Quote from: TJS;1059228And there are others who will defend even the indefensible.

Which is the problem really.  It's becoming increasingly difficult to have any reasonable discussion anywhere around these issues.  If you don't take one extreme position you end up getting accused of holding the other.

Greetings!

TJS, you know, your commentary made me smile. You are very right! It made me think, especially your second two sentences, it reminds me of how pathetically stupid and deeply *UNEDUCATED* the left morons truly are--and some idiots on the right, as well. You know, in some basic Philosophy classes you learn about two major fallacies--one is "Arguing from the Extreme" and the other one is making a "Straw Man" argument. Arguing from the Extreme is fairly self-explanatory; however, the Straw Man is making the argument against an opponent, accusing them of arguing in favor of "A", and this is why they are wrong hateful nazis. Oh, wait, the problem is, the opponent was not arguing "A" at all, but was arguing in favor of "B". Leftists do this all the damn time, engaging in both of these fallacies. They especially like doing it when there is an audience or crowd. They get to emotionally whip up support for their claims, and if you're the opponent, you now look like Attila the Hun. Most importantly, the argument is really entirely irrelevant to your leftist opponent--these antics are done specifically to win over the crowd against you, and to get you to shut the fuck up, back down, and go away, crushed in defeat.

I can't tell you how many times I have seen and experienced this kind of scenario. Honestly, when I was in college dealing with this, I realised that liberals by and large are so brainwashed and choked with ideological jelly, they cannot comprehend reason, facts, logic, evidence, and possessing a sincere respect for philosophical rules long established through logic, and a comprehension and respect for TRUTH. They just don't have it, and don't care. It is all an ideological war for them.

And another point, I remember learning all this from a good Philosophy professor that insisted we actually learn logic and critical thinking, and the "rules of logic and philosophy" which have been established so we can actually use logic and critical thinking, as intellectual tools, to increase our understanding of whatever and actually solve problems or come up with solutions. God, I know that's a mouthful, and probably like too much syrup on the brain, lol--but these principles of logic and critical thinking are just essential for you (a person) to actually cultivate an intellectual capacity beyond that of a fucking ape.

I hope my commentary made some kind of sense. Sometimes I think faster than I type, and I get things jerked around. The sad thing is--so many liberals go to college, they claim to be so educated and well-read...and yet, they fanatically insist on holding forth on ideas and behavior that would get them absolutely fucking flunked with an F in a basic Logic class. I lament how deeply uneducated so many people are. The state of our education system is a fucking toilet I'm sad to say. Absolutely disgusting what this bullshit is doing to our entire society. It's like a psychological disease is being spread into the minds of all of these people, day in, day out. *sigh*

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: TJS;1059228And there are others who will defend even the indefensible.

Yes, and Left-extremism has spawned a reactionary Right-extremism, with both sides prone to purity spiralling.

Quote from: S'mon;1059239Yes, and Left-extremism has spawned a reactionary Right-extremism, with both sides prone to purity spiralling.

Is SJW always from the left, though? I am very left-leaning in many ways, in fact most Americans would think of me as almost a pinko-commie. However, I try to see things objectively.

For example, I have argued on several forums that women adventurers, women fighters and so on are historically accurate and should be a normal part of RPGs, in fact I think that Professions should not be forbidden by gender based on ability, but can be restricted based on cultural issues. There are exceptions, so a man cannot be a Wet Nurse, for example.

Quote from: soltakss;1059241Is SJW always from the left, though? I am very left-leaning in many ways, in fact most Americans would think of me as almost a pinko-commie. However, I try to see things objectively.

For example, I have argued on several forums that women adventurers, women fighters and so on are historically accurate and should be a normal part of RPGs, in fact I think that Professions should not be forbidden by gender based on ability, but can be restricted based on cultural issues. There are exceptions, so a man cannot be a Wet Nurse, for example.

It depends on what you mean by left.  Definitely it's not associated with the right (although of course other types of puritanism traditionally are).  Many on this forum seem to see the left as a continuum with SJW as it's most radical end - but that doesn't seem right to me.

Most of those who would be regarded as SJWs don't really show much interest in traditional left wing economic goals, or class, or wealth equality.  And this seems to be increasingly the case (not surprising really once you start getting corporations like Starbucks on side with things like diversity training any real left-wing goals start becoming decidedly murky - it's not as if they're about to stop being economically neo-liberal and embrace unionism).  It was Hilary Clinton who suggested breaking up the banks won't end racism or sexism.  (With the subtext that she's happy to keep society's current divisions and just change some of the actors - in the light of which it's hardly surprising that a lot of working class voters who supported Sanders thought she had noting to offer them.)

I'm increasingly seeing critiques of identity politics coming out of the radical left.  (In the older sense of the radical left).    Things like this.

Quote from: soltakss;1059241Is SJW always from the left, though? I am very left-leaning in many ways, in fact most Americans would think of me as almost a pinko-commie. However, I try to see things objectively.

For example, I have argued on several forums that women adventurers, women fighters and so on are historically accurate and should be a normal part of RPGs, in fact I think that Professions should not be forbidden by gender based on ability, but can be restricted based on cultural issues. There are exceptions, so a man cannot be a Wet Nurse, for example.

I would say the SJW are all Leftists...but not all Leftists are SJW.

In your case you claim to be a "pinko commie."

I may despise that economic/political outlook but I will still treat you as a human being that I can argue/disagree objectively about that with.  SJW are incapable of arguing objectively, because they base their opinions on emotions not logic.

In the US I know a number of Bernie supporters who believed his policies were viable.  I may think they are stupid about that but I won't fault their 'principles', because they don't think I should be terrorized for voting for Trump.  These people also decided not to vote for Hillary because of her level of corruption.  The SJW brigade would dump them in the same awful 'misogynist' group as me even though the only thing we agreed on was her unfitness due to a lack of ethics.

True Marxists/Communists/etc. don't judge people based on what the have between their thighs, who they want to sleep with or how much melanin is in their skin.  Therefore I can have an honest discussion with those people on the merits of their proposed policies.

Personal Side Note: Even though I disagreed with him, I actually respected Bernie as being somewhat honest for a politician. Up until he took the money and ran when the DNC screwed him over. Evidently his "principles" weren't worth fighting for...

On the original topic:  Throughout history, humans have differentiated jobs based on sex.  Those separations were based on the actual physical differences between the sexes.  In general terms, men are physically larger and stronger than women.  Therefore the more arduous physical tasks would be relegated to them...primitive hunting versus gathering.  An individual man can produce more children and do so at a faster rate than a woman, because he is not "out of action" for 9 months at a time.  This would make individual women more valuable than individual men for propagation of the culture in a primitive society, leading women to be the 'protected' sex.  

Those are simple facts.  Denying them simply makes the denier look like an idiot.  Arguing about how 'bad' an RPG based on primitive society is for including this, moves that person from 'Idiot' to a category I affectionately refer to as "Stupider than my wife's dog."

btw...What about a wet nurse who identifies as a man?
...and also this: Soltakiss, your economic/social policies suck!!
(but that discussion should be in the other part of the forum.)

Quote from: moonsweeper;1059250btw...What about a wet nurse who identifies as a man?

That's fine, I have no problem with that kind of thing.

Quote from: moonsweeper;1059250...and also this: Soltakiss, your economic/social policies suck!!
(but that discussion should be in the other part of the forum.)

Fortunately, I don't go to that part of the Forum. I just have this sense that people shouldn't be left to starve or die homeless on the streets in the modern world. I know, mad, isn't it?

Quote from: moonsweeper;1059250On the original topic:  Throughout history, humans have differentiated jobs based on sex.  Those separations were based on the actual physical differences between the sexes.  In general terms, men are physically larger and stronger than women.  Therefore the more arduous physical tasks would be relegated to them...primitive hunting versus gathering.  An individual man can produce more children and do so at a faster rate than a woman, because he is not "out of action" for 9 months at a time.  This would make individual women more valuable than individual men for propagation of the culture in a primitive society, leading women to be the 'protected' sex.  

Those are simple facts.  Denying them simply makes the denier look like an idiot.  Arguing about how 'bad' an RPG based on primitive society is for including this, moves that person from 'Idiot' to a category I affectionately refer to as "Stupider than my wife's dog."

I'm not sure who you're arguing with here. I didn't see anything in Stronty Girl's argument being about gender roles or physical differences in Land of Ice and Stone. I did express a problem with the rules changes in The Greenland Saga, though. What I said was -

QuoteThe adventure begins with a 7-page introduction to the historical setting for the game: 15th century Scandinavia, and Greenland in particular. This includes a quarter-page section on women which presents a reasonably balanced view of women's social status in the time period. However, in terms of rules mechanics, there are only three adjustments which it suggests for D&D character creation. These are:

• Remove all weapon/armor proficiencies and spell use from clerics (to reflect Roman Catholicism).
• Females have -3 Strength, +1 Dexterity, and +1 Constitution. (This is in a sidebar which ends with the text: "Life is not fair. Deal with it.").
• Triple the cost of the Swim skill.

While each of these is individually justifiable as realistic, the module suggests no changes for bards, druids, sorcerers, or wizards -- all of which I think have far more effect on historical accuracy than females with average Str, Dex, and Con. So the selection is significant.

I am not denying historical reality here, but I do think that this is being extremely selective in what parts of reality it enforces. The base D20 rules are very far from historical reality in a lot of ways, and I think that choosing only these to enforce does reflect sexism. And I think there is plenty of corroborating evidence in the rest of the module of that sexism.

Quote from: soltakss;1059241Is SJW always from the left, though?

Yes, Social Justice Warriors are always from the Left.

National Socialist Justice Warriors, OTOH...

This was not posted in the OP, but it betray's Stronty Girls motivations.

QuoteI like prehistoric fiction for a variety of reasons:
I've always been interested in prehistory, palaeontology and archaeology. My interest in history pretty much ends with the Romans pulling out of the UK and doesn't get engaged again until WW1 or WW2.
It's a time period where everyone has to have survival skills and know practical stuff like how to make stone tools or splint a broken leg, which I find very appealing. I have zero interest in historical heroines (or heroes) whose whole skill set is embroidery, small talk over tea with the vicar and identifying the most fashionable hat at Ascot, while off-screen an army of servants does all the work to feed and clothe them.
Prehistoric fiction has enough fantasy in it (spirit power, curses, shamanic visions) to make it magical, but doesn't have all the high fantasy/epic fantasy tropes which annoy me (elves, orcs and other standard fantasy races, dark lords with undead armies, lost heirs to kingdoms, Vancian magic, etc). Magic and religion are one and the same thing, rather than being split into two separate areas of life.
The inter- and intra-tribal politics can be complex and nefarious, but there are not so many strata of society, or factions and subgroups within society that you need a Game of Thrones style glossary at the start of the book to remind you who the hell all these nations, clans and/or people are.
As mentioned in the OP, there are female protagonists and female coming of age stories in abundance. The women are not coming of age with an their only end point being defined in relationship to a guy: "Tom's sister", "Dick's wife" or "Harry's mother". Even in the slushy romantic ones where finally being able to marry your Twu Wuv is a main plot thread.
As to how many Ice Age RPGs do you need... you can never have too many RPGs, of any genre.

Sounds like she is really calling these games out for bad wrong fun. They failed to check with her about what she wants in a historical game.



I'd also like to know why she feels children, the elderly and infirm have nothing to offer this world.

QuoteSorry, but 'skilled' is damning with faint praise, because your underlying message is: women are incompetent and useless. You've just said Gathering is so easy it be done by feeble people, such as a 5 year old child, a frail elderly person or someone with a stinking cold. It is so simple it can be done by incompetent people, such as clueless kids, pensioners with dementia or people suffering from life affecting brain injuries.

It is pretty clear to me from this bit alone that the OP (Stonty Girl) is not being honest with her criticisms.

Quote from: jhkim;1059274I'm not sure who you're arguing with here. I didn't see anything in Stronty Girl's argument being about gender roles or physical differences in Land of Ice and Stone. I did express a problem with the rules changes in The Greenland Saga, though. What I said was -



I am not denying historical reality here, but I do think that this is being extremely selective in what parts of reality it enforces. The base D20 rules are very far from historical reality in a lot of ways, and I think that choosing only these to enforce does reflect sexism. And I think there is plenty of corroborating evidence in the rest of the module of that sexism.

Why are you looking to connect the game in the OP with games that have issues? Are there games that handle gender poorly, sure.

There are posters over there making comparisons to FATAL, so you might want to either read the game in question and address actual issues with it or step your game up if you want to poke at the game from ignorance. As it stands currently you are doing it wrong from either angle.

Quote from: Toadmaster;1059287Why are you looking to connect the game in the OP with games that have issues?

I'm never sure if Kim is coming from a position of Wormtongue-ish cunning, or just Aspergers.  Sorry Kim but Toadmaster's point is dead on, you do this all the darn time!

Quote from: Toadmaster;1059287Why are you looking to connect the game in the OP with games that have issues? Are there games that handle gender poorly, sure.

There are posters over there making comparisons to FATAL, so you might want to either read the game in question and address actual issues with it or step your game up if you want to poke at the game from ignorance. As it stands currently you are doing it wrong from either angle.

As far as I can tell, no one posting here - other than the author - has demonstrated having actually read Land of Ice and Stone. However, many posters have made blanket points about the idiocy of feminist critique of historical games.

For those who have read Land of Ice and Stone - please speak up now and discuss Stronty Girl's actual points.

If you haven't, then at least be fucking honest like me and say that you haven't read it.

Quote from: soltakss;1059272Fortunately, I don't go to that part of the Forum. I just have this sense that people shouldn't be left to starve or die homeless on the streets in the modern world. I know, mad, isn't it?

That's not 'pinko-commie' that's caring for your fellow human being, which I'm finding very lacking in this day and age of regressivism.  Hell, most stone age societies took care of their own, even the infirm, as best they could.  Because the CARED for each other.

Quote from: jhkim;1059293As far as I can tell, no one posting here - other than the author - has demonstrated having actually read Land of Ice and Stone. However, many posters have made blanket points about the idiocy of feminist critique of historical games.

For those who have read Land of Ice and Stone - please speak up now and discuss Stronty Girl's actual points.

If you haven't, then at least be fucking honest like me and say that you haven't read it.

I'm basing my comments on the fairly obvious hyperbole of Stronty Girls post. It is clear from the language that she uses that she has an axe to grind and will not let something like facts get in her way.

Not posted by Simon, but there was also this

QuoteAnd while each of the games have nice bits here and there, they are both just an epic, epic fail on appealing to women. (Or indeed in some places of appealing to decent human beings of any gender). Which is really bizarre because if you know anything about the prehistoric fiction genre, you know that a metric f**k tonne of it is aimed at women.

That does a pretty nice job of highlighting that she is not interested in historical accuracy, but rather a game that ignores all that historical baggage about gender roles to focus on attracting female players. That is fine, that is a perfectly reasonable thing to look for in a game. It does not mean that games which don't focus on attracting women by excluding some of the negative features of the past are anti-woman.
 

I also have some knowledge of Simon's work and his history of posting on several RPG sites.

He also point by point explains why the issues brought forward were done and accepts responsibility in some areas where he concedes that he might have presented some things more delicately.

Personally I feel his biggest mistake was in assuming players of a historically based game were educated adults, always a foolish assumption.



Your initial comments seem in line with those of others if coming from another view point (yes some do dismiss these kinds of claims quite lightly). I take no issue with that. However you seem to ignore the author's comments on how and why things were done.

 I specifically mentioned your repeated pointing at a game product that has no relation to Simon's game except for tangentially the genre (Greenland during the 15th Century vs stone age in a non specified but cold climate).    


In a general misogyny in gaming thread, that would be on topic, but to keep going back to a specific game product that has no connection to the author, game in question or even a common publisher makes about as much sense as discussing how D&D is screwed up because Runequest.

Quote from: jhkim;1059274I'm not sure who you're arguing with here. I didn't see anything in Stronty Girl's argument being about gender roles or physical differences in Land of Ice and Stone.

I wasn't arguing with anyone.  I was simply stating my opinion based on how disingenuous Stronty Girl was with her arguments to Soltakss.  Soltakss has the important quotes in post #2.

First she sets up a strawman that Soltakss equates women to the same usefulness as children and the infirm because they all have the "Gathering" skill and somehow he is implying that they are all equally worthless. Then she dares a crippled person to climb a tree in an attempt to show that he is wrong, when in fact he made no such claim. All he did was have the various uses headed under a single skill. (hence a "strawman" on her part)

Next we have her issue with childbearing/pregnancy where she asks "Why is it even in there?"...uh, because it's about a stone age tribal culture centered around survival.

Then she goes on to the puberty argument, where she both attempts to apply a modern moral code to a stone age survival culture and attempts to slap down Soltakss' research and knowledge with the fat vs meat argument...what, now she is trying to establish academic credentials??

Everything after this was simply Stronty Girl brow-beating him with all of the current ultra new wave feminist rape culture talking points.

The icing on the cake is the section that Toadmaster quoted in post #39 where she said she had an interest in prehistoric history, archaeology, etc. but her interest in history ends with the Romans leaving England and doesn't start up again until WW I...Apparently Joan of Arc, Elizabeth I and Lucretia Borgia only had skill sets consisting of talking with the vicar over tea, embroidery, etc...Hell, at this point I'm surprised she didn't miss Boudica.

Like I said, disingenuous...especially if she actually has any 'real' knowledge of those cultures.


@ Soltakss...Do not apologize to her.  Maybe you could have made a few things clearer, but she wasn't reading those things objectively anyway.  From the way she laid out her arguments she was only going to interpret them in the worst possible light.
...Also, I was only yanking your chain with the wet nurse comment.

Quote from: moonsweeper;1059329I wasn't arguing with anyone.  I was simply stating my opinion based on how disingenuous Stronty Girl was with her arguments to Soltakss.  Soltakss has the important quotes in post #2.

First she sets up a strawman that Soltakss equates women to the same usefulness as children and the infirm because they all have the "Gathering" skill and somehow he is implying that they are all equally worthless. Then she dares a crippled person to climb a tree in an attempt to show that he is wrong, when in fact he made no such claim. All he did was have the various uses headed under a single skill. (hence a "strawman" on her part)

Next we have her issue with childbearing/pregnancy where she asks "Why is it even in there?"...uh, because it's about a stone age tribal culture centered around survival.

Then she goes on to the puberty argument, where she both attempts to apply a modern moral code to a stone age survival culture and attempts to slap down Soltakss' research and knowledge with the fat vs meat argument...what, now she is trying to establish academic credentials??

Everything after this was simply Stronty Girl brow-beating him with all of the current ultra new wave feminist rape culture talking points.

The icing on the cake is the section that Toadmaster quoted in post #39 where she said she had an interest in prehistoric history, archaeology, etc. but her interest in history ends with the Romans leaving England and doesn't start up again until WW I...Apparently Joan of Arc, Elizabeth I and Lucretia Borgia only had skill sets consisting of talking with the vicar over tea, embroidery, etc...Hell, at this point I'm surprised she didn't miss Boudica.

Like I said, disingenuous...especially if she actually has any 'real' knowledge of those cultures.


@ Soltakss...Do not apologize to her.  Maybe you could have made a few things clearer, but she wasn't reading those things objectively anyway.  From the way she laid out her arguments she was only going to interpret them in the worst possible light.
...Also, I was only yanking your chain with the wet nurse comment.

Greetings!

That's right, Moonsweeper! I love your dissection of *Strontygirl's* pathetic, though insidious argument. You took the words right outta my mouth. LOL.

Well done.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK