Recent posts by BCLEGENDS on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Forum Games: Forum Games / Trux Terraru (Playing Thread)

[Sorry for not posting recently. I uhhhhhh got distracted. Yyyyeah.]

Asger Asmund
‘…huh,’ I say, taking a look around in order to associate each target on the map with its equivalent throughout the hills. ‘Sounds like an interestin’ tale. I hope ye get what you’re lookin’ for, then. Er, excuse me a moment…’ With that said, I begin to trudge down from the shooting area to gather up the arrows I’ve fired, returning once I’ve collected them all, and then looking around for my next target.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Forum Games: Forum Games / [Mafia] Cells [Day 2]

@Pulsaris: First of all, way to be unusually sarcastic for no good reason, twice. Second, explanation? You mean aside from all the stuff that’s already been said about him? Never mind hand, Arm of Suspicion Pulsaris.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Forum Games: Forum Games / [Mafia] Cells [Day 2]

Originally posted by back900:

Not sure how I became suspicious by pointing out an unusual suggestion by a player.

To save my skin I will [vote:BCLEGENDS] nice of you to attack someone V/LA after saying not to vote mommy because he is inactive.

Nice of you to once again not realise that my vote for you had nothing to do with you V/LA announcement. Still, I’m probably screwed anyway, since it’s three to two against me.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Forum Games: Forum Games / [Mafia] Cells [Day 2]

EBWOP: Okay, so I gave an argument, and nobody’s responded in five hours or so. I was under the impression that voting somebody out for supposedly not wording statements well was frowned upon in mafia games, moreso when the death is brought about after a single post, by two people, who completely fail to respond to the subsequent defense statements made by the accused.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Forum Games: Forum Games / [Mafia] Cells [Day 2]

Originally posted by BrainpanSonata:

FoS BC Your wording contradicts itself. You say that nobody seems immediately suspicious, then vote back as being the most suspicious. On top of that, I’m waiting on word from the mod on whether or not a vote is necessary today. In a time where everyone wants to play cautiously, you’re being very gung ho.

…as viewed by the group. He’s the most suspicious person as viewed by the group. I thought I’d made that obvious – “the most significantly suspicious player as a whole”, as in via the consideration of the group prior to my post. Was my language that undecipherable?

Originally posted by Gonkeymonkey:

Jumping to vote for someone right after they said they’d be V/LA is very suspicious because you’re taking advantage of the fact that they can not defend themselves. In addition, the contradiction of your wording that Brain talked about. Vote: BCLEGENDS

My vote had nothing to do with him being V/LA. And again, I point out that, if you actually read it, it’s nothing like as contradictory as you may think.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Forum Games: Forum Games / [Mafia] Cells [Day 2]

So, I’m just going to go ahead and say that nobody seems immediately suspicious to me personally at the moment, and I don’t really know whether or not “no NKs” is a thing in this game. However, for the sake of activity, and of actually ensuring we vote for somebody this time round, I’m going to go ahead and vote: back900 as the most significantly suspicious player as a whole, since the only other viable lynch target is the inactive mommyrocks, which implies nothing about his role either way.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Forum Games: Forum Games / JoJo's Cultist Adventure [Signups & Discussion] [Signups always open]

I have no idea what Joan and Billie’s theme song would be. However, very well done for the art pieces you’ve come up with so far, FlyingCat.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Forum Games: Forum Games / JoJo's Cultist Adventure [Game Thread] [Sign-ups Always Open]

Joan Jones
‘Uh, s-sure,’ I say to Dom. ’I’ll take a cab with you both. I believe…’
And let’s just double check here…
‘…yes, I have my own money with me, so don’t worry about paying for my part of the fare.’
‘Can I come with you too?’
Oh, it’s Adam. I… kind of forgot he was here, to be honest. He’s been awfully quiet for a bit, so… uhhhh…
You messed up. That’s fine. Just say “yes you can”.
‘Oh, um, ah- sure, I don’t mind, and I assume Josh and Dom won’t either. There’ll be enough seats in the taxi for all of us, so…’


So we got the cab, I returned to the hotel, and, uh… fell asleep fairly quickly after all was said and done, to be honest. Even Billie wasn’t quite as overtly lewd as she tends to be when we’re in private. What a day, I suppose. What a day…

[I forgot to do posting for this for a while. Also, since I have control over Adam for the time being, I had him ask that particular question, then left it ambiguous as to whether he actually went in the cab to minimise godmodding. I’m going to guess there’s no problem with him actually going by cab with Joan, Josh and Dom, anyway.]

 
Flag Post

Topic: Forum Games: Forum Games / JoJo's Cultist Adventure [Signups & Discussion] [Signups always open]

Originally posted by FlyingCat:

I’ll try working on Matt now. I really don’t mind if people are picky about their appearance, and this may really help players feel more immersive if they understand what everything looks like.

Here’s my new sketch on it. If there’s something you don’t like or if the design is too simple, I can change that.
http://i.imgur.com/dSrh5k3.png

I’m also SO glad I asked you. Before I took a two hour nap, I made a sketch based on what I thought you wanted. It was scary to say at the very least.

Much better, and a very good job you’ve done of it. Still missing gems across the ribbons – as I said, there should ideally be five or six along the length of each ribbon – and if you’re going to do a full-body view of 「Billie Jean」, I’ll say now that there are also gems along the length of its arms and legs (let’s say that spatially, they form loose circles around each limb in which the gems also happen to form fairly widely-spaced lines along the length of the limbs, for the sake of simplicity in repetition), as well as (and this is a recent edit to fit with the whole “gemstones” theme) a row of three gems at the level of its navel and the base of its spine holding up the groin-hiding ribbons. I figured that was both more appropriate and more enticing than a loop of string, so…

Originally posted by BLOODYRAIN10001:
Originally posted by BCLEGENDS:

BC, it said between 1 and 100 meters, that means no atomic scale bullshit.

Okay, so what is “it”, and where does “it” say that about any Stand power? There’s a major protagonist in JJBA canon who can turn inanimate objects into animals; if that doesn’t involve atomic-scale manipulation, I don’t know what does.

….I’m talking about mar’s ability, no need to be an ass.
Edit: and in case you still didn’t get the gist of what I’m saying, “it” means what mar typed up for their ability.

Oh, alright. I guess that’s fair enough, then. Sorrah for the unintentional rudeness.

[Nevermore suggestions by FC]

Interesting considerations. Another proposal could be that the distance alterations can only extend so far from the Stand proper – whilst 「Nevermore」 itself can move anywhere within 100 meters of Shiro, it can only manipulate distance within, say, five meters of itself, such that attacks always seem to be on target at first, only to narrowly miss every time for no obvious reason. To make a somewhat distant and possibly ostracising comparison, it could be used in a similar manner to the Semblance of Pyrrha Nikos from RWBY; she basically has control over magnetism, but tends to use it very subtly to give the illusion that she’s untouchable, which is something Shiro could emulate by using 「Nevermore」 to basically bend attacks around his already small and presumably difficult to hit frame.

Oh and by the way, you forgot to add in your Stand’s Power stat, mar. Just saying, that needs calculating.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Forum Games: Forum Games / The General Thread

Originally posted by SypherKhode822:
Originally posted by adv0catus:

Why can’t you date someone if you’re asexual?

Probably cause they’d eventually want to bump uglies, and that could lead to some confusion.

I mean, you totally can date other people as an asexual, and there’s nothing saying any given asexual couldn’t have sex with a partner. It’d just be a chore for them to do at best, as opposed to a fun and pleasurable time as most people experience it. Also, daily reminder that sexual and romantic spectrums are separate from one another.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Forum Games: Forum Games / JoJo's Cultist Adventure [Signups & Discussion] [Signups always open]

BC, it said between 1 and 100 meters, that means no atomic scale bullshit.

Okay, so what is “it”, and where does “it” say that about any Stand power? There’s a major protagonist in JJBA canon who can turn inanimate objects into animals; if that doesn’t involve atomic-scale manipulation, I don’t know what does.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Forum Games: Forum Games / JoJo's Cultist Adventure [Signups & Discussion] [Signups always open]

@BCLEGENDS You’ve giving an awfully distinct request and reference for the sake of fixing some petty details in her drawing. Then again, I’m no artist myself so I suppose I don’t have a say in that.

…and she doesn’t have to fix it if she’d rather not. I assumed, however, that she did by the content of her post, hence why I made the rough reference. Y’know, in case she did want to change something.

EDIT: So mar, a couple of ideas for use of your ability came to me. In theory, altering the distance between things of a similar nature could allow Shiro/Quoth to, for instance, reduce the space between molecules of an object, and therefore increase their density… or it could be used to increase the amount of relative time between two seconds. Just a thought.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Forum Games: Forum Games / JoJo's Cultist Adventure [Signups & Discussion] [Signups always open]

Originally posted by 10crystalmask01:

^ I think you’re aware that FlyingCat is not Leonardo da Vinci lmao. But her drawings are still really good imo.

No, yeah, I did establish that. I’m just giving her a reference to work with, since she implied asking for one.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Forum Games: Forum Games / JoJo's Cultist Adventure [Signups & Discussion] [Signups always open]

Here is a rough approximation of 「Billie Jean」’s head and face. It is super beautiful and attractive, for the most part, but it’s ultimately not a human being in and of itself, and the unsettling eyes (or lack thereof) is supposed to reflect that, alongside various other features such as gems stapling ribbons on to its body and it appearing to be two-dimensional, though the latter is admittedly a relatively unique trait even by Stand standards. And yes, I would propose a time skip to a point where players can act more cohesively with one another.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Forum Games: Forum Games / JoJo's Cultist Adventure [Signups & Discussion] [Signups always open]

“Dorkula is worst artist”

Worst artist, best property destroyer. As for the art, it’s pretty good, but not quite what I was going for with the “hair” – the ribbons don’t directly come out of 「Billie Jean」’s eye sockets, but there are gemstones (on their own, mind, there’s no gold plates for them to be inset into or whatever) essentially stapling each one across where said eyes would be, as well as periodically, let’s say four or five times per ribbon, over the rest of the skull. Also, they don’t necessarily overlap with one another the way you’ve drawn them; it’s more like each individual ribbon out of… let’s say five or six total… is parallel to one another across its skull, with no significant depth due to no actual layering occurring between them, and the ribbons all run down its back in a rather straightaway fashion when not in motion, given that they’re all tied quite tightly to 「Billie Jean」’s skull. Otherwise, good job.

bt w8 u 4gt jns hr rbbns u mnstr hw cld u >:(

Incidentally, have you seen the majority of other Stands? They ain’t usually rainbows in the sunshine, mister.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Forum Games: Forum Games / JoJo's Cultist Adventure [Signups & Discussion] [Signups always open]

Dayum son. You’re pretty damn good at drawing stuff, ain’tcha? Maybe you could draw all of our characters in this.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Forum Games: Forum Games / MYSTERY REPLAY MAFIA - Night 3: 8/30, 8 PM, UTC+3

I guess it fits that Brainpan has a post restriction. Explains why s/he’s talking in all lowercase, at any rate, when s/he’s already proven s/he’s competent at normal text writing elsewhere. That being said, vote: Gonkey, again, for reasons previously described.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Forum Games: Forum Games / JoJo's Cultist Adventure [Signups & Discussion] [Signups always open]

Originally posted by BrainpanSonata:

I was thinking more about the brainwashing ability with perfected stats. Everything is lotus eaters forever and ever where are your gods now

Also, I would pay good imaginary money for someone to draw a picture of an anthropomorphic Getsch Falcon electric guitar.

Worst case scenario, you can always go to 4chan and have somebody do it for free. I believe there are JJBA threads on the Traditional Gaming board every so often, actually, so maybe look around for one of those.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Forum Games: Forum Games / JoJo's Cultist Adventure [Signups & Discussion] [Signups always open]

Originally posted by FlyingCat:

Also if an enemy is kicked off a staircase, that enemy can be trapped falling down in an eternal staircase. Thou shall stop falling… Nevermore!

Also sorry about that. >.<

Infinite stair falling, infinite damage. Unless they just use their Stand to start flying around or something, that’s always possible. Also, it’s cool. The whole “perfected” Stand gimmick needs somebody else to make themselves relatively defenseless to pull off, and I assume they’d then be stuck in range of 「Billie Jean」 until she let their Stand out, so…

Originally posted by BrainpanSonata:

Okay, the idea of Billie Jean perfecting Pull My Strings’s Shredder Puppet Trance scares the crap out of me.

…she becomes a self-levitating guitar. Or a humanoid guitar. Somebody should draw that. All of the characters, actually, we need somebody to draw all of our characters.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Forum Games: Forum Games / JoJo's Cultist Adventure [Signups & Discussion] [Signups always open]

Originally posted by FlyingCat:
Originally posted by BCLEGENDS:

[FlyingCat power explanation]

See, I was kind of thinking that that was what Shiro/Quoth’s power was as well. And to be blunt, I can see that being more directly useful in combat than a number of other abilities, specifically the whole pocket dimension thing associated with 「More Like a Beauty Queen」 – great for disguises and storage, no immediately obvious combat benefits. At least at the moment, anyway, maybe it’ll get upgraded to have more usefulness or whatever.

Yes, it’s great for hit and run tactics. Close the distance, hit, and increase the distance once they try to fight back.

Also since Billies ability is to create a perfect version of something, I assume if it absorbed a fighting stand, it could become a better version of that stand, and be able to use a stronger version of that stands abilities or stats.

…that was something I had planned, yes. Way to reveal it to the GM, dooshbeeehg.

EDIT: Well, since it’s been revealed anyway, my plan was that a “perfected” version of another Stand would essentially have A ranks in every stat. Actually improving the Stand’s abilities wasn’t something I considered, but since it’s been mentioned…

 
Flag Post

Topic: Forum Games: Forum Games / JoJo's Cultist Adventure [Signups & Discussion] [Signups always open]

[FlyingCat power explanation]

See, I was kind of thinking that that was what Shiro/Quoth’s power was as well. And to be blunt, I can see that being more directly useful in combat than a number of other abilities, specifically the whole pocket dimension thing associated with 「More Like a Beauty Queen」 – great for disguises and storage, no immediately obvious combat benefits. At least at the moment, anyway, maybe it’ll get upgraded to have more usefulness or whatever.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Something needs to be said about feminism/liberalism.

I guess stan deleted his post, so I’ll direct this post at pete instead and add to what vikaTae said by pointing out that there are areas of work that are dominated by women, because the female mind and/or body is typically more suited to doing well in those conditions than the male mind. Similarly, the opposite applies, in that a lot of areas of work are dominated by men due to their physique and mindset being more suited to such roles much of the time, and an argument could be made that roles commonly associated with one gender remain that way precisely because members of the opposite gender have no interest in entering them, which is why roles largely revolving around physical strength such as police forces, soldiers, and firefighters tend to be male-dominated even today, despite the fact that women can enter any of these roles freely. Quite frankly, I would be extremely surprised if unbiased scientific examination performed today proved that, for instance, women in typically male-oriented roles were still perceived as performing worse in those roles if it turned out that they were doing as well as or possibly even better than the men in a similar context; I’d also not be surprised if it turned out that actually, the women were doing objectively worse than the men, because, as I said already, men and women serve different biological purposes, and have adapted accordingly.

You also listed a lot of feminists and, I hasten to point this out, pseudo- or even non-feminists from the past. Pocahontas, for instance, wasn’t known to have done anything of merit in her early life, aside from a possibly-falsified or misinterpreted account of her saving a colonist from death, and didn’t actually do anything after that; she did get herself captured, of course, and was then converted to Christianity and effectively paraded round the nobility and an example of “the civilised native”, something that people nowadays tend to view as somewhat abhorrent due to its racially-charged implications. Mary Shelley, meanwhile, had a number of viewpoints that might have been considered radical, but in practice, it seems to me that the most radical things she actually did were to elope with her husband, who she then edited books for, and to become a successful writer. Aside from these, a number of the people you listed weren’t actually successful in their goals, or else had goals that I wouldn’t actually consider “radical” by given standards; the most obvious ones, of course, are Victoria Woodhull and Gloria Steinem, neither of whom achieved their respective goals, whilst describing Margaret Atwood as “radical” for writing in a certain genre seems slightly silly to me, particularly the claim that “people still seem to think women writing science fiction is radical.”

And then, of course, your statement that you consider being called “radical” a badge of honour, because it means your ideas are uncomfortable to consider… which is exactly the point. In the past, there were a lot of things people considered uncomfortable that most modern people consider perfectly reasonable, and the reason said ideas have persisted into today is because actually, they are reasonable ideas. I don’t use the terminology “radical” lightly, therefore, because in today’s mind, the term is associated with groups such as ISIS and other Middle Eastern terrorist parties, amongst certain other groups as listed by Mafefe; almost nobody in the Western world disagrees that people of that sort are of extreme detriment to the world in general, and my subsequent association of “radical” with modern feminism is done for a reason. Sure, they aren’t directly killing large swathes of people or destroying irreplacable and priceless artifacts, but from my perspective, what they are doing is not much better than that – in a society where it is already possible for a woman to completely destroy a man’s life simply by claiming that he raped and impregnated her, with extreme support from the legal system in question, it’s shocking to see that a lot of feminists still want laws passed to, for instance, have a man who lied about their profession to a women who he had otherwise consensual sex with be prosecutable for rape, when no such event actually occurred. And such extreme viewpoints are very commonplace in the feminist community. Once again, I stress that this is likely not the case with all feminists, but unfortunately, the loudest members of the movement do for the most part act in a manner that is quite simply fascist in nature, which has drawn many similarly-minded people into their fold to the point of becoming the apparent, if not actual majority, such that anyone who’s actually interested in achieving equal rights between different genders, races, and people as a whole would most likely do better to not identify with feminism at all. That would fall under the label of egalitarianism.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Forum Games: Forum Games / MYSTERY REPLAY MAFIA - Night 3: 8/30, 8 PM, UTC+3

Originally posted by swordsman97:
Originally posted by BCLEGENDS:

Point of fact, Kuzco: several otherwise inactive people have had chances to add to the discussion in their “Vote: Extension” posts, and few of them have done so other than you, with only Prec promising to say anything within the extension period that might actually advance the game’s information availability. I’m “salty about something which dosen’t really matter”, as swordman put it, because the extension isn’t encouraging more discussion, just a longer period of non-discussion that I honestly feel isn’t really going to go anywhere extra. Worst-case scenario is, in my opinion, that Precarious doesn’t get to say what he needs to say in day 3, and most likely receives multiple doctoral protections from Town-aligned Doctor roles just to ensure that he doesn’t get NKed before day 4. But sure, feel free to apply OMGUS statements to me that I never actually made to counter the completely reasonable statements I actually made. That definitely makes you seem more credible.

And now, random’s RQS:

1. Gonkey, of course.
2. Given the short time I’ve been in this game, nobody else so far.
3. Frequently, as I’ve shown already.
4. No idea. We’ve established that there are multiple killing roles, and… not much else. I’m not sure what people expected in a closed and effectively random setup, which is another part of why I feel the extension isn’t going to be useful.
5. One of the inactive players, most likely.

Really, non discussion? I’m pretty sure most people here appreciate the vote extension, it’s only you and only you who are protesting this. Yes it might be a good idea to lynch Gonkey anyways. But as it stands, this is a thirty person game and the reality is that most of them are going to be inactive (or lurking). If you honestly think that this will hurt town, or cause it will cause less discussion well… the things we get out of an extension are going to be better than just voting Gonkey because he is the only tell we have. There may be something that we haven’t heard yet, which is a very real possibility in a game this large.

Okay, so why aren’t those same inactive people who voted for an extension using the time we already have to make any sort of post? Nominally, and to correct your apparent misapprehensions, I would agree that an extension is generally a good idea if we want more time to discuss a desirable outcome, and I don’t necessarily think that it’ll actively hurt Town to have the extension as both you and Kuzco seem to think I think; however, I’m not convinced that the majority of inactive/lurking players will be any more inclined to post than they were before the extension, nor am I convinced that there will be a substantial change in the day’s outcome if we do get an extension, unless Precarious’ information completely changes the state of affairs (and of course assuming he’s telling the truth). Once again, I’m not opposed to the idea of an extension in and of itself, just the idea that it’ll actually provoke more discussion than was already going to occur in the first place.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Something needs to be said about feminism/liberalism.

The cycle of social change is almost always chaotic and unrecognizable as it’s occurring. Social movements are big business (solar, water reclamation, and even GMO foodstuff), radical (Earth First, Earth Liberation Front), structural (Occupy), academic (Paolo Friere, Henry Giroux)… and encompass a wide, wide range of passions and focuses.

Seems reasonable enough. Since it’s been mentioned, though, I just want to clarify that, using this particular lens to look at the issue, my big problem with feminism is that, from what I’ve seen of it, it’s a radical movement masquerading as a structural movement, and aiming to achieve goals through that that will be very negative for Western society in the long run.

When I describe a movement’s issues becoming passé, I mean that those issues become compartmentalized over time. We come to understand that movement for its accomplishments, not its demands.

Fair enough. That still indicates that the movements actually concluded, though, and successfully in the case of first and second wave feminism.

Women’s Suffrage is best understood as being a movement focused on voting, but that was hardly the sum of its goals. It wanted LOTS of things… and it was also a diverse, international effort with varying degrees of coordination across a whole spectrum of people and economic classes. Some areas pushed for some goals over others, while other areas focused on other things. It was probably a chaotic mess at the time.

The criticism of neo-feminism having too many goals is on par for every social movement. It’s the same charge leveled against Occupy, Black Lives Matter, Tea Party, Anarchists (re: World Trade Organization), Hippies Yippies and Beatniks, Arab Spring, and the Civil Rights Movement. They were ALL chaotic clusterfucks at the time.

I suppose that’s probably true. I’m not honestly well-versed in a lot of other social movements, and there may well be plenty of arguments along the lines of, for instance, “police in America are too brutal towards everyone, rather than just black people as BLM proposes”, so I won’t get too deep into those. In any case, I may be mistaken in proposing this, but a relevant term for something of that sort might be “Flanderization” – usually applying to a trait of a character in a show being exaggerated over time until that trait defines or even is the character, I’d say the suggestion that movements such as first wave feminism (rather than suffrage specifically, which is as far as I’m aware referring to the right to vote only) start off with a lot of goals and are remembered over time as being about one specific target fits the definition of Flanderization reasonably well, in that one facet of the movement is exaggerated to become the only significant goal.

Our generation’s movement looks ugly and impractical because we’re in the middle of it. Their accomplishments will (in retrospect) make neo-feminism look like a well-oiled machine.

And this is where my problem starts. As I said, one of my problems with modern feminism is that its members (at least those primarily associated with feminism) are usually radicals, yet are claiming to be pushing a supposedly structural goal. For the movement to be successful, it needs to be run by those with an actual interest in structural, rather than radical change; otherwise, what ends up happening is that a nominally positive goal is warped into a decidedly negative one that only benefits the group who originally pushed for the goal to come about. And a lot of people are starting to see this. If third wave feminism becomes “successful” in this fashion, it will not be fondly remembered by most people.

If the reason that women aren’t represented by our “representatives” in government is because they have been historically denied access to those positions, then that simply illustrates (quite clearly) that we have not achieved equality. That’s what this is all about… not the “intellectual acknowledgement” of equality but the “practice” of it.

To claim that the reason women aren’t represented fairly in government is because they don’t desire it is a fallacy. In fact, it’s kind of stupid. Of course women want jobs in government… but there is a societal expectation that men are better leaders. That’s institutionalized sexism, plain and simple. How do we fix it? Fuck if I know… but I recognize that it exists, and so should you. Because you’re obviously perceptive and thoughtful.

Your “biological role” argument doesn’t explain the gender disparity illustrated above. Are women less biologically proficient at participating in government?

In a word, “yes”. The whole “biological role” argument doesn’t just cover physical differences, but psychological differences too. Historically speaking, men have usually been more likely than women to enter leadership roles in societies containing roughly equal numbers of each sex; there is of course a social element to this, but the psychological element behind that is that the male brain is typically more likely to be possessed of traits that incline the owner toward a leading role (though what these traits actually are is another question entirely, and may not be wholly or even marginally positive beyond the scope of leadership and societal pioneering, see Steve Jobs’ biography). Yes, there was a societal expectation that men were better leaders than women. It’s mostly agreed that that expectation can be put aside nowadays, given the freedom of choice available to everyone in terms of jobseeking, and yet women are still less likely to enter such roles, because most women are not psychologically inclined toward taking up positions of leadership in that manner. That is not institutionalised sexism; that’s psychology at work. Just because you can doesn’t mean you have to.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Something needs to be said about feminism/liberalism.

pete, most of what you’ve said has been covered by 0Gamer0, specifically that third-wave feminism is largely dominated by what are generally described as “feminazis” and “social justice warriors”, and that those who represent actual equalising values between men and women are rarely heard over the psychopaths. I’ll just cover the bases on what he missed.

First of all, you keep using the word “passé”; I know this is a minor complaint, but I want to get it out of the way so I don’t get distracted by it, and I will segue into a tract related to what you said. Basically, passé means “out of date”, and to be fair, you are technically correct in describing the goals of first and second wave feminism as such… but that’s only the case because they succeeded in their main goals, namely inequality within civic engagement for first wave and sexual and reproductive inequalities for second wave. Third wave feminism has a lot more goals it’s aiming for, and it’s criticised by some for having too many goals in the first place, which makes achieving all of them that much harder. First and second wave feminism were, relatively speaking, more focused than third wave feminism is now, which may well be part of why said third wave is now dominated by radicals (and going by the evidence I’ve seen, there are a lot more of these radicals than you seem to believe, who in turn are likely to be what’s remembered as the defining aspect of third wave feminism when that becomes passé).

Secondly, you mentioned points such as LGBT issues and reaffirming pro-choice, amongst those listed in the goals of third wave feminism. To wit, I’m not against either of these things, and reinforcing the rights of non-binary gendered people is just as important as doing the same for the two standard genders, as is allowing people more choice in whether or not they choose to abort a potentially unwanted child. The problem, as I believe I said, is that feminism is inherently pro-female in a society that’s already heavily pro-female in a lot of areas; combined with the highly radical nature of many of its members, and actually important identity issues can be left by the wayside in favour of crushing people, men in particular, who aren’t in the movement under the foot of social justice.

This leads into both following paragraphs: women becoming Army Rangers, and your apparent hesitance to believe that men can be raped, both of which fall under the scope of “non-traditional gender roles”. (And since we’re in that general area in your post, I say again that the wage gap has long since been debunked.) To start with, and as you stated, the Rangers are an elite military group; it’s therefore safe to assume that they have very stringent standards on who’s allowed to get in, who has enough strength and skill to do the jobs they do. And as I stated earlier, men and women have different biological roles – human men are naturally stronger than women under equivalent amounts of training, and are better at certain jobs, such as fighting. Thus, it shouldn’t really come as a shock to most that most soldiers are men- and, along similar lines, that most workplace deaths are those of men, since men are by far more likely to take up more dangerous jobs than women- such that even in the most basic of army units, the troops will be mostly males. The training needed to fight in a war is far more suited to men than women, and especially so the more elite a group gets; thus, whilst it is something to be celebrated that two women managed to get into the Rangers, it should be far more a celebration of those women’s personal accomplishments and dedication than one of ever-improving gender rights, since I can guarantee you that said women are the exception, not the rule. This is the same reason behind why so few women are present in the Supreme Court, Chief of Staff positions, the Senate… all of these are political jobs, if only tangentially in the case of the SC, and that isn’t strictly a field where women thrive. Also, you seem to be suggesting that equality of representation is the same thing as equality of opportunity. In theory, any woman could get to very advanced positions in legal or political fields; it’s just that only a small number of them have any desire to enter into such difficult lines of work, such that a comparatively larger number of men have any desire to enter politics in the first place, and thus end up being more likely to receive such highly-touted and (I say once again) very difficult to handle positions simply because there’s more men to choose for the roles at hand. As for rape of men…

And lastly, regarding your statement that packs consisting largely of females with a single male in them tend to have the females providing most of the food: yeah, no sh!t. You can bet the male of the pack is working overtime as well, though.