Man/Woman Equality

This thread is for the discussion of male/female equality; it is an offshoot of the "Gender Roles in Gaming" thread in the General Gaming board.

----ORIGINAL DISCUSSION STARTS HERE----

Originally Posted by Sam

Masculinity and femininity are things that exist. And today we are told that a good female character is a masculine one. A feminine female is now unacceptable.

The point is that they are societal constructs based on environment/upbringing rather than biology (The natural psychological differences between males and females is minimal, if there is any at all). Males aren't "supposed" to be tough-ass and decisive, and neither are females supposed to be tender and/or nurturing. "Gender" as a concept is outdated, stupid and useless in our modern society, and it should be abandoned (It will be, inevitably, when transhumanism kicks in and we abandon our fleshy human forms; no longer will there be males or females, but machines).

But with that said, most females in games aren't portrayed as weak or sensitive or whatever. They may be portrayed as having teh smexy bodies, yeah, but that works on both ends of the spectrum (You have your heroic macho men and pretty boys, so it isn't as if "objectification" doesn't go both ways).

The point is that they are societal constructs based on environment/upbringing rather than biology (The natural psychological differences between males and females is minimal, if there is any at all).

Study, please? Thousands of years of evidence will tell you differently. Common sense, too: men and women evolved with different functions, of course there are psychological as well as physiological differences (the brain is part of our physiology, after all).

Understanding The Differences Between Men and Women

Also "'Gender' as a concept is outdated, stupid and useless" as a concept is outdated, stupid and usless.

Really, the idea that there are no differences between genders, or the differences should be resolved, is both it's own form of super-bigotry and an inane appeal for weakness in the species (diversity is strength ect).

These egalitarians are trouble makers, no doubt about it.

PS: Astarael, don't think that because the trope I used as an example happened to involve a position of lower power that I was equating femininity with powerlessness.

Originally Posted by Sam

Study, please?

You first (The article you gave isn't so much of a "study" with numbers and stats as it is an opinion-based article without any citations/numbers (But at least it's (Apparently) from an expert, lolololol)).

Thousands of years of evidence will tell you differently.

Thousands of years of evidence isn't a source. The "evidence" in that gender roles have differed over the centuries could just as easily refer to social/cultural structure as it could sexual structure (****, the first sentence of the source you gave even addresses this).

Common sense, too: men and women evolved with different functions, of course there are psychological as well as physiological differences (the brain is part of our physiology, after all).

The differing functions go about as far as "One shoots sperm in to another and the other takes the sperm and makes kids with it," to put it crudely. There are obvious physical differences (Which I'm not denying; physical functions are not what this conversation is about), but common sense would dictate, if anything, that the psychological differences differ very little in terms of practicality.

A woman can be just as decisive/logical as a man and a man can be just as sensitive/emotional as a woman (Traits associated with masculinity and femininity, respectively), and to deny this would be incredibly ignorant.

Also "'Gender' as a concept is outdated, stupid and useless" as a concept is outdated, stupid and usless.

Please explain how gender is still useful in today's society (Where have more or less eliminated most of nature's "control" over us), or how it will be in a posthuman future.

Really, the idea that there are no differences between genders

No one said there are no differences between the genders. I implied that there are minimal differences between the psychology of the sexes, but I'd assume you would be smart enough/educated enough to know the difference between "sex" and "gender."

So yeah, there are differences between genders, but it doesn't change the fact that gender is stupid.

is both it's own form of super-bigotry

How?

The only form of super-bigotry here would be assuming that men and women have to conform to gender identities/roles and that they are integral to the human condition.

an inane appeal for weakness in the species (diversity is strength ect).

Nope, unification is strength/efficiency. To say otherwise would be to appeal to tradition and instinct, which is stupid and anti-progressive.

We need to get rid of gender, religion, culture, nationality and any other societal construct along those lines, as they do nothing but present barriers to communication and slow overall progress (And we also need to get rid of biological differences as well, such as the sexes themselves, which will be handled when we become machines).

Nope, unification is strength/efficiency. To say otherwise would be to appeal to tradition and instinct, which is stupid and anti-progressive.

We need to get rid of gender, religion, culture, nationality and any other societal construct along those lines, as they do nothing but present barriers to communication and slow overall progress (And we also need to get rid of biological differences as well, such as the sexes themselves, which will be handled when we become machines).

