I should be going to sleep but I think I might drop the mic once more before I head on down.
it's definitely about race, there's a reason you don't see black officers shooting black unarmed teenagers
That seems more like coincidence based on the few popularised shootings than scientific fact.
ooh nope nope nope nope nope this is so bad dude i'm sorry. it's INCREDIBLY important that it happens so much more commonly to women.
The way you said this sounded both extremely sarcastic (as if you were coming from my perspective) and ignorant.
Do you think I enjoy walking down the street late at night, having to weasel my way out of a fight because I couldn't stop myself from giggling at something I was listening to while looking at two guys walking past me?
Violence against anybody is a problem. To say that we should only care about it happening to one love over another love is extremely rude.
i don't know if this is how it goes in australia, but big american corporations (with VERY few exceptions) are some of the most trashy collections of human beings in the world. for instance, disabled/handicapped workers for walmart (i believe it was walmart; correct me if i'm wrong) are sometimes paid less than 5% of minimum wage because of legal loopholes. many employers simply pay women less and then make up stuffty excuses for it
I knew of jokes about that issue, but I haven't looked into it at all. All I can say is that it seems to be more of an issue about Walmart (and commercial business in general) trying to find any loophole possibly to pay the least amount of money necessary. It's bullstuff, but it's not discriminatory.
men do have it remarkably easier on the whole. this is another perspective issue i'd ask you to consider; your personal experience does not apply to the world as a whole. "men have it easier" applies much more than marginally, enough for it to be valid.
I honestly disagree and I see no evidence to support either way outside of personal experiences. All I know is that everybody I know is doing better off than I am, and that the females I know seem to have the most work, best pay and/or the highest levels of experience.
-
women receive rape threats and horrendously misogynistic comments in most online gaming communities (i'm referring mostly to in-game chats and stuff)
Everybody receives the darkest, most despicable comments during certain gaming encounters. This is because gaming can be a stressful activity and many people find it within their rights to use hyperbole to express their anger and frustration. Nobody should have to be exposed to that.
I've received a lot of death threats and awful insults while playing online video games. Are you saying that because I'm male I'm supposed to be okay with it? Isn't that the same kind of stereotyping that you're trying to say harms the perspectives of females?
along with being incessantly special interestized. like you said, i don't mind games with stuffty portrayals of women to exist, but it's so hilariously saturated that nothing else shines through.
Characters such as Kreia, Chell, Alice, Alma, Faith, Jade and many more are beloved female gaming superstars who are all non-loveualised (or done so in disturbing, unappealing ways for a specific purpose) and star is massive video game franchises. This idea that all females in gaming have giant boobs and breast-only armour is a ridiculous notion that doesn't hold up to the reality. It's simply websites like Kotaku/Polygon looking for something to complain about so they can get more clicks and sponsorship.
also, the main problem with games that portray women misogynistically is that they often completely lack self-awareness, as if presenting an actually misogynistic view rather than satire.
On the contrast, I would believe that most games that hyper-loveualise characters (or allow them to be hyper-loveualised in the case of character creators) are extremely self-aware and they push the boundaries far beyond to make them seem ridiculous.
I did a study a long time ago (thanks to some stuff I saw in philosophy/psychology classes) about how humans commonly accentuate and exaggerate the body. As it turns out, there is actual scientific evidence to support the fact that humans (and many species of animal) seem to prefer exaggeration (for reasons I've forgotten). One good example to look at is the Kritios Boy statue; it is the closest humans ever came to replicating the exact proportions and texture of a human body, and people hated it. The statues that came next which had slightly (to overly) exaggerated body parts were adored and loved.
if you don't see the way that most men in this country view women, then that's your issue. ignorance is bliss?
Or maybe I've just done what most people should do and I've just "moved on". By not acknowledging the issue (except through the medium of humour), I'm trying to let the issues slip by, so that I and the people around me don't have to deal with these views that you seem to think are plaguing the world.
like i said, the deeply ingrained attitudes are outside of your personal world, and outside of mine as well. my point is that you need to stop presenting your personal experience as what is actually commonly true around the world. any statistician will tell you that a sample size of 1 out of 7 billion is astronomically bad practice.
There's simply no accurate and far-reaching statistics that allow us to see the scientific truth of the matter. What I have is my perspective, and I haven't been proven wrong yet. You may see things differently, but until I witness what you're saying in my life, I simply cannot believe in its existence.
doesn't matter if it's an example; your example is logically fallacious, and it doesn't stand in the debate.
The greatest difference between Australia and America is that Australia relies heavily on context, whereas America weirdly gives weight to what people specifically say. Debate is about transferral of meaning. Words are tools to transfer meaning, but people who put too much weight onto the words themselves, rather than the meaning behind them are always at risk of missing out on the reality of the situation.
In other words, don't take things too literally.
it's funny you should bring up the cave, because my entire point is that perspective and having a greater understanding of the world is important
You seem to fail to understand that my perspective is wide. I would argue that you are using a very narrow view of the world because you're relying on facts and data that I believe have been generated from someone else that you are mindlessly spouting, whereas the things I'm saying are opinions and thoughts I've generated from my own personal observations and conclusions I've made based on my experiences as well as things I've been taught and learnt.
my point isn't that content creators are deliberately trying to be malicious, it's that they ARE being malicious. perhaps inadvertently.
I'm well aware that's your point. My point is that "malicious" is a subjective term in this case and there's no way to prove it is malicious without hard evidence to support that what people are seeing is influencing their behaviour in negative ways, which I don't see any for.
it's not really an issue of how you construe it, when car ads feature a scantily clad woman standing next to it just to make the ad "loveier."
That has far less to do with loveualising women and far more with them trying to understand what makes people interested in content. It's just like those stupid perfume ads that show vague images of cloth and glass, or fast food commercials that show burgers which are too good to be true. It's not a problem with loveism, it's a problem with hyperbole in order to overcome a human's natural boredom/frustration defences so they can sell you goods.
Just look at how they butcher the American version of Kitchen Nightmares with the loud music and frequent jump cuts. You may argue and rant and rave that's it's not the same concept, but it really is. Marketing is about defeating our nature, in essence. If you want to complain about marketing, then complain about its use of hyperbole, but don't ever try to make the loveualisation argument out like it's an entirely different issue.
before you make the point that men are also loveualized in media
I honestly never planned on it.
but it again comes back to the fact that women are used FAR more often than men, and are often used in far more loveualized pieces in comparison.
Again, this seems more stereotypical and based on a lot of false evidence. You may not even realise what loveualisation is, or how men can be portrayed in such a position. It's not as simple as "take your shirt off and we'll fix up your flaws in Photoshop". The truth is that marketing will exploit whatever it can in order to successfully convey the message it wants. That's the real issue.
feminism doesn't promote only being able to have one opinion - why do you think i called an entire group of feminists idiots earlier? it's a multi-faceted ideology; confusing and frustrating at times, i'll agree/admit, but definitely not what you think it is.
I never said I thought that it did. What I said is that it seems outdated in comparison to the idea of true egalitarianism. Surely if we want a goal to work towards, we should aim high and knock out all the birds with a single stone?
