SJWs are ruining everything we love

[SG854]

And what you are saying is exactly what SJW "Terrorists" want to eliminate from society, by making those "ugly" people mainstream and removing the Image of beauty that the media has engraved in our brains throughout the years, hence you see rants on why video game women are so scantily clad in games.

Notice I never said straight white male in my post, because males of all races can be misogynistic and it applies to all countries, Indian African Arabian etc.

Its not just women its males also on looks. Also does being black give a man oppression status, but being male make him an oppressor and removes that oppression status? How does the oppression rating system work? And how is it rated with all these nuances? Im sure everyone is coming up with their own number system. Which then makes it into a big mess. In order to address issues in society you need a clear goal with a clear definition. Or else everyone will define things on their own terms, and will be all over the place, and not accomplish anything.

And thus comes in intersectional feminism. But it seems like they can't get along with each other themselves, because feminists are further dividing into groups. The black female has more oppression status than the white female, and they argue with each other claiming one has more privilege. And from there even further dividing based on disability, sexual status, educational attainment and so on. Even feminists can't get along with each other. What they are doing is causing divide amongst themselves.

They even don't trust Male Feminists either. There are many articles published by feminists to be weary of male feminists, because they think many male feminists are just using their feminist title to try to get laid. Some even claim that left wing male feminist's are worse than right wing males. It seems like this movement is crumbling from the inside. Most people don't identify as feminist and even hate them. And many polls rates being a feminists to be very unpopular.

So Men dominating. My question is how did this happen? Why throughout history with many different cultures, cultures that never had contact with each other almost all ended up the same? With women being oppressed and men being dominant? Why is this so wide spread? Social construction can't explain this issue. For something so wide spread the only thing that can explain it is biological. People being biological pushed into certain areas. Or interpretation. Interpreting things as bad when in reality are not, or interpreting things as good when they are not. And their are infinite number of ways to interpret things. And many cultures are different.

Or people not understanding how societies were in the past and how they functioned. So they invented a hypothesis, one that has yet to be proven, that explains why this happens in society. All Feminist's believes in conflict theory. Conflict theory itself is a very limited ideology and explains some things in society but not all. It doesn't take into account all the nuances and complications, and is just a black and white approach into solving life issues. They realized this that life is more complicated, and created intersectionality and caused even further divide.

 

[Soulsilve2010]

I think there's a lack of gay mexicans in comic books. We should force those qualities on Static Shock. How does that make you feel, bro? :I

Yo,Static Shock is my #1 favorite hero.Please don't put that evil on him.

 

[notimp]

And what you are saying is exactly what SJW "Terrorists" want to eliminate from society, by making those "ugly" people mainstream and removing the Image of beauty that the media has engraved in our brains throughout the years, hence you see rants on why video game women are so scantily clad in games.

And in the 70s there was a movement to even allow scantily clad women into media, out of an era of oppression that made rules about "how long your skirts had to be", and how much showing shoulder was appropriate. Here is the ultimate "truth", if beauty affects decision making, which it does - beautiful people will always "use" it, even inadvertently.

Its a fact of life you cant regulate it away.

Also - regardless of what you are told I don't think "making ugly mainstream" is a big agenda point for SJW to begin with. But thats how recruiting works, you throw out stories, until one sticks with the person opposite you. Then you tell them, they can fight for that as long as they join you.

You now have a generation out there thats at peak vanity, obsessed with celebrity culture, narcissistic to a T, insulting themselves on social media to gain attention - and you are concerned about "making ugly mainstream"? To get a better catch when choosing a life partner? Because people usually arent "oppressed" by society - because they are ugly, or because they dont style themselves, or because they arent into fashion.

The thing with women "trying out being blond" at some point in their lives is, that they imagine a reaction - and I'm sure - at some level there is one.

Here is what you tell someone that doesnt want to follow "barbies style school - rules". They dont matter in nearly all aspects of life. If you dont want to follow them, dont follow them - your life will not be worse even in the slightest. You dont need a "social movement" to fight on your behalf for this one.

And when you are out on the prawl and you use any vices to make you feel more confident, or look more attractive - you arent getting slut shamed either. Dont overdo it, but to some extend its fun also.

