Anita Sarkeesian argues that video games portraying damsels in distress (ie, a female character that is rescued by a male character), is sexist and demeaning to women. I disagree with her. What about you? Tell me whether or not you agree or disagree with her, and if so, why? I disagree with her, for several reasons. First of all, lots of movies, books, and video games, do sometimes portray male characters in situations where they are vulnerable and helpless and need to be rescued. Women aren't the only helpless characters in stories. Second of all, one of the reasons why video games often portray male characters rescuing female characters, is because it's viewed as "chivalrous", or something like that. I don't get why Anita considers those Zelda games (where Link rescues a princess) to be sexist or demeaning to women. Yes, some video games do objectify women. And that's very wrong, and also demeaning to women. But there's nothing sexist or demeaning about a warrior rescuing a princess in a castle. Besides, feminists never complain about men being objectified. Lots of movies, such as the Twilight Saga, objectify male characters, yet feminists never complain about that. Why is that? To them, it's okay if women objectify men, but not the other way around. They have double standards. If you ask me, objectifying the opposite gender is very wrong, for both genders. Feminists need to realize that.
Sarkeesian, she made plenty of valid points in her videos, they were interesting, but as an avid gamer myself there was plenty she said that I disagree with too. Please make a thread about her though. I think discussing her videos would be better suited to another thread as it is off-topic for this one.
I wish I could thank everyone properly for their reasoned responses to this thread. Of course I see a few who see it as a feminist bashing opportunity, but considering the experience that spurred this on I have little desire to defend them. The thing is that even though my experience with a violent girlfriend was hugely negative I am well past it. Mostly I was just talking. I am politically pretty liberal, but most liberals I know seem to expect me to be conservative. I am white, male, plain spoken and often frank and raw. I assume most people around me are grown up enough to handle themselves. I almost never raise my voice, but I don't lie a lot either. I am feeling that it doesn't matter a whole lot to some people what I really believe. Because I look a certain way and act a certain way I will always be their bad guy. It sucks.
I think it's important to differentiate between feminists and feminazis, the latter being the bat(*)(*)(*)(*) crazy ones who think all men are rapists, that everything men do is part of a male agenda to keep women down, etc.
-we know what Travis Victor Alexander reported when it came to Jodi Ann Arias stalking him, but its possible Jodi Ann Arias had committed assault & battery on Travis V. Alexander or even threatened him with a knife only Travis V. Alexander didnt report this to his friends. Men are more likely to tolerate women stalking them and Travis V. Alexander figured that because he was a man he could handle Jodi Ann Arias abusing him. what the case show is that its bad advice for people to say that if a woman hits a man or threatens a man, the man should do nothing about it. When nothing is done about it, conduct can worsen and in the end it can get you killed. Travis V. Alexander believed he could handle Jodi Ann Arias abusing him-such as her stalking him, Jodi Ann Arias going into his email account, etc. and in the end it got him murdered. Travis Victor Alexander being a martial arts expert, risk taker who did sky diving, motorcycling, did not save him from being murdered.
It's unfortunate that a lot of people are sexist and don't know it. It's surprisingly common. I never understood this equal force concept. The initiator of aggression obviously escalated affairs to begin with, I see no issue in escalating in your own defense. If someone punches you in the face and you don't feel that a simple punch-back to their face will end the conflict, then an escalation should be in order. Either run or solve the problem. Think about your given example in reverse. If a 250lb. strong man (or woman) strikes their 110lb. petite partner in the face, would just punching the other back in the face be equally harmful? No, but more importantly, would that end the conflict? No.
Force proportionate to the situation at hand, not "equal pound for pound". Use of force deemed excessive can land you in jail
The problem is pretty obvious: is a man is attacked and defends himself against a woman, he will be arrested. In the real world, it is not legal to defend yourself against your psycho girlfriend. To my wife's disappointment, I won't even be her sparring partner in her martial arts drills anymore.
