/lit/ - Literature

Sweden is a degenerate shithole, what else is new.

Fair enough. You're a pretty shitty writer if you can't pass the Bechdel test. It's not even about gender equality or representation for me, it's just about making things more interesting.

>>4257447
>Kafka
>hemmmmmmmmmingway
>Faulkner
>Joyce
All shit

>>4257447
True.

>>4257450
Well, I wasn't really thinking of applying that standard to the masters, of course. They stand alone. I'm talking about modern writers, really. The world is over-saturated with stories exclusively about males, with hollow representations of females. My crusade is merely in the interest of variety.

>>4257450
>*Hemmingwai

>>4257459
>the masters

>>4257444
>Sweden is a degenerate shithole
I thought they were fairly progressive? Never been to Europe, maybe I'm mistaken.

>>4257447
Not all stories involve women.

>>4257459
>The world is over-saturated with stories exclusively about males, with hollow representations of females.
Yes, this is what feminists keep claiming. Too bad it's not true.

>>4257465
>I thought they were fairly progressive?
That's what I meant.

>>4257462
Ok, fair enough. That needs to be qualified. Let us instead say, "any writer whose work has stood the test of time." In other words an established writer.

A disproportionate amount of men per women in film promotes a louder response than the fact women live on average four years longer than men.

>>4257459
So how the fuck do masters become masters, if they're being forced to hold hands with women and minorities? This mixture of political ideology with art is fucking reprehensible.

Well I guess most of Shakespeare's plays go to the trash by these retarded standards. Even the more "feminist" ones like Much Ado.

>>4257469
>Yes, this is what feminists keep claiming. Too bad it's not true.
It is pretty clearly true, bro. I mean, I love cinema as much as the next guy, but it's a wasteland when it comes to equal representation.

>>4257467
I know, that's fine. The Bechdel test should make allowances for this. Of course, women shouldn't be shoehorned into a story just to appease me.

its law that you must be at least 5 meters away from a man if in public to avoid beig raped
WUT

>>4257475
>I love cinema as much as the next guy, but it's a wasteland when it comes to equal representation.
I really don't see how.

>>4257474
No one is forced to hold hand. And how new masters will emerge is yet to be seen. It clearly isn't going to play out in the same way it did 100 years ago. Nor should it.

Again, I want to stress that my motivation for supporting the Bechdel test is not political. My concern is purely the quality of the art. And I happen to observe a lack of positive/developed female representation in cinema. It's always nice to shake things up a bit. Keep things fresh.

>>4257483
There are innumerable studies, my dear. Hit up Google scholar for a fun night's reading.

>>4257487
>sanctions on creativity
>shaking things up a bit
Lol

>>4257488
Uh huh.

Well I've done a study of my own: watching movies. And I don't see the problem.

>>4257487

>I happen to observe a lack of positive/developed female representation in cinema

if females want to represent themselves then they can, no one's stopping thing. adhering to your incredibly restrictive criteria is damaging to art though

>>4257467
Yeah, but many of the best ones do.

I can't really think of any cinematic equivalents of Anna Karenina or Emma Bovary. Film needs to start playing catch-up if it wants to end up a god tier art form like literature.

>>4257495
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Karenina#Film

Then again, what do most of these feminists know about art when their aim is to create an agenda? The perception of art has no bias.

>>4257489
No sanctions. Nothing should be enforced. But it should certainly be encouraged. And I don't understand those people who wish to silence such a notion. It will be better for all involved if there's more variety.

>>4257492
Well, maybe you don't watch much Hollywood cinema. I will be the first to admit Hollywood are the worst offenders and I'm often guilty of reducing all of the world's cinema down to what Hollywood produces. It's likely not so bad elsewhere in the world. The only foreign cinema I feel confident enough to comment on is East Asian cinema, and that's pretty abysmal too. But maybe, just by sheer chance, we have both seen completely different films over the course of our lives and have completely different impressions. It's not impossible.

>>4257478
That has to be bullshit.

>>4257434
There are great movies without women alltogether and there are great movies without men in them. Fuck this thing.

>>4257497
Smartass. Adaptations DO count, but they still aren't ideal. Some original content is preferable.

>>4257503
English, please? What are you trying to say.

>>4257519
I think he wants to say that feminism has nothing to do with art.

>>4257504
I watch a lot of Japanese films, and have seen a fair amount of Chinese and Korean films, and "abysmal" is not the first word that comes to mind. There are tons of movies about women or where women play important roles. Then there's anime, where male characters are actually in the minority.

I really don't understand how you can be having this problem.

>>4257506

Name some great movies without men.

Ultrahard mode: no google

>>4257495
>cinema is a poor art form because you don't know any movies about women

>>4257522
The Hours
I have never seen The Hours
>>>/tv/

>>4257522
Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?

>>4257521
Again, we obviously have different standards for what constitutes commendable representation. Having a woman in a pivotal role (which, btw, isn't nearly as common as you seem to think) isn't enough in and of itself. Especially if that woman is just a man with tits or completely underdeveloped. I think Asia is better than Hollywood, sure, but I'm not giving them any awards just yet.

>>4257522
I've been watching lots of horror movies lately, so The Descent instantly comes to my mind.

>>4257527
Sure, but The Hours is an adaptation of a book. Which is inspired by another book. If Hollywood could have produced the same idea with men instead of women, I wager it would have.

>>4257528
This is a good one.

>>4257530
He said great movies, bro.

The operative word being "great."

>>4257529
>Again, we obviously have different standards for what constitutes commendable representation.
Then what are your standards?

>(which, btw, isn't nearly as common as you seem to think)
It is.

>>4257529
>Man with tits
Not that guy, but you're subtly moving the goalposts here, and in a way that could easily be used to reduce all female characters to either hollow stereotypes or underdeveloped "men".

>>4257536
Like about 75% of all movies.

>>4257539
It may not be a masterpiece, but it was decent

This is why it's important to be based.

On a second note:
Could part of the reason be that the feminine doesn't perceive the world in a linear manner set on reducing the world to symbols?
That the feminine is life and fullness and everythingness, and so doesn't need art to connect with life the way the masculine does?

Are representation and art the result of deficiencies the masculine perceives in itself?

Could it be that instead of trying to be treated like men, women should ngaf about how people perceive and react to them and go full feminine? (to the extent that they are)

I genuinely have no idea. I'm interested in getting some answers.

>>4257541
You're right. Let's move the goalposts back and not even consider the "quality" of representation. Even then I'm confident that there's a problem with quantity.

>>4257540
My standards aren't even that strict. I honestly would settle for meager efforts towards equality in cinema. But they just aren't apparent.

http://annenberg.usc.edu/Faculty/Communication%20and%20Journalism/~/media/5DB47326757B416FBE2CB5E6F1B5CBE4.ashx

This is a good idea, if they had this where I live I wouldn't have to walk out of the cinema when I find out that it has a feminist agenda. They should have this for books as well.

>>4257552
>http://annenberg.usc.edu/Faculty/Communication%20and%20Journalism/~/media/5DB47326757B416FBE2CB5E6F1B5CBE4.ashx

lol, why was 2009 such a good year for the feminists? I can't even remember what films were popular that year. Goes to show that films with proper female representation aren't necessarily more memorable.

Of all arts, Cinema is the last one that'll ever have equal representation because it's so heavily a male medium; the devotees are male as are all the great directors (even the best female directors like Varda or Coppola are basically non-visual and non-cinematic, closer to theatre in sensibility). There's a clear division of labour where female writers and especially editors are common but they're rarely crafting the imag
Cinema is a narcissistic-male view of the world women (and many men) don't understand and it will always be biased towards men; compare the cocky he-man archetypal director to the essentially feminine personality and worldview of the author

>>4257549
So the feminine is Eastern Philosophy and the Masculine is western philosophy?

Are you saying women don't enjoy art or consume media?

>>4257552
I'm less invested in the proposition, but I'm pretty sure I agree with you. I was mostly taking issue with a definition of femininity which seemed self-defeating in this context.

>>4257553
>two girls talking
>feminist agenda.

>>4257553
I haven't tipped a fedora in a while, because I save that shit for emergencies. But right now, I feel compelled.

*tips fedora*

>>4257560
It seems to me that the majority of casting directors are female. Shouldn't they have all the power to control this, technically They should cast more women if they want better representation, the stupid bitches.

>>4257552
Also I'm less than a page into that study and I'm already starting to take issue with the methodology.

>>4257567
>what does a casting director do

I just looked at 166 mostly Japanese films I have on my HDD (though I have much more than that), and counted how many of them star a woman (or women) or co-star a woman. I erred on the side of caution and left out a lot of movies where women feature prominently but maybe don't play as an important a role as the male lead character. There were also some movies that I didn't remember well enough, and I didn't include anime.

The total was still 85 movies. That's 50%. How abysmal.

>>4257552
That study was obviously written by feminists and is therefore invalid.

>>4257558
>films with proper female representation aren't necessarily more memorable.
Most popular films aren't memorable. Hollywood is in dire need of a creative revolution. Why are we still making movies about fucking superheroes? Someone tell me that? They're all basically the same.

>>4257569
I didn't read it before posting. It's one of many studies, though. You don't need to do much digging.

>>4257571
The fuck are you implying? Their function is basically in their title.

>>4257581
Can't cast females for male roles, bro.

>>4257572
>That study was obviously written by feminists and is therefore invalid.
I don't see why any reasonable person would not be a feminist. Everyone should be, really. There is no reason not to be. People seem to think it's about dominating men, but it's actually just about equality when it's done right (i.e. outside of tumblr).

>>4257583
Life is not a wikipedia article. Most feminists don't care about equality.

>>4257561
I'm not saying, I'm really asking. I lack experience, but I find the dilemma of /what/ is being asked for in feminism very interesting. Is it feminists telling/asking women to be men or men to let women be men, or are men and women the same and is our society standing in the middle? I'm open to both possibilities. I don't know.

>>4257583
>I don't see why any reasonable person would not be a feminist.
Because it's anti-male, anti-white, anti-heterosexual, anti-Western, anti-science, anti-reason and totalitarian extremist ideology. Probably might have something to do with that.

>>4257586
That is brilliant satire, bro. Really on point.

>>4257587
It's not satire. As >>4257584 said, life is not a Wikipedia article.

>>4257572
What kind of films are we talking here? Art cinema? Action cinema? Just interested, not looking to discredit you. I'm glad to hear it if there's truly an equal representation in Japanese cinema.

>>4257588
You should write for the Colbert Report, bro. You would really elevate their material. Hot damn.

>>4257586
Holy shit, there aren't enough fedoras in all the hat shops in all the cities from Istanbul to Maine...

>>4257589
All genres from all eras, but mostly dramas and drama comedies from the past 15 years or so.

>>4257591
Are you illiterate?

>>4257593
What does this have to do with fedoras?

>>4257585
It's a very difficult question. I say let's keep this simple and just stick to equality for the moment.

>>4257593
>>4257591
>>4257587
Good goy, everyone should be a feminist.

>>4257594
>Are you illiterate?
It keeps getting better with this guy. I take back what I said, you are the new millennium's Horace. You're too good for Colbert.

>>4257600
I'll take that as a yes. If you were literate, you would have been able to successfully read the part where I said it wasn't satire.

>>4257598
>everyone should be a feminist.
Now you're talking sense. I would perhaps add parenthetically, "everyone (with at least a modicum of self-awareness) should be a feminist."

>>4257605
what was wrong with being an egalitarian?

>>4257602
Bro, if it isn't satire... You are a deeply warped individual. I wish you all the best, but not sure how you expect to function in modern society with an outlook like that. Born in the wrong century perhaps.

>>4257605

>>4257608
Yes, a century where women think they are better than everyone else.

>>4257607
If you aren't a feminist then you're only a selective egalitarian, that's what. You might as well not be egalitarian at all.

>>4257605
Might as well say that everyone should be a slave owner.

>>4257608
Feminism is what it is. How does that make me "warped?" How is it related to me at all? You aren't making any sense.

>>4257596
It's an unavoidable question for equality though.
Because equality means at the same level according to a certain standard.
What is that standard though?
Is is the current society's? Presumably a masculine standard. Or is it the freedom to live one's gender fully, in which case any additional standards would have to be different for men and women. Or it might be impossible to measure standards.
It's an imminent dilemma. It's not a separate problem to be looked at /after/ equality, because it's crucial for defining what equality is, and in fact whether equality's worth going after, or if the goal should be more like "women's liberation".

>>4257612
Dude, I understand your frustration with tumblr-wave misandry, but it isn't representative of feminism in general. Like any ideology, it has its extremists, but the core ideas are solid.

>There are actually men on this board, who consider themselves feminists
Brainwashing really does work!

>>4257617
I want to add that I'm open to the possibility that the way feminism's going now, as well as it's assumption of similarity, could be totally fine. I'm not trying to push a viewpoint disguised as a question.

>>4257617
>What is the standard though? Is it the current society's? Presumably a masculine standard.
This guy just hit the nail on the fucking head. Someone please address this intelligently so I can pretend to sound smart around my women friends.

>>4257583
Ignore the bitter idiots here, obviously, but I don't really understand what feminist discourse is for at this point, it doesn't seem to be constructive

It really is at the point where ordinary people are starting to feel alienated, even threatened. I hear about a pay gap, but I don't know where my extra money is and all the ways of fixing it are threaten my financial stability for a fake solution. I hear about rape culture, but I don't know about it, I'm not involved, there's nobody I know i'm letting it fly for, but after the latest scandal in my country there's a very frightening wave of outrage over the difficulty of persecution for rape and they want to compromise the justice system for it- they openly recommend reducing the evidence needed, allowing convictions on testimony alone, eliminating juries so victims can come forward without shame. This is considered feminist and to be against this is anti-feminist, and it's very hard to speak out against it when you hear nothing else and your opinion is taboo and supporting rape

Specifically on this point I'm annoyed by the idea of art of commodity here, a soft spot for anyone who loves film, where a medium for self-expression is being treated like pictures in a school textbook

>>4257621
>There are actually men on this board who are still mentally in high school and probably believe in the "friend zone."

Even through your anonymous post, I can still detect your trench coat and fedora.

>>4257625
>a medium for self-expression
Look, there's good cinema out there. But let's not kid ourselves. It's truly a commercial industry in a way no other artform has ever been.

Feminism has finished its course in western civilization. All the remaining steps are those that seek to give them more rights than men.

>>4257618
>it isn't representative of feminism in general
Then what is? All the feminists I see are strictly anti-equality, whether they're on Tumblr or nowhere near it. But I'm always told those aren't "real" feminists, and the "real" feminists are somewhere else. Well where the fuck are they exactly? If I have to go out of my way to look for them in some dark corner of the Internet, they obviously don't represent the majority.

It's also funny that when you simply observe feminists, you never see them attack each other or argue about who represents the movement and who doesn't. That only comes into play when someone criticizes feminism. Then it's suddenly split into all these different factions, and everything that gets criticized is always attributed to Tumblr/extremists/radicals who of course don't speak for "real" feminists.

>>4257628
Alright, have fun with your femdom fetishes.

ITT: see pic

>>4257614
If you're a feminist you're specifically a selective egalitarian. If you're an egalitarian, you're covering all the bases by definition, being specifically nonselective. Try again specious fuckwad.

>>4257625
>It really is at the point where ordinary people are starting to feel alienated, even threatened.
Good. Ordinary people are idiots. No one likes change, but sometimes a little growing pain is healthy.

>I hear about rape culture
On this subject I sympathise with you. It's a whole other can of worms. I drives me mad, really. One of the areas of feminist discourse which is just a complete clusterfuck and no on either side really presents themselves rationally.
I don't think it's enough to undermine the core goals of feminism. It's just a very touchy issue.

>I'm annoyed by the idea of art of commodity here
Me too, but it doesn't even have to be about that. As one of the first guys said. It's just about variety. It's in the interest of making better art that we should want to let feminism have its say, as long as they don't dominate or suppress other voices.

>>4257639
>Ordinary people are idiots
feminists, ladies and gentlemen.

>>4257639
>It's in the interest of making better art that we should want to let feminism have its say, as long as they don't dominate or suppress other voices.
That's exactly what they do on a routine basis, and if they don't it's only because they lack the means.

>>4257637
You can and SHOULD be both.
Really they're just labels, let's not get caught up.

>>4257562
Two girls talking about something other than men has a feminist agenda. I'm quite happy to watch movies where women talk about fit and proper subjects like their husbands or reproduction.

>>4257640
You can quite literally back up the claim that ordinary people are idiots with hard statistical evidence. But I suppose we're just going to ignore that.

>>4257645
I'd love to see the evidence. But first, give me a definition of "ordinary people".

>>4257642
>That's exactly what they do on a routine basis
You mean they dominate and suppress? Um, did you follow what happened to Anita Sarkeesian? I know it's a tired issue, but can you honestly say SHE was the one doing the suppressing.
Honestly, feminists hardly get noticed until some precious zone of male power comes under scrutiny and then everyone gets nasty.

>>4257583
In actual reality, men are the vast majority of homeless, mentally ill and suicides (although women are more likely to report -attempting- suicide), they have no rights as fathers and they either struggle to the top, where they're hated and resented by women, or they sink to the bottom, where women disdain them. Women complain they get heckled on the street, but men are far more likely to be physically attacked. Feminism is nothing but pure pandering to women by politicians who want their vote and women too selfish, self-absorbed and ignorant to care about the detrimental effect it has on actual men.

>>4257649
The unwashed masses. Who by and large are poorly educated and thus poorly informed on any and all political issues.

>>4257651
>maek vidya like I want it!

>>4257661
Well, sir, I must say I am utterly refuted and must lay down my arms.

>>4257655

>>4257661
It was just one example, bro. You know there are other examples, perhaps more fitting ones. But I hope you don't think video games are somehow exempt from that kind of criticism? There's nothing special about video games. They're like any other art form (except a little bit worse, if we're being honest).

>>4257655

>>4257666
I was being facetious, if it isn't obvious by now. But I also think you're being a little disingenuous. We know that the majority of human life on this planet could not follow, let alone contribute to the conversation we're having now. And this isn't even a particularly elevated discourse. It's just the unfortunate nature of things. Nothing to do with elitism.

>>4257669
In all honesty, I don't have anything against equality. But people hate it, when fucked with their vidya and Anita uses this hate to push her agenda forward.
>dem trolls, look how they hate womyn

>>4257651
>99% of feminist websites don't allow any dissent from their users. They screen comments, delete them and/or ban users. At best they'll allow dissent for a little while before realizing they're way out of their depth, at which point the banhammer comes out.

When they're not on home turf, they try to pressure people into censoring themselves or doing things they want them to do. It works because people believe that if they don't comply they risk ruining their reputation and social standing, or even losing their job.

The feminist initiative against video games, spearheaded by Sarkeesian, is all about censorship and control.

>>4257669
>except a little bit worse
If you don't recognise video games as the most exciting and important art form currently being produced then you are really out of touch with the world.

