Feminists fight for women to be valued after their inner qualities instead of sexiness. Doesn't really work, if you look at the media. Women are rarely more than sex objects in films, advertisements, magazine photos and even in gaming (just think of the full cover body armor that somehow changes to a string bikini if equipped to a female avatar).
The feminists keep telling that it's "unjust", "unethical", "unequal" with little result. Why? Because who cares if something is unfair if I'm on the overpowered side?! Why should men give a damn if women are oppressed? Their problem, not mine. My eye-candy > your freedom.
There is two way out of this. One is convincing women that they need no man, so they can ignore their wishes. Feminists actually tried this in the '70-es, these were the "you need men like fish need a bike" campaigns and "throw away your bras" performances, but they did not hold. The reason is simple: why women don't need men companion more than the other way, mothers need fathers much more than the opposite. Raising kids as a single mom is much harder than paying child support and hanging out with them on the weekends. If a woman is not rich (which is by definition true for most) and she wants children (which is true for most due to very strongly hardwired evolutionary subroutines), she must get a man, therefore must get the approval of men.
The other way, completely ignored by feminists is to show men why is it good for them to see more in women than a sex toy merged into a household robot. Let me give a pretty surprising reason:
The reason for the increase is quite obvious. 2 good or even OK players do much better than one. Buddies queuing up as a group since ages for this reason. However a girlfriend has a serious advantage over a buddy: her schedule can be perfectly matched to mine. We live together, can share the chores therefore make sure that we are online at the same time. Also communication is very easy when we can actually look at each others monitor. Due to the high intimacy of such relationship it's much easier to ask for help if you don't know something. Buddies, even good ones try not to look "noob" front of the others. You neither can "sorry have to log" against a discussion. You live in the same home, the one who screws up something can't run away from the other telling it him/her, which enforces improvement very well.
Obviously the game is just an example of "doing things that are important to me". Whatever we do, we do extremely effectively, due to doing it together. Having such a partner greatly helped piling up those dollars that are now lying happily in the safe.
So to the question: "why should I care about the internal qualities of a woman?" the answer is: "an intelligent, effective, non-lazy woman can increase your efficiency in practically every field greatly". The fact that a dumb eye-candy can't help you in such ways is obvious. Actually she is a luxury object, which just has costs. A lot.
Young people are more likely to change their core ideas than old ones. Also, young, gaming men are tend to lack women nor they have good chances getting one, so they don't really has the option of dating lingerie models. Their gaming is important to them. Telling them that they could "pwn" and have sex if only they could give up on the "D-cup, 18 BMI, always in make up and heels" idea is more likely to work than telling the same to an accomplished man who can actually afford a young and attractive wife in a single-earner household. Gaming young men could be an ideal target of campaigns to accept women as people instead of objects.
Why can't we have both, useful and sexy? - men might ask. Look at the mirror dude! Do you see Christian Bale in it? If you can't be like him, she probably can't be like the lingerie models.
The feminists keep telling that it's "unjust", "unethical", "unequal" with little result. Why? Because who cares if something is unfair if I'm on the overpowered side?! Why should men give a damn if women are oppressed? Their problem, not mine. My eye-candy > your freedom.
There is two way out of this. One is convincing women that they need no man, so they can ignore their wishes. Feminists actually tried this in the '70-es, these were the "you need men like fish need a bike" campaigns and "throw away your bras" performances, but they did not hold. The reason is simple: why women don't need men companion more than the other way, mothers need fathers much more than the opposite. Raising kids as a single mom is much harder than paying child support and hanging out with them on the weekends. If a woman is not rich (which is by definition true for most) and she wants children (which is true for most due to very strongly hardwired evolutionary subroutines), she must get a man, therefore must get the approval of men.
The other way, completely ignored by feminists is to show men why is it good for them to see more in women than a sex toy merged into a household robot. Let me give a pretty surprising reason:
The reason for the increase is quite obvious. 2 good or even OK players do much better than one. Buddies queuing up as a group since ages for this reason. However a girlfriend has a serious advantage over a buddy: her schedule can be perfectly matched to mine. We live together, can share the chores therefore make sure that we are online at the same time. Also communication is very easy when we can actually look at each others monitor. Due to the high intimacy of such relationship it's much easier to ask for help if you don't know something. Buddies, even good ones try not to look "noob" front of the others. You neither can "sorry have to log" against a discussion. You live in the same home, the one who screws up something can't run away from the other telling it him/her, which enforces improvement very well.
