Page 93 of 202 FirstFirst ... 43839192939495103143193 ... LastLast
Results 1,841 to 1,860 of 4040
  1. #1841
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus thegooseking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Three miles from the nearest bus stop
    Posts
    1,133
    Oddly, if videogames had indeed been going since 1873 as this site's tagline claims, they might well have been seen as a more female pursuit.

  2. #1842
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,644
    Quote Originally Posted by L_No View Post
    And I'm glad you do. I'm afraid I do not fully understand what you meant with your post though, care to explain? (my post was directed at Mohorovicic, in case that was not clear).
    Just being sarcastic, is all. Not to you. To others, who actually spout evopsych bullshit like I was mocking.

  3. #1843
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,644
    Quote Originally Posted by thegooseking View Post
    Oddly, if videogames had indeed been going since 1873 as this site's tagline claims, they might well have been seen as a more female pursuit.
    Nonsense, once women got the vote, all sexism evaporated instantly, because cultural inertia is a myth.

  4. #1844
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus thegooseking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Three miles from the nearest bus stop
    Posts
    1,133
    Quote Originally Posted by Serenegoose View Post
    Just being sarcastic, is all. Not to you. To others, who actually spout evopsych bullshit like I was mocking.
    As I said in another thread (or was it this one? I've lost track), whatever the validity of evo psych, it only ever claims to be an 'is', not an 'ought'. Using it to justify attitudes and behaviours is wrong for that reason alone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Serenegoose View Post
    Nonsense, once women got the vote, all sexism evaporated instantly, because cultural inertia is a myth.
    I was more making dual-pronged fun of both the Victorian attitude that trivial things are for women and the current attitude that video games are trivial. I guess that didn't come across.
    Last edited by thegooseking; 02-08-2013 at 09:32 AM.

  5. #1845
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Tritagonist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    1,571
    Quote Originally Posted by L_No View Post
    Gwathdring makes a good point: for quite a long time, women were not expected to work, which was "explained" by a lot of bulls--t about the "natural qualities" of women that would make them unfit for the workplace.
    To be fair, what he's saying is it was unaccepted for women to work in certain positions. Most women have always worked because living on a single income has been, and remains so today, a luxury few families can afford. World history, in other words, is not upper-class Victorian England or 1950s America.
    "He has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to
    the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free". ~
    Luke 4:18

  6. #1846
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,644
    Quote Originally Posted by thegooseking View Post
    I was more making dual-pronged fun of both the Victorian attitude that trivial things are for women and the current attitude that video games are trivial. I guess that didn't come across.
    On the contrary, my response is what didn't come across. My apologies.

  7. #1847
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus thegooseking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Three miles from the nearest bus stop
    Posts
    1,133
    Quote Originally Posted by Tritagonist View Post
    World history, in other words, is not upper-class Victorian England or 1950s America.
    Well, let's be clear here. I would love it if I could get away with not working, but the problem in those cultures wasn't that women "weren't allowed" to work, but that they were expected to work while simultaneously labouring under the attitude that what they were doing "didn't count" as work.

  8. #1848
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Xercies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,325
    That's why you never see a woman interested in a soccer match. You never see a woman thinking poker or table tennis is a great way to spend an evening. They just don't care about this kind of activity. You can argue why they don't care, but that's ultimately irrelevant. The point is, videogames are "sexist" because women don't play games,not the other way around.


    I guess you never saw the Olympics...

  9. #1849
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,069
    Quote Originally Posted by gwathdring View Post
    ... er. Women don't play table tennis, poker, or soccer in significant numbers? I think this thread is a window into another universe. We do not live in the same universe.
    For someone who loves to point out how much superior he is over all those scientists who don't know how to do research and are like, wrong all the time you sure do like unquantifable statements.