>>4257673
I think you're underestimating people a little.

>>4257678
Wow, this thread is going places.
>vidya=highest form of art
lol, no. even /v/ knows this.

i'm sure it's been said already, but the bechdel test is ridiculous, and the idea that all film should be held to it is ridiculous and restricts artistic freedom. that said this seems to be one of those things that pops up every so often just to make us a bit angry, but never actually comes to prominence. idle gossip, really, and i do feel guilty for even commenting on it.

>>4257643
Well, no, one's a label that's attached to inegalitarian practices, so we should be caught up about it, and it's quite redundant if not impossible to be both, especially if you choose to identify by the label that specifically is selective. Since being selective about one's egalitarianism was the point you first got caught up on, and tried to use in argument against egalitarian itself, you're going to have to accept what's good for the goose is just as good for the gander. Your argument doesn't just work when it suits you sweettits /egalitarianism101

>>4257678
they would be more exciting if they didn't have such high production costs

it's so fucking hard to make a video game that they end up being either beholden to corporate interests or mediocre "art" or "indie" games

>>4257683
*against egalitarianism

>>4257678
gonna stop you right there
videogames are not and never will be art
it's incompatible with the 'flow' of playing a game
playing a game is not appreciating art, neither is playing rugby no matter how beautiful the arena you're in is

>>4257678

>>4257688

>implying rugby isn't an art

nice dubs

>>4257676
First of all, the majority of "dissent" is not actually dissent, and I'm sure you've observed this. It's just aimless hate-speech for the most part. And even when it's not, honestly, I'm content for women to have some places where they can go to discuss feminism without the forced (and often entitled) input of men.

There are enough places on the net where men do the exact same thing with issues that are particularly close to their hearts (4chan included amongst them), why not let women occasionally have their own forums? I understand your frustration, but I still think you're exaggerating the problem and rather subtly making it out as if YOU are the one who is discriminated against and desperately needs to be heard. It's just a little bit pathetic.

>>4257684
>or mediocre "art" or "indie" games
regards, CoD fanboy

>>4257695
>And even when it's not, honestly, I'm content for women to have some places where they can go to discuss feminism without the forced (and often entitled) input of men.
I miss Apartheid too anon. Think they'll let us keep it with just 50% of the world population instead of a majority in South Africa?

>>4257688
A disused toilet and piss in a jar are considered art, but video games are not. Such is life in the 21st century.

>>4257678
I actually agree. I haven't read a truly great book in years. Movies suck. Music is fucking dead and gone at this point.

Video games are the only place where I see cool stuff happening with an artistic medium.

>>4257703
but muh deep messages

what is happening in this thread

>>4257700
wow that was not in my post at all

>either beholden to corporate interests or mediocre "art" or "indie" games

CoD falls into the former

>>4257703
>video games
>not worse than the other ones

>>4257711
If you think that every indie game is mediocre (the best game of this year is an indie one btw) than you most certainly belong with CoD crowd.

>>4257715
>the best game of this year is an indie one btw

name?

>>4257702
Stop throwing your silly little tantrum and come back down to Earth, would you? You are really comparing the action of moderators on a feminist website to those of the South African government during Apartheid? Firstly, you should be fucking ashamed. Secondly, it actually isn't at all comparable because if you read my whole comment you would have noted the ways in which this same segregation takes place on both sides and all over the internet. It isn't some anomaly that just surrounds feminism, so don't pretend that it is. People who feel as if they are a part of a "movement" like to converse with others of that movement without being harassed, and that's what most of the dissent amounts to - harassment. When I've expressed real dissent in feminist forums I haven't been silenced... I've usually just been proven wrong or respectively disagreed with.

>>4257707
>I haven't read a truly great book in years.
>Movies suck.
>Music is fucking dead and gone at this point.

>>4257707

Is there a title for this sensation?

It's surely something to do with the rise of something new and the perceived possibility of it, with respect being given to it based on potential rather than results.

Granted I like video-games but I don't like the industry and refuse to pay any attention to it. Then again I probably don't give it that much respect as most of my favourite games are point and clicks and I like them because it is me, I who is in control of the things. Such is the nature of a power-fantasy.

>>4257720
>respectively disagreed with.
*respectfully.

>>4257702
Yeah, disgusting! and don't you hate how women and minorities have a persecution complex totally foreign to the last good white men?

>>4257707
>Video games are the only place where I see cool stuff happening with an artistic medium

give us some examples

>>4257688
but dorf is art. Moma says so

>>4257723
The great art crash! After that we will witness a new golden era of art!
It's happening!

>>4257707
Looks like someone was born in le wrong generation, amirite?

>>4257695
>First of all, the majority of "dissent" is not actually dissent, and I'm sure you've observed this.
I'm sure I haven't.

>And even when it's not, honestly, I'm content for women to have some places where they can go to discuss feminism without the forced (and often entitled) input of men.
Feminism is entirely mainstream and orthodox, but what about right-wing and conservative people? They have a much greater need for sites where they can freely discuss things. But they rarely police their comments the way feminists do. Because they are confident that their ideas are sound and that they can defend them (whether or not they actually are sound and defensible is irrelevant, so don't bother going there). Feminists don't have this confidence, and rightly so; feminism and open debate go together like vampires and sunlight.

I should also add that feminists shit up even sites that aren't feminist or otherwise political in nature. For example, I have been banned from two writing forums for not accepting feminist ideas. Because the moderators were mostly feminist women.

>>4257703

>A disused toilet and piss in a jar are considered art

The act of their creation is considered art you numb-skull. Well with Duchamp at least; I'm not sure what the second example refers to.

>>4257715
there are a few good indie games, especially if you go back to the more or less american tradition of the sort of solo dev/designer tradition (with produced civilization, myst, etc.), but the best games in history (smb3, alttp) have been games made by very established companies who had a lot of manpower and a lot of creative control, who happens to usually be the early japanese companies (nintendo, capcom, konami)

these companies produced games that had nothing in common with CoD. today, that's less true.

>>4257714
Well they aren't. Video games contain a tremendous amount of artistry.

>>4257719
"Papers, please".

>>4257733
>>4257703
So vidya IS art!

>>4257707
Please tell me how video games have enriched your life or changed the way you see the world or stirred deep emotion in you
I hear this opinion that games are art a lot around here but nobody explains it, it's supposed to just be self-evident

>>4257733
>The act of their creation is considered art you numb-skull.
Digging up a disused lavatory is not creation, and even if it was it's still not a reason to consider it art.

>I'm not sure what the second example refers to.
Piss Christ, though I assume there are many other "works" that consist of piss or other bodily fluids in a jar.

>>4257728
-The border between narratology and ludology constantly in flux, producing some shit and some gold, but always interesting either way.

-Player intervention within narrative.

-Puzzle-based gaming as more than just a gay pastime, but a potential means of eliciting emotions and, again, forming narratives.

-Fucking awesome graphics, bro.

>>4257720
Apartheid is the segregation of people. Whether it's because you want to have a women only zone, men only zone, whites only zone, it's the same principle. Stop throwing a tantrum because the extent of power wielded by internet moderators is not the same as a world government; they abuse the power they do have by the same principle and there is no cause to suspect with a greater range of power they would not be applying the same principle they are already implementing. Not having external review to your movement just makes you a closed system constantly reaffirming itself- it's not only discriminatory, it's fucking dumb if you want new ideas. When I've expressed any concern for humans in a feminist forum it's come back to BUT HOW CAN WE HELP THE MASTERGENDER and fuck that. If I wanted to apply inegalitarian principles, I'd back one with real power at least because that would be productive and smart.

>>4257732
Tell me, how do you feel about 4chan? I mean, you're here and contributing, so you must like it?
How do you feel about the treatment of women here (when they are outed)? How do you feel about the cheap approximation of equality that is created by anonymity, wherein everyone is assumed to be male?

Just curious.

>>4257749
Not relevant.

>>4257739

To be honest, I wouldn't say it isn't. I don't think I'd be first in line to champion it myself and I don't think it's as interesting as other mediums and I don't think there's very many interesting games.

The problem with video-games is that people constantly head into straw-man territory and mention a range of popular games which don't do anything but comply to the standards of the industry they are created in. Shock has value (think the airport scene in CoD) but such a game isn't art because it's mostly so fucking banal and playing by convention. CoD wasn't created to be anything but a product to consume. To trick people into thinking it has some importance (or in other words, it must be worth shelling out 60 clams for).

A game such as Yume Nikki on the other hand lends to a very creative style and is one of the few games that I'd personally say works outside of the box which holds video-games back (i.e. tropes, conventions, styles that make the game a power-fantasy rather than an experience). I think Papers, Please might be another of those types of games.

I think the whole power-fantasy problem is one of the biggest conundrums for the medium to overcome.

>>4257745
but none of those things are art- interaction is, if anything, antithetical
You're saying it's art because it's just meant to be, but it's clear it's never had the effect of art even for you

>>4257683
>implying there can't be belief systems within belief systems

>>4257696
This is a great image.

>>4257749
I don't see how it's a "cheap approximation".

Negative reactions to women being "outed" exist because gender is often used in lieu of actually saying something worthwhile. Hence the ridicule for "btw I'm a grill".

>>4257760
well, no, i said it would be redundant or opposed to the larger belief system, depending on the lesser belief system's premises.

>>4257744

>Digging up a disused lavatory is not creation, and even if it was it's still not a reason to consider it art.