Also yes, beauty works (different from styling, "beauty thats sold in product form in advertisements" - not so much "tha media" (unless ads are now media, you tell me social media influencers)) - and to some extend always will, and no one will ever change that. Its not the image thats transported by media - or otherwise, all those classical statues of greek goddesses or Michelangelos David wouldnt exist - because media back then, was a guy shouting at people in the middle of a public square.

Also In those cases I always channel a quote that gets attributed to Charles Bukowski, who wasnt a natural beauty in his own right (and also no high fellutant social player), that goes as following: "Feminism exists to integrate ugly women into society", and thats chauvinistic, and belitteling, but when you start to attack beauty in one of those social movements, thats what you get as a conter. And here is the trick, its populistic as well.

If you are fighting against the importance of beauty in peoples lives, you are fighting for a truly lost cause. Imho.

Also, no - I dont need all scantly clothed images of women in my video games - but once in a while - its a kink. Take 80% away if you must, but leave some..

 

[osaka35]

Let's bring some reality to the situation:

-Social Justice, as a concept, is a good thing. It is about empowering those people or populations who have had their power taken away unfairly. Usually this means things like making sure bob isn't fired just because you find out he's gay and that makes you feel icky. Why does Bob's sexual orientation have anything to do with his performance reviews? stuff like that. usually addressed through education, research, laws, training, etc. It's a wide range and applicable to pretty much anywhere humans go. This is why you see it crop up everywhere. Wherever humans interact, there's some sort of power dynamic. And that power dynamic needs to be equitable. Feminism is a type of social justice, for example, it just focuses more on female identity and related aspects.

-There are people who understand how to do things properly, and there are those who don't know their head from a turnip. It's best to distinguish the two, or else you'll wind up disregarding a concept or movement based on a few turnip heads. Which would be just plain silly. Don't take Anita sarkeesian to be a proper feminist. She's just in it for the money and fame. Look at research, look at those who have tangible plans rather than blanket statements. On games and equitability, instead of Anita sarkeesian, for example, watch Extra Credits.

-Old school people still use social justice warrior to mean those who fight for equity of all humans. Tumblr is full of turnip-heads and turned it into "if you disagree you're a nazi". Disregard tumblr and embrace people who live in reality. There are a lot of social problems out there, and we can only fix them by being able to be being mature enough to embrace harsh realities. Even if some tumblr folk say the "right" things, they could have come to those conclusions for all the wrong reasons. Which makes them wrong. If you can't show me how you got from point A to point B, then I'll assume you don't really know what you're talking about.

-Why do you care if a character changes gender/skin colour? Is it any different than having a different backstory or slightly different heritage? Humans tend to understand a concept and then never change it. It is incredibly difficult to dislodge a false belief, especially if this belief is the first of its kind in regards to the concept (and gets harder the older the belief). This is a maturity thing, though, and is overcome with effort and proper self-reflection (and again, maturity). Seriously, enjoy the fact there's diversity. Who wants to hear the same story over and over again? Let other people be represented, listen to their stories, hear different voices. Especially with created characters, let them explore the human condition from multiple angles. Course, there's also the problem of trying to represent but doing such a terrible job of it you just wind up making things worse.

-Do you honestly believe the influx of diversity is all due to creators being forced to craft stories with multiple cultures, peoples, and perspectives? Is it so difficult to believe there are those professional writers and artist folks who love all the same things you do, but look completely different and have a completely different background than you?

-How we go about it is important and requires discussion and dissection, but a lot of folks in this thread can't even seem to acknowledge that something needs to be done at all XD. Before you talk about methodology, talk about where we are now and what our goals are. THEN you can s̶h̶i̶t̶-t̶a̶l̶k̶ constructively weigh the merits of the methods used/suggested. Horse before the cart, people.

So Men dominating. My question is how did this happen? Why throughout history with many different cultures, cultures that never had contact with each other almost all ended up the same? With women being oppressed and men being dominant? Why is this so wide spread? Social construction can't explain this issue. For something so wide spread the only thing that can explain it is biological. People being biological pushed into certain areas. Or interpretation. Interpreting things as bad when in reality are not, or interpreting things as good when they are not. And their are infinite number of ways to interpret things. And many cultures are different.