While I agree that gender roles being restricted to specific sexes is inherently stupid, gender roles themselves are not. Most of them are beneficial to society. The nurturing stay at home mom/dad for example. Furthermore, many gender roles benefit from having a larger, stronger body, which of course is far more common in men.

You also said unification is strength, which is true, but it is strength through diversity that we are unified. If everybody on a baseball team can only play left field, the team won't be unified.

I'm just going to save us both the time, Andross, and say I'm not interested in this argument. Think about what I said, though; it might have your egalitarian values quivering with anger but there is a lot of truth in it. Maybe I'll come back to it another time.

EDIT:

You also said unification is strength, which is true, but it is strength through diversity that we are unified. If everybody on a baseball team can only play left field, the team won't be unified.

That's not a bad analogy. Just as important, though, is the other team. If both teams are "unified", well, lol.

Originally Posted by silver arrow

The nurturing stay at home mom/dad for example.

>Implying that traditional child-rearing is a good thing.

We really should get rid of traditional parentage and propagate human beings in cloning facilities (Which we no doubt have the technology for). We can raise them by subconsciously inserting information in to their minds as they "sleep" until they are fully grown, and we release them in to society as new-born adults.

This is a far superior methodology than allowing people to mate and have their own kids.

Furthermore, many gender roles benefit from having a larger, stronger body, which of course is far more common in men.

There is no practical position in modern human society that cannot be filled by either a male or a female.

Maybe something along the lines of sports or something non-practical like that, yeah, but anything requiring the strength of a human male that a female does not possess (Which, let's face it, is minimal in the grand scheme of things and in relation to the function of society as a whole) is already handled by machines.

If everybody on a baseball team can only play left field, the team won't be unified.

Well, no duh, but gender really doesn't really hold a practical role in modern society (Nor will it will in a posthuman future). We have no need for differing genders, at all.

Originally Posted by Sam

Just as important, though, is the other team. If both teams are "unified", well, lol.

>Implying that competition has a place in global human progress.

Progress would increase at an exponential rate if we were to abandon the cutthroat money-driven "progress" of capitalism in favor of a socialist society.

So yeah, when it comes to progress/efficiency for human society, then unification is undeniably the way to go.

Originally Posted by Andross

>Implying that competition has a place in global human progress.

Progress would increase at an exponential rate if we were to abandon the cutthroat money-driven "progress" of capitalism in favor of a socialist society.

So yeah, when it comes to progress/efficiency for human society, then unification is undeniably the way to go.

Just... so self-evidently wrong. Like I said, not interested in argument (that competition breeds strength is a fact so obvious that arguing it would be a waste of time, and other then that I'm simply not in the mood), but history (history of art, history of politics, history of warfare, history of science) offers so much evidence against this your mind would be blown. Think about it.

Originally Posted by Sam

(that competition breeds strength is a fact so obvious that arguing it would be a waste of time, and other then that I'm simply not in the mood),

It would be retarded to argue that competition breeds more strength than cooperation.

but history (history of art, history of politics, history of warfare, history of science) offers so much evidence against this your mind would be blown. Think about it.

Well, no **** there existed alot of competition throughout human history. Doesn't change the fact that things would've gotten done faster if they put their swords down and worked together, as a change (Politics and warfare, mind you, have always been a barrier to progress so you've kinda killed your own point; also note that science has largely existed in academia, which really isn't about competition (Save for the disgusting money-grubbingness of the university establishments themselves), but about learning from one another). In the end, maybe you have some things to think about; hopefully you can overcome the flawed, vile ideology that capitalism has imprinted upon you and think for yourself. Also, think about the fact that socialism/communism never actually existed (So you really can't say "competitive capitalism works better than more cooperative forms of economics," because pure socialism really only existed in theory (And in theory, it is far superior)).

Bigger, stronger people are intimidating. Having an intimidating person on your side makes it less likely for people to try and take advantage of you. It's a fact. Yes, we have weapons that negate the need for physical strength, but civilians mostly don't carry them around so it's moot.

Blah, blah, if we all worked together we wouldn't need it blah.

It's never going to happen. It's against human nature. People have different views of things. Very different views. A unified socialist world will never happen because of this. People WANT to compete.

There is no evidence that we would be further progressed if we worked together. In fact, if we didn't have to work hard to overcome enemies, I have no reason to believe we'd progress at much speed at all.

>Implying that traditional child-rearing is a good thing.

