[quote=thinkertron2000]The lengths that people reach towards to try and explain why feminism is unnecessary is depressing and disappointing, Brovo, I know you're just trying to do what you think is right, but you're severely undereducated about the world (also about feminism, literally nobody talks like that dude).[/quote]

[b]#1:[/b] In this thread I didn't claim feminism was unnecessary anywhere. In fact, I quite emphatically stated that there are still problems that can be resolved--that is indirect [i]support[/i] for feminism.

[b]#2:[/b] My disagreeing with you doesn't make me uneducated.

[b]#3:[/b] Ad hominems don't help your arguments.

[quote=Brovo]Is society perfect? No. Does it still need work? Of course, it probably always will[/quote]

Again, this is a perfect example of the victim complex. I don't agree with you, so I must be completely against you.

Also, ad hominems [i]still[/i] don't help your argument, madame. :gray

[quote=thinkertron2000]Have you ever heard of the Bechdel test?[/quote]

Have you ever heard about the fact that it was originally a joke that came from [url=http://www.homepagedaily.com/uploads/20080904/b5b86139-c4fe-44d5-a2ec-1474471db2bf/files/bechdels%20rule.jpg]this comic[/url] that was used to give the characters a reason to go home and watch movies they liked at home?

[quote=thinkertron2000]It goes like this: "A movie passes the Bechdel test if two women, with names, talk to each other, about something other than a man". Which seems simple enough, right? But FAR too few movies pass this test, it's kind of ludicrous. And before you respond with another boring overused (and, to be honest moronic) point: no, the Bechdel test cannot be accurately used to find out of a movie is sexist or not, it's used to illustrate a problem.[/quote]

It's not a moronic point to note that the Bechdel test is woefully under-equipped to tackle the problem of sexism. I'm not even sure why you bothered to bring it up when you just openly admitted that it cannot be used to accurately test if a movie is sexist or not. LoTR and Star Wars both fail the test and they both feature incredible kickass women: One kills an incredible powerful champion of Sauron with only a little hobbit to help her and the other leads a space rebellion against a space empire that can [i]blow up planets[/i]... In space!

Plus, look at the movie industry now, compare it to the movie industry of the 50's and 60's. We've made insanely significant strides in making equality a real thing, with strong female characters that don't have to play second fiddle to men anymore. Men still fill the majority of lead roles but not all of them anymore. Give it more time and things will get better as time progresses. I mean even Disney finally started to change with [i]Brave[/i], giving audiences a princess that was a friggin' badass, not some prissy stuck-up damsel in distress.

Again. Is it perfect? No. Of course not. Is it better than before? Yes. Of course it is. Will it get better with further time and pressure on the right points? Yes, of course it will.

[quote=thinkertron2000]I'm not going to educate you on feminism,[/quote]

You don't have to. I already know what feminism is. I idolize the first wave feminist movement personally as a bunch of incredible powerful women whom made it a point to declare that they were equal to men without having to sacrifice their femininity. At the same time they didn't have to be bound to the social constructs of femininity to be women if they so chose. It was amazing. 

[quote=thinkertron2000]if you want to read more, this is one of the best articles I've read identifying a problem with our society: [url]http://badassdigest.com/2013/11/14/we-need-to-change-how-we-talk-about-rape/[/url][/quote]

Your link is broken.

Though in all seriousness, nice way to use a blog entry on a site known to be biased towards women which is written in all caps and talks down to the audience like they're five year olds.

This would maybe be passable as a bronze-level citation in a college essay. :gray

Now, instead of recommending you to a counter-blog post chalked full of biased information as well, I think I'll try educating you on what feminism is.

[url=http://books.google.ca/books?ei=CBF8UvjlN8KiyAGu3IHwDg&id=hBQqAAAAYAAJ&dq=%22valiant+five%22+emily+murphy&q=%22valiant+five%22&redir_esc=y]Here, try reading a book[/url]. This one is about the valiant five in Canada. It goes over their struggles to be taken seriously and their fights for equality and liberty. It also pretty clearly states how they won nearly everything they fought for. You know what the main ingredient was though? Time. It took time. It took a lot of time.

[quote=thinkertron2000]and before you mention this too: That's written by Film Crit Hulk, he writes in all caps and in hulk speak, he has very good reasons for doing so (which aren't important right now), just go with it.[/quote]

They are important to me because I hate all caps and it's seriously written with the intention to talk down to men based on its tone.

Oh, and for fucks sake, no, I'm not a sexist for disagreeing with most points of the modern feminist movement. To clarify the meaning of sexism as according to dictionary.com:

noun
1.
attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles.
2.
discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, as in restricted job opportunities; especially, such discrimination directed against women.

I do not discriminate or devalue women in any manner, nor hold women to any traditional stereotype or sexual role. I mean, good god, Legend of Renalta, my star role play, my magnum opus, has two lesbian couples in it, it has women at all levels of society.