You're obviously completely side-stepping the act of creation which was manifested in the intent of his expression which happened to be part of something involving a toilet seat that he found, turned upside down and displayed. Duchamp is rather crass (that's his point) and not a good example of great art but unless you're somebody who only values the final product, I don't see why you'd have a problem with the idea that this work in particular had a purpose (i.e. to disregard the petty notions of what we regard as art pertaining to an elitist point of view) - which funnily enough seems to be happening in this thread too.

>>4257751
lel. Of course not. Too close to home.

>mfw Men's Rights types are the same people who think vidya are art

>>4257762
If you actually believe this, you've been on 4chan way too long, brother (I have too, but I'm realistic about it). That shit doesn't fly in the real world. I don't care how misguided someone's decision to bring up their gender is, they should NEVER receive the kind of backlash and abuse that 4chan throws their way. This is clearly a zone of male power and we'll defend it to the death. "Tits or gtfo" is our war cry.

>>4257771
sure thing faggot

>>4257766
When I think "art," I think of something like pic related.

Clearly I was not meant for this century.

>>4257768
I know, it's funny.

I draw your attention to a statement made earlier in the thread:
>everyone (with at least a modicum of self-awareness) should be a feminist

These male rights guys are still deeply resentful, fresh out of high school and lack any perspective outside of their little bubbles.

>>4257767
Too close to "not relevant."

>>4257771
>That shit doesn't fly in the real world

That's the point, anon.

>>4257773
You are so cool, bro.

>>4257781
btw i'ma grill

>>4257768
I really don't see what possible connection there could be between the two.

>>4257777
>lack any perspective outside of their little bubbles
Feminists go out of their way to isolate themselves in echo chambers.

The reason why you don't see more "strong female characters" or whatever vague shit thing that you Swedish fuckers are looking for, is that female characters suck. Girls are not independent thinkers. They act as part of a group, and that's not fuckin interesting. Guys are independent, and willing to go against the grain for what they think is right, and that's what makes them good protagonists and antagonists.

>>4257779
No, it fucking wasn't the point. You're scrambling into a new position because it's convenient for your argument.
But if that was indeed your point, then the same thing applies to the feminist websites and so the whole discussion is bunk. Good job.

>>4257785
>Feminists go out of their way to isolate themselves in echo chambers.
Yeah, but they still don't think video games are art. That's what really matters at the end of the day.

>>4257785

>>4257776
Thumbs up if you were born into the wrong generation:D

>>4257788
>then the same thing applies to the feminist websites

Saying you're a man on a feminist website can serve as a substitute for content?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

>>4257790
Hur hur hue hue.

>>4257792
How is that picture related to anything I've said?

>introduced in Sweden
>independent obnoxious feminists

>>4257776
le wrong generation, guys!

>>4257795
Holy shit do you retards take everything this literally?

Since you can't read between the lines, the point is that I think today's concept on art is bullshit and has nothing to do with actual art.

>>4257796
"I really don't see what possible connection there could be between the two"

>>4257799
>being born in this wrong of a generation

>>4257801
And I still don't.

>>4257776

The nature of what 'art' is has changed. Art could be considered an elitist structure to determine the worth of something creative and I have a hard time seeing it as anything else. Not all creative things can or should be elevated to 'art' but frequently we see 'art' as something that is worth having or valuing and it is then that we typically over-estimate something as art.

Pictures like that are grand craftsmanship and to me they are more worthy of admiration than a range of things we label as 'art'. There's beauty in the image and the reflection of reality through the picture in more ways than I can be bothered to bore people with.

I think the problem with what 'art' is comes from the idea that 1) not all creative things are art but that all creative things may well be artistic and 2) that we over-value things in our consumer-society; if something is 'art' then it is worth having. 'Art' then becomes a marketing ploy

I haven't read Benjamin but I get the feeling that he addresses a similar nature of the commodity (the reproduced) as being over-valued based on the artificial status the makers or the consumers want to give to it.

>>4257799

>>4257816
See >>4257796

>>4257821

>>4257824
See >>4257796

>>4257824
>mrgabbo97
>97

>people who don't know the difference between design and art

>>4257469
>Too bad it's not true.

Prove everyone wrong and provide a list of successful books and films that pass this test. I love popular culture but you have to be pants-on-head retarded or in denial if you honestly think women are represented just as much as men.

>>4257840
>tfw you will never be a housewife

fucking women don't know what they're missing

Girls pls go

>>4257845
>tfw when I'm a stay at home dad

Feels good, man. I love feminism.

>>4257855
People still look at you funny, it's just not the same.

The bechdel test is stupid because it doesn't address the real problem.
Movies (and fiction in general) with main female protagonists are targeted to women, with the exception of some action movies, and it's stupid because fiction with main male protagonists is not targeted to men, but to both genders.
This will never be fixed by any idiotic "hurr 2 wymmin mus talk of no man" because there is a shitload of other shit they could say or do that would reinforce stereotypes.
Furthermore, said women targeted movies usually print money, so maybe feminists should have a big talk with women and teach them what they actually want, so they can stop wishing to watch the wrong things.

>>4257840
Feminists have created the narrative that women are out of sight and out of mind in fiction because it suits their purposes to do so. They have created many such narratives, and all of them exist to give them something to complain about.

>>4257529
>man with tits
anita, pls

the whole debate about feminism would be null if you guys could reach enlightenment through Max Stirner

COMIC STRIP

It comes from the 80s equivalent of a fucking webcomic.

>>4257880
Is this a meme or are you serious? I'm never sure if I should actually read this guy or not.

>>4257434
>>>/tv/

>>4257521
Japan isnt using included within "east asian" when people talk about cinema, due to their much longer and varied history of cinema which diverges from our countries of the region. I assumed he was talking about Korea and Vietnam (abysmal certainly applies if that's the case).
Mizoguchi had some great film about women

>>4257886

it's no meme. If you're strong enough of mind reading Stirner will invite you to a new paradise. If you're not prepared, though, the violence of it will crush you.

>>4257890
I gotta say, it sounds like a meme. The more you talk about it, the more I feel like I'm being duped.

>>4257888
>Japan isnt using included within "east asian" when people talk about cinema, due to their much longer and varied history of cinema which diverges from our countries of the region.
Huh? There's no reason why "East Asian" wouldn't include Japan.

>I assumed he was talking about Korea and Vietnam (abysmal certainly applies if that's the case).
I take it that you haven't seen much Korean cinema.

You guys are acting like there's a requirement to have films pass the test to be released which there isn't. It's not likely to stifle the creativity to make films. The point of having the test is to encourage the industry in the most simple way: to write movies with at least semi-realistic female characters. If you have a rating system like this, writers are encouraged to make their films pass the test which isn't hard to do resulting in more movies that bother to try to have their female characters resemble actual people.

That said, though, the Bechdel test was never intended to be a serious barometer of the quality of film. Allison Bechdel created it as a simple way to indicate the failure of the the film industry to write female characters with the same care that male characters are. In a lot of movies, women are relegated to the role of being someone's wife or girlfriend or instead of being their own character. They exist as an extension of the male characters. Sometimes they're just there as eye candy. Obviously, this is a generalization that isn't always true but if you bother to watch a lot of films and pay attention to the difference between how movies treat male and female characters, it's clear there's a trend. Anyway, it's not a test that was ever intended to be a requirement to demonstrate a film's quality. Just because a film doesn't fulfill the very simple requirements doesn't mean it's feminist and films that feature well written female characters and would otherwise be considered feminist may also fail the test.

So Sweden instituting it as a way to rate movies is not super helpful as it's not a terribly accurate way to judge the gender politics of a film. I don't think this is the right way to approach the problem at all. You know how the film and tv industries response to the lack of "strong female characters" has been to write women like in my pic. If we take the Bechdel test simply on its criteria and that alone. It's not going to lead to better written female characters. It takes better writers to do that. Otherwise, we just end up with shitty writers forcing their shitty characters to have a conversation or two but the underlying problem remains there.

Now that that's all out of the way, I gotta say I'm shocked by your reaction to this, /lit/. It may be a misguided attempt to get writers to write better films that but you guys have an entirely different problem with it. It's not that it's an ineffective way to fix the problem of poorly written women in film, it's that you think the problem isn't a problem. You're all acting like expecting decently written female characters in a film is a fucking radical feminist idea and having that demand is stifling writers' creativity. I'm disappointed in you /lit/. You're usually pretty smart.

>>4257897
>I take it that you haven't seen much Korean cinema.

Male power fantasies everywhere.

>>4257901
>In a lot of movies, women are relegated to the role of being someone's wife or girlfriend or instead of being their own character. They exist as an extension of the male characters

No shit. Men write movies. Even in the writing-landfill that is the movie industry, men are WAY better at it than women. Men write about what they know, and that's obviously male characters. There is nothing wrong with this.

>>4257901
Hey, a bunch of us were fighting the good fight for feminism in this thread. More than usual, really. I thought it was pretty good.

>>4257896
Not that guy, but Max Stirner is genuine redpill literature. I don't even use that term and I think it applies here.
You don't have to take what he says as absolutes. In fact, if you start to get what he's on about you probably won't, but reading him is doing yourself a big favour in terms of unlearning assumptions.

>>4257901
>The point of having the test is to encourage the industry in the most simple way: to write movies with at least semi-realistic female characters.
Those already exist in large numbers, but the feminist narrative states that they do not. The narrative will continue to state this no matter how many realistic or semi-realistic female characters filmmakers create. Feminists need things to complain about, because it keeps them relevant and enables them to seek all kinds of social and political reforms to solve whatever "problem" they're complaining about.

There is no reason for anyone to take their demands or suggestions seriously.