We really should get rid of traditional parentage and propagate human beings in cloning facilities (Which we no doubt have the technology for). We can raise them by subconsciously inserting information in to their minds as they "sleep" until they are fully grown, and we release them in to society as new-born adults.

This is a far superior methodology than allowing people to mate and have their own kids.

People LIKE mating and raising kids. This would create a world without children. I wouldn't want to live in a world like that. That's why it's never going to happen.

Even assuming this impossible future WAS going to happen. It wouldn't be for a couple more centuries. So gender roles would still be useful until then.

Originally Posted by silver arrow

It's never going to happen. It's against human nature.

What is human nature? Whatever it is, I can assure you, it isn't static.

People have different views of things. Very different views. A unified socialist world will never happen because of this.

Worldviews and ideologies are converging. We're growing ever-closer to abandoning the concept of nations, living under a single world government.

People WANT to compete.

Right now they do. Doesn't mean they will, after they are no longer brainwashed by capitalism and see the glory of what the future has to offer.

There is no evidence that we would be further progressed if we worked together. In fact, if we didn't have to work hard to overcome enemies, I have no reason to believe we'd progress at much speed at all.

Linux - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

People LIKE mating and raising kids.

Right now they do, probably. Look ahead at a far more educated society that is starting to feel concerned about population control, though.

This would create a world without children.

So?

I wouldn't want to live in a world like that. That's why it's never going to happen.

I don't think it's not going to happen just because you don't like it.

Even assuming this impossible future WAS going to happen.

It is going to happen.

It wouldn't be for a couple more centuries. So gender roles would still be useful until then.

But they'e not. There is no use for gender roles in modern day society, at all. "Stay-at-home" moms/dads, the example you gave, isn't a gender thing anymore because it applies to people of all genders and of both sexes and isn't seen as effeminate or masculine.

Also, it's going to happen before we die (Which won't happen, at the very least for the next several billion years, anyway).

Originally Posted by Andross

Right now they do, probably.

lol, "right now" people "probably" like mating.

Originally Posted by Andross

Worldviews and ideologies are converging.

lol, source

Originally Posted by Andross

We're growing ever-closer to abandoning the concept of nations, living under a single world government.

And how hopeless and superficial that would be!

Originally Posted by Andross

Right now they do. Doesn't mean they will, after they are no longer brainwashed by capitalism and see the glory of what the future has to offer.

Competition is human nature, the will to power. Striving to dominate is what makes us human, it is what explains our behavior, it is what fuels our excellence. Brainwashing would be the only option in order to quell our capitalist natures, but why would we? To transcend our primal tendencies, perhaps? There is nothing to transcend, that is why we exist, there is nothing higher!

So what is the aim of this transhuman future of yours?

Speculation: the scientific reasearch you mentioned in the indie thread, perhaps? Shedding the limitations of the human mind, of human lifespan, we could go as far as it is possible to, solve science, philosophy, but no one would be alive to benefit, even hear of, it: you have removed the very essence of life. And then, what? Content, perhaps we simply fall asleep and never wake.

Humanity will eventually seek to improve his condition, his body and mind, with science, but it certainly won't be to compliment communism. It will be for the same reason anything is ever done: war.

Originally Posted by Sam

lol, source

European Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's obvious, really. Anyone with a grade-school level of historical education could see that nations and ideologies are converging (The world is becoming a global melting pot), and are more tightly interconnected now then they ever have been (The EU being a prime example of this).

And how hopeless and superfcial that would be!

...how?

Competition is human nature, the will to power.

Again, human nature--whatever it is--is not static.

Stop letting Nietzsche (And other long-dead philosophers) speak for you and consider the possibility that human progress/evolution does exist and that we have transcended primal human nature (Whatever "human nature" is; I'd like to see you scientifically quantify "human natue" in a way that is generally acceptable, because as it stands, the word is so broad and meaningless that it's pointless to bring it up in discussions like this, and is nothing more than a cop-out (WELL IT ISN'T GONNA HAPPEN CUZ HUMAN NATURE LOLOLOLOLOL)).

Respecting old ideas is fine, but if you're not coming up with ideas of your own or embracing new ideas, then you're not really worth listening to.

Striving to dominate it what makes us human, it is what explains our behavior, it is what fuels our excellence.

Striving to "dominate" isn't what fuels our excellence, striving to learn is what fuels our excellence.