    No, women do not play sports in "significant numbers" when compared to men. Neither as a leisure activity nor as an occupation(professional athlete). I'm not even touching the rest of your post because a) it has nothing to do with videogames at this point and b) it's obvious you will bend backwards and come up with the most ridiculous nonsense just to back up your stance("research shows that men are on average stronger than women? When then the research was conducted wrong and scientists don't know what they're doing! Capitalists don't make videogames for women? Well then they're so deeply brainwashed they don't even realize it! AND they don't know how to do market research anyway!" etc.)

    Quote Originally Posted by L-No
    Gwathdring makes a good point: for quite a long time, women were not expected to work, which was "explained" by a lot of bulls--t about the "natural qualities" of women that would make them unfit for the workplace.
    No, it was explained by the fact that housekeeping is, in itself, work and that one should take care of the children/house while the other is out hunting/farming/working(depending on the era). But of course liberals don't care about things like logic, reason or practicability and their only goal is to make everyone equal even(especially!) if it kills them, so we ended up with current social model that benefits no one - not men(because doubling the workforce caused salary drop that made the earlier man works-woman housekeeps model impossible), not women(as before, plus they have to work and still do the housekeeping anyway later for double the load), and children least of all(because both parents are working now so there's nobody to take care of 'em).

    Anyway back on topic, no, evolution didn't "program women millions of years ago in anticipation of videogames", just like it didn't program them millions of years ago in anticipation of romantic comedies. It's just that, and this will remain true no matter how long and hard liberals will jam fists in their ears, men and women are different, they have different physiologies(really? Don't they teach that in high school anymore?), they have different psychology, and as such are predisposited to - shock and horror - enjoy different things. And if you have a problem with this to the extent that you're going to make up bullshit to prove that this isn't the case, you're the one who's sexist.

  10. #1850
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,644
    I enjoy videogames, and so do all of my female friends. Your argument is wrong.

    And you're a prick.

  11. #1851
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Zephro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,920
    Quote Originally Posted by Mohorovicic View Post
    they have different psychology, and as such are predisposited to - shock and horror - enjoy different things.
    Wow you proved this is entirely genetic? I mean you didn't actually cite anything of note compared to the rebuttals. But I certainly want to read your thesis, pretty sure it would get you the Nobel prize if you have actually proved that.

    Also predisposed is a word.

    Anyway my general thoughts on the video were:
    That it has a bit more content and bite to it which is good.
    The Spice Girls thing was massively iffy.
    She does come across as a bit humourless at times, that might just be the academic approach. It's also entirely besides the point.

    Also she listed lots of games she liked and broke the mould for this. Which I believe was an earlier criticism no?

    Anyway good vid, though i probably have to re-watch it when not half out of it on medication.

  12. #1852
    Lesser Hivemind Node L_No's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    954
    Quote Originally Posted by Mohorovicic View Post
    No, women do not play sports in "significant numbers" when compared to men. Neither as a leisure activity nor as an occupation(professional athlete). I'm not even touching the rest of your post because a) it has nothing to do with videogames at this point and b) it's obvious you will bend backwards and come up with the most ridiculous nonsense just to back up your stance("research shows that men are on average stronger than women? When then the research was conducted wrong and scientists don't know what they're doing! Capitalists don't make videogames for women? Well then they're so deeply brainwashed they don't even realize it! AND they don't know how to do market research anyway!" etc.)



    No, it was explained by the fact that housekeeping is, in itself, work and that one should take care of the children/house while the other is out hunting/farming/working(depending on the era). But of course liberals don't care about things like logic, reason or practicability and their only goal is to make everyone equal even(especially!) if it kills them, so we ended up with current social model that benefits no one - not men(because doubling the workforce caused salary drop that made the earlier man works-woman housekeeps model impossible), not women(as before, plus they have to work and still do the housekeeping anyway later for double the load), and children least of all(because both parents are working now so there's nobody to take care of 'em).

    Anyway back on topic, no, evolution didn't "program women millions of years ago in anticipation of videogames", just like it didn't program them millions of years ago in anticipation of romantic comedies. It's just that, and this will remain true no matter how long and hard liberals will jam fists in their ears, men and women are different, they have different physiologies(really? Don't they teach that in high school anymore?), they have different psychology, and as such are predisposited to - shock and horror - enjoy different things. And if you have a problem with this to the extent that you're going to make up bullshit to prove that this isn't the case, you're the one who's sexist.
    I'm sorry Mohorovicic, but your statements are getting so incoherent and ridiculous it's almost impossible to give a proper reply. "Liberals don't care about things like logic, reason or practicability"? Who the hell was talking about liberalism? Is the concept of people, men and women, finding paid work outside the house more gratifying than cleaning a toilet or cooking a meal for an entire family so alien to you? Do you seriously believe that one can fill a working week with housework, making it necessary that one of two partners has to stay at home to do it? I do not in the least understand why stimulating women to have a life outside of housework and family should be a "liberal" pursuit, or what biological differences have to do with it.

  13. #1853
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Cooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,108
    Quote Originally Posted by Mohorovicic View Post
    not women(as before, plus they have to work and still do the housekeeping anyway later for double the load), and children least of all
    Err... No.

    The 'logical' conlusion of women working is not that they have to do the housework as well. It's that home-making should be a shared activity. Not that culture is logical, but your argument there (and elsewhere in that post, but this was the most glaring) is incorrect and based upon sexist assumptions about the position of women vis-a-vis the public and private spheres of life.
    Quote Originally Posted by CROCONOUGHTKEY
    KING GEORGE IS A FROG
    le BANG~__-MICHEAL FUCK OFF~~__-INTERPOL KNOW YOU WELLBIENG~—
    OFF
    NOT RUSHMORE MOUNTAIN
    KILL WESTON KILL MUST KILLTHEWESTERNINMYHEADDOESN’TEXSIST
    TEXASISDEADINPARISHEWASAMAN..BINGBING.TETTOHEAD.SP ACEOK,TIMEDEADANDSTOPPED1920HOKKAIDO.UNDERSTOODAT1 ONE.
    UNDERSTANDTHISANDFUCKOFFPIRATEBAY.TIMEDOESNTEXSIST FORMEASIMPATEKPHILLPE.
    BANG

  14. #1854
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,079
    Mohorovicic, I'm also going to question that we live on the same planet. Where in the name of goodness do you live? Because in Boston the legions of female sports fans are sure as heck not into it because their boyfriends are.

    Besides, where there is discrepancy in terms of playership or viewership of sports and videogames I think it vastly more likely that it is mostly or entirely due to cultural conditioning, a sense of what men and women should and are expected to like. In which case, it's is also just as likely that cultural shift will allow more people to participate in and enjoy the things that we mens enjoy. Wouldn't you want that? Even if it's just a pretty good chance rather than a certainty shouldn't we give that a go?

  15. #1855
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Lambchops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Nottingham
    Posts
    1,241
    So has this thread resurfaced because there is a new video or do we all just want to throw stones at each other again?

    If the former then I guess I'll have to watch it and no doubt broadly agree whilst having a few quibbles with particular points or the presentation just like last time.

    ----

    Also regarding sport, Mohorovic, how do you explain the sports in which there are higher levels of female participation such as netball, hockey (certainly in the UK), lacrosse etc or relatively even such as tennis?

    On a women in sport related kind of side note I feel it's an appropriate time to post about the awesome Kathrine Switzer, she's great:

    Last edited by Lambchops; 02-08-2013 at 01:04 PM.