Not 'law' - common sense. If I was a 300 lb powerlifter, and a 90 lb woman smacked me as hard as she could - I wouldn't smack her as hard as I could and possibly kill her - I'd have no problem hitting her in self defense, but I'd restrain myself so that I wouldn't critically injure someone who barely phased me - I'd see that as vindictive even if they were the aggressor And it's not a matter of whether or not a law's 'fair', it's a matter of staying out of the joey. If a 300 lb guy struck a little women hard enough to put her in a coma, the law's not going to care whether or not 'she hit you first' - fair or not, that's the way it is
And why *should* it look at it like that? If I pull out my pistol and shoot at you and miss, and then you return fire and blow my brains out, that's a disproportionate outcome. Why is it any different? Capacity is a problem though. Weight isn't *as* important as you think, she could hit you in the right spot and: knock you out (coma is possible, but unlikely regardless of who is hitting), cut off your breathing, take away your ability to have kids, etc. But this female legal preference is rarely a case where a 90lb girl is struck by a 300lb body builder, they size difference is usually not great at all. A woman who is 10% larger than a man will still get legal preference because she's a woman. And so take gender out of it. If a big guy (300lb) accidentally steps on a little guy (90lb)'s toes, and is punched in the face by the little guy - 1st, not smart of the little guy. But the principle should always, even in that case, be nonaggression. The law shouldn't protect you from retaliation just because you're weak.
Female abusers aren't taboo. Female abuse of men is funny don'tchyaknow-just watch the video if you don't believe me http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTnqcSVhbVg
Its kind of hard not to be, or to even be sure what being "sexist" is. The general fear / mistrust of men that I experience isnt how I choose to react to them, its how I feel. Is that sexist? If i heard a woman's voice when the pilot speaks to the passengers in an emergency, I'm probably not alone feeling I'd a lot rather hear a man's voice. Wouldn't you?
That's why I believe that it's wrong for people to use lethal force in self defense. Oftentimes, the use of deadly force is excessive to the situation. - - - Updated - - - Are there any stories which prove that to be true? Or is that just your speculation?
Here are some interesting stories.... Police say a Sterling Heights woman who was dressed as an abusive wife for a Halloween pub crawl she joined with her boyfriend dressed as the victim actually attacked him during a drunken rage and now faces domestic violence charges. http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2013/10...oyfriend-dressed-as-domestic-violence-victim/ SPRING HILL - Diana Foley was arrested Sunday night after hitting her boyfriend with a baseball bat and breaking his car's taillights, according to the Hernando County Sheriff's Office. http://hernandotoday.com/he/list/news/deputies-spring-hill-woman-beat-boyfriend-with-bat-20131112/ FULTON, N.Y. -- A Fulton woman is facing assault charges for allegedly beating her boyfriend with a wooden baseball bat. http://centralny.ynn.com/content/ne...ton-women-charged-after-assaulting-boyfriend/
Well it seems fairly common to me that it's the typical reaction of humans, that we don't want to face the consequences of our actions. I want to engage in risky behavior, but I don't want to face the consequences of AIDs, or have to pay for my treatment. I want to do illegal drugs, but I don't want to face the consequences of being caught, and it's societies fault if I lose my job, my family, or my life. Similarly, women have decided they want to act like men, but they don't want to face the consequences of acting like men. If a man hits another man in the face, chances are, he'll end up getting hit back. Women want to hit a man in the face, but they still want the safety of "you can't hit a women". So she can jump on top of you and start hitting you in the face, but you can't toss her across the room. Sorry, life doesn't work that way. You can say what you will about the Puritans, but the fact is, the women had a role of limitation, that also granted them safety and value of that role. Yes, women were not treated equally in every respect, but they were also granted great respect, and men believed that they should die to protect their women of high value. Today, the women have demanded, and largely gotten equality and eliminated the limitations of gender roles. However they have also lost the protection, and respect of those gender roles. Women in modern western society are largely taken for granted, held with low value, and are consider cheap and replaceable.... and honestly, they are. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/24/war-on-men/#ixzz2DMIwttg5