What makes us "human" is simply biologically being organisms of the species Homo sapiens. Even if striving to dominate is what "makes us human" (lol), then, well, ****; I don't want to be human anymore in the first place. I want to be something far better.

Brainwashing would be the only option in order to quell our capitalist natures, but why would we? To transcend our primal tendencies, perhaps?

If "human nature" exists, it is most certainly not capitalism (The earliest human societies were collectivist; before the few started to dominate the many, human existed in cooperative tribal communities where everything was shared. Indeed, if "human nature" is a quantifiable term, then it most certainly isn't "capitalism." but communism).

But yeah, I'm all in favor of the manipulation of the human mind if it would increase our efficiency.

There is nothing to transcend, that is why we exist, there is nothing higher!

Sorry, but that's stupid. Many humans let their emotions control them and thus think irrationally; we'd automatically become superior if we could control our own emotions instead.

We'd also be superior if we could live forever and increase our memory and information processing capacities, too, so yeah, your anti-transhumanist ramblings amuse me.

So what is the aim of this transhuman future of yours? The scientific reasearch you mentioned in the indie thread? Shedding the limitations of the human mind, of human lifespan, we could go as far as it is possible to, solve science, philosophy,

More or less.

but no one would be alive to benefit, even hear of, it: you have removed the very essence of life. And then, what? Content, perhaps we simply fall asleep and never wake.

Err, wut?

The super-robots that we will be will certainly be alive to benefit/hear of it.

If we're "removing the very essence of life" by solving all of the mysteries of life (Which will probably never happen before the universe ends, as it constantly shapeshifts/evolves; there will always be new things to see/new species to discover/whatever), I don't really see what your point is. Wouldn't it be better to die/face oblivion after having a very fulfilling life that involved unlocking all of its mysteres than to die/face oblivion after only having a small taste of it?

Humanity will eventually seek to improve his condition, his body and mind, with science, but it certainly won't be to compliment communism.

Nah, it will most certainly be to compliment communism.

It will be for the same reason anything is ever done: war.

That's an unnecessarily (And irrationally) pessimistic way to look at it.

War will become a thing in the past in the next century or so when we embrace transhuman technology and overcome such pathetic mortal flaws.

What is human nature? Whatever it is, I can assure you, it isn't static.

Really? Because it hasn't changed at all in human history. We just have a society that better controls it.

Worldviews and ideologies are converging. We're growing ever-closer to abandoning the concept of nations, living under a single world government.

No, we're growing ever closer to the entire world sharing a similar type of government.

Right now they do. Doesn't mean they will, after they are no longer brainwashed by capitalism and see the glory of what the future has to offer.

I can tell you that capitalism certainly didn't brainwash me into liking competition. You can't get rid of it. Even babies try to prove that they're better than each other.

Linux - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We are not Linux. We are human beings. Technically, we could be more efficient working together, but humans work better with drive.

Right now they do, probably. Look ahead at a far more educated society that is starting to feel concerned about population control, though.

No. People will always want to ****. You're an idiot if you actually believe otherwise. Raising kids and giving birth are things that make people feel human. You'd have to brainwash humanity to make them not want it, not the other way around.

So?

People like children. Don't say maybe they won't in the future because that's BS. Maybe people will like cutting their fingers off in the future too?

I don't think it's not going to happen just because you don't like it.

Every sane person wouldn't like it.

It is going to happen.

No it isn't. There is absolutely no chance that it is ever going to happen. You're insane.

But they'e not. There is no use for gender roles in modern day society, at all. "Stay-at-home" moms/dads, the example you gave, isn't a gender thing anymore because it applies to people of all genders and of both sexes and isn't seen as effeminate or masculine.

Weren't you the one who linked someone to an article about the difference between gender and sex? You should read it. Gender doesn't have to be related to sex. Many cultures have gender roles taken by any sex, and have names for those roles. They can still be feminine and masculine too. The ones that require more aggressiveness are masculine, regardless of sex.

Also, it's going to happen before we die (Which won't happen, at the very least for the next several billion years, anyway).

We've only existed for about 100,000 years. Thinking we'll live for billions is pretty ambitious of you. If it happens before I die (which it won't. It's never going to happen), I'll give you my entire life's savings.

