place.

But I think times are changing. I was still partly the generation that was taught as a kid that ‘you can’t hit girls’, and now it has pretty much changed to ‘you can’t hit people’. Baby steps!

>See this is where I lose you, I just don’t understand why people see men as something less valuable.

There’s a few evo-psych theories. One is that since men can effectively reproduce in minutes, and women take nine months, it made sense to risk the men rather than women. Which led to men getting stronger.

> But ironically the people who are most for the current service tend to be the usual ‘men are strong protectors’, ‘women need protecting’ misogynistic types.

As traditionalism requires of them. After cloaking it in words like “duty” and “honor”, of course. Luckily, they give medals posthumously.

>Women are against service because they’re lazy, but hey what can you expect, men would do the same in their place.

Interesting fact; for all the talk about how there need to be more women in combat in the US, few people have noticed that women have lower physical standards than men, including women’s rights folks.

Also, Selective Service for men in the US is still, technically, mandatory. It’s just not prosecuted, and the actual draft is something different. Few women’s rights advocates talk about it, even after women were allowed in combat.

>But I think times are changing. I was still partly the generation that was taught as a kid that ‘you can’t hit girls’, and now it has pretty much changed to ‘you can’t hit people’

Again, funny thing; women’s rights advocates have managed to arrange things in much of the US so that a woman who hits a man in a domestic violence situation is considered to be acting in “preemptive self-defense”. This consideration, needless to say, only goes one way. Which leads, in effect, to men being arrested for being abused. Ironically, these Predominant/Primary Aggressor policies were in response to Dual Arrest laws that led to more women being arrested, which makes sense, since abuse is often mutual.

Some of these advocates have been caught actively distorting abuse numbers to hide male victims, or even to turn male victims into female victims.

And yet, when people point out the double standard of men not being able to defend themselves against women in the home or the street without arrest, they’re accused of being men who “want to hit women”.

Basically, the entire situation is really, really messed up.

Jun 6

k4ll0:

badwasabi said:

I’ve seen worse. I just finished arguing with someone who basically said men being expected to protect women and children with their lives is because they’re considered property and weak.

Well that has been pretty much true until just recently. Nowadays I think it pretty much depends of the person involved. 

Though I’ve never really understood why men are expected to do anything, they’re either the protective type or are not, and that’s all fine. I’m more reserved about people (usually men) who are protective only towards women, I think that has a somewhat misogynistic background even though they don’t realize it.

I’m kind of a super protective person by nature, and it really doesn’t matter to me whether the person is a big hulky guy or a small girl, protective instinct is a protective instinct and I’ve almost gotten my ass kicked because of that. But I know people guys who pretty much think only women deserve protection because they’re the “fragile” gender and men don’t because, well, they’ve never really given me a reason.

I’d argue that it’s the opposite of misogyny; protecting women but not men means women are considered valuable enough to be protected, but men aren’t. You could argue that it’s because women and kids are seen as weak, but weak men aren’t protected like women and kids are. In fact, they’re given less protection than your average man.

Or, to put it another way; does the Secret Service hate the President? I have difficulty thinking of any other circumstance Person X is culturally expected to protect Person Y, even with their lives, where Person Y is less valuable.

Which is not to say that it was good for either side. Women were restricted, while men died and were harmed for the benefit of women and society in general. It’s remarkably easy to forget about what happens to the people who are doing the protecting. Women are supposedly fragile, but men are the ones who get broken.

Jun 3

vanillish:

getoutdad:

vanillish:

Why do people think they have input on the way I look

because patriarchy considers the female body public property?

I’m a boy

abuttmaleprivilege:

doodlesnap:

by popular demand

i have looked into the abyss there is no going back

Isn’t it tumblr feminists who make fun of MRAs for allegedly being bronies? Thereby enforcing the patriarchal gender norms they claim to combat?

abuttmaleprivilege:

doodlesnap:

by popular demand

i have looked into the abyss 

there is no going back

Isn’t it tumblr feminists who make fun of MRAs for allegedly being bronies? Thereby enforcing the patriarchal gender norms they claim to combat?