@punksterdaddy: I like how you assume that because something is illegal it therefore doesn't happen. So on my drive home from work today, I won't see anyone speeding or rolling through stop signs? Nobody robs gas stations or steals identities? Why do we have police and other regulatory agencies then? Just to waste taxpayers money???
@punksterdaddy: I think you missed my point. You said it's illegal to treat a woman unfairly. In hiring practices, wealth ownership, etc, etc. yes you are correct. But if you were to say that women shouldn't be in the workforce, that they should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, there's no law against that. But just because there's no law, that still doesn't make it right.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't interpret this that I'm saying that YOU would treat a woman this way. I'm using the word "you" in a hypothetical sense.
@Myron117: I really like all the anecdotal evidence here. Do you think it's possible that women might be more interested in construction if they weren't frowned upon as kids when they get dirty in the first place?
What do suicide rates among men have to do with women?
Men getting beat up in movies and the media. Again, what does this have to do with women?
Women and children going first in a disaster? Children go first because that's how the species survives and children biologically are attached to the mother more than the father (women carry the children in utero, after all). This is prevalent in the animal kingdom as well.
Men losing childcare privileges and women slapping men are definitely not OK. I'll agree with you there.
Regarding losing earnings, if a women was forced to stay at home to care for the kids while the husband works, then her earnings potential has been greatly reduced and the man should pay alimony and child support. Now, if both earn equally, then the man shouldn't automatically lose half his earnings any more than the woman should.
I like how in the same sentence you say that this is not a sexist rant AND you talk about men losing their b***s. Please define what losing their b***s means? If my wife is treated equally as I am, what have I lost exactly?
@PSYCHOV3N0M: If I had a friend who was wheelchair-bound I certainly wouldn't refer to he or she as my handicapped friend. But since you want to go there, let's use your logic: if you advocate for equality, then public buildings shouldn't be built with wheelchair ramps to ensure that no preferential treatment is provided. Nice.
In an ideal world, yes, there would be no Female Protagonists sales. Hopefully, we'll live in a time where no one feels the need to have such a sale. Until that time, however, social change will happen any way it can. If Female Protagonists sales are how it's done, then so be it.
@punksterdaddy: Denying a woman's rights is illegal, but treating them as an unequal is not. For example, believing that women have no place in the military is not illegal. In fact, it wasn't that long ago before women were not legally allowed to be in the military.
@Dragon_Nexus: Agreed. I certainly hope it didn't appear that I believe that the responsibility of equality lies solely with women. We all need to be part of the solution.
I didn't mention anything about legal rights. Legally, in the U.S. anyway, women have the same basic rights as men (this can be debated when it comes to things like abortion and right-to-choose, but let's leave that out for now). However, socially, it's very different, and is most certainly NOT a fallacy.
Consider salaries, for example. Statistically, women get paid less for the same work as men do. Are women just worse engineers/doctors/lawyers then men? I refuse to believe that.
The expectations on women's outer appearances are far greater than that of men. True, much of that is perpetuated by other women, but in my opinion, that's because those women were taught those values at a young age.
Look at politicians: Male politicians are picked apart for their actions and stances on the issues. Female politicians are picked apart for all those things as well as how they look.
Typically, little girls are primarily praised for how pretty they are but little boys are primarily praised for what they accomplish. Unequal, I say.
These statements are well-documented in peer-reviewed journals (my wife has 2 undergraduate degrees and 1 masters degree on the subject). As such, I consider myself fairly well-versed.
Perhaps my brain space/maturity comment was ill-conceived. Allow me to clarify. I don't hold it against someone if they are ignorant of this information. However, if a person is made aware of these social inequalities and is still outraged that a humble bundle sale specifically features female protagonists in an attempt to further carve out some social equality, then my brain space/maturity comment applies. After all, it's not as if women fighting for social equality is actually taking something away from men, other than something that men shouldn't have had in the first place (i.e., the social "right" for men to view women as objects as opposed to people).
I guess I just believe in supporting any effort that builds up my fellow humans, as opposed to do anything that might tear them down.
There's nothing wrong with a female protagonist sale. Please move past the "Where's the male protagonist sale?!?! This is unfair!!!" mentality. Women have been treated unfairly since time began and they still have a long way to go to be considered equal in the world. Female protags in games are a good opportunity for that effort and there's nothing wrong with supporting that. I'm not a SJW, just someone who believes in equality.
It takes a certain amount of brain space and maturity to see the inequality in our world. If you rage on this comment, then it'll show that you lack at least one of these attributes (perhaps both).
93ChevyNut's comments