Sexist or not? The Naughty Witcher

[Scowl]

But what does discrimination in the workplace have to do with the witcher? Or fuck, video games period?

If you look at the post, you will see that it was a direct response to the claim that feminists don't have a case. The point is that sexism does exist, has been proven to exist, and therefore feminists most certainly do have a case.

That particular point has as much to do with video games as the original post that it was in response to.

If you look hard enough, you'll find sexism/racism/classism in every facet of life. The fact that video games are even on their radar just proves that they don't have anything better to piss and moan about.

This assumes that people just sit around sifting through all manner of media to look for any little thing to complain about. What is more often the case is that someone is just enjoying a movie/show/game/whatever when something that may cause concern is unexpectedly encountered.

Do you see men angrily blogging about how they're displayed as barrel chested mouth breathing he-man clones in games?

First off, that image/concept has never been used to oppress men as a gender, ever, in any way whatsoever. There is no negative psychological or social impact on men. Second, it's hard to oppress men when the world is male-dominated. And third, plenty of men do angrily blog about the issues that concern them the most.

 

[Phil the Nuka-Cola Dude]

If you look at the post, you will see that it was a direct response to the claim that feminists don't have a case. The point is that sexism does exist, has been proven to exist, and therefore feminists most certainly do have a case.

That particular point has as much to do with video games as the original post that it was in response to.

Again, whining about contextually accurate (or inaccurate, it matters not) portrayal of women in video games is idiotic and only damages their cause. Shit, and they wonder why nobody takes them seriously.

This assumes that people just sit around sifting through all manner of media to look for any little thing to complain about. What is more often the case is that someone is just enjoying a movie/show/game/whatever when something that may cause concern is unexpectedly encountered.

Then they don't need to play it. If I was offended by french fries, you wouldn't find me eating at mcdonalds every day bitching to everyone within earshot that they're serving offensive potatoes, and then going home to blog about it.

First off, that image/concept has never been used to oppress men as a gender, ever, in any way whatsoever. There is no negative psychological or social impact on men. Second, it's hard to oppress men when the world is male-dominated. And third, plenty of men do angrily blog about the issues that concern them the most.

Just too ridiculous to comment further.

 

[Ravager69]

BTW anyone ever seen an editorial solely about women faults, written by a man?

Dude, stop being sexist.

Guess I didn't exactly made my point with previous posts. Encouraged by that article, I started this thread because it worries me that there is increasingly more women ranting about how they are mistreated and are sex objects only, while they never faced *real* oppression like women in Islam countries for example. Our societies are sexist and it will take time and effort to change it, but it is already happening. And this article or any behaviour similar to it is not a part of that effort IMO. These changes are introduced by strong-willed women leading by example, not by some chick that feels the urge to contain sexism in everything she sees. If she does write an article like, then I doubt she is so confident and unbiased as she claims to be (I guess same can be said about me, but oh well, I never said I'm not prejudiced).

This so called feminists are doing exactly the same thing they are fighting with, which is kinda hypocritical. Like it or not, few people can fight something or someone without eventually hating it and becoming the same, which BTW is exactly shown in the Witcher on the Squirells. Somehow that little fact is ignored - she says nothing on the overall message of the game, moral dillemas or the fact that you can engage in a serious relationship with a woman in it, all that is mentioned is the misfortunate approach to sex with random women (guess the authors aren't simply the silver-tounged devils doing scores of chicks themselves, so it is kinda understandable they don't know how to show it). It'd be nice if she'd analyze the whole thing, not only the parts that don't fit her.

I think most of you will admit that this kind of narrow-view analyzis so common to nowadays "feminists" (fighting for women rights is OK - demanding from every man on the planet to be gentleman is not) can do nothing more than worsen the relations between the genders.

And for fuck's sake, making a website committed solely to write feministic articles is ridiculous. What's worse, this goes even further - we got ourselves a Women Party here in Poland - political organisation committed to improving women position in our country (fortununatly they didn't make in the last election), though they also accept men into their ranks. They more or less say "men suck at politics, it is time for women to do it properly". How can you get more sexist than this?

 

[HoKa]

Just point those feminists to the nearest Triss and watch them wallow in their own bewilderment.

