Oceans Yet to Burn

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[mitigatedchaos]

(”Straight men have a thing for women, it’s terrible! They pigeonhole them as either submissive delicate flowers or raging tough bitches and exotify them in ways which contribute to an oppressive culture of-” oh wait that’s Asian women, sorry got my stereotype stereotypes mixed up there for a second).

I mean that’s kind of true according to that frame without the readjustment to a subgroup at the end.  There are people that treat male heterosexuality like it is some sort of perverse and oppressive kink for itself, and that’s before we get into “everyone is secretly bi” territory.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[official-mugi]

It’s almost as if they ignored everything the game revealed about the characters and their feelings

[ranma-official]

Kanji’s character arc: being open about your emotions and liking things considered girly doesn’t make you gay

Fandom: yes it does! That’s what being a Gay is!

[mitigatedchaos]

How many levels of gay are you on?

I dunno, 5, maybe 6.

You are like a little baby. Watch this.

~Becomes straight woman.~

- how this phenomena works, probably

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

Anonymous asked:

Is polyamory the future of relationships or something that will always be limited to a small percent of population? How many people become poly due to their sincere interest in loving more than one person, and how many to play games or avoid the social stigma related to admitting to open/promiscuous relationships? The power dynamics are more complicated, but do you feel that they're on average more fair than in monogamy? Which groups could by disadvantaged in polyamorous relationships?

slatestarscratchpad answered:

I think it’s probably the future of relationships, just because most non-religious people can’t produce a coherent case for monogamy except “think of the children”, and most people will very reasonably say “well, I’m not planning on having children for a while so I’ll be poly for now”. It also seems like nonstandard relationships getting more accepted is a trend (gays, interracial marriage, etc) so I guess I should bet on the trend continuing. I’m not sure there’s a real dichotomy between “genuinely in love with many people” and “wants to be promiscuous”. For example, I became poly because my girlfriend at the time was poly and it would have been weird to have a mono person in a relationship with a poly person. Then I continued because why not.

[mitigatedchaos]

It isn’t entirely about logic, it’s about how they feel. I read a while back that something like 30% of one-night stands end in relationships. Many people find casual sex unsatisfying. While poly is not identical, it wouldn’t be surprising if it really just isn’t a fit for most of the population without modifications of some kind.

Not to mention the likelihood of devolving to polygyny with all the bad consequences that entails once it gets normalized for the normies.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[sonatagreen]

There’s lots of stories about women succeeding at traditionally male things (e.g. Mulan, Legally Blonde) but almost none about men succeeding at traditionally female things. When a woman does male things, it’s “she’s a woman but she’s awesome enough to live up to male standards”, but when a man does female things, it’s treated as a joke at his expense.

We need more stories about “he’s a man but he’s awesome enough to live up to female standards”.

[zerofarad]

I imagine you don’t count, like, Mrs. Doubtfire?

[sonatagreen]

While I can see how Mrs. Doubtfire is sort of about a man learning to succeed at femininity, I find it deeply unsatisfying for two reasons. First, Daniel Hillard (Robin Williams’s character) only attempts to learn feminine skills in order to pass as a woman. This reinforces the idea that femininity is a female thing. Second, at the end of the movie, I feel that he’s presenting as a more-well-rounded masculine, rather than simply feminine. The message seems to be “it’s okay to cook and clean and spend time with your kids, because it doesn’t compromise your masculinity”. I want a message of “it’s okay to not be masculine”. I’m vaguely reminded of countersignaling; I get the feeling that Daniel Hillard is allowed to have feminine traits because he manages to not let them overshadow his masculinity.

By contrast, consider Kanahe Tomohisa, from Puella Magi Madoka Magica. He’s a stay-at-home husband who wears an apron and takes care of the housework, his build is slim and his demeanor submissive, and this is (at least in the episodes I’ve seen so far) not remarked upon at all or treated as a source of either drama or humor. It’s treated as perfectly normal, natural, ordinary, healthy, unremarkable that he should tend the home and the children while his wife earns the family income as a career businesswoman. The show isn’t really about him, he’s only a supporting character; but he’s the sort of character that would be a natural consequence of the shows I want to see.

[hybridzizi]

I feel like the fact that Elle didn’t compromise her femininity was a big part of Legally Blonde, though. Do the two movies do this differently or am I just completely misunderstanding what you’re saying? (I haven’t actually seen Mrs. Doubtfire. I’m just going off what you say)

[sonatagreen]

I’ve actually only seen a couple of scenes from Legally Blonde, but I got the impression that, while she’s femme in a shoes-and-lipstick kind of way, she’s also characterized as having qualities that are necessary to success specifically in classically male endeavors: proactive, academically gifted, a take-no-shit attitude, etc. She’s undeniably girly, but I don’t think she could be characterized as soft and vulnerable. What I know of Legally Blonde gives me a “women can be strong too” vibe, as opposed to the “it’s okay not to be strong” that I’m looking for.

[argumate]

popular culture cannot bear the sight of a weak man.

[mitigatedchaos]

Can the median neurotypical cishet woman?

I think that’s a lot of where this really comes from.  That kind of man isn’t really seen as desirable, and that isn’t going to change soon outside of atypical women, which in some ways is fine because we can’t demand they change their preferences, but on the other hand there are a lot of side effects and it isn’t just evil masculinity that’s the cause of them.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[argumate]

star wars queens are democratically elected and term limited

[mitigatedchaos]

Not sure if rap lyrics or extremely concise explanation of Madonna-Whre.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

New term to describe people I don’t like: “Discourse X”

[wirehead-wannabe]

We keep having trouble coming up with good ways to describe the sorts of e.g. feminism that are harmful and abusive, so I propose that we go with “Discourse Feminism.” Discourse Feminism:

- focuses on naming and shaming individuals as a means of ideological enforcement and/or abuse

- tends to misuse academic terms, often in ways that are the exact opposite of their original meaning. Example: patriarchy, intersectionality, emotional labor

- really just wants a list of who the Bad People are so they can accuse anyone they dislike of being a Bad Person

- puts excessive focus on making sure people use the right identity labels (“if you think women are people you’re a feminist!) and PC language relative to actual substance

- treats anyone who disagrees as an Enemy To The Movement

But this is by no means limited to feminism! You can use it to describe the bad parts of any political group:

Discourse Social Justice
Discourse Anti-racism
Discourse Men’s Rights
Discourse Sex Positivity
Discourse Christianity
Discourse Communism

[mitigatedchaos]

“Sh-shut up. I’m not a D-discourse!”

“Yes you are. Cast her into the pit!”

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[feministgamingmatters]

Concept: A text-replacer extension which corrects “pandering to [group]” to “being enjoyable for people who are not me.”

[feministgamingmatters]

This was actually the best idea:

[the-grey-tribe]

We were upset by people claiming we only wanted to make things suck for them because we can’t stand it when other people are having fun in ways we don’t like, so we created a browser extension that replaces their speech with a straw man version, part 5/?

[mitigatedchaos]

OP should be careful, since this also bites the other direction.  How many articles are about “pandering to mandudegamebros” but with a different phrasing?  Implicitly, this extension suggests that making a game that doesn’t care one whit about SJ is of the same value.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

Anonymous asked:

What's your gender? #AskArgumate100Questions

argumate answered:

If gender refers to a complex web of internal associations specific to a given individual’s life history and mental model of the world then this is essentially incommunicable.

If gender refers to the external categorisation assigned by one’s peers then really I should be asking you.

[mitigatedchaos]

A+, good essay Argumate.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

infernalfarndamn asked:

Why does my theory of gender need to explain camgirls? Unless I'm operating on a different definition of that term.

argumate answered:

Why is camgirl a viable career? Why are there so many camgirls? Why are there so few camgirls? Why are there almost no camboys, and those that do exist are mostly patronised by gay men? What are the demographics of camgirls and their customers, and why? And so on.

[mitigatedchaos]

No but seriously you already know the real answer, most of your readers should too, you just know it isn’t produced by straight Feminist theory.  You have to mix in a little heterodoxy and some blasphemy to get there.  Stir, pour over ice, drink, and then get banned from the gender discourse for thinking the unthinkable.

Joining the Transhumanists afterwards in a plot to finally escape gender by increasing the morphological freedom of humanity is strictly optional.

You’re right though.  A grand gender theory does need to explain camgirls.  

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[mitigatedchaos]

To add on:

The argument around homosexuality used rights (which don’t exist) vs sin (which also doesn’t exist at least in the sense they say it does).  There were also lots of complaints that it is “unnatural”, which was nonsensical.  That’s the level of debate by the normals.  I watched it happen.

A nuanced position based on the actual benefit to society did not occur.  

If the ideology of rights wins, then people have a right to cousin marriage and it is perceived as immoral for villainous consequentialist Nationalists (comme moi) to demand that the State should have an interest in not creating generations of new higher-genetic-risk children for very little gain, which it will then have to subsidize.

All of society must live with the consequences.