  16. #1856
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Cooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,108
    Quote Originally Posted by Mohorovicic View Post
    Anyway back on topic, no, evolution didn't "program women millions of years ago in anticipation of videogames", just like it didn't program them millions of years ago in anticipation of romantic comedies. It's just that, and this will remain true no matter how long and hard liberals will jam fists in their ears, men and women are different, they have different physiologies(really? Don't they teach that in high school anymore?), they have different psychology, and as such are predisposited to - shock and horror - enjoy different things. And if you have a problem with this to the extent that you're going to make up bullshit to prove that this isn't the case, you're the one who's sexist.
    The Ecological Fallacy
    Quote Originally Posted by CROCONOUGHTKEY
    KING GEORGE IS A FROG
    le BANG~__-MICHEAL FUCK OFF~~__-INTERPOL KNOW YOU WELLBIENG~—
    OFF
    NOT RUSHMORE MOUNTAIN
    KILL WESTON KILL MUST KILLTHEWESTERNINMYHEADDOESN’TEXSIST
    TEXASISDEADINPARISHEWASAMAN..BINGBING.TETTOHEAD.SP ACEOK,TIMEDEADANDSTOPPED1920HOKKAIDO.UNDERSTOODAT1 ONE.
    UNDERSTANDTHISANDFUCKOFFPIRATEBAY.TIMEDOESNTEXSIST FORMEASIMPATEKPHILLPE.
    BANG

  17. #1857
    Lesser Hivemind Node Winged Nazgul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    622
    Quote Originally Posted by arathain View Post
    Mohorovicic, I'm also going to question that we live on the same planet. Where in the name of goodness do you live? Because in Boston the legions of female sports fans are sure as heck not into it because their boyfriends are.
    Yeah, I wonder about that myself.

    http://imgur.com/ORodk

  18. #1858
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    230
    Increasing the working population depresses incomes? Women haven't been in (non-house)work throughout history? Sure, it's 'liberals' who are detached from logic and reason ...

    As for female participation in sport, you're talking about something that's been continually increasing from a low baseline. If you'd suggested the levels of female participation (in both sport and the audience for sport) we have now to a reactionary forty years ago, they'd have called it preposterous.

  19. #1859
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by Mohorovicic View Post


    No, it was explained by the fact that housekeeping is, in itself, work and that one should take care of the children/house while the other is out hunting/farming/working(depending on the era). But of course liberals don't care about things like logic, reason or practicability and their only goal is to make everyone equal even(especially!) if it kills them, so we ended up with current social model that benefits no one - not men(because doubling the workforce caused salary drop that made the earlier man works-woman housekeeps model impossible), not women(as before, plus they have to work and still do the housekeeping anyway later for double the load), and children least of all(because both parents are working now so there's nobody to take care of 'em).
    While your post paints you out as a grade A berk(women don't play sports? Have you actually met any women?) it's this bit that really makes me chuckle.

    As it has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, the whole "Mummy stay at home" nuclear family is a historical anomaly that occurred for a relatively tiny portion of history.

    Biology does affect the way men and women think, but its funny how it politely falls in line behind your narrow minded, outdated mode of thought. And please, don't talk about "liberals" if all you're going to use is the stupid, bogey-man Republican party conception of the word. Liberals have always used reason and logic as the basis of their ideology. In fact, their over reliance on it over tradition and pragmatism has been a criticism used against them by conservatives.

  20. #1860
    Activated Node
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by Dolphan View Post
    Increasing the working population depresses incomes? Women haven't been in (non-house)work throughout history? Sure, it's 'liberals' who are detached from logic and reason ...
    Everyone is middle class, preferably upper-middle class. Fancy you not knowing a thing like that.

    On a more serious note, if women receive equal pay and do equal amounts of work (including unpayed work in the home), then the impact of men's incomes is lessened. Consider a boring ol' heterosexual marriage: husband has 'real' job, gets paycheck to support wife, wife does free household work, she probably has an underpayed part-time job on the side. This leaves all the power with the guy who gets a paycheck: he may get payed in a private account rather than a shared account, he has a pension, he gets to call the shots and he keeps the job -and the pension- if they break up. If his wife suddenly gets a 'real' job as well, they might be making twice as much money, but he only has half the power.

    Also, I'm pretty sure that when the income of the average household increases, the cost of living goes up (or rather, everybody starts taking more luxuries for granted), so then more incomes actually would mean that each income is worth less.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •