Women create these stereotypes of themselves all the time, you only have to pick any random woman's magazine off the rack to see that.

MattyJ wrote:

Women create these stereotypes of themselves all the time, you only have to pick any random woman's magazine off the rack to see that.

Yes, but they aren't parallels to films and games.

It is also worth noting that they flip flop incessently on those positions and a lot of their view points are reflecting Patriarchal views such as "wear skimply clothes for men", "shave for men", "make your legs look best, for men", "don't be fat, be thin or else you are abhorent", "don't be too thin, be 'curvy' or else you are abhorent"

Being so reductive as to say 'women do it to themselves' is ignoring why they do it, the social conventions from the past 1000 years and a whole number of other issues.

Agreed. For all the cash being splashed, I'd be surprised if this docco was ultimately superb.

Seems Tim Schafer is getting in on the act too

143k this thing has raised! Looks like there is no such thing as bad publicity

Yeah it's yours. It doesn't matter if you go over target.

In the interest of Trademarks and Copyright, will she be able to fulfill this part of the donation rewards?

A pack of custom designed stickers featuring a reimagined Zelda and Peach plus a few more with the Feminist Frequency logo!

Sasukekun wrote:

In the interest of Trademarks and Copyright, will she be able to fulfill this part of the donation rewards?

A pack of custom designed stickers featuring a reimagined Zelda and Peach plus a few more with the Feminist Frequency logo!

That will be her sorted out for chocolate and wine for the next year.

I'd love to be a woman because you can smell of roses without being a faggot and you have luxurious period pads which allegedly cause your vagina to feel as if a fresh spring breeze is blowing through it whilst it pumps out the blood and body stuff but the blood doesn't matter because wheeeeeee its spring and its beautiful and then I can go an eat a big fuck off slice of cake and not care because my other girlfriends will be doing it too and we'll all giggle about one of their boyfriends, probably Dave, who's a bit of a dick because she asked him to put some shelves up four days ago and he still hasn't done it! whilst she's spending her days reading Take A Break and getting her tits out for an ex on MSN whilst he's working 9-5 just so he can afford to redecorate the fucking kitchen again for the fourth time this year what a cunt!

As is, I have to slip my bits between my legs and look at myself in the mirror while crying.

Yeah but have you seen my face? Id never get girlfriends being this butters.

Mouldywarp wrote:

Biologically, a male's sexual attraction is likely to be more superficial than a woman's as he can fuck and fuck off, so to speak. If a female is impregnated then she has to invest (in humans) 9 months of her time and energy into the child before it's even born. Therefore in nature you see differing sexual strategies in males and females. For example, mating rituals that allow the female to test how dedicated the male is. Once she is satisfied he has invested enough in her to not make it worth his while to fuck off straight after sex she agrees to copulate.

This is all from the perspective of genetics rather than ethics, but these things will still influence us despite our ability to override our genetic pre-programming.

I'm gonna run with Mouldy's sexual selection angle of feminism to start with