I seriously can't possible emphasize this point enough: I am not uneducated on feminism just because I disagree with you, I am not incapable of understanding hatred or discrimination just because I was born with a different set of sexual organs than you, and I am not sexist for pointing out that the statistical evidence is so heavily weighed against patriarchy in the first world that I shouldn't even need to cite any sources for it, [b]or[/b] for disagreeing with the modern movement at most points.

Now, if you want, you can ask me what I think is still sexist. I could list out examples of it even, where I think we could do better, how we could do it better...

...Or you can keep trying to talk down to me and call my points moronic without making even the slightest effort to address them in a constructive way like an adult would.

The choice is yours. Choose wisely.

[quote=ShonHarris]So before I go into this I just want to make a couple things clear: 1) I do not intend to enter one of our notoriously long argument things. I'm going to throw in my two cents and will respond as necessary, but really am seeking to supplement an otherwise agreeable post, and 2) I'll define my terms as needed and am happy to do so upon request if I miss something, as I know many may come to this from different places and our terms may be a big part of that. Oh, and 3) I have solid respect for Brovo and the OP.[/quote]

Well then we shall have an agreeable debate old chap! I missed you. It's nice not to be told that I'm ignorant/a hate monger/etc from an opposing view point once in a while.

[quote=ShonHarris]That said... There are absolutely those who've adopted victim complexes in today's world, but I think we should talk about that statement further. Some who blame others for their challenges may do so to cope with personal, buried issues, but others may well be responding to very real experiences of oppression. Women have historically been shelved and blatantly labelled as unworthy of citizenship, national service, voting rights, and today, control of their body and equal pay.[/quote]

Yes. I can't disagree to this really. The pay gap is startling though not entirely unexpected (pay gap is calculated by average rate of pay across the entire gender, take into account pregnancy leave and that women are often the primary care givers to children and many have their careers slowed or even stopped for multiple years in comparison to their male counterparts, which aids in causing the discrepancy.) The control over their own body is something I throw my hat off and fight with the feminists on. Women should choose what happens to their own bodies. The fact that this is still a discussion in the modern world is frankly sad.

[quote=ShonHarris]Many of these issues have only been combated in the last century, and many of these examples of inequality have been seen by us and our parents. This is an example of systematic oppression.[/quote]

It's also an example of peaceable change. The only kind of change that has been quick historically has been brought about through violence or tyranny. Ergo why I constantly urge patience and preach that time will mend wounds: Because it does, if you give it enough time. We shouldn't be trying to fix these things for ourselves, we should be trying to fix them for the next generation to reap and enjoy. 

That, is the unfortunate side effect of living in a peaceful, large, democratic society. Change is slow.

[quote=ShonHarris]When you are restricted to set jobs and roles professionally and individually due to a characteristic of birth that should affect neither, is prejudice.[/quote]

Yes, though whilst I can't speak for America, there is no job or role a woman cannot hold in Canada. Alberta, the province I live in, has a female premier, and the primary opposition party, the Wild Rose, has a female party leader. This wasn't a thing 10-20 years ago. Give it more time and it will further infiltrate the house of commons.

As I said. Change is slow. 

[quote=ShonHarris]When this judgement is reinforced with intention in our media and laws in order to place less value on that party and to push more value onto another, that is systematic oppression. You create power from nothing. So I agree with you Brovo that the entity does not exist scientifically, but I add that it does in exist socially.[/quote]

I can't disagree that it exists socially if you use it as the interim term for all forms of sexism (or at least all forms of sexism against women), in which case: It's an undefeatable monster that will forever live with the human race so long as we are capable of recognizing differences in each other, physical or philosophical. There will always be sexism, racism, and so on, and it's abhorrent, but there isn't much we can do save fight the fights we can and disdain those that exhibit disgusting behaviours.

Laws and education is where the fight should be taken. Geek culture isn't, generally.

[quote=ShonHarris]This is a problem accepted as an issue in the federal government[/quote]

Maybe in America, but not here. 

[quote=ShonHarris]and I think we could agree on at least that. My point is that while some may be suffering a victim complex, others may well be responding to very real societal pressures. I agree with you that we should identify and combat these instead of merely complaining, but a big part of fixing a problem is first making others aware of the issue.[/quote]

Agreed! Again, if anyone here wants to ask me about pertinent issues in the gaming industry, I'll be happy to share what I think is problematic and requires repairs. 

[quote=ShonHarris]Brovo, you already know about the damsel in distress trope. Women are generally seen as weaker, inferior, and needing protection. It's something we use all too often in narrative and often incorrectly assume in reality -- that women are less capable, powerful, or able to be autonomous.[/quote]

The damsel in distress trope has evolved over time as well. There are multiple incarnations of it.Zelda/Shiek from the Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of time subverts this trope. Several Nintendo characters tend to subvert it, actually, come to think of it.

As well, there needs to be a distinction between when the trope is used to objectify a woman as an end game reward, and when the trope is used as a staple of storytelling about how character X wants to save character Y from serious bodily or psychological harm. Anita Sarkeesian used Double Dragon as an example of sexism because it uses the trope: Well, double dragon is a story whose premise had to be told in [i]six seconds[/i]. The damsel in distress trope is easily understood, so it fit the six second timer they had because it was originally released in arcades. (Ergo long intros were a no no.) The story is about a boyfriend and best friend who fight through hordes of gangs to rescue someone they care about.

That's not objectifying the woman. That's ironically giving her more value than the men, whose lives are ultimately disposable so long as she's safe in the end.

Remember forever: Tropes are tools! It's how they are used that can hammer home terrible messages or great ones.

[quote=ShonHarris]Beyond physical build and all that, which is mostly a non-issue in the modern America, we still keep these assumptions.[/quote]

It's hard not to. They're part of the foundation upon which modern storytelling is a thing. As you said, the whole equality movement hasn't really been a thing until the last century. Given that our recorded history is at least around six [b]thousand[/b] years, we've made impressive progress for one hundred years, and given cool heads, should prevail to further progress over time.

We keep making those assumptions because it's built into the psyche. More time, more stories featuring strong women supported and built up by feminists, and healthy progressive-ism as opposed to assaulting traditionally masculine strongholds should help too. A big part of why the geek culture is seen as resistant towards feminism is because feminism often attacks geek culture: That's how feminism works, it attacks things it sees as problems. Attack any part of geek culture and geeks will see it as just another bullying attempt and put up the defenses.

Different approach needs to be taken.

[quote=ShonHarris]The idea of saving women and children first carried over too. It's not a difference in valuing so much as it's an old world holdover that places the man as protector and provider.[/quote]

Because ultimately, historically speaking, men were more disposable than women. If you have a tribe of 200 people, 100 men and 100 women, if you lose 50 women, you just lost 50% of your breeding potential, 50% of your total next generation, and will be significantly weaker come the next war or otherwise. If you lose 50 men, you just give every man an extra wife and your breeding potential stabilizes back up.

Is it crude and disturbing to look at it that way? Yes. Did primitive tribes need to? Yes. Did it become the foundation of several of our modern hangs concerning how women and men are viewed? Yes, and I'll venture to agree that men got the better end of the bargain, but it wasn't all sunshine and roses.

[quote=ShonHarris]You say it's valuing their lives more, but isn't also disarming women and placing them in a position where they're assumed unable?[/quote]

They were for a while. It was better to convince women to flee and look harmless so that they would be less likely to be slaughtered come the wars. Promoting a culture in which women were to be kept alive as harmless things instead of people was, again, though disturbing, tactically sound back in ancient times.

And yes, I keep bringing up ancient times because we've derived a significant amount of our culture and society on what has come before. Take the Bible for instance.

[quote=ShonHarris]Women can theoretically be most anything. However, only very recently were they allowed in US Special Forces. In some cases they're allowed in Combat Zones (makes Infantry hard, doesn't it?), as my ex discovered after enlisting.[/quote]

That's a shame, but the US military also has (or had?) the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy. They're not exactly paragons of modernism, and I agree they need to change.

[quote=ShonHarris]Statistically it is extremely difficult to become successful as a female director in film and most are forced into working in less prestigious roles, or mostly in television.[/quote]

Now this is something to definitely attack attack attack, but what are the underlying causes?

[quote=ShonHarris]Women are still less likely to be hired in leadership roles and in political positions, though thankfully this is slowly changing.[/quote]

Indeed. Change is slow... But it's preferable to war or open rebellion.

[quote=ShonHarris]Women are still, on average, paid much less for the same job with the same level of experience and qualification.[/quote]

*Points above to pay gap* 

[quote=ShonHarris]Women can run for a political office or interviewed, but are extremely likely to be asked questions regarding their clothing, children, make-up and have historically been commented on about their looks -- and judged by them when given media representation.[/quote]

Give it more time. Speak out against those who discriminate. The women running should ask for more valid lines of questioning, and if the traditional interviewers don't work, screw em', we have the Internet, plenty of open minded interviewers for everyone.

[quote=ShonHarris]Speaking to cancer now. Men can develop breast cancer, and though it's more common in women, I know from familial experience that is by no means as unlikely as it is for a woman to suffer prostate cancer. That is to say, it is more likely for a man to develop breast cancer than it is for a woman prostate cancer (or so we were told when my great uncle died was diagnosed and died from it). So if breast cancer is more a threat to all humanity, well of course it should receive more funding. Oh, and maybe it's worth noting that there are simply more women (at least in the US), and therefore more citizens apt to suffer the ailment.[/quote]

Fair enough. I'm sorry about your loss. 

[quote=ShonHarris]I think it's a very small request for us to just consider this may actually be a problem, to look into ourselves and how we think, and to make sure we're not perpetuating any of these negative stereotypes. That's all. Make sure we're not being a bunch of assholes -- not much of a request. It's not a big thing to consider we may not see the world as completely as we think and that we may well be a part of a problem.[/quote]

That's fine. I agree on the principle that honest introspective viewing once in a while really helps one to grow as a person.

Well. That was civilized. [b]*Nods*[/b] Thank you.