 

[fedaykin]

I think most of you will admit that this kind of narrow-view analyzis so common to nowadays "feminists" (fighting for women rights is OK - demanding from every man on the planet to be gentleman is not) can do nothing more than worsen the relations between the genders.

Narrow-view analyzis? Judging by your poor spelling and, frankly, hillbillyish way of thought, it's obvious that you've never read anything written by even a single feminist scholar (the article discussed in this thread doesn't count as scholarly). Your narrow view of feminists stems from the rantings of your angry neighborhood lesbian and a few girls who think feminism is "kewl". You know nothing about how feminist scholars analyse the subject of women in society. But sure, for you it's easier to pick out the less informed opinions and conclude, with the help of some strawmanning, that feminism must be stupid.

 

[Ravager69]

But sure, for you it's easier to pick out the less informed opinions and conclude, with the help of some strawmanning, that feminism must be stupid.

Dude, I'm not talking about THE FEMINISTS, as I understand and acknowledge gender equality (have you noticed that I used the word feminists in quotes?), but this kind of behaviour (bitching, that is) will only get you the opposite effect. Though I admit my spelling is rather poor, English isn't my native language. Still, I apologize for the numerous mistakes I make and I promise I'll use the vocabulary more often.

True, I don't read much real feministic press, but this thread isn't really about it. I am talking about the feministic wannabes popping out everywhere nowadays, ranting on how men suck and how women are far superior to us. I think they simply forgot that equality can be gained only through respect and this has to go both ways, so they should think before flaming the male gender so often.

*EDIT* I just read the comments and this one describes my point better than I could:

I find it difficult to accept that the presentation of certain storytelling and characterization should be re-dressed in a political fashion.

Geralt of Rivia is despite political sensibilities both heterosexual and promiscuous, these are elements of his character. What is more important is that he is famous. Geralt of Rivia is something of a medieval James Bond, does this diminish the sexist idea and sensibilities? Certainly not, Fleming's legendary character has committed the same aforementioned crimes endlessly though it is more readily accepted as a tenet of his more famous and developed character.

The assertation that sex is never "refused" is because of the tale, not the gender's involved. The story is suppose to have the central character as a "desired sexually" figure. I, personally would have no qualms about reversing the genders, or offering same sex interactions it's simply in this setting and for this character inconsistent. Many may and I agree that then IS sexist, but the lack of those options are not unto themselves sexist, anger or resentment at their inclusion would be sexist, but because the authors did not feel it was character consistent, that is not necessarily sexist.

Despite this, I am certainly not foolish enough to believe that throughout society and pop culture there isn't a problem with sexism. One may target the authors and artists and their own issues, but such things are not always completely simpatico with political issues, stories and art to not always developed with a keen sense of making such statements and it's unfair to even think that they should.

Nonetheless the real problem I have with your opinion of the issue is a certain "putting words into peoples mouths" your awareness of the issues here are to be praised, you quality of expression admired, your disrespect of the source material and the many that have engaged in playing the game, even the "collecting" side of it, are purely blinded to these issues due to the commonplace nature of sexism in society is offensive.

I completely disagree with the Gamespot quote you used in the original post, and felt that Geralt's unrelenting promiscuity continued to add to his character, I understood his behavior and got a chuckle out of his hammy, inept but effective (purely due to his fame and often bravery) charms. Whether that makes the character or the story sexist was irrelevant, it is part of telling the story and whether one approves or not, of developing the character.

On top of all that, the title unto itself attacks a number of broad social and political issues, each and every one of them with a great touch of maturity and even handed respect. It may fail to do that with sexism due to the nature of the character and the story but any form of media targeted an a demographic that is 95% male is likely to have such problems.

So again, I completely respect and am impressed by your post, but spare a thought for the average heterosexual male, whom is not always a sexist fool, and can see these issues and yet still embrace a character with all his flaws and without believing that he must stand on a higher political ground

.

 

[Iridium L]

What's your solution to that? Ban women from appearing in porn? That would be a violation of their rights, and if you go down that path you might as well ban them from wearing revealing clothing. It's their choice to do porn.

I don't have a solution. And to think that women have the choice to not do porn is pretty shortsighted. In a lot of east-european and ex-USSR countrys, people have problems to earn a living with a normal job, especially women. Don't you think they'd rather take another job that pays as much than whore themselves out? In my opinion, the bigger picture has to be fixed for that particular symptom to vanish.

What next generation? Porn has been around for decades.

But it wasn't as readily available to impressionable minds before the internet.


P.S. I'm no prude, I'm as visually stimulated by porn as the next guy. I just prefer labels that treat their girls right and boycott some that do not.

/off-topic

 

[failout]

Women often earn less than a man for doing exactly the same job. Proven fact.

It has also been proven that this wage gap is often a result of women not working as much as men and not having as much interest in a high wage.

In many countries, women were not allowed to vote until some point in the 20th century. Discrimination of women was daily routine for ages and still isn't extinct. So saying feminists don't have a case is just not true.

So what does any of that have to do with Western feminism in the 21st century? Unless they intend to build a time machine to alter the past, you are just proving my point by demonstrating that they no longer have anything to do because the problems have already been fixed. Today's feminism has nothing to do with equality, and although feminists would have plenty of work to do in places like Africa and the Middle East, they couldn't care less about those places. White heterosexual Western men are their only concern.

Second, it's hard to oppress men when the world is male-dominated.

Men are not oppressed at all? Not persecuted for their religion, ethinicity, sexual orientation or political views? Not subjected to violent crime, not tortured in prisons? Not forced to fight in wars? Not suffering from poverty and disease?

There are of course more minor problems too, like having great difficulty gaining custody of children (women are favored over men) being forced to surrender all or most of their property in a divorce for no reason in particular, and being forced to pay child support for the next few decades because some woman lied about being on the pill in order to get pregnant. It's also not uncommon for men to get longer prison sentences than women for the same crimes.

I don't have a solution. And to think that women have the choice to not do porn is pretty shortsighted. In a lot of east-european and ex-USSR countrys, people have problems to earn a living with a normal job, especially women. Don't you think they'd rather take another job that pays as much than whore themselves out? In my opinion, the bigger picture has to be fixed for that particular symptom to vanish.

This problem has nothing to do with porn.

But it wasn't as readily available to impressionable minds before the internet.

If the impressionable minds who saw porn in the pre-Internet era didn't turn into crazed rapists, there's no reason to believe that it will happen today either.

 

[Scowl]

It has also been proven that this wage gap is often a result of women not working as much as men and not having as much interest in a high wage.

Getting paid less for the same job means less money for the same work. Working less means less money for less work, which no one is arguing against.

Also, are you saying that anyone in this world is completely fine with being paid less money than another person who is doing the same job with the same effort and the same output? Because that's what the wage gap means. No one is saying that a housewife should earn the same amount of money as a male corporate executive; what people are saying is that a female executive should make the same as a male executive of the same education/ability/seniority level. It has been proven that they don't and that, taking all other factors as equal, there is a real wage disparity and glass ceiling. That is the heart of the issue about the wage difference.

Men are not oppressed at all? Not persecuted for their religion, ethinicity, sexual orientation or political views? Not subjected to violent crime, not tortured in prisons? Not forced to fight in wars? Not suffering from poverty and disease?

Men have never been oppressed on the basis of gender. Women have. Women are also subject to the same manners of oppression that you've just listed aside from being forced to fight in wars (if anyone is going to nitpick), although their role in war is usually worse than that of a soldier. If you believe that "real" women's issues have all disappeared once they've gotten the right to vote, then we are not only not on the same page, but we are not even reading the same book, and it's probably pointless to continue.

There are of course more minor problems too, like having great difficulty gaining custody of children (women are favored over men) being forced to surrender all or most of their property in a divorce for no reason in particular, and being forced to pay child support for the next few decades because some woman lied about being on the pill in order to get pregnant. It's also not uncommon for men to get longer prison sentences than women for the same crimes.

These are two facets of life - divorce and prison sentences - in which women are advantaged. Men, on the other hand, are advantaged in virtually all other areas of existence. There have been numerous studies, lists, articles, and all manner of stuff compiled to demonstrate this, but the easiest way to really understand it is to think about how often men and women (who are not gender-confused) wish they were the opposite sex. Just ask around - ask guys how often they've wished they were women or at least treated like women, and ask women how often they've wished that they were men or at least treated like men. I think you'll be surprised if you approach it honestly.

Here is also a link to a Male Privilege Checklist for you to deconstruct and discredit.

But anyway, I'm not interested in having a long, drawn out debate in which people pick apart miniscule points out of sheer narcissism. It's hard to change people's views when they've made up their minds, and discussions turn into arguments for the sake of arguing. People rarely examine the validity of their own views, and I'll admit that I am as guilty of this as anyone else. I'll leave the last word to you.

 

[failout]

Getting paid less for the same job means less money for the same work. Working less means less money for less work, which no one is arguing against.

The wage gap is often presented that way, even if in reality the gap is a result of women working less. I'm sure there are genuine wage gaps out there, but too often they're just made up by feminists.

It has been proven that they don't and that, taking all other factors as equal, there is a real wage disparity and glass ceiling. That is the heart of the issue about the wage difference.

The glass ceiling is a mythical excuse, much like The Man that's oppressing black people (like Obama) and the Zionist Conspiracy that's oppressing Muslims.

Men have never been oppressed on the basis of gender. Women have. Women are also subject to the same manners of oppression that you've just listed aside from being forced to fight in wars (if anyone is going to nitpick), although their role in war is usually worse than that of a soldier.

So oppression is not an issue as long as it isn't gender-based? The all-too common feminist notion that women are the only people who have ever been oppressed while men have just been able to chill out without any problems is fantasy of the highest order.

If you believe that "real" women's issues have all disappeared once they've gotten the right to vote, then we are not only not on the same page, but we are not even reading the same book, and it's probably pointless to continue.

Real women's issues have disappeared in the West because all anyone ever does is complain about trivial and imaginary problems. It's the same with racism: if it really was such a huge issue, there would be no need to constantly make shit up.

Here is also a link to a Male Privilege Checklist for you to deconstruct and discredit.

I would click on a link named "male priviledge checklist," but I don't think I could ever forgive myself for wasting the bandwidth.

But anyway, I'm not interested in having a long, drawn out debate in which people pick apart miniscule points out of sheer narcissism. It's hard to change people's views when they've made up their minds, and discussions turn into arguments for the sake of arguing. People rarely examine the validity of their own views, and I'll admit that I am as guilty of this as anyone else. I'll leave the last word to you.

This paragraph is mass of cliches.

Arbitrary and inexplicable personal attack? Check.
A complaint about the other party not immediately admitting that you are right? Check.
Accusing the other party of arguing for argumen't sake for no apparent reason? Check.
A weak attempt at taking the moral high ground while simultaneously running away? Check.

 

[Spoonfeed]

feminists

Im all for equality, but for god's sake put some lipstick on.

Most feminists are feminists because they failed at both being a succesful woman AND at being a man, thus they take it out through their blogs, magazine's, protest marches.
I feel for them really.

 

[Iridium L]

I don't have a solution. And to think that women have the choice to not do porn is pretty shortsighted. In a lot of east-european and ex-USSR countrys, people have problems to earn a living with a normal job, especially women. Don't you think they'd rather take another job that pays as much than whore themselves out? In my opinion, the bigger picture has to be fixed for that particular symptom to vanish.

This problem has nothing to do with porn.

As I said, this problem is a symptom of poor economies and sexist societies.

But it wasn't as readily available to impressionable minds before the internet.

If the impressionable minds who saw porn in the pre-Internet era didn't turn into crazed rapists, there's no reason to believe that it will happen today either.

I'm not talking rapists here, what I'm talking about is respect!

 

[Kyuu]

Today's feminism has nothing to do with equality, and although feminists would have plenty of work to do in places like Africa and the Middle East, they couldn't care less about those places. White heterosexual Western men are their only concern.

If you honestly think sexism is a non-issue in Western society, you must not have much experience with a good deal of the men in Western society. I see sexism every day. Or you're just not paying attention, which a lot of men don't because they're misogynistic themselves.

Women often have sexist views regarding men also. However, you'd have to be extraordinarily dense to think that sexism affects men to anywhere near the same degree as it does women. Further, saying "Well they do it too so it's not wrong for me to do it!" is sound argument on a second-grade playground, but in the adult world it's utter tripe.

That said, this woman is a retard. The sexism in the Witcher is part of the setting. It's not making a case for treating women poorly. Altering a story, setting, or whatever in a work of fiction to fit a PC-agenda is just ridiculous. If she's really serious about furthering equality for women, she needs to learn pick things actually worth arguing about. She's perfectly entitled not to like the game because of, but that only justifies her not playing it and telling her kids not to play it. It doesn't justify some sort of political action against the game.

 

[failout]

If you honestly think sexism is a non-issue in Western society, you must not have much experience with a good deal of the men in Western society. I see sexism every day. Or you're just not paying attention, which a lot of men don't because they're misogynistic themselves.

Again, if all feminists can do is bitch about trivial and imaginary issues, it's clear that no real problems exist. At least as far as they're concerned. Problems like forced marriages, genital mutilation and honor killings receive little if any attention from feminists, since going after non-white people is racism and genocide etc.

Further, saying "Well they do it too so it's not wrong for me to do it!" is sound argument on a second-grade playground, but in the adult world it's utter tripe.

Who has said this?

 

[fedaykin]

"Problems like forced marriages, genital mutilation and honor killings receive little if any attention"

Oh really? I used JSTOR to search for articles containing "genital mutilation". Some very suggestive titles such as "Loose Lips Sink Ships" . Three pages of results counting only those feminist and womens' studies journals covered by JSTOR, seven counting language & literature. Something tells me you're talking out of your ass.

There are centers for women that offer shelter and help when women turn to them due to fear of being forced into a marriage, killed etc. That's news to you?

 

[Mord_Sith]

Time to wallow in and make an ass of myself once more.

First and foremost, I don't know if anyone here has any knowledge of the Canadian action of 'Affirmative Action'

I won't bore you with legal jargon and snips and snipes of the thing, it effectively boils down to this: For jobs, Women and Minorities get priority over Caucasian Males, Bonus points for disabilities but sadly not usually enough to make the grade against the first two.

At least half of the major corporations in the country and the entire government follow this directive.

Affirmative Action will cause a company to hire someone even if they aren't the best candidate available, if they're the best Woman or best Minority, or hell, if they're the best Woman Minority in the lot!

That's public policy, now Skippy just before me stated that men can't feel bad about being the target of racially or sexually degrading comments, let's see how many times you can stand being called a filthy male behind your back just within earshot!

But that's not all folks, let's get to the grand past-time of many people, gossiping, I'm not retarded, I know guys gossip all over the bloody place about women, not always in the best of lights, but dear god, sit there and listen to a gaggle of women on lunch or smoke break and the stuff you'll hear would set a herd of feminists on a manhunt if the tables were turned!

To pretend that they're shooting for equality is preposterous, over half of them don't realize what the goal is going to be in the end, they're shooting for the lion's share for a change, empowered work woman was the trend in the 90's, nowadays you got a 60/40 split of women versus men in the workplace up north here, and they ain't slowing down.

In my office alone, there are 9 guys TOTAL out of 28-30 office employees (varies based on season) Two of them are managers (Sales and Accounting), one is the general manager, one is a supervisor, two (one being myself) are IT, one is the purchaser, one is the expediter, and one is an accountant.

It's great that employers realize that women are human too, but in the process a lot of employers have forgotten that so are the guys.

It's pretty emopathetic to say that Caucasian men are second class citizens right now, but as the pendulum swings all you proud trouser trouters out there beware, 'cause housewife Betty's clocked you with the frying pan and now she's got the pants on and is struttin' her stuff!

Anyways, crass humor aside, it is shaping up decently for them, but one can't help but feel disillusioned with the whole bit, not because I have a problem getting a job, hell I could be working for myself if I had the bloody drive, but because it seems everything PC is against the average blue collar joe.

Sure Joe could use some manners, he could lighten up and not oogle the first thing with a pair of cans larger than his hands strapped to it's chest, but no combat boot wearing amazon is going to be able to beat that into Joe, nor does any self-respecting woman want to wind up in a job that Joe's in, 'cause Joe's usually in the manu-section of the job listings, making his 8.50 to 12.50 an hour.

Odds are you can't change Joe, and one of my favorite quotes actually is quite apropos for my line of thinking, "To change the world, to change a nation, no man but a fool would undertake." it's one I got from my father, I have no idea where he got it from, so sadly I cannot apply the author's name to the quote.

Equality to the most activist feminists means total submission of the male half, and that's not equality, it's dominance, and I'll be hellbent before I prostrate myself to anyone who thinks they deserve it for being born the way they are, nor do I expect that from anyone towards me.

And besides, what if I did say I felt hurt that I'm not a barrel chested Duke Nukem like the games I played as a child? Hmm? Personally I don't care, that's a personality flaw of mine I hazard, but just that what if, just because guys don't make a fuss about something, doesn't mean it doesn't affect them, it just means they can deal with their emotions to themselves rather than involve everyone around them in a blaze of righteous male fury!

 

[failout]

Something tells me you're talking out of your ass.

I'm not. I never hear about anyone giving two shits about the aforementioned issues, yet people can't stop ranting about glass ceilings and other shadowy conspiracies.

There are centers for women that offer shelter and help when women turn to them due to fear of being forced into a marriage, killed etc. That's news to you?

Is it supposed to be news to me? I don't understand what you're talking about.

 

[Mord_Sith]

In Addendum:

I just read your Male Privilege list Scowl and I figured I'd fire in a bit of equality into the lot here, let's tip the chair under this one and see how the wind twists it:

[spoiler:832010975d]

Care of Women in Higher Education http://www.wihe.com/displayNews.jsp?id=400

1. I am physically able to give birth to another human being, and then do my best to mold her or him into the kind of person I choose.

2. I am not automatically expected to be the family breadwinner.

3. I feel free to wear a wide variety of clothes, from jeans to skimpy shorts to dresses as appropriate, without fear of ridicule.

4. I can choose to remain seated to meet most people.

5. I am not ashamed to ask for others’ perspectives on an issue.

6. I feel free to exhibit a wide range of emotions, from tears to genuine belly laughter, without being told to shut up.

7. My stereotypical excesses in shopping, clothes, jewelry, personal care and consumption of chocolate usually are expected, even the source of jokes.

8. Public policies generally offer me an opportunity to bond with my offspring.

9. I am among the first to get off a sinking ship.

10. I can usually find someone with superior strength to help me overcome physically challenging obstacles, such as changing a tire or cutting a huge Christmas tree.

11. Changing my mind is seen as a birthright or prerogative.

12. I feel free to explore alternate career paths instead of being bound to a single career ladder.

13. I am used to asking for help, around the kitchen table or the proverbial water cooler or the conference room.

14. People I’ve never met are inclined to hold doors open and give up their seats for me.

15. I can be proud of the skill I have worked to develop at stretching limited financial resources.

16. I am not ashamed of using alternatives to positional power to reach my goals.

17. I know how to put a new roll of toilet paper in use and am not above doing it for the next person.

18. I am not ashamed to admit that the decisions I make reflect my personal values.

19. I am not afraid to create and maintain honest relationships with others.

20. I do not fear being accused of having an ethic of care in my professional life.

21. When I enter an office, I am likely to encounter those who can help me “in low places.”

22. I am more likely to get hugs than handshakes, depending on the situation.

23. I am less likely to be seen as a threat, which allows me more subtle alternatives.

24. I can use men’s “sheer fear of tears” to my advantage.

25. I can complain that these female privileges are relatively minor compared with the vast assortment of dominant male privileges, but I wouldn’t change places for the world.[/spoiler:832010975d]

 

[fedaykin]

I'm not. I never hear about anyone giving two shits about the aforementioned issues, yet people can't stop ranting about glass ceilings and other shadowy conspiracies.
....
Is it supposed to be news to me? I don't understand what you're talking about.

A bit slow, huh? You said nobody gives two shits about the aforementioned issues. But, in fact, many do. It's just that you live in a cave, apparently. Read my previous post again if you want proof.

 

[Ravager69]

I forgot to mention it in my previous post, but the ladies commenting that article seem to think that a game is much better if there is a same-sex relationship availabe.

OK, I can understand that women would like to have more variety in a game, that's fine.

But to say that a game is *only* better for the sake of this one option, thus putting that radiating pile of shit Mass Effect above the Witcher? This makes me seriously wonder what will happen to video games in the future if these kind of women will start becoming the target audience.

Will most of the RPGs become like Mass Effect? I hope not.

I'd rather have a game where my protagonist is more personalized (is either gay or straight), because this allows the game to be more focused. Making titles that try to satisfy all genders and people of all sexual orientation most likely will fail at satisfying any.