[Lorric]

Why do you want to do this? Just think about it, we've been doing this for hours, and short of giving our brains a bit of a workout, what has it done for us? Let's stop and shake hands. I just don't see the point anymore, FIZ was right, it's just a pissing contest now. I'd rather be your friend than your enemy. If I send you out of the thread, you won't like it. If you win, what is even the point of it?

[Lorric]

Is that it then? We're not doing this? I'm going to leave soon, there's no point in just sitting here.

[haloboy100]

Yet another thread that wastes half its lifetime arguing about logical fallacies than the OP topic.

Is it too late to get back to something relevant before this gets locked? I'm actually interested in it this time.

Related to what I said earlier; I'm wondering what hollywood is trying to accomplish with these female tropes/stereotypes, or if they even realize they're doing it.

[Lorric]

Yet another thread that wastes half its lifetime arguing about logical fallacies than the OP topic.

Is it too late to get back to something relevant before this gets locked? I'm actually interested in it this time.

Related to what I said earlier; I'm wondering what hollywood is trying to accomplish with these female tropes/stereotypes, or if they even realize they're doing it.

Well sure, why not? It shouldn't get locked if I'm trying to bring this thing to a close. Go ahead and speak your mind and see what happens. I won't be responding. At least not today anyway, I'm getting tired.

[NGTM-1R]

Why do you want to do this?

I could say it's because you're wrong, maybe toss in an xkcd picture. I could say I don't like to lose. (But I don't think that was ever a realistic danger.)

But in the end?

I honestly think what you're espousing is disempowering women, men, you, and the use of the internet for coherent and cognizant speech. The last makes you noise in the signal-to-noise equation. The first three are something considerably more serious.

[Scourge of Ages]

Related to what I said earlier; I'm wondering what hollywood is trying to accomplish with these female tropes/stereotypes, or if they even realize they're doing it.

I think they're appealing to the lowest common denominator among people who like rom-coms. Think about the two main characters of a MPDG film: You have your sad sack of a dude who's basically just an average dude, and the pixie who's quirky and inexplicably single and attracted to the dude.

The guy is actually a pretty shallow character. Sure, he's got trouble, but how does he deal with it? By getting sad and/or running away, and has to be rescued by the girl. As was discussed, the pixie is a shallow character, with no life beyond the movie.

The guys who can identify with the protagonist, I imagine tend to be those who have had bad luck with relationships and/or not had any, who think to themselves, "Hey, that's like me! Wow, if only I could find one of those girls, I know she'd like me and then I'd be happy!" This is obviously a poor attitude to take.

[This part is wild speculation, probably could use a bit more exposition] Then any girls who can identify with the pixie, probably have fairly low self-esteem. They may think that, "The guy in the movie is kind of cute, and ends up being a decent human being! That's my ticket, I just gotta find some sap like that and rescue him, and then I'll be happy!" This also is a wildly poor attitude. [/spec]

EDIT: In summary, the lowest common denominator would be people who have trouble with relationships and/or low self-esteem. There are plenty of us them.

[Mr. Vega]

Yet another thread that wastes half its lifetime arguing about logical fallacies than the OP topic.

Is it too late to get back to something relevant before this gets locked? I'm actually interested in it this time.

Related to what I said earlier; I'm wondering what hollywood is trying to accomplish with these female tropes/stereotypes, or if they even realize they're doing it.

Does this and this answer your question?

[Phantom Hoover]

Yet another thread that wastes half its lifetime arguing about logical fallacies than the OP topic.

Is it too late to get back to something relevant before this gets locked? I'm actually interested in it this time.

Related to what I said earlier; I'm wondering what hollywood is trying to accomplish with these female tropes/stereotypes, or if they even realize they're doing it.

Does this and this answer your question?

"People who do things I don't like are stupid and malicious" is rarely a good answer for any question.

[Mr. Vega]

Except she had first hand experience. And malice does exist. That it doesn't make for as good a story doesn't change that.

[Luis Dias]

Except she had first hand experience. And malice does exist. That it doesn't make for as good a story doesn't change that.

And it isn't about maliciousnessness at all. It's about something different:

He just looked embarrassed and said, “I mean, that’s not how I see it, that’s how they see it.”

This line is extremely important, because as we should know, this is how the most ridiculous things work. No one actually needs to believe in the sexist nonsense exposed by that article, the people in the industry only need to believe that "others" do. There's this absolutely powerful "They" that are sexist pigs, so everyone else must adhere to this idea too, despite the fact that this "They" do not even need to exist at all objectively.

This is exactly how the "Patriarchy" and other kinds of stupid ideologies function. It's not us, it's "they", and we better go along with it...

e: I mean, remember Zizek's old joke about the Chicken. There's this lunatic that thinks he's a grain, so he's treated in the madhouse. Then he is cured and leaves the house. But then, a week later he comes back, frightened that a Chicken might eat him. "But you are cured! You know you aren't a grain!" "Yes, I know that I am not a grain, but does the chicken know it?"

[Phantom Hoover]

Malice does exist, but when you're asking "why does this large group of people do something that is, from my perspective, obviously wrong?" it becomes a shortcut to an easy answer that grants little insight; and it also fosters the attitude of "well I'm not a bad person, I don't believe women/other races/gays are inferior to me; so I can't be a sexist/racist/homophobe; so anyone who tries to point out things I do or like that help reinforce these things is (at best) mistaken and I have to defend myself in kind", which is a major factor in these 'sexism in gaming' debates becoming so toxic.

[haloboy100]

Related to what I said earlier; I'm wondering what hollywood is trying to accomplish with these female tropes/stereotypes, or if they even realize they're doing it.

I think they're appealing to the lowest common denominator among people who like rom-coms. Think about the two main characters of a MPDG film: You have your sad sack of a dude who's basically just an average dude, and the pixie who's quirky and inexplicably single and attracted to the dude.

The guy is actually a pretty shallow character. Sure, he's got trouble, but how does he deal with it? By getting sad and/or running away, and has to be rescued by the girl. As was discussed, the pixie is a shallow character, with no life beyond the movie.

The guys who can identify with the protagonist, I imagine tend to be those who have had bad luck with relationships and/or not had any, who think to themselves, "Hey, that's like me! Wow, if only I could find one of those girls, I know she'd like me and then I'd be happy!" This is obviously a poor attitude to take.

[This part is wild speculation, probably could use a bit more exposition] Then any girls who can identify with the pixie, probably have fairly low self-esteem. They may think that, "The guy in the movie is kind of cute, and ends up being a decent human being! That's my ticket, I just gotta find some sap like that and rescue him, and then I'll be happy!" This also is a wildly poor attitude. [/spec]

EDIT: In summary, the lowest common denominator would be people who have trouble with relationships and/or low self-esteem. There are plenty of us them.

I suppose I can identify to the male characters in these movies (to the limiting extent I relate to any "normal" person in these movies, which isn't much) but am I supposed to be attracted to this female image? I share much, if not all of the criteria that matches these male roles, and the only thing I feel from these female roles is utter alienation.

Perhaps I'm biased, but I'm pretty sure any girl who acts like this in real life is suffering from some very disturbing psychological issues.

[Scourge of Ages]

Well the way I was thinking of it, maybe not the whole personality, because yeah, it's pretty grating. But the aspects of, "Hey, this girl likes me just the way I am now, she's doing all the work to make a relationship, all I have to do is sit back and enjoy the ride." That does sound pretty good, but it's not realistic behavior for normal, well-adjusted people.

[Lorric]

Well the way I was thinking of it, maybe not the whole personality, because yeah, it's pretty grating. But the aspects of, "Hey, this girl likes me just the way I am now, she's doing all the work to make a relationship, all I have to do is sit back and enjoy the ride." That does sound pretty good, but it's not realistic behavior for normal, well-adjusted people.

That sounds like what some men do, chase the girl and put her on a pedestal.

[NGTM-1R]

That sounds like what some men do, chase the girl and put her on a pedestal.

You'll notice it typically doesn't work out well.

[Bobboau]

I would like to present as evidence, "Miracle on 34th Street" the story of a cynical no-fun-allowed woman being taught the value of fantasy and having fun by a guy. This description can work for both of the main subplots of the movie, but I focus more on the relationship between Fred and Doris as it has the whole romantic angle to it.

[Lorric]

I would like to present as evidence, "Miracle on 34th Street" the story of a cynical no-fun-allowed woman being taught the value of fantasy and having fun by a guy. This description can work for both of the main subplots of the movie, but I focus more on the relationship between Fred and Doris as it has the whole romantic angle to it.

I think Anita could use a manic pixie dream guy...

[The E]

I would like to present as evidence, "Miracle on 34th Street" the story of a cynical no-fun-allowed woman being taught the value of fantasy and having fun by a guy. This description can work for both of the main subplots of the movie, but I focus more on the relationship between Fred and Doris as it has the whole romantic angle to it.

I think Anita could use a manic pixie dream guy...

What.

I have no words.

What you just said there is so massively misogynistic, so incredibly offensive, so unbelievably, completely STUPID, that you should really take some time off, not only from this thread, but from the topic of feminism in general in order to figure out why what you just said was completely inappropriate. In this and the other thread, you have been a consistent example of the kind of casual misogynism that Ms Sarkeesian (And why the **** are you calling her by her first name?) and other rational people are fighting against.

Oh, and Bobboau: Same goes for you.

EDIT:

Because I just know that you have no idea why what you just said is offensive, I'll just tell you. You just, in essence, said "She needs to get laid, so she isn't so uptight." I wonder what made you think that Ms Sarkeesian's relationship status has any bearing on her stance in this issue, and why you think that that joke was a particularly good one to make. There's no relation between a person's stance on female equality, and how often said person has had sex, no matter what you may think.

[Lorric]

There is likely no good can come from me engaging with you, but I will clarify something. It is not about misogynism. It is about and I will quote Bobboau again

being taught the value of fantasy and having fun

As for her name... it's her name.

As for other rational people, well that thumbs down vote is creeping up. Be careful what you say...

[Lorric]

You just, in essence, said "She needs to get laid, so she isn't so uptight."

I. Did. Not.

I neither said, nor thought such a thing. Don't put words in my mouth that I haven't spoken.

I wonder what other filthy motives you're applying to me that are not so.