Obviously the game is just an example of "doing things that are important to me". Whatever we do, we do extremely effectively, due to doing it together. Having such a partner greatly helped piling up those dollars that are now lying happily in the safe.
So to the question: "why should I care about the internal qualities of a woman?" the answer is: "an intelligent, effective, non-lazy woman can increase your efficiency in practically every field greatly". The fact that a dumb eye-candy can't help you in such ways is obvious. Actually she is a luxury object, which just has costs. A lot.
Young people are more likely to change their core ideas than old ones. Also, young, gaming men are tend to lack women nor they have good chances getting one, so they don't really has the option of dating lingerie models. Their gaming is important to them. Telling them that they could "pwn" and have sex if only they could give up on the "D-cup, 18 BMI, always in make up and heels" idea is more likely to work than telling the same to an accomplished man who can actually afford a young and attractive wife in a single-earner household. Gaming young men could be an ideal target of campaigns to accept women as people instead of objects.
Why can't we have both, useful and sexy? - men might ask. Look at the mirror dude! Do you see Christian Bale in it? If you can't be like him, she probably can't be like the lingerie models.
30 comments:
The problem is that young gamers have no interest in political power, nor will they have for quite a foreseeable time.
There is quite a generation gap, too. Older people, who have the power, are likely to look with disdain on such a campaign, due to the perceived 'no lifer' status of gamers.
Let's face it, gamers are still a counter-culture, and 'normal' people think that 'gamers , 'hackers', 'Anonymous', and 'Linux users' all are the same group. (Apart from the fact that they probably believe that we all worship Richard Stallman, Satan, or worse, the Illuminati.)
Now, the problem is that we can't just dismiss this with: 'Pfah, they're stupid socials'. If a publicity campaign is to work, it needs to be effective precisely against socials.
I can see such a campaign work when gaming will be accepted much like 'watching TV' or 'reading a book'.
That fairly portrays what an asocial will get out of a relationship in tangible benefits to their performance and state of utility. What does your social girlfriend get, and what motivates her to stay in a relationship with your asocial self? Is she at all concerned that you think of your relationship in asocial terms, rather than social ones? (Unless your blog post is a point in principle, as opposed to the social aspects such as love that you might additionally feel for your girlfriend.)
Your explanation reminds me of the recent 'date rejection email' that has been circulating recently - the guy who attempts to justify, logically, the reasons why this particular girl should go on a second date with him. A logically rational argument is not always sufficient when dealing with social creatures.
The percentage of men who are voluntarily single is incredibly minute, and I very much doubt the single-but-looking men are single because of their high, lingerie model standards.
Silly argument. Livia is a dam good hunter in wow and is obviously a seriously talented gamer. Go get me a random girl of the street try to do the same, wont happen. Random bloke again wont happen.
Take your argument and apply it to same sex couples, still works right ? So it has less to do with feminism and more to do with being a couple who respect each other and share interests.
What do you consider is old in your assertion that young people are more likely to change their opinion ? Think again, it isn't being old that makes you narrow minded it's being narrow minded.
@Andru - Your stereotyping suggestion made me smile, we all do worship Richard Stallman don't we ?
This post sounds like 'why should you be breathing', but I guess what is obvious to me is not obvious to anyone, moreover my opinion is not everybody's opinion. To answer your question - why not have both - you can have both of course - to me my gf is both sexy and useful, I guess your gf is same to you (btw, she is very friendly, I've chatted a couple of times with her, while I was in The Pug).
"look in the mirror" I agree with you, and I wish more people would try to understand this very easy idea.
So should you ditch someone if they don't play your game of choice sufficiently well?
@last anonymous: of course I would. Why would I want to be with an idiot?
i had the missfortune to have a very intelligent and independant mother. very few women i have met are up to the standard i set.
she also was anti-feminazi. she lived a feminist life while being politically opposed to the radicals of the 60s and 70s. she married immediately after finishing a masters degree and had 10 children. at the age of 35 with 8 children under 10yo she began her first job and worked full time for the next 10 years.
and yet the radical femanists of that time were getting stoned and living on government benefits
Anon: You're right, there is no one in the whole world as good as your mother. Prepare for a single life.
(Also, no one wants to go out with a guy who is obsessed with how wonderful their mother is. Why would that be appealing to a potential partner?)
So you define a person being idiot by whatever she plays your game of choice well enough? In other words, your tastes and gaming preferences, and yours alone, define intelligence?
@chewy: No, the one who sucks in the game he/she choose is an idiot.
It's completely OK to not play the genres I do or not even play at all. Of course I don't have much in common with such person so friendship/partnership wouldn't be a good idea.
I would like to distance myself from the previous "chewy" (and any other chewy who uses a comma before "and").
But whilst I'm here:
I've read that for Women physical attributes don't rate as highly when selecting a mate as they do for men. My own experience has been that some very ugly men get off with some very attractive women by making them laugh and feel good.
Tell me Gevlon, when you look in the mirror do you see Christian Bale ? (If your partner reads your blog you may want to think carefully about you answer).
@Last chewy: of course not. But neither I expect her to look like a Victoria secret model. That was the point of the post.
"The percentage of men who are voluntarily single is incredibly minute, and I very much doubt the single-but-looking men are single because of their high, lingerie model standards."
As an up until recently single female, who had been single for quite a long time, I happen to know first hand that there are many, many guys out there (and women, too) who have completely unrealistic expecations for their partners and the relationships that can come from them.
Or quite the opposite - most people have no idea what they want and so they sort of flounder and take whatever they can get, trying on different people like outfits, until they finally clue in on what they want.
In my experience in the gaming community, I've seen women be more open minded, in terms of what they view as attractive than men are. Just look at the various "famous" gaming personalities that each gender chooses to swoon over. The ones who women follow tend to be more average or realistic looking, whereas the ones the men follow tend to be from something more of a mold or a typical expectation of what a woman should look like.
@Gevlon
I take your point but my somewhat fatuous comment wasn't entirely serious. The implication was that she may not be a "Victoria secrets" model. I underestimated your ability to be brutally asocial.
Just as a counterpoint to all this, purely being the devil's advocate here (take that as you will)...
It is possible to look like Christian Bale or a Victoria's secret model. This is just another way of saying that if your body is important to you, you will take steps to improve every aspect of it (working out, running, frequent showers, well dressed, etc.). If none of this is important to you and you'd rather be spending your time inside an apartment playing games, that's cool too. Nobody has a right to judge your preferences.
But I'm just pointing out that the bodies you are suggesting are impossible to look like are not, in fact, impossible to look like. You just chose an alternative.
It's curious that you are happy to explain women's motivations by evolutionary subroutines but not men's. Men have an evolutionary drive to have sex with the best-looking women they see. Men are dogs and arguing rationally against this is pointless.
Also, friends you're not having sex with can be reliable, honest and just as useful as a girlfriend. You can even arrange to pvp in the same place at the same time.
I thought a Goblin would be a big fan of the book "The Game". It is about taking a goblinish approach to the process of attracting women.
If you read the book you will see that women are no different to a raid boss. Women are not as complex as some people claim; they are in fact animals that are pre-programmed by nature to behave and react in a predictable manner (as are men).
Once you have learned the tactics/rotation it really isn't that difficult.
It helps if you gem/enchant/spec properly (hit the Gym) but much like raiding ICC in blues, if you know how to play you can achieve excellent results even without the best gear.
The better you play the better the loot. If you play exceptionally well and pay attention to your gems/enchants you can obtain a woman with looks and usefulness.
If however you cannot be bothered you are able to play casually and get the equivalent of LFR gear which tends to have much lower stats or bad itemisation.
I can't help feeling that "being realistic" is just another way of saying "I am too lazy and have to accept lower rewards".
Failing that you can always blame it on the hardcores (guys with more money and better nature gifted looks) for being elitist and keeping you down.
@Coralina: and if you do so, you win the prize of ... living with a mindless idiot. Congratulations!
@ Coralina: I understand your post is sarcasm/satyre...
But nobody ever said that "The Game" was a good book.
Psycho-Cybernetics is a good book (and I suspect it to be the basis of modern day pickup classes by some pickup artist who don't even know about the book, as they learned from someone who learnt from someone who read the book, rendering the message twisted) which can actually help you.
While stats on gear can be quantified, women skills/abilities/personalities can not.
That's why what someone sees of lower value may not be to someone else.
On gear, +1 intellect will always be of lower value compared to +100.
I'd like to see a blog post on Squishalot's comment (2nd comment from top)
I think there is some irony here. Gevlon dismisses as pointless real world efforts to improve one's looks and financial situation to attract a better quality mate (meaning intelligent + good looking).
Gevlon, have you considered that in the real world, your WoW playing is the equivalent of pet collecting (or maybe the MoP pet battles) in WoW?
Look we are all gamers here, so no one can cast stones in this regard, but someone knee deep in real life activities, with no gaming activity whatsoever, would have a claim to call you an M&S, based on the exact same reasoning you use to cast judgment on WoW players whose efforts in the game you do not respect.
In my experience in the gaming community, I've seen women be more open minded, in terms of what they view as attractive than men are. Just look at the various "famous" gaming personalities that each gender chooses to swoon over.
See... I would take umbrage with this sort of characterization. The precursors that men are biologically programmed to look for are well established as being physical in nature: symmetrical, well-proportioned features such as breasts, ass, wider hips, and so on. The biological precursors for women may be less physical, but are just as stereotypical: wealth (ability to obtain food), success, confidence.
"Open-minded" presumes a willingness to accept things outside of one's preference. Show me the unemployed loser male archetypes that women swoon over in videogaming, and I will grant you female "open-mindedness." No one would think me to be open-minded if I accepted women of all shapes and sizes as long as they were weak-willed sycophants. Or all women sizes as long as they were white (etc).
Regardless, if you want to make the argument that a man could lower his standards and get into a relationship faster than a woman could doing the same, go ahead and make it.
The problem, I find, isn't locating and attracting 18 year old models - it's finding and attracting rational women with the same interests.
@Eaten By A Grue
Actually, Gevlon's definition of M&S seems to be people who have unrealistic expectations given their effort (ie they want to be world first but they don't even know their rotation). This is in contrast with someone who understands that they are not willing to put in the effort to get something. A "real world" example of M&S would be someone who wants to get super rich so they order tons of infomercial crap that claims it will allow them to do so but still work their minimum wage job and don't pursue more lucrative career opportunities.
Quite surprised of your opinions of young people actually.
I'm 23 old, years old, with my partner for 7 years (2 of which married), liked and well respected in a growing year after year big company, renting a flat. II have played games for 19 years of my life. I know my work and computer games, i'd like to think i know my wife but at times i'm never sure.
I have played games for 19 years, going through all this "new generation" crap (advertising, gaming culture, films, music etc etc), when i've got my head screwed on more than someone twice my age. The "older" generation has all the power. And look what it has done to the world. TBH tho, i'm sure in every age there has been problems, regardless of time.
Arguement about feminism is pointless anyway. Feminism is sexism given name. Women themselves nowadays have decided to act the way they do. I wouldn't mind warrenting that there as many sexist women annoyed about men as sexist men to women.
@nightgerbil. I'm not sure. My girlfriend was not interested in any kind of video games (she constantly say that wow is stupid.. yeah i know), but one day, she tried Heroes III with me. She keep practicing, and reading strategies, and now, she gives me a real challenge when when we play against each other.
The point is, an intelligent girl can figure out how to play a video game well, and/or figure out where to read guides to get better. If she have a motivation/interest of course.
Sorry for the spelling and grammar mistakes, English is not really my strong side.
not rly related to this blog but it might help you in next one. Here is good source of average numbers in large scale sample for WoT
http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/65256-unofficial-eu-server-statistics-ii/page__p__1063741#entry1063741
Women don't need husbands, that's just how our culture is set up. Many other cultures have the mother's brother be the father figure, or have several fathers. And the rest of the group / family would help out anyway.
www.sexatdawn.com/
"The percentage of men who are voluntarily single is incredibly minute, and I very much doubt the single-but-looking men are single because of their high, lingerie model standards."
Well, a dating site found that while men rated women's attractiveness to a normal curve (most average, equal amounts ugly and pretty), they mostly message the attractive women - 2/3 of male messages go to the top 1/3 of women. And then men complain about not getting replies.
blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/
Post a Comment