Arflech got it right by saying that the friend zone theory denies the agency of women. Remember that women are people, not vending machines with "insert flirtation, receive sex". The idea that they're foreign entities, to be dealt with through beep-boop instructions rather than talking to women like people, is ultimately sexist and goes to bad places.
Have you been reading the same topic everyone else has? Seriously; where has anyone remotely implied any of the garbage you spewed above? It's obvious that you have some deep-seated emotional issues about the topic, but you're barking up the wrong tree here.
Chamale wrote:
The sad but true fact is that nerds are a sexist bunch.
This hasn't at all been true in my experience. In fact, I challenge you to find anything remotely "sexist" in this topic. (Joke replies included)
Chamale wrote:
Has a woman published a TAS here in the last five years?
Way to be a sexist dick, Chamale. Firstly, what the fuck does a speedrunner's gender have to do with anything? Who cares?
Secondly, yes, member "GoddessMaria" has authored several published runs in the last few months. For all we know, there could be other speedrunners who are female but have chosen not to disclose their gender.
I always find it ironic that the people crying and bitching about something like "sexism" are sexists themselves. We have a wonderful case in point here.
Chamale wrote:
The stereotype that video games are for guys has become more true over the years, as sexism against women pushes them away from our hobbies.
Total bullshit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_video_games#Female_gamers_as_a_demographic
(Includes links to studies, plus the ESA handbook)
There are more women than ever playing video games, and they are an increasingly larger percentage of the market. I know you had an axe to grind and were typing so furiously that the last sentence in your post makes no grammatical sense, but try to avoid citing "facts" that you clearly just pulled out of your ass.
This read to me like a very elaborate troll and it made me giggle a lot, though I must say chapter II wasn't all bad if you cut out the feminism vs. manhood bs and read it not as factual but as a plausible life philosophy made up by some random community.
It's badly written in that it's very obvious from the getgo that it starts with a premise (feminism bad, manhood good) and then proceeds to list lots of arguments for it. This style usually isn't very interesting to me, it can be done for any topic, it's not very convincing.
Here are some of my personal thoughts that might be slightly insane, cynical and/or trivial:
1) Males have stronger sex drives and are generally very responsive to visual clues. Females are generally more interested in and more easily stimulated by other qualities.
2) As a result females have to focus a lot on their own visual appearance to find a good and healthy mate. This takes up time and energy. Men have to focus on being successful instead to find a good and healthy mate, even if they'd rather waste their time having fun. It's no surprise that men perform better in certain tasks, when there's more motivation for them to do well in them. Take a look at gay men for some evidence that motivation to invest energy in being pretty vs being successful comes largely from trying to impress potential mates. Trends such as the emo scene can be explained by an unhealthy form of narcissim, a failure to recognize that what is appealing to you is not automatically also appealing to the opposite sex or maybe even a desire to be able to exert the same powers onto others that the individuals in question have felt females exert onto them. Feminism is great, but it should not be overdone to a point of denying unpleasant facts about life and gender, I agree with the book in that point.
3) Males are biologically more disposable than females. They take more risks. It's ok if some men fail at life, as long as successful ones can carry on their genes instead. It's a great system. Women naturally don't take as many risks. (This also helps to keep them pretty) If they die while pregnant, their unborn child dies as well. They are the bottleneck in generating offspring. They need to be protected.
4) It's not a coincidence that men are usually more susceptible to all kinds of diseases and that in terms of intelligence they tend to be less average than females in that they tend to be either "extremely" intelligent or "extremely" unintelligent. Expressions of good or bad genes are exaggerated in males, they are naturally taking biological risks (f.e. by having only one X chromosome. Females can often compensate for malfunctions in one X chromosome, males obviously lack this capability). The Y chromosome mutatates very easily, it's taking risks. All of this is very good for natural selection.
5) As a male it's ok for you to take risks, it's ok to be a failure at life, it's ok to die alone. It's on the whole a good thing for our species, a necessary evil. So don't worry, you are already doing your job. If you don't want to succumb this subjectively horrible fate, you have to work hard and resist the temptation of instant gratification. If you can't and fail, idon't worry, idon't be so egocentric, it's not the end of the wordl, it's on the whole still a good thing for our species.
There follow some even more incoherent ramblings. I hope they'll make you laugh.
[URL=http://tasvideos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=313288#313288]Split into another thread[/URL]
Wow, that post was off to a good start, but degraded completely as it went on.
Chamale wrote:
Arflech got it right by saying that the friend zone theory denies the agency of women. Remember that women are people, not vending machines with "insert flirtation, receive sex". The idea that they're foreign entities, to be dealt with through beep-boop instructions rather than talking to women like people, is ultimately sexist and goes to bad places.
This is partly misguided, for the sole reason that women want sex as much as men do but have to go about it much subtler in our puritan society. Every healthy person wants being loved and have physical contact with people they love, and for adults, sex is an important part of that. The gender difference comes into play when, in majority of cases nearly independent of the culture, when a male has sex with a lot of different females, it's either not given a lot of attention, or considered a good thing by his peers. When a woman sleeps around similarly, she's more likely to be considered a whore by everyone alike, and that is not a good thing. So how do you go about that conundrum?
Flirtation in particular does alleviate that problem by being an attempt by people of both genders to communicate their desire for sex in a way that:
a) doesn't promise anything—you can fall back to the friendly routine at any time without any negative connotations;
b) doesn't openly say anything, or place the responsibility for the decision to sleep together—which helps because vast majority of people prefer to avoid unwanted responsibility;
c) is a thrilling and engaging experience—which ultimately makes it a fun pastime that also happens to train your self-confidence.
Now to dissect the problem of the friend zone: when you talk to a woman "like people" while having sexual intentions, you're very likely to avoid taking a stance of a potential sex partner, and thus completely fail to convey that you also want to get intimate with her. And if she isn't sure that you have said intention, most of the time she won't advance the situation herself even if she has it, both because it's a hard(er) experience to be turned down and because of the whore stigma. After some time she'll understand that you don't want intimacy with her, and will write you off. Any attempts to advance it after that point are more likely to confuse and aggravate her. And it's not rocket science either, because in her place you'd likely be confused and aggravated too.
Books like that may be all kinds of bad, but most of the time they get one thing right: even stupid sexist jerks can kick off a sexual relationship much faster and get laid basically whenever they want if they intuitively understand the rules of this social game. If you're a good-natured, considerate guy who wants only to talk to women "like people" and not see them as potential sex partners, you'll have a lot of female friends, sure, but these same girls will go and fuck with people whose moral qualities you might abhor, simply because women feel wanted in their company, but not yours. This is a fact of life, whether you like it or not.
Some more "surprising insight" about women: they like men with a backbone because they simply feel safer around them. A strong-willed, self-confident man gives off a notion that they'll protect a woman in a situation she can't handle, make a difficult decision she can't make, will stand up for his family and sustain it in the time of need when she has other important things to do. Shy, indecisive people who are afraid of advancing the relationship are perceived as unreliable, and oftentimes actually are. For many girls (and guys too!), getting intimate with somebody new is a difficult decision with many caveats and implications to consider. They also want to shift that responsibility away, even unconsciously so, like for instance by drinking. What people want by drinking in situations like this and many others is to loosen up their self-control and have either their own animal side, or the other party, take control of the situation and decide for them.
Chamale wrote:
The sad but true fact is that nerds are a sexist bunch. Has a woman published a TAS here in the last five years? The stereotype that video games are for guys has become more true over the years, as sexism against women pushes them away from our hobbies. [...] They all feel driven out of these hobbies because they see an all-male forum talking about their friendzone-proof female-attraction methods.
Complete bullshit, from start to finish. You could try asking actual women around here. Wait, did you know they were here, right under your nose?
Different people have different opinions, but not even once has this forum been unwelcome to girls, let alone taken a misogynist stance in general. You just have to admit that there are much less girls who are willing to go the lengths TASers go with their games. Again, this is not rocket science. There are much less female chess players as well, and you don't go around saying the chess community is sexist, do you? Right, because it doesn't matter.
Chamale wrote:
support feminism because some people still don't think treat women as equals.
You might want to think this one through if you still consider feminism a movement for equality.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
when a male has sex with a lot of different females, it's either not given a lot of attention, or considered a good thing by his peers. When a woman sleeps around similarly, she's more likely to be considered a whore by everyone alike
fschmidt has a theory of this:
«The fundamental difference between men and women is that men have an unlimited reproductive potential while women's reproductive potential is very limited. When a man has sex, he is giving away nothing of value. But when a woman has sex, she is potentially giving away a large aspect of her life if she gets pregnant. Today we have birth control to eliminate the practical side of this, but this doesn't change the feelings in us that were produced by evolution before birth control. This is why men still greatly value virginity in women, as can be seen in the cases where women auction off their virginity. But women place no value in the virginity of a man because there is no evolutionary basis for this feeling.»
«The fundamental difference between men and women is that men have an unlimited reproductive potential while women's reproductive potential is very limited. When a man has sex, he is giving away nothing of value. But when a woman has sex, she is potentially giving away a large aspect of her life if she gets pregnant. Today we have birth control to eliminate the practical side of this, but this doesn't change the feelings in us that were produced by evolution before birth control. This is why men still greatly value virginity in women, as can be seen in the cases where women auction off their virginity. But women place no value in the virginity of a man because there is no evolutionary basis for this feeling.»
It makes sense from an evolutionary point of view: A man can maximize his amount of offspring by having sex with lots of women, but not vice-versa (ie. one woman cannot have more children by having sex with lots of men, as compared to one). Hence the woman's "resources" are much more limited (and thus valuable) than a man's, and thus "wasting" those "resources" on random partners is frowned upon.
But of course evolution doesn't always lead to the best possible outcomes in the long run, especially when the purpose of a selected trait has already been pretty much fulfilled and has become almost obsolete. However, eradicating such naturally selected psychological traits from modern societies can be quite difficult.
Weaker than their drive to keep themselves hydrated? Well, that's... a pretty interesting juxtaposition. I bet their breathing drive is also quite high. My defecating drive is immense if I mix cucumbers with milk, etc.
It feels like apples and oranges. Different people have different priorities in different situations and mental conditions; it's not a fixed thing by any means, so studies like this prove very little at best.
Johannes wrote:
Why do you think we live in a "puritan society"?
A good deal of Western cultures, especially American as I see it, are very uptight about sexual relationships, body image, and physical contact in general. To the point where being a healthy 18+ y.o. white male puts you into a very unfavorable position as you have all the social burden and none of the benefits the others enjoy. Happen to be looking or being around children you don't know? Well, you might be a molester. Ogling a girl who dresses like an auction item? You're harassing her because she doesn't want you in particular to be looking at her. That kind of thing. You're still here, Chamale? That's what your beloved feminists have given us: a nonsensical set of double standards where males are legally put at females' mercy at pretty much every opportunity. Equality my ass.
Johannes wrote:
fschmidt has a theory of this
And it is a good theory. But as with most evolutionary bases, it is obsolete in our day when we have more social freedom than ever before, and enough technological advancements to control our childbirth with little to no inconvenience.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Joined: 2/28/2012
Posts: 159
Location: Philadelphia
The friend zone is an incredibly misogynistic concept. Women have no obligation to have sex with you and it's incredibly disingenuous and deceitful to try to trick them into it. I know it sucks to not have someone feel the same way you do, but you don't have to be so sexist and pathetically sex-starved that you have to blame women for not wanting to have sex with you.
Plus, think of it from the woman's perspective: you meet someone whom you think you can really trust and count on as a friend and it turns out he isn't even interested in you as a person but only wants to have sex with you? I think that's a lot lot worse than being friendzoned.
And don't give me crap about the "bro-zone", I'm talking here about the internalized misogyny that demonizes women for having the ability to discern when and with whom she has sex.
If you think women owe you sex, then perhaps the fact that you're a sexist creep is why they won't talk to you and not that you're a "nice guy?"
puritanism:
a member of a group of English Protestants who in the 16th and 17th centuries thought that the Protestant Reformation under Elizabeth was incomplete and advocated the simplification and regulation of forms of worship
someone who adheres to strict religious principles; someone opposed to sensual pleasures
What you describe sounds more like feminism at work than puritanism.
This is semantics, though.
Joined: 2/28/2012
Posts: 159
Location: Philadelphia
That's because you don't understand what feminism is. The ultimate goal of feminism is for women to be treated as human beings and to have equality. Because we understand the intersectionality of oppression, that extends to equality for all races, religions (and lack thereof), gender, cis/trans status, class, etc.
What you are thinking of would more likely be termed "misandry" and is entirely separate from feminism. Institutionalized misandry does not exist, however, so please don't delude yourself into thinking that a straight white cismale is being oppressed. It's pathetic and embarrassing.
Enterim, what is the oppression you're talking about? Could you point me to some examples? Cause I sure as hell didn't see woman oppression to be institutionalized or approved in any way during my lifetime. Am I living in the wrong country?
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Joined: 11/22/2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Enterim wrote:
What you are thinking of would more likely be termed "misandry" and is entirely separate from feminism. Institutionalized misandry does not exist, however, so please don't delude yourself into thinking that a straight white cismale is being oppressed. It's pathetic and embarrassing.
Exactly. The men who claim they're being oppressed, also known as "men's rights activists", are completely deluded. And feminism is, as you pointed out, about gender equality--nothing more and nothing less. I'm a feminist too.
Johannes wrote:
Enterim, sorry, but I really can't tell: Are you serious?
Everything he said is completely uncontroversial. And furthermore, it's correct.
Joined: 11/22/2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Those who don't understand what female oppression is should do some reading up on the subject. This is one subject that people generally have very little knowledge about. But the basic gist of it is this: women are still held back to an extremely high degree in numerous ways, and it's due to a very deep society-wide bias in favor of men. Furthermore, this is unequivocally supported by the relevant social sciences.
A good site to read and start frequenting is http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/
Everyone should be a feminist. Not just women. If you're a man and have a girlfriend or wife, and you're not a feminist, you have some explaining to do as to why you don't support gender equality, which is precisely what feminism is about.
edit: btw, I fully expect this post to be responded to with ridicule or accusations of hysteria, et cetera. People typically have a very hard time accepting any of this, or feel it's a personal attack. It takes some time and some open-mindedness to break through the background noise of lifelong dogma, but it's worth giving it a shot.
Joined: 2/28/2012
Posts: 159
Location: Philadelphia
I can only speak for women in the United States, I suppose. But there is plenty of oppression; the wage gap, rape culture, domestic violence, the brunt of sex-negativism, transphobia, etc.
If you don't see oppression, you aren't looking very hard.
Joined: 2/28/2012
Posts: 159
Location: Philadelphia
Dada wrote:
Everyone should be a feminist. Not just women. If you're a man and have a girlfriend or wife, and you're not a feminist, you have some explaining to do as to why you don't support gender equality, which is precisely what feminism is about.
This. I don't know why "feminist" is treated like a dirty word. If you believe in equality, you are a feminist. Deal with it.
Joined: 11/22/2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Unfortunately, there's plenty of it in Western Europe too. Not as bad as in the US, where even things like abortions are extremely difficult to get, and even things like basic women's reproductive healthcare is under a rather serious attack. But it's still a problem here as well.
Joined: 11/22/2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
TASVideos is, like many places on the internet, an extremely misogynistic place.
[6:44pm] You were kicked from the chat room by agill. (sorry I'm on my period)
A tentative list of actual misogynists is Swordless, rog, Johannes` and agill.
TASVideos is, like many places on the internet, an extremely misogynistic place.
[6:44pm] You were kicked from the chat room by agill. (sorry I'm on my period)
A tentative list of actual misogynists is Swordless, rog, Johannes` and agill.
<agill> dada__, sorry that was meant as a joke
<agill> no hard feeling
<agill> s
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
Dada wrote:
TASVideos is, like many places on the internet, an extremely misogynistic place.
[6:44pm] You were kicked from the chat room by agill. (sorry I'm on my period)
A tentative list of actual misogynists is Swordless, rog, Johannes` and agill.
Blacklisting people because they think differently from you?
Real mature.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Joined: 11/22/2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Mothrayas wrote:
Blacklisting people because they think differently from you?
Real mature.
I'm not blacklisting anyone. All I did was mention names. That doesn't have any consequences.
I'd do the same if I had a list of racists. Nothing immature about that. This is a serious topic.
I think it's fairly silly of you to try to have a serious discussion in an IRC channel... Unless you were just expecting air-headed responses to get a reaction. The thing is, that scenario doesn't help this discussion at all. All it does is satisfy your own itch for jaded responses. Or maybe there's some naivety involved as well.
There's a reason we have this topic: http://tasvideos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9624
And before you flip out on me, just remember: it's a freakin' IRC channel.