It's a valid question, and one that's been explored quite a bit. Interestingly enough, it only happens after a culture has changed from hunter/gather to agricultural and settled down. Agriculture produces more and is more consistent, but it's also a lot harder than hunting/gathering.There are a few cultures that were/are female dominated, it's just ours were male, so those are the ones we think of. I thiiiiink the thinking is generally it just starts out as task separation (agriculture takes a lot of effort and variety of task compared to hunter/gatherer), but eventually turns into "that's just the way things are", which leads to people thinking "it's naturally that way and to fight it is ludicrous/evil". It could also be partly about rather than moving from hunting ground to hunting ground, you just stick to one spot. It's 50/50 pretty much, and that initial shift may just favour males because they don't get pregnant and have to slow down for 9 months. Or it could easily be something else minor and not relevant to today's culture. And really, a slight different in biology that snowballed into a lot of complete nonsense isn't much to justify a ton of oppression and baggage on.

 

[gameboy]

 

[matthi321]

yeah i noticed alot of more females in games the last years

 

[kumikochan]

https://www.quora.com/Can-an-amputee-serve-in-combat

Yeah, amputees can serve in combat situations and have been able to for a little while now. I'm also not exactly going to flaunt EA as the pinnacle of historical accuracy, but I'd imagine that in the thick of WWII they'd probably take just about anybody that could demonstrate capability of shooting a gun and humping their own gear

There weren't any woman soldiers tho. In the resistance there were female fighters but in the army itself not.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Although I do think changing the race of a character is something a bit too extreme, butwhat I mind more is the OP's hypocrisy here.

People who say women opress men haven't really been in their shoes, Right wing men really haven't experienced true misandry they are just against women speaking out recently. Women on the other hand have been under men's opression for centuries, same for the LGBT. I'd reckon instead of a Women's day we need a misandry month where men should really learn how it feels to be controlled.

Oh so you're also ignoring all those instances where women have the advantage ? You ever wondered why more males are homeless then women ? You ever wondered why there are more shelters for women ? Why is it okay for a man to give his life for a woman and he gets to be called a hero when he does and if he doesn't he will get called a coward but when a woman would give her life to protect a man from a gun or a knife attack most would start asking, why did she do that ? I can go on and on with examples where women have it better then men. I'm all for equality and i am not denying women have it worse in situations but that goes both ways okay. Funny when it is international women day they do like to mention how opressed they are and we all have to agree on that and praise them to fucking heaven but when it is international mens day not a single woman praises men online and just use that day to also talk about men opressing women. Here is a good video showing that

 

[gameboy]

and yet they havent added playable asians yet

 

[SG854]

It's a valid question, and one that's been explored quite a bit. Interestingly enough, it only happens after a culture has changed from hunter/gather to agricultural and settled down. Agriculture produces more and is more consistent, but it's also a lot harder than hunting/gathering.There are a few cultures that were/are female dominated, it's just ours were male, so those are the ones we think of. I thiiiiink the thinking is generally it just starts out as task separation (agriculture takes a lot of effort and variety of task compared to hunter/gatherer), but eventually turns into "that's just the way things are", which leads to people thinking "it's naturally that way and to fight it is ludicrous/evil". It could also be partly about rather than moving from hunting ground to hunting ground, you just stick to one spot. It's 50/50 pretty much, and that initial shift may just favour males because they don't get pregnant and have to slow down for 9 months. Or it could easily be something else minor and not relevant to today's culture. And really, a slight different in biology that snowballed into a lot of complete nonsense isn't much to justify a ton of oppression and baggage on.

The physical strength difference in Men and Women is astounding. Constantly Women professional college and olympic athletes gets slaughtered by high school 15 year old boys. Whether it's in basketball, soccer/football, tennis and many other sports. And its not just a close call either. Its actually a huge embarrassing defeat. I constantly hear stories of 15 year boys defeating grown professional women that have more experience and organization.

Hardly stories on women winning which is once in a blue moon. I saw a game where a male soccer/football team defeated a female basketball team in basketball. They defeated women in their own specialty sport. You can train all you want as a women but the huge biological difference in strength, muscle mass, reflex and bone density is hugely noticeable.

Societies in the past didn't have the technologies and machines we have today to help with farming. So it was all physical labor by own strength. Society divided roles between men and women's best attributes to be more productive. Men had the more physically demanding jobs. And women had the less physically intense jobs, home care. Giving women physically demanding jobs was not smart, and you'll produce less at the end of the day, decreasing survival. This is one aspect I don't think people consider when trying to define the past.

There is also a few historical records of newspaper articles showing that wife beating was not acceptable. And wife beaters were punished. Sometimes the law wasn't quick enough so people took the law into their own hands. How wide spread was wife beating I don't know.
But there are a couple of records that shows there were people against it.

Any man that beat his wife they would send him to jail, put him in chain gangs, sometimes a mob will form dump tar and feathers and chase the man out of town, males were whipped at a whipping post, they put men in pillory's, sometimes a angry mob would kill the man. They were a lot more violent against wife beaters back then.

 

[Evoc]

This thread is dangerous if you haven't watched the new Avengers.

 

[gameboy]

The physical strength difference in Men and Women is astounding. Constantly Women professional college and olympic athletes gets slaughtered by high school 15 year old boys. Whether it's in basketball, soccer/football, tennis and many other sports. And its not just a close call either. Its actually a huge embarrassing defeat. I constantly hear stories of 15 year boys defeating grown professional women that have more experience and organization.

Hardly stories on women winning which is once in a blue moon. I saw a game where a male soccer/football team defeated a female basketball team in basketball. They defeated women in their own specialty sport. You can train all you want as a women but the huge biological difference in strength, muscle mass, reflex and bone density is hugely noticeable.

Societies in the past didn't have the technologies and machines we have today to help with farming. So it was all physical labor by own strength. Society divided roles between men and women's best attributes to be more productive. Men had the more physically demanding jobs. And women had the less physically intense jobs, home care. Giving women physically demanding jobs was not smart, and you'll produce less at the end of the day, decreasing survival. This is one aspect I don't think people consider when trying to define the past.

There is also a few historical records of newspaper articles showing that wife beating was not acceptable. And wife beaters were punished. Sometimes the law wasn't quick enough so people took the law into their own hands. How wide spread was wife beating I don't know.
But there are a couple of records that shows there were people against it.

Any man that beat his wife they would send him to jail, put him in chain gangs, sometimes a mob will form dump tar and feathers and chase the man out of town, males were whipped at a whipping post, they put men in pillory's, sometimes a angry mob would kill the man. They were a lot more violent against wife beaters back then.

ive never understood how theres a regulation size basketball then theres 'womens size' basketball like theyre less than people. Just play with the same regulation sized ball please... and my freshman team blew out the girls state runner up team the first week of freshman practice, they didnt score a point... ive gotten burned in sprints by girls though, and i was a 11.25 100m dash guy, burned in the 400m not the 100m

 

[notimp]

Social engagement is important. And in many western countries a large part of the population is engaged in it, after they leave the active work force - and can get mobilized by communities for that cause.

SJW though is a social movement with certain ideals, certain goals, and certain perspectives. Just because they have "social" in the title - doesnt mean, that you'd know their orientation by default. They are rather radical (not extremist, but...), they acted for large parts unconfronted, they have a very distinct hierarchical structure, they have an issue with free speech, and are not beyond a certain portion of "human intervention" to achieve their goals.

Simply put - as a movement, its not innocent.

If you want to hear the voice of someone (rather centralist, even left leaning) that was on the opposing side of them - you can look at the following lecture:


And here is a video from one of their induction training courses (less reputable source - but the video clip is unfiltered)
h**ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUEgTaM28ls&t=12m30s

And while this might have been unnoticed in public - there is pushback mounting in academia. For many of the (if you can consider me impartial) right reasons.

When I said that prominent branches of them "compete" on grounds of "having been more oppressed than others" to gain rank, or that are outright "racist" in their own right - thats not an exaggeration.

As always with movements - be careful, who you are following.

Also as far as discrimination in the workplace goes "if you can act" - the law in western countries is on you side, if you can document it - and there are institutions you can reach out to, if you require help - you dont necessarily need SJWers for that (might depend on your country).

I've nothing against the feministic cause, in fact I sat in one or two seminars with that orientation during my years in university, to "see what its all about" - and even when being in "dont say anything, take in the impressions mode" - there was always the notion of the other gender as the "foe" and the respective professor wounldnt like to look at me, from day one. The self empowerment part is fine - looking at ways to get women into higher places in society is recommendable -- but at the end of the day, their clientel in my experience is specialized, and not representative of a general movement, that most women would identify with. If its ok, to say so. At least thats the sense I've got.

 

[Priestiality]

There weren't any woman soldiers tho. In the resistance there were female fighters but in the army itself not.

Uh, there were a lot of women soldiers. In fact, there was an entire branch of the British military made up solely of women (Auxiliary Territorial Service). Queen Elizabeth II was an enlisted member. Just because they weren't on the front lines doesn't make them not soldiers. The newbie in basic training, the infantry on the front line, the sergeant, and the mechanic are ALL enlisted members, and therefore all soldiers, so uh, you're wrong.

 

[kumikochan]

and yet they havent added playable asians yet

Thank god for all the women who died protecting all our men ! I salute you !!!

Uh, there were a lot of women soldiers. In fact, there was an entire branch of the British military made up solely of women (Auxiliary Territorial Service). Queen Elizabeth II was an enlisted member. Just because they weren't on the front lines doesn't make them not soldiers. The newbie in basic training, the infantry on the front line, the sergeant, and the mechanic are ALL enlisted members, and therefore all soldiers, so uh, you're wrong.

Well in that regard medics were also soldiers but you knew what i meant. No need to be difficult about it. Then they should add female soldiers at a base camp in the game and not open in the field right in the frontlines with wehrmacht clothes on and a british accent

 

[Priestiality]

Thank god for all the women who died protecting all our men ! I salute you !!!

Well in that regard medics were also soldiers but you knew what i meant. No need to be difficult about it. Then they should add female soldiers at a base camp in the game and not open in the field right in the frontlines with wehrmacht clothes on and a british accent

Maybe you should try asking an actual enlisted member of the service whether medics and mechanics are "real" soldiers.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Uh, there were a lot of women soldiers. In fact, there was an entire branch of the British military made up solely of women (Auxiliary Territorial Service). Queen Elizabeth II was an enlisted member. Just because they weren't on the front lines doesn't make them not soldiers. The newbie in basic training, the infantry on the front line, the sergeant, and the mechanic are ALL enlisted members, and therefore all soldiers, so uh, you're wrong.

As we all know, though, men only invented female soldiers in the early 1990s, so it's completely historically inaccurate to show them on the battlefield before then

 

[osaka35]

As we all know, though, men only invented female soldiers in the early 1990s, so it's completely historically inaccurate to show them on the battlefield before then

For which culture? Like, US culture? We haven't been around that long, historically speaking I want to say a lot of cultures had female warriors, though men tend to be on the forefront because of muscles.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

For which culture? Like, US culture? We haven't been around that long, historically speaking

All of them (except Japan, Disney made a 1:1 historical documentary about some gal named Mulan)

Although, snark aside, people seem to be under the impression that the Civil War, for instance, was 100% male, and completely disregard both the females that fought in male uniforms and the thousands of battlefield nurses who also risked their lives to save others'

 

[osaka35]

All of them (except Japan, Disney made a 1:1 historical documentary about some gal named Mulan)

Although, snark aside, people seem to be under the impression that the Civil War, for instance, was 100% male, and completely disregard both the females that fought in male uniforms and the thousands of battlefield nurses who also risked their lives to save others'

Oh, no I agree, I thought you were arguing in the other direction X'D I was confused. I know there are a lot of cultures in the past that have had women on the front line. though I can't think of any off the top of my head.

 

[mituzora]

I've seen a few people complain about the fact that they're going to focus on elasti-girl potentially in the next incredibles movie. I just stopped by to point out that if you go by American history, about the time this movie happens, is about the same time the feminist movements began to happen. So if you want, get mad at it, but you'd be getting mad at chronologically accurate themes.

That and, SJWs are annoying yes, but only the radical vocal minority. Most of the "SJWs" I have met are honestly not that bad, and can usually take a joke better than most of your radical right male anti-SJW snowflakes. You just take the vocal minority and apply that rule to a whole group, which is in my opinion, just as bad as a SJW attacking a specific media for portraying women scantily clad, but ignoring the fact that men in the same media have similar, if not identical problems.

Both radical sides are annoying as hell, most of the rest of us just want to enjoy our media the way it is. if changes get made, fine. I'd rather take my opinion on something and judge if it's a good decision based off of this little elusive thing in today as the actual content, and not a few characters/concepts changed. sure it may suck, but if the media is still good, then it's good, who cares if the characters change.