5 ms·

For what it's worth, I think games which portray men as unemotional automatons who are only capable of the grunt work, or portray men as mostly machismo-fueled

For what it's worth, I think games which portray men as unemotional automatons who are only capable of the grunt work, or portray men as mostly machismo-fueled bro types who constantly degrade women, also reflect sexist attitudes. Sexism stifles and limits men and encourages men to be toxic--as a result it harms men, and these portrayals are a part of that.

adekok 9y ago
> Sexism stifles and limits men and encourages men to be toxic- It's weird... sexism against women hurts women. Sexism against men makes men hurt others. (i.e. be toxic) It's almost like the normal use of sexism is, itself, sexist.
- SerLava 9y ago
  It surely is. People actually have trouble framing anything as sexist against men. All the men in a hostage holdup can get shot, and someone will talk about how it's sexist against women. When no woman is involved at all, it's often called homophobia. But the hint there is that if no LGBT person or LGBT attribute is involved in any way, it's not homophobia either. It's just sexism. Against men.
- foldr 9y ago
  Of course it is, because women have historically been oppressed by men and not vice versa.
  - adekok 9y ago
    That just isn't true. There is zero reason to believe that men as a class have oppressed women as a class. Your ideology is just rebranded communism. Which is itself a lie.
    - foldr 9y ago
      I didn't say anything about classes, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from. There is, obviously, a long history of men oppressing women. Men used to own their wives and have the legal right to beat and rape them. Not every claim about one group having done something to another group rests on some kind of Marxist ideology. There are any number of uncontroversial historical statements along the lines "group X did Y to group Z" which would be assented to by people of all ideological stripes.
      - adekok 9y ago
        I'm saying "men oppressing women" is the same BS as "the bourgoise oppress the proletariat" > Not every claim about one group having done something to another group rests on some kind of Marxist ideology Of course it doesn't. What I am saying is that I find parallels in many, many, ideologies. If the only difference between the ideologies is the names of the "bad" and "good" people, then I call the ideologies the same.
        foldr 9y ago
        As far as I can tell, you're saying that it's not true that men have historically oppressed women because it's not true that the bourgeoisie (note spelling) oppress the proletariat. That's clearly a non sequitur.
    - verall 9y ago
      Are you joking? Women earned the right to vote in 1919; women have been historically oppressed in at least that sense for more than half of the lifetime of the US. Women are still considered property of their fathers and husbands in many parts of the world.
      - adekok 9y ago
        > Women earned the right to vote in 1919; And when did men earn the right to vote? > Women are still considered property of their fathers and husbands in many parts of the world. So... this means that women in the US are oppressed. Right? Right?
        foldr 9y ago
        >And when did men earn the right to vote? That's a bit of a complicated question in the case of the USA, but the passing of the fifteenth amendment in 1870 guaranteed the right to vote for a large segment of the male population at a time when no women whatsoever had the right to vote. And of course, at least some men had the right to vote right from the foundation of the US.
        adekok 9y ago
        So... the men who couldn't vote weren't oppressed? Or... women are oppressed today because your great-grandmother didn't have the right to vote? Color me unconvinced. If the best argument you have is to go back 100 years, it shows that you know that women aren't oppressed by men today. See, I've looked into this. Pretty much every talking point (i.e. slogan repeated ad nauseaum) is either half of the truth, or an outright lie. And there are massive parallels between certain ideologies. The idea that people are "oppressed" as a class is originally Marxist, and has been co-opted by other ideologies. Who (wink wink) aren't Marxist. Despite sharing ideologies, coordinating protests together, etc. I don't follow your ideology for the same reason I'm not a Marxist. Both are lies.
        foldr 9y ago
dragontamer 9y ago
> I think games which portray men as unemotional automatons who are only capable of the grunt work, or portray men as mostly machismo-fueled bro types who constantly degrade women, also reflect sexist attitudes. Ehhh... I think its more important to see characters in the general sense rather than focusing in on particular characters. Trevor Philips (Grand Theft Auto 5) for example is clearly a sociopathic machismo-fueled nutjob. But he's also clearly evil to the point of parody. He's an anti-hero protagonist. Another "Machismo-fueled" character is Kratos from "God of War". A man who goes on a hate-filled killing spree where he one-by-one kills every God and Goddess in the Greek Pantheon (while having lots of sex in between) until the world is a ruin. Despite being the main character for the game, I think its pretty clear that Kratos is a morally "bad" person, and the 3rd game's conclusion (with the seas out of control with the death of Neptune / Zeus / etc. etc.) makes it clear that Kratos's rage basically went nowhere as far as bringing back his family. When people are "machismo-fueled dude-bro" types, the storyline usually takes a deeper and more philosophical turn. For the most part, mainstream video games seem to be about Greek-style tragedy if a character goes down that route. ------------- I mean, I personally didn't like either of the games. But I recognize that these characters (and the stories that contain these characters) are deeper than the typical person would expect. IE: Did you kill Trevor (GTA 5)? Does Trevor deserve to die after what he has done? The game encourages philosophical thought and brings the decision directly to the player in a way that no other medium can do or accomplish. All the violence and agony that Trevor does throughout the game (under the player's control nonetheless!) is really just a vehicle to a deeper question that exists within the great scope of the plot.

adekok 9y ago

> Sexism stifles and limits men and encourages men to be toxic- It's weird... sexism against women hurts women. Sexism against men makes men hurt others. (i.e. be toxic) It's almost like the normal use of sexism is, itself, sexist.

