Toxicity continued

I was hoping to move on to other things, but this topic just seems to be a thing these days.  This thread appeared the following day, and promptly attracted every shitlord, badposter, troll, and feminist nitwit on the EVE forums.

Bearing in mind that EVE’s Executive Producer is, you know, a woman, and prominent EVE women like Sugar Kyle and Sindel Pellion do not run around whining about the status of women in the game all the time I really do not give much of this credence.

I don’t intend to discuss feminism at any length, but I will point out again from the thread that feminism tries to evaluate science rather than the other way around.  Like certain religious fundamentalists (and make no mistake, I am a Christian, although not an evangelical, fundamentalist, nor Creationist – and if you are inclined to nitpick these claims take it somewhere else) they do not seem to realize that it is for feminism to put forth hypothesis and science to evaluate them.

It is not the reverse.  Feminists, however, tend to jump straight to the “theory” (which is supposed to come when you have tested a hypothesis and found a certain amount of information in favor of it) of PAtriarchy or whatever, and when it’s challenged, they just throw “misogyny”, “sexism” and other such terms at it.  If they’re challenged scientifically, we get questions about “science’s ability to detect systemic bias”.  In other words, if science is not giving them the results they want, the problem obviously lies with science.

Bear in mind we are talking about a school of thought that claims to be about gender equality, while assigning the quality of equality to one gender via it’s own name (“feminism”) and claiming that the inequality that allegedly “hurts men too” is a quality of maleness (“Patriarchy”).  While they might insist otherwise, the simple fact is that these terms are intended to convey that impression, and strongly – no matter what verbal gymnastics are used to justify it.  If there was any actual interest in equality, neutral terms would be used, progress would be acknowledged – oh, and we wouldn’t see people “standing with” a “rape victim” who is pretty obviously a bald-faced liar and attention whore.

But what’s even more interesting is that the entire thread seems to be a veiled assault on how EVE is played.  It talks about what’s said in voice comms and naughty language, but then it goes on to how male aggression in general is bad.

It’s astounding how much this sounds like the arguments “carebears” supposedly make.  “If you want more women, you need to accommodate how women want to play”, hinting strongly that women do not want to have to deal with aggression, which is pretty central to how EVE is played.

Disregarding how silly it is to claim that the gender role of women needs to be accommodated and then also whine about gender roles in the first place…EVE cannot survive without it’s niche nature as a hardcore PVP game where people can and will ruin your day.  It’s approaching 12 years old and despite improvements, it will never be a progression PVP MMO.  It cannot compete with other MMOs at being what those MMOs are.

Neither the carebears that advocate for it nor the highsec criminal community that don’t understand that CCP is protecting their playstyle, not nerfing it, nor evidently the feminists, white-knights, and other shitlords either.

There is not a need for more women in EVE just for the sake of more women.  If EVE gets more women by just being more appealing in general, or just because it happens to become more so as a byproduct of development, so be it.  We do not need to either attract, get rid of, or do anything at all about the number of women.  It really does not matter.

What’s more, you do not get rid of “toxicity” by engaging in uninvited moralisitc preaching at people and rejecting any attempt at counter argument because disagreement makes you Obviously A Horrible Person.  Yet another way in which feminists resemble more aggressive religious denominations.  “Sexist” and “Misogynist” sound a lot like “sinner” and similar terms.

Just because something seems sexist, misogynistic, or whatever does not make it so.  Your state of offense does not mean you are necessarily entitled to others adapting their behavior, or even that you’re being reasonable by being offended.  This is a final theme of the thread “but people don’t really need to engage in this offensive behavior!”

What offensive behavior?  Like I said last week, I think “Rapecage” is pretty offensive, but this isn’t about that one term.  There are a lot of people that are offended by far more insignificant things than that.  I could easily turn this around to say “but maybe you don’t really need people to stop being offensive”.

Is “being offended” really that hard to deal with?  No, it’s not.  We’ve made it so by turning victimhood into political capital, but it shouldn’t be,  If you’re offended, look at yourself first.  Chances are good that what you really need is people going out of their way to offend you more so that you learn to take it.  Those of us that are members of all the groups it’s ok to offend already have to.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s