Originally Posted by silver arrow

No. People will always want to ****. You're an idiot if you actually believe otherwise. Raising kids and giving birth are things that make people feel human. You'd have to brainwash humanity to make them not want it, not the other way around.

lol u r so rite all da timez

But really, why haven't alternate sexual courses been explored in games yet? One's sexuality is a huge part of who they are, I'm guessing by your strong feelings about sex, you would agree.

Sex has only been explored in games a bit, usually leaving out the majority of the human experience of a relationship and it's development (although I realize that a relationship in the traditional sense is not necessary for a sexual encounter)...why not explore that? Video games have only barely even broken ground in the gay department, let alone made any meaningful ground in helping us understand the life experience of a gay/lesbian/asexual/transexual/transgendered individual. Does this have to be included in all games? Again, no. But it's something I would like to see explored maturely in the future, rather than just the shallow hypersexual "relationships" people have in video games or the completely shallow exploitation of the aesthetics of the characters. Wouldn't that be interesting/refreshing?

Isn't that what we should be looking towards? Not looking back and defending the inclusion of DDD sized tits on Ivy?

Originally Posted by Vynrah

lol u r so rite all da timez

Right, because the entire human race might one day just all be asexual. Maybe one day we'll all be gay. It doesn't work that way. It's not a choice. Asexuality is only prevalent among maybe 1% of humanity.

Just a few things to add:

Originally Posted by Andross

Striving to "dominate" isn't what fuels our excellence, striving to learn is what fuels our excellence.

Learning is just a vessel for dominance: dominance over our world though understanding, dominance over our predecessors though correction, and domination over history through invention.

Your argument here is you trying to dominate: domination of ideology, of argument, but if you were to walk into your transhuman future, were asked to live in it, you would no doubt find the whole thing incredibly distasteful, and you would be incredibly depressed.

Absurdly, you hope to achive your ultimate goal, domination over over the universe, by removing the instinct to dominate. Your "humans" would be, would have to be, nothing more then automations.

In other words, your world is not even transhuman. It is the end of the human race altogether.

Even if striving to dominate is what "makes us human" (lol), then, well, ****; I don't want to be human anymore in the first place. I want to be something far better

And what mystical form does this "better" take?

That's an unnecessarily (And irrationally) pessimistic way to look at it.

Ha, that's me being optimistic, not pessimistic.

Originally Posted by Heraclitus

We must recognize that war is common and strife is justice, and all things happen according to strife and necessity.

Originally Posted by Heraclitus

War is the father of all

And obviously there is nothing irrational about saying that conflict is inevitable.

Speaking of philsophers:

Stop letting Nietzsche (And other long-dead philosophers) speak for you ...

...

Respecting old ideas is fine, but if you're not coming up with ideas of your own or embracing new ideas, then you're not really worth listening to.

This is literally the most retarded thing I have ever heard you say. You stupid little ****! Everything has to be new to you fagots, doesn't it, even when it's so blatently wrong! Forget that progress is made by building upon the past, and that these "long-dead" philosophers are both the foundation of that progress and the pinnacle of it! You can't even understand these dated ideas and now you want something new! I'm going to be saying more of the same to you in the Indie thread when I get around to it on the subject of artwork. I'm going to be quoting Schopenhauer. I hope you enjoy it.

EDIT: What you are basically asking me to do above is to stop posting things too intelligent for you to reply to. lol

Originally Posted by silver arrow

Really? Because it hasn't changed at all in human history. We just have a society that better controls it.

When human nature is as vague and ill-defined as it is, there really isn't much of a distinction between "society having better control of it" and "society changing it."

No, we're growing ever closer to the entire world sharing a similar type of government.

No, we're growing closer to a single world society.

We are not Linux. We are human beings. Technically, we could be more efficient working together.

You said there was no evidence that we would make further progress if we worked together. Linux is a prime example of collaboration and how progress can be made on a given thing if everyone stopped competing.

And if this applies to computing, the fastest-growing (And probably most important) aspect of human society, why couldn't it apply to other aspects of human life, as well?

Altruism is the way to go.

but humans work better with drive

Who said that working together = working without drive?

No. People will always want to ****. You're an idiot if you actually believe otherwise.

You're an idiot if you think that most people wouldn't give up the ability to have sex and raise children for immortality (The fear of death is a strong force, that).

Raising kids and giving birth are things that make people feel human.

Way to stereotype the entire human race as dumb, animalistic beasts.

You'd have to brainwash humanity to make them not want it, not the other way around.

The fear of death says otherwise.

People like children. Don't say maybe they won't in the future because that's BS. Maybe people will like cutting their fingers off in the future too?

Not everyone likes children (There are quite a few people who don't).

Children contribute absolutely nothing to society, but we place some sort of irrational value on their "innocence." Society would be infinitely more efficient and productive if we can get rid of that stage of life altogether.

Every sane person wouldn't like it.

Nah, every sane person would like it. Well, any sane person who is also intelligent, that is.

No it isn't. There is absolutely no chance that it is ever going to happen. You're insane.

Yes, it is going to happen (Given recent medical breakthroughs, immortality is just a tiny step away).

You're just thinking in terms of the pesent day; you seem incapable of grasping the future (Which is ok, I guess, as it is a trait possessed by too many people).

Weren't you the one who linked someone to an article about the difference between gender and sex? You should read it. Gender doesn't have to be related to sex.

Err... no? I don't recall linking any article.

As for gender and sex, yes, there is a difference, but my point is that child-care is not a matter of gender roles. Taking care of a child is no more feminine than it is masculine.

Many cultures have gender roles taken by any sex, and have names for those roles. They can still be feminine and masculine too. The ones that require more aggressiveness are masculine, regardless of sex.

Well, in that case, the only people following male gender roles are those in the military and those who play sports.

We've only existed for about 100,000 years. Thinking we'll live for billions is pretty ambitious of you. If it happens before I die (which it won't. It's never going to happen), I'll give you my entire life's savings.

I don't see why I'll need your life's savings in an anarchist society devoid of capital.

Originally Posted by ghost4

I was replying to Andross until it dawned on me that he is a complete lunatic with no grasp on reality. Then I started skipping all his posts.

Hey, if you want to deny human progress, refuse to accept transhumanism and rot in a cramped hole in the ground, be my guest. I'll be living forever and traveling across the cosmos.

Originally Posted by Sam

Learning is just a vessel for dominance...

..by removing the instinct to dominate.

You are now stretching the scope of the word "dominance." Previously, we were using it as a mere synonym for competition among members of our own species. There is a big difference between "domination over ideas of the past," or "domination of the universe," and "domination of eachother."

When I use the word "compete," I'm talking about competition between members of our own species; attempting to achieve their own variations of the same goal. Naturally, this is not the best way to achieve something (As Linux has proven, collaboration > competition). We do not have to dominate eachother to make progress.

Nor is domination of eachother truly "natural," if human nature is quantifiable. Look to tribal communities, past and present; there's no capitalism. Just people working together; altruism, for the greater good. If anything, altruism is the true "human condition."

Maybe we can collaboratively work together to "dominate the systems" (I guess) with Linux, or anything else; capitalism or competition among ourselves not a part of it whatsoever.

Your argument here is you trying to dominate: domination of ideology, of argument, but if you were to walk into your transhuman future, were asked to live in it, you would no doubt find the whole thing incredibly distasteful, and you would be incredibly depressed.

To the contrary, I'd find it incredibly nice that people have finally seen the light and that we can make progress. I'd be incredibly happy.

Your "humans" would be, would have to be, nothing more then automations.

Not "humans," but post-humans.

In other words, your world is not even transhuman. It is the end of the human race altogether.

Actually, my world is very transhuman (It's so transhuman it' posthuman!). I want the end of the human race; we will self-invoke our extinction by becoming something better.

You should want that, too, unless you actually enjoy being a smelly, puss-ridden ape with a temporary, century-long lifespan.

And what mystical form does this "better" take?

Greater efficiency, faster processing speeds.

Ha, that's me being optimistic, not pessimistic.

Then you're a sociopath, which isn't my problem.

"We must recognize that war is common and strife is justice, and all things happen according to strife and necessity. "

"War is the father of all"

Well, quite frankly, I disagree. War is most certainly not the father of all, the amount of war has been gradually decreasing over time, and conflict is most certainly not justice (And not to mention that "justice" is a completely stupid concept to begin with).

This is literally the most retarded thing I have ever heard you say. You stupid little ****! Everything has to be dated to you fagots, doesn't it, even when it's so blatently wrong!

What wonders a single word change can do!

Forget that progress is made by building upon the past, and that these "long-dead" philosphers are both the foundation of that progress and the pinnacle of it!

Who's forgetting that progress is made by building upon the past?

What I'm saying is that you're not worth listening to if you aren't contributing anything new to the idea pool. Which is more or less fact. Nietzche said what he had to say, and it was wise for its time, but you're merely content with repeating what he said over, and over, and over again, because you (apparently) do not have the capacity to understand that things become dated over time and that, if you are actually going to be holding a reasonable discussion over something, you're going to have to update said views/contribute something to them, or embrace new ideology that has embraced old views.

If anyone's acting like a dumbass here, it's you. You're not capable of producing any thought of your own; you're only constantly quoting the people of the past because it is familiar, or respected, or some ****. Never building upon it, because you're not smart enough to do so; all you can do is go "Well this guy said it so you're wrong."

You're not worth holding a discussion with. No one's worth hearing unless they can't bring something of their own to the discussion.

You can't even understand these dated ideas and now you want something new!

>Implying that I actually don't understand these dated ideas.

EDIT: What you are basically asking me to do above is to stop posting things too intelligent for you to reply to. lol

Nah, what I'm doing is asking you to stop repeating things that other people heard and actually think for yourself (Or, at the very least, build upon those things, which you also refuse to do, either because you're not intelligent enough to do so or too insecureto do so).

Originally Posted by ghost4

"Empowering" is nonsense. It's glorified daydreaming. Women are smaller and weaker than men and no video game is going to change that.

Women, on average, aren't as strong as men.

You're stating it as an absolute, that all women are weaker than all men, which is quite simply not true. I bet any female athlete could easily beat any male non-athlete, for example.

In fact, women are now developing potentially fatal delusions where they think they can take any man in a fight, because anything else would be sexist. Of course, a video game might inspire a woman (or man) with values like heroism and duty (e.g. Halo), but this is of course not what we mean by "empowerment."

I'd love a source on that.

When feminists criticize the way women are potrayed in video games, they are actually using a fictional standard which assumes that in real life women participate in dangerous and physically demanding activities as much as men, and are physically equal to them, and so on.

Any given woman can do any task that any given man can.
At the extreme end of the scale, yes, some men can do some things that women can't, but outside of international sports teams this is rarely an issue.

So yeah, for all intents and purposes women are physically equal to men.

Therefore, women must be in the role of Sgt. Soap as often as men are. In reality things are very different, and video games actually portray women as unrealistically strong and capable (and attractive).

Nothing unrealistic about strong women.

The women who complain about that sort of stuff are always hardline feminists. I don't know if most women care what some character looks like in Soul Calibur. You can also rest assured that the same feminists who complain about sexism and objectification won't hesitate to go out clubbing wearing sexy and revealing clothing (or, at the very least, won't object to other women doing so), so they are just throwing stones in glass houses.

Dressing a certain way because you want to is very, very different from having a society that insists that you dress that way.

A likely difference is that men are more "hardcore" about video games. They play more complex and competitive games, and are more interested in things like computer hardware and game modifications. Carefully hand-picking new components in order to play Shogun 2 is not the same as Angry Birds on your iPhone.

Wow, sexist much? I know a fair number of female computer geeks.

I would imagine that a similiar difference can be found in movies: while both men and women go to the cinema and buy DVDs, men probably watch more movies, and listen to commentary tracks and go through hours of bonus materials more than women.

Not in my experience, no.

So it would be reasonable if female soldiers were present in equal numbers? That doesn't occur in reality, and especially not in combat.

Why can't fiction be the vanguard of equality?

Feminists often wish to become caricatures of men, with all their vices and none of their virtues.

It's like you've only seen feminists from far off, on a cloudy midnight in a fog.

Heck, I'm a feminist, as are both of my parents, my sister, and all of my friends. Being a feminist simply means that you want equality for women. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now you're suggesting that all fiction should serve as propaganda towards what YOU want to see.

No, I'm suggesting that people start writing fiction that treats women as people.

Currently most fiction is propaganda for mistreating women. I'm trying to stop that.

It's not as if enforcing the current status-quo isn't propaganda. One chooses what view one supports, you can't choose to support none.

Since you're playing the "well, technically..." card, I should point out that equality is for BOTH genders. Specifying a gender that you want it for means that you don't want it.

"Equality for women" means that they'd be equal with men. The both genders part is all but explicit.

Originally Posted by John

"Equality for women" means that they'd be equal with men. The both genders part is all but explicit.

In a world where women are truly equal to men in all aspects of society, if a woman slapped me out of anger, could I reply with a punch with the same amount of strength and momentum that was meant for a man?