>>4257904
That's feminist terminology, and "male power fantasies" aren't mutually exclusive with well-written female characters. They also don't somehow cancel out other movies.

>>4257904
anon pls

Honestly, half the stuff on /lit/ nowadays belongs on /pol/, /tv/ or /soc/.

>>4257695
>It's just aimless hate-speech for the most part.
You're the reason the slippery slope fallacy exists.
>I'm content for women to have some places where they can go to discuss feminism without the forced (and often entitled) input of men.
>No woman ever can be against feminism.
Also feminism is about equality, but discussion is bad and women (who are the only ones allowed to talk about it: equality) need their own place to express feminist views.

>>4257939
*tips fedora*

>>4257700
>muh 16 bit platforms
>>4257736
It was a cool concept with terrible, terrible execution.

>>4257896

His thought is genuinely one of the most important steps everyone must take now to gain true freedom.

>>4257909
Good writing means being able to write someone that isn't yourself. It's entirely possible and happens all the time.

>>4257910
Fair enough. Reading back through the thread, it's better than I was thinking. I browse /lit/ because you guys are usually far smarter than I am so I'm just disappointed this is as controversial an issue as it is.

>>4257922
Yes, films exist that have well written female characters. That doesn't mean there isn't still a trend of the lack of them overall.

>>4257943
>dat "beard"

>>4257695
>why not let women occasionally have their own forums?

Sure. They can host their own web-site. What I dont get is what they feel the need to discuss it on an anonymous image board where topic is supposed to be literature.

>>4257940
le epic maymay

>>4257947
The way you phrase that is very meme-ish, you know that right? Some of you sound like cult members, leading me to believe it's an elaborate gag. I don't really know who to believe.

>>4257955

Well, this is the internet you know. Just go google him and learn for yourself. All I'm saying is, if you want real liberty, he'll give it to you.

>>4257951
>Yes, films exist that have well written female characters. That doesn't mean there isn't still a trend of the lack of them overall.
That is what the narrative says, yes.

>>4257925
I hate those kind of discussions. People like sex. People really like sex. I think Sex is the unifying force in the universe. Fuck it. It pisses me off. What people are aroused by and how they treat people should be two completely different things. Everything these people are mad about are hypothetical sexual fantasies. If I have the opportunity to watch a really sexy women do really sexy things, why would choose something else? Fuck that.

>>4257758
>interaction is, if anything, antithetical
Anon, where have you been in the whole twentieth century?

was it sweden that banned all hardcore porn?

>>4257951
>Good writing means being able to write someone that isn't yourself. It's entirely possible and happens all the time.

Almost all the best film makers pretty much make movies about themselves. Charlie Kaufman writes movies about himself. Shane Carruth not only writes about himself, he even plays himself. Herzog pretends to make documentaries about various subjects while being the star of nearly every one of them. Both Triers, Haneke, Allen, the list just goes on and on.

>>4257967
They didn't, some vocal minority wanted porn to be banned "for white men" but nobody paid attention.

>>4257970
There are TWO Triers?! Who is the other one?

as a feminist, this makes sense

but it doesn't work. that limits a writer from saying whatever they want, which is the whole point of doing any art and so long as writers live in some form of a free society they will mostly always do whatever they want

people are gonna be pissy and they're gonna attach their dumb fucking rules but regardless of whether all works of art are inundated with empty woman characters or they're all full as can be the writer will write what they like and the public will like what it likes

>>4257972

behold, a mature, well-informed view

>>4257975
Joachim, he's Norwegian and VERY good.

>>4257796
Because he's wearing a silly hat and you wear silly hats.
You silly hat wearer. Tip your silly hat!

>>4257972
>the public will like what it likes

>implying the public can't be manipulated like putty

>>4257978
lel.

>>4257967
No. Iceland.

>>4257974
Whoops. It was Iceland that wanted to ban it.

>>4257981
oh it definitely can but that isn't the point

on a similar note, it's very obvious feminists are simply trying to control the media in some way, like any other ideology, whether or not you think it's good or bad. feminists, and everyone else, know that just a little tweak could solve all the world problems. in this case less empty women equals more respect for women. but, as any informed person will tell you, you can't control the media unless you have absolute authoritarian-like control over things like that (or money or other large threats/bribes)

basically these ideologies want to attack at the media aka the source but they fail to realize that the source is impenetrable without the power to make large threats/bribes so they make these silly meaningless rules that make us all laugh

>>4257901
It's not a requirement, but it's not relevant to the discussion.
At any rate, let's pretend it is.
>The point of having the test is to encourage the industry in the most simple way: to write movies with at least semi-realistic female characters.
But if it's not a requirement, why would they be encouraged to go up to standards with it? I don't think women are poorly represented in the media because "patriarchy", I think they are because of laziness, both writers' laziness and producers' laziness. But if passing the test is not a requirement, why would they feel the need to do it? Even more so if I'm wrong and it's actually because of the patriarchy, why would they be scared of a test?
If you're going to answer that the test is not required but it'll become relevant because everyone will suddenly only want to watch movies that passed the test, then your point is moot, because it will be exactly like if the test were required.

>>4257925
These men are very athletic but well-proportioned. The Thing of the Fantastic Four, the Hulk, or Marvin in Sin City are not : they're purely a male power fantasy.

>>4257951
>Good writing means being able to write someone that isn't yourself.
Good writing means being able to write good things.
This is not a requirement to write good things.
You can write good things about yourself and yourself alone.

>>4258014
Yeah cause when feminists say "male power fantasy" they refer to the hulk and the thing.

You didn't just move the fucking goalposts, you tied them to the back of the space shuttle and launched them out of the solar system.

Would this do anything than make it easier for feminists to bitch about how shitty movies are? Those other ratings have to do with personal taste, not everyone is interested in sex and gore. But why would anyone give a shit if there aren't any "good" female characters apart from select few feminists. It doesn't have anything to do with general taste. It's kind of random and stupid.

>>4258019
I just proved male power fantasy are a thing. What's your point exactly ? That men don't have fantasies about themselves ?

>>4258014
I don't think you fully understand what those characters are.
Also they have no correlation with the post you quoted.

>>4258024
Yes of course they are a thing. Nobody is saying male power fantasies aren't a thing. Feminists will tell you that no males are ever sexualized, and that they are all "male power fantasies" instead. Which is obviously absurd.

Also note that these "power fantasies" aren't all that fantastic. They come with obvious and gigantic drawbacks, the most obvious being that there is an implied inverse relationship between strength and self-control/intelligence.

>>4258025
>I don't think you fully understand what those characters are.
Then what are they ?


>Also they have no correlation with the post you quoted.
I showed what differences can exist between male and women fantasies. That being said, both can be similar.

Again, what is the problem with the notion of "male fantasy" ?

>>4258033
it's absurd because you're totally inventing "their" position, when there isn't a unified position feminists would even take. It certainly wouldn't be your fucking idiotic strawman

lern2argue

>>4258035
>Again, what is the problem with the notion of "male fantasy" ?
In feminist terms it means a juvenile, misogynist and violent fantasy for insecure white men living in their mom's basement who have small penises and can't get laid.

>>4258035
>Then what are they ?
The hulk is pretty much only played for the laughs anymore, the thing is the butt of every joke and depressed because he's a freak, marv is a sociopath and so ugly it's said multiple times that not even hookers would go near him.
Maybe someone in history fantasized about getting mad and becoming the hulk but i'm pretty sure no feminist is retarded enough to think any of this is what men want.

>Again, what is the problem with the notion of "male fantasy" ?
Buzzwords someone came up with so they could ridicule certain tropes easily.

>>4258042
>it's absurd because you're totally inventing "their" position

Whatever you say anon. You win!

>>4258042
I never see feminists argue with each other. It's only in these situations that feminists supposedly can't agree on anything, which conviniently means that any criticism of feminism is invalidated because there is no feminism, only individual feminists.

>>4258042
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22male+power+fantasy%22+%22man+of+steel%22

A film in which the impossibly buff and handsome hero is naked for half the movie and wearing a skin-tight suit for the other half, and is even directly referenced as a fucking sex toy. This is what feminists think is a male power fantasy.

You are the only one inventing things here.

>>4258033
>>4258044

Well, I just think that the male viewpoint is dominant. Men are less likely to be sexualized in cinema the way women are.

>>4258045
>You can fantasize about a character you wouldn't really want to be. It's fantasizing about a part of yourself.

I'm not >>4258042 by the way.

>>4258075
>wimmin can't in2 sex fantasy
so you don't read books or watch movies since you were born anon. well done. now off to >>>/r9k/ because you have talked your way out of >>>/tv/ and most recent literature trends.

>>4258075
>Men are less likely to be sexualized in cinema the way women are.
Men and women aren't physically or psychologically the same, and don't perceive each other the same way. Women don't care about the visuals nearly as much as men do. It's not supposed to be "equal."

Men don't care if a muscular male character is topless or in a tanktop, but feminists flip out if they see a sexy female character. Feminists are extremely insecure, and are jealous of and threatened by fictional characters.

>>4258075
>You can fantasize about a character you wouldn't really want to be.
You can do whatever you want, anon. Especially in your mind.
Still, I feel that those characters are really too obviously unsuccessful or amusing for people trying to fantasize being them.
Rorschach is a negative and unsuccessful character, but the way he's portrayed makes it easy for some people to fantasize being like him. And they do.
So, I guess this would be a more apt example.

>>4258088
I'd like to add to what this guy said that this tendency is especially amusing when exerted by a group who constantly fights for sexual liberation.
It's nothing less than sex shaming.

>>4258033
>Also note that these "power fantasies" aren't all that fantastic. They come with obvious and gigantic drawbacks, the most obvious being that there is an implied inverse relationship between strength and self-control/intelligence.

This is exactly why feminists say that the patriarchy hurts everyone, even men.

This inverse relationship between strength and self control is beneficial if the goal is attaining and maintaining power in any situation. If a man only needs to appear strong to be "in control" then his intelligence and/or control over any strength he may possess is irrelevant. In practical terms it means the male most willing to be simplistically violent will appear to be in control, while men preferring a more thoughtful approach are easy targets to be called "weak". The smarter man can only attain power if he is also physically dominant.

Furthermore, a woman who just happens to be smarter and more thoughtful than either man will be entirely shut out from power simply due to her gender.

This power structure weakens all three people involved here because the worst possible leader is the one most likely to be in control.

Also, look at this shit:

http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/51fefc05ecad04034500001e-960/thor%20the%20dark%20world%20poster.jpg

http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/51fefd99eab8eafe33000019-960/iron%20man%203%20poster-1.jpg

Honestly, they're not even trying anymore. Superhero movies started out having to be more intelligent than others because otherwise they would have sucked and nobody would have watched them. The first few were not only good superhero movies, they were *good movies* in general. Now it's degenerated into a big-budget adolescent wank-job.

>>4258101
>patriarchy hurts everyone, even men.
Then why do men want the patriarchy to be?
Also that is not exactly why they say it. I think you were just waiting for your chance to say this phrase.

>>4258101
Power belongs to the person who can take it and hold on to it. It doesn't matter if the person is strong, weak, male or female. But usually it's a strong man, because you usually need strength and men are by far stronger than women, and more physically capable and intimidating. It has absolutely fuckall to do with the "patriarchy."

>>4258085
What are you talking about ? I think they can as well as men.

>>4258088
I'm not saying it should be identical. Just that the female viewpoint is less represented.

>>4258097
It's a matter of degree I guess. Keep in mind, I'm not shocked by male power fantasies. Men and women have fantasies, that are often similar. It's simply good to know what they are.

>>4258121
>I'm not saying it should be identical. Just that the female viewpoint is less represented.
Correction: the feminist viewpoint is less represented.

>>4258121
>What are you talking about ? I think they can as well as men.
Only by "as well as", do you mean predominately more than in market share?

>>4258121
>I'm not shocked by male power fantasies. Men and women have fantasies, that are often similar. It's simply good to know what they are.
Of course. Which is another reason why the use of the term and the argument commonly associated with it are fallacious at best.
>Just that the female viewpoint is less represented.
I think he meant that one of the reason it's conceived as being less represented is that women "fanservice" is far less evident.

>>4257434
So what about movies set in men's prisons?

>>4258116
>>Then why do men want the patriarchy to be?

Most people will adamantly defend the system in which they were raised, no matter how dysfunctional that system may be. Furthermore, the patriarchal system makes life simpler for a certain subset of men, particularly those who have already attained power in the current system.

>>4258119
>>Power belongs to the person who can take it and hold on to it.

Unless you're posting this from a palace in a country ruled by a dictator, you don't actually believe this. The existence of democracy is a statement that ideas and inter human equality is more important than physical capacity.

>>4258137
>I think he meant that one of the reason it's conceived as being less represented is that women "fanservice" is far less evident.
mcdreamy mcsteamy eric bill alcide brad pitt clooney dicaprio dietcoke MRDARCY the other MrDarcy played by the first Mr D'arcy menopausal-moms-for-team-edward/nativesextourism how stella got her groove back from 2nd world men the entire of laurel k hamiliton and throw in the rest of dark romance while we're at it. might as well throw in the feminist idea that we're deprived fan service by our male oppressors who aren't taking the lead in beauty or sex publishing compared to females, because that sounds like some oh no daddy shit too. women's lit and tv is rife with sexualised males who are not only supposed to love and understand females despite females not being held to the same standards (perfectly okay for women to not get men in tv or books because the man inevitably turns out to have been wrong and insensitive whereas women who men don't get are just too special for that man) but also be financial supports for our manic pixie extended childhood while making out they're not supporting us.

female fanservice is just hard to get feminists to evidence as female fan based. or if they do, they assume that women can't own their own brains and these are all some primordial brainwashing which only their vaginas came with the brains to see through. bollocks.

Women don't play as many important roles in real life as men do.

Why should they in films?

Lets face it, Men are more interesting than Women.

>>4258132
Yes.

>>4258137
>Of course. Which is another reason why the use of the term and the argument commonly associated with it are fallacious at best.
It works as a counter-argument showing men and women aren't sexualized the same way. But it's not black and white. I quite agree with >>4258101 Just because it's made by men, doesn't mean it's good for them.

>I think he meant that one of the reason it's conceived as being less represented is that women "fanservice" is far less evident.
Fanservice doesn't disturb men as much as women, but it isn't subtle.

>>4257434
what if they talk about wanting to be raped by a handsome strong superior man?

>>4258159
>Unless you're posting this from a palace in a country ruled by a dictator, you don't actually believe this.
It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of plain fact.

>The existence of democracy is a statement that ideas and inter human equality is more important than physical capacity.
Democracy exists because people who believe in democracy attained power and made democracy happen. Democracy is backed by the police and military.

Okay, here's why this is a problem: the test is incredibly superficial and does not regard context whatsoever. Meaningless checklists should NEVER apply to art, because it eliminates critical thinking. Passing the Bechdel test means NOTHING with regard to how you are representing women. The fact that some of you support this is outrageous. I really don't think a lot of you are thinking this through and are just jumping to conclusions based on your biases. This is NOT how criticism or thinking should be done.

>>4258199
>>>/pol/

fucking misogynist bigot

>>4258182
>>It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of plain fact.
>>Democracy exists because people who believe in democracy attained power and made democracy happen. Democracy is backed by the police and military.

The fact that a democracy has to defend itself from non-democratic threats is not a refutation of the democratic ideal.

The fact of the matter is that people - given a choice between dictatorship and democracy - choose democracy, and people - given *no* choice between dictatorship and democracy - still choose democracy. There is an implicit recognition in all humans of the superiority of ideas and equality over physical ability.

>>4257489
Have you heard of twitter? Vines?

>>4257519
>>>/out/

Why do some people automatically think that equal representation is a good thing? Equal representation is not even how reality functions, so why force our art that way? It's a childish way to deal with inequality.

>>4257549
>feminine doesn't perceive the world in a linear manner set on reducing the world to symbols?
So you really think it's posible to perceive reality objectively, without its symbols? That being a man is some kind of red pill that strips away reality from its symbolic content?
This is stupid.

>>4258232
Because the awkward question of luck destroys the idea that our place in the world as those with endless hours to f5 4chan and excess food was meritocratic, egalitarian, or even just democratic.

>>4258211
>The fact that a democracy has to defend itself from non-democratic threats is not a refutation of the democratic ideal.
Nobody was trying to refute the democratic ideal. Not sure what you think you're talking about here.

>The fact of the matter is that people - given a choice between dictatorship and democracy - choose democracy, and people - given *no* choice between dictatorship and democracy - still choose democracy.
This isn't even true. Muslims, for example, largely either reject democracy or use it only as a tool without understanding or caring about its spirit.

>There is an implicit recognition in all humans of the superiority of ideas and equality over physical ability.
Well good lucking using your ideas to subdue a mugger, or an invading army that wants to remove your democratic rights.

And note that I originally said this:
>Power belongs to the person who can take it and hold on to it. It doesn't matter if the person is strong, weak, male or female. But usually it's a strong man, because you usually need strength and men are by far stronger than women, and more physically capable and intimidating.
Nowhere does it say that strength and force are a requirement for attaining power, but power still goes to those who are able to take it. That's how reality works, it's not a construct of the "patriarchy."

I think it's baffling to see just how stupid someone can get as he gets more educated.

It seems once you are aware of the test it will be really easy to pass.

I think it is a great test, I am sick of being a fucking "other" in my own head. I am sick of thinking as men (who are the minority) as the default gender. You can´t imagine how confusing that is. Watching TV you´d think... well you´d think what most people on 4chan do think about women, because TV is what makes up the majority of their experience with women.

>>4258284
> I am sick of being a fucking "other" in my own head.
This is because of too much feminist kool aid, not because of the media. No normal person uses a word like "other."

>>4258284
>what I think depends on movies
Maybe the one who has to change is you and not movies.

>>4258277
This is what happens when you increase belief at a faster rate than non belief.
As long as you're increasing the relative amount of stuff you don't believe in, or the extent to which you don't believe, you're good.
But as soon as the balance tips and you start to accumulate beliefs and your identity gets trapped in them. Oh dear. But then, people self correct. Is all good.

>>4258320
I learned the term through the compassion of eastern and western cultures. That´s when it occurred to me that it applied to this.

Anyway, regardless, just because you haven´t named a problem doesn´t mean it´s not there.

I remember when I was a little girl I was a massive Star Trek fan and when I heard they were making a new series I was really excited, when I found out the captain was going to be a woman I was really angry and I thought it was ridiculous. I thought a woman couldn´t have a position of power or an important job.

It was television that taught me that.

>>4258355
comparison not compassion

>>4258355
You got angry because something that was consistent and good (Kirk, Picard) was being changed.
>black spiderman
Remember that?

>>4257729
what's your point?
Dorf IS Art.

>>4258014

>>4258199


I don´t know if it exists, let´s call it the "Rachel test" for now.

A test passes the Rachel test if two male characters talk to each other about something other than a woman.

Now think about how many films fail..


The Bechdel test does NOT say that a film is bad because it fails the test, it says that this film is part of a whole industry which doesn´t think 52% of the population of the world is as important as the other 48%.

My favorite films and books all fail the test and that doesn´t mean I don´t love them or they aren´t wonderful.

>>4258355
>I thought a woman couldn´t have a position of power or an important job. It was television that taught me that.
And when I was a child I thought the Internet was stored in a central location after seeing something about it on TV, because children are retarded. What about it?

>>4258284
Then see through your own eyes...
Why wait for the whole of society to change? You're not helplessly immobile in how you rank others' perceptions relative to your own. Put yours first. It's narcissistically simple. And it sure beats the alternative.
Plus you're doing it anyway, just in a more confused manner. You're the one choosing to believe other peoples' perceptions of you more than your own. It's you who's doing it, not someone else.
Sure, they might have convinced you to, but why continue if you think you know better? Just follow the realisation that you probably know better to predominantly thinking you do.

And consumerism is now starting to dictate the artist. if you seek to be great by the standards of humans you must not follow the trend.

and thus art gasped its final breath. First Mass Effect in video games and now this.

I just personally think these groups will never be satisfied. the next complaint will be about the representation of women and how men should think like women, how to write about women you must have lived as a woman for a while to expereince their begrudging endless tropes and victim complexes.

The unique artist final hours approaches.

>>4258372
I said male and female fantasies can be similar.

>>4258368
Also she was angry because star trek writers can't write women for shit.
Seriously, they're all terrible and stereotyped and star trek is still regarded as non sexist.
>mfw people complimented on the black chick in TOS because she was a black woman starring in a tv show
She was a phone girl.

>>4258284
>It seems once you are aware of the test it will be really easy to pass.
>I think it is a great test

>>4258372

I don´t even know anyone who reads romance novels, I know loads of guys who read comic books.. That´s personal experience, I don´t know the statistics.

Anyway romance novels are pornography for women, it´s no good saying "you can´t believe in equality because you don´t like to be on top when you´re in bed".. what does that have to do with anything?

>>4258389
Ok if you don´t think it´s damaging for little girls to think that there is no way they can ever have certain jobs or do certain things then I guess there is no way I can have a conversation with you.

>>4257743
Journey, Hotel Dusk, Mother 3, Max Payne, Machinarium and MGS2.
Have a blast. All those games made me feel stronger emotions than any movie or book I've read.

>>4258199
It's not supposed to be a test in the artistic value of a movie or book. It's supposed to be like a litmus test for this particular aspect of media.

Nobody is supposed to judge an entire work based on this. It's a simple yes/no answer for whoever wants to know.

Plenty of my favorites don't pass.

Maybe you would understand if you bothered to read a little more on what the Bechdel test really is, instead of just jumping to conclusions and making sensationalist threads.

>>4258397
>consumerism is now starting to dictate the artist.
>now
this has happened all throghout history
art for art's sake is a relatively young concept.

>>4258408
>romance novels are pornography
And comic books are escapism for everyone. The fact that there are many muscular men that save women doesn't mean the reader is a misogynist.

>>4258414
Just because you misunderstood something based on television doesn't mean others did. For example, another girl could have watched Murder, She Wrote:
>The show revolved around the day-to-day life of a retired English teacher who, after being widowed in her early fifties, becomes a very successful mystery writer. [...] Jessica invariably proves more perceptive than the official investigators, who are almost always willing to arrest the most likely suspect. By carefully piecing the clues together and asking astute questions, she always manages to trap the real murderer.
Or maybe her mother or some other woman closer to her had an "important" job and she didn't need television to tell her anything.

>>4258414
This bait was delicious, please don't give up.

>>4258163
/thread

>>4258451
Yes, surely it is bait, and there are no people in the world who think such things. Nothing to see here, move along.

>>4258265
>>This isn't even true. Muslims, for example, largely either reject democracy or use it only as a tool without understanding or caring about its spirit.

MFW the muslim world is about as democratic as christian latin america.

Do you honestly think muslims and latinos don't want democracy or is it likely that they are just trying to survive however they can in the shitty system they were born into?

>>subdue a mugger,

I do subdue muggers with my ideals. It's called supporting welfare. It makes sure people have enough economic equality that it prevents them from getting desperate enough to commit violent crime.

Hello from Canada. It's called "soft power", and it works.

>>or an invading army that wants to remove your democratic rights.

Never said democracies don't need to or shouldn't defend themselves against anti-democratic threats.

>>Nowhere does it say that strength and force are a requirement for attaining power,

If force isn't necessary then why all the talk about muggers and invasions to justify your stance? If the military and police aren't the root of power why do they need to be invoked to support the argument that "power belongs to those who can take and hold onto it"?

>>4258460
>and there are no people in the world who think such things
Unfortunately there are.
But when I said don't give up, I meant reply to the people who actually called you out on your bullshit instead of fleeing because "y u no fink liek me? we no have discussion nao".

>>4258392
the things you are saying are very nice but have been disproved by social psychology.

We are affected by the media we consume, whether we like it or not, and our awareness does not reduce that effect.

That´s not to say I sit at home thinking "can´t do X, because vagina." The best solution I can think of is to identify with the male characters, I mean there is nothing to stop a woman identifying with Superman more than Lois Lane any more than there is stopping a black person identifying more with John Travolta than Samuel L Jackson

>>4258460
of course there are. I teach kids, I have met them. You tell them they are wrong and they can be anything they want and they look at you like you´re crazy. And you can´t argue with them because you are just a teacher and even little kids know teachers are the epitome of broken dreams.

You don´t think maybe the fact that little girls immediately dismiss the idea of becoming a pilot when they think about what they want to be when they grow up has anything to do with the fact that there are so few female pilots?

>>4258355
>>4258389
I have you beaten.

I became an atheist at five years old after staying awake to watch a Carl Sagan documentary.
For some reason, I concluded from it that a man could feasibly engineer the entire universe.

>>4258448

That´s the best example you could think of? Murder She Wrote?

>>4258448
Little girls can´t rely on their mothers to be the one that show them that women can have jobs like that because the vast majority of jobs like that are still not held by women.

They need to get the idea somewhere else.

>>4258469
>Do you honestly think muslims and latinos don't want democracy or is it likely that they are just trying to survive however they can in the shitty system they were born into?
No, they actually don't want democracy. Democracy is a very old social construct invented by Westerners, not an inherent desire of all men, and it took a very long time for the West to reach its present state. Muslims see democracy as a tool, and they support it only as long as it lets them get the upper hand.

>I do subdue muggers with my ideals. It's called supporting welfare. It makes sure people have enough economic equality that it prevents them from getting desperate enough to commit violent crime.
This is called being delusional, and by your logic there should be no violent crime in Northern Europe. But there is. Of course there is. Welfare and prosperity don't remove violent crime, even financially motivated violent crime. And your support for welfare is not going to protect you from anyone.

>Never said democracies don't need to or shouldn't defend themselves against anti-democratic threats.
I thought we live in an enlightened, progressive era where only ideas matter.

>If force isn't necessary then why all the talk about muggers and invasions to justify your stance?
Force is the most fundamental way of attaining and projecting power, and even democracies are propped up by it.

>>4258441
No one is saying the reader is a misogynist or that the writer of the comic or the comic itself is misogynist. I think that is part of the violent reaction against this idea, the fact that people don´t understand it.

Am I the only one on this site who believes there's nothing bad about a woman wanting to be a housewife, considering it's one of the most difficult jobs there are?

Actually, I'd be more compelled to admire one who truly meant it more than one who wants to be a CEO or a pilot or whatever.

>>4258503
why a man? why not a pineapple?

>>4258542
Too acid, silly.

>>4258486
>our awareness does not reduce that effect
u wot m8. It most certainly can.

Regardless, reading this got me to reconsider my position. Or at least the way I phrased it. You have to follow a higher authority than TV while letting go of self-definition to the point where you just do the right thing. At that point you're relatively free of others' perception and representations that are put in front of you.
May I hazard a guess that you're afraid of what would happen if you stopped believing that your sense of self was anchored to anything?
My only tip is: Trust something bigger than yourself if you get too butjangled by media.

>>4258499
>You don´t think maybe the fact that little girls immediately dismiss the idea of becoming a pilot when they think about what they want to be when they grow up has anything to do with the fact that there are so few female pilots?
And why might there be so few female pilots? I wonder if it has anything to do with women not being interested in being pilots.

It's strange that, according to feminism, women are strong and independent go-getters who don't need no man and can do anything they can except better, but at the same time they are slaves to the media and real or imagined public opinion, and cannot do anything without someone (usually a white heterosexual man) rolling out the red carpet and dragging them across it kicking and screaming. Someone somewhere always has to fix something so women can do something, even if no legal or social obstacles prevent them from doing it.

Another way of putting this is that women are followers and men are leaders, but of course that's a "misogynist" thing to say, even though feminists are constantly affirming it.

>>4258538
What the hell, of course a woman can be a housewife if she wants. Is there something wrong with thinking she should realize from a young age that there are limitless possibilities, of which housewivery is one very nice one?

Where did you even get this complaint? Are you a special kind of troll visiting from 1970 when feminists were still busy defending the rights of housewives to be housewives and being respected as such?

>>4258547
>u wot m8. It most certainly can.

It can not. It is a type of conditioning, conditioning is biological and can not be avoided regardless of how well you understand how it works. Look it up.

>>4258533
But the other poster actually implied it.
He was commenting on the comparisons of comic books and romance novels, then he said:
>"you can´t believe in equality because you don´t like to be on top when you´re in bed"
He said that this idea is ridiculous, which suggest that this is what he thinks about people who enjoy "male power fantasies" (i feel retarded every time I write this).

>>4258546
you wouldn't think that if pineapples hadn't been unfairly represented by the media for centuries

>>4258508
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Scully

>>4258513
Yeah yeah yeah. It's always the media's fault, or somebody else's fault, why women aren't all CEOs and famous scientists, even though they now go to college more than men do. Why blame yourself when there's a conspiracy theory to pin everything on. Just ask /pol/.

>>4258548
>It's strange that, according to feminism, women are strong and independent go-getters who don't need no man and can do anything they can except better, but at the same time they are slaves to the media and real or imagined public opinion, and cannot do anything without someone (usually a white heterosexual man) rolling out the red carpet and dragging them across it kicking and screaming.

Conditioning is an objective fact. No feminist says that women are not human, or that women are not mammals. At least not that I know of.

Anyway don't take any post you read on 4chan as being representative of modern feminist thought.

>>4258581
>don't take any post you read on 4chan as being representative of modern feminist thought.
Including yours?
Also we've been over this in this same thread. Feminists have a tendency to use no true scotsman when questioned. It seems they can't agree on what feminism is.

>>4258575

Classical and evaluative conditioning are not conspiracy theories they have been empirically proven.

There are loads of female scientists doing incredibly important work, it won't be long before women outnumber men in science. I don't know why there aren't many female CEOs and I don't think anyone does. I am not saying it's because of TV, I am not saying that at all, you are so determined to disagree with everything I say that you put words in my mouth.

>>4258588
It is very clear what feminisim is.

Feminism is wanting men to have equal rights and opportunities to women. In other words your son and your daughter to have the same opportunities in life.

Seeing as how that is the only core belief of course we don't all agree on everything.

>>4258566
More reason not to believe that.

If pineapples had the power to build the universe, they'd have the power to rule media.

>>4258551
No woman seems to look at housewivery as something positive anymore.
Especially feminists who believe that it puts women on a demeaning role.

>>4258575
>why women aren't all CEOs and famous scientists, even though they now go to college more than men do.
Because
>http://www.redandblack.com/opinion/how-to-find-that-perfect-husband-in-college/article_8b6d38e2-c575-11e1-8ce5-0019bb30f31a.html
top lel

>>4258602
No, what you're talking about is egalitarianism. Feminism requires women to have specific advantages over men as compensation for perceived inequality

>>4258602
"we don't agree on everything" is very different than "anyone who says X is not a true feminist, and they're just a vocal minority anyways".
Also why isn't feminism egalitarianism?

>>4258581
I was reading and debating feminists years before I even started visiting here regularly. And it's not like there are that many feminists here anyway.

>>4258588
>It seems they can't agree on what feminism is.
Or so they want people to think. They have no such disagreements when they aren't being questioned by non-feminists.

>>4258592
>Classical and evaluative conditioning are not conspiracy theories they have been empirically proven.
Strange how they don't affect men. They shouldn't affect women either, considering all the grrrl power swagger coming from feminists.

But if it's not the media, it's always something else, like not enough "role models" hanging around, or somebody's uncle's barber once said girls can't do this or that, or whatever. It's never their own fault. They have no agency.

>There are loads of female scientists doing incredibly important work, it won't be long before women outnumber men in science.
So what exactly was the problem again?

>>4258604

>No woman seems to look at housewivery as something positive anymore.

That's not true at all. A lot of my friends are really looking forward to becoming housewives..

I don't ever plan to have kids but if I did I would want to stay at home with them. I don't see anything wrong with that. Nor do I see anything wrong with a man making the decision to be a stay at home dad if he wants. I think it's great there is less stigma attached to men doing that now. Because before feminism there was.

>>4258612
That is not what feminism is. Have you ever even studied feminism?

>>4258604
This might be just anecdotal, but if you think that you'd be surprised as to how many of my female classmates regularily discussed strategies for finding rich men to marry and staying at home.

>>4258627
It may not be what it originally was, but that's what it is today

>>4258627
It makes no difference what academics think feminism is supposed to be, or what they want people to think it is. The only thing that matters is what feminists actually say and do.

>>4258616
feminism is specifically aimed at inequality between genders.

Egalitarianism is about inequality within humanity.

You can say one is a branch of the other.

>>4258516
>>Is a bigot
>>Is narrow minded
>>Is a troll
>>Is begging the question

Shine on you crazy diamond!

>>4258618


>Strange how they don't affect men. They shouldn't affect women either, considering all the grrrl power swagger coming from feminists.

It effects all mammals, probably all animals, but I am not sure about ameoba etc.

Would you please look this up, you are embarrassing yourself trying to give an opinion about something that you clearly never heard of before today.

To say classical conditioning doesn't effect you is literally equivalent of saying that you don't associate pain with cutting yourself.

>>4258635
>It may not be what it originally was, but that's what it is today


that is not what it is today. That is what 4chan thinks it is.

>>4258627
Where I live a hot topic is enforcing legal quotas of women in position of important responsibilites in the public administration and in private companies boads of administration.

Those are precisely giving specific advantages as compensation for perceived inequalities (as well as ignoring the fact that some high-value professions are mostly feminine, such as the magistrates).

>>4258650
>is making shit up at random
Nice!

>>4258652
>To say classical conditioning doesn't effect you is literally equivalent of saying that you don't associate pain with cutting yourself.
Men have always been swimming against the current, even at the risk of dying, but women are rendered helpless by television dramas. Something doesn't quite add up there.

>>4258650
Cool ad hominems, bro

>>4258652
Not the guy who you responded to, but I looked it up actually expecting to see something interesting when I found out it was fucking pavlovian's reflex. how is the fact that you can associate a stimulus to an information related to gender roles?
>inb4 blank slate theory

>>4258638
What you are saying is based on a profound misunderstanding.

I am sorry there are some very angry young people on tumblr calling themselves feminists and insulting men, but that doesn't mean they have anything to do with the thing itself.

It's like if I say I am an idealist and then start saying that people who trust their perceptions as being representations of some actual reality are DICKS and then you say "all idealists are assholes and idealism is bullshit"

That's probably a shitty comparison..

Say you hated the civil rights movement because of Malcolm X, and decided not to read anything written by any progressive black person.. it's more like that

>>4258684
evaluative conditioning. Look it up

>>4258686
>I am sorry there are some very angry young people on tumblr calling themselves feminists and insulting men, but that doesn't mean they have anything to do with the thing itself.
HERE WE GO AGAIN

Always the same fucking copout evasive maneuvers even after they've been pointed out several times in this very thread. Admit nothing, deny everything, make counter-accusations.

>Say you hated the civil rights movement because of Malcolm X, and decided not to read anything written by any progressive black person.. it's more like that
Malcolm X was one person.

>>4258686
That would only be an appropriate answer if that behavior was indeed limited to a certain environment or website. But I've seen and read this kind of stuff elsewhere, including in places without obvious links with Tumblr (and not limited to the Anglophone sphere).

Which leads me to believe that feminisism as a whole has become something corrupted.

>>4258684
http://www.psych-it.com.au/Psychlopedia/article.asp?id=312

>>4258703
I don't think you understand what I said...

You didn't offer any counterarguments and I don't understand how counting Malcom X was relevant.. did I say something to suggest he was 2 people?

anyway there were many people who felt like him.

>>4258703
Why do you think that feminism has to be some kind of religion with a concrete initiation ceremony and a fixed and unchanging doctrine? It is just about equal rights for men and women.
Is that so hard to understand? There are loads of time when helping men means helping women and vice versa. I mean it used to be really hard for men to get custody of their children and that was terrible. And now it is getting easier. Could we have made it easier without feminism? Without getting rid of this idea that women are magically better at taking care of children than men are?

Women would find it easier to get jobs if men were given longer paternity leave.. I don't know how feasible that is, it's just one example.

>>4258751
>It is just about equal rights for men and women.
I'd have nothing to hold against feminism, but more and more feminists have changed the meaning of equal rights from equality in law to equality of opportunities. See>>4258664
)

Which is in fact not only injust toward the men who see women bypassing them just because of their gender, but also an intelectualy and politicaly dangerous belief.

>>4258730
>You didn't offer any counterarguments
To what? Your pathetic evasive maneuvers?

There isn't one person or a couple people making feminism look bad, feminists as a whole make it look bad because it is bad. Going to a feminist site and finding the exact opposite of equality is the norm, not the exception. Feminists either knowingly deny this, or they do believe in "equality" butt their concept of equality is so warped that it has nothing to do with the real thing.

Of course you'll tell me that I've been visiting the wrong feminists who have nothing to do with the true mainstream movement. The princess is always in another castle, and nobody can say where the castle is.

>>4258751
>It is just about equal rights for men and women.
There is no evidence of that aside from Wikipedia and dictionary entries saying so.

>>4258765

All you have to do there is hire applicants based on their CVs, but have the CVs go by numbers not names and have someone read them first and make sure there are no clues (he went to an all boys school) (she included her bra size) on the CV. This would help with racial issues as well.

It wouldn't be 100% solved because it is hard to make education 100% fair. Observe:

They did this experiment where they invented some test, (one of those circle the odd one out brain teaser type nonsense tests) and they gave it to men women black people, Latinos. When they weren't told anything about the test they all did equally well. When they were told people in [your minority] usually do badly in this test they did much worse.

So if that is just one test once and one comment from one person one day, imagine what it is like if you hear on a regular basis that your group is not so good at x y or z.