SerLava 9y ago
It surely is. People actually have trouble framing anything as sexist against men. All the men in a hostage holdup can get shot, and someone will talk about how it's sexist against women. When no woman is involved at all, it's often called homophobia. But the hint there is that if no LGBT person or LGBT attribute is involved in any way, it's not homophobia either. It's just sexism. Against men.
foldr 9y ago
Of course it is, because women have historically been oppressed by men and not vice versa.
- adekok 9y ago
  That just isn't true. There is zero reason to believe that men as a class have oppressed women as a class. Your ideology is just rebranded communism. Which is itself a lie.
  - foldr 9y ago
    I didn't say anything about classes, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from. There is, obviously, a long history of men oppressing women. Men used to own their wives and have the legal right to beat and rape them. Not every claim about one group having done something to another group rests on some kind of Marxist ideology. There are any number of uncontroversial historical statements along the lines "group X did Y to group Z" which would be assented to by people of all ideological stripes.
    - adekok 9y ago
      I'm saying "men oppressing women" is the same BS as "the bourgoise oppress the proletariat" > Not every claim about one group having done something to another group rests on some kind of Marxist ideology Of course it doesn't. What I am saying is that I find parallels in many, many, ideologies. If the only difference between the ideologies is the names of the "bad" and "good" people, then I call the ideologies the same.
      - foldr 9y ago
        As far as I can tell, you're saying that it's not true that men have historically oppressed women because it's not true that the bourgeoisie (note spelling) oppress the proletariat. That's clearly a non sequitur.
  - verall 9y ago
    Are you joking? Women earned the right to vote in 1919; women have been historically oppressed in at least that sense for more than half of the lifetime of the US. Women are still considered property of their fathers and husbands in many parts of the world.
    - adekok 9y ago
      > Women earned the right to vote in 1919; And when did men earn the right to vote? > Women are still considered property of their fathers and husbands in many parts of the world. So... this means that women in the US are oppressed. Right? Right?
      - foldr 9y ago
        >And when did men earn the right to vote? That's a bit of a complicated question in the case of the USA, but the passing of the fifteenth amendment in 1870 guaranteed the right to vote for a large segment of the male population at a time when no women whatsoever had the right to vote. And of course, at least some men had the right to vote right from the foundation of the US.
        adekok 9y ago
        So... the men who couldn't vote weren't oppressed? Or... women are oppressed today because your great-grandmother didn't have the right to vote? Color me unconvinced. If the best argument you have is to go back 100 years, it shows that you know that women aren't oppressed by men today. See, I've looked into this. Pretty much every talking point (i.e. slogan repeated ad nauseaum) is either half of the truth, or an outright lie. And there are massive parallels between certain ideologies. The idea that people are "oppressed" as a class is originally Marxist, and has been co-opted by other ideologies. Who (wink wink) aren't Marxist. Despite sharing ideologies, coordinating protests together, etc. I don't follow your ideology for the same reason I'm not a Marxist. Both are lies.
        foldr 9y ago

dragontamer 9y ago

> I think games which portray men as unemotional automatons who are only capable of the grunt work, or portray men as mostly machismo-fueled bro types who constantly degrade women, also reflect sexist attitudes. Ehhh... I think its more important to see characters in the general sense rather than focusing in on particular characters. Trevor Philips (Grand Theft Auto 5) for example is clearly a sociopathic machismo-fueled nutjob. But he's also clearly evil to the point of parody. He's an anti-hero protagonist. Another "Machismo-fueled" character is Kratos from "God of War". A man who goes on a hate-filled killing spree where he one-by-one kills every God and Goddess in the Greek Pantheon (while having lots of sex in between) until the world is a ruin. Despite being the main character for the game, I think its pretty clear that Kratos is a morally "bad" person, and the 3rd game's conclusion (with the seas out of control with the death of Neptune / Zeus / etc. etc.) makes it clear that Kratos's rage basically went nowhere as far as bringing back his family. When people are "machismo-fueled dude-bro" types, the storyline usually takes a deeper and more philosophical turn. For the most part, mainstream video games seem to be about Greek-style tragedy if a character goes down that route. ------------- I mean, I personally didn't like either of the games. But I recognize that these characters (and the stories that contain these characters) are deeper than the typical person would expect. IE: Did you kill Trevor (GTA 5)? Does Trevor deserve to die after what he has done? The game encourages philosophical thought and brings the decision directly to the player in a way that no other medium can do or accomplish. All the violence and agony that Trevor does throughout the game (under the player's control nonetheless!) is really just a vehicle to a deeper question that exists within the great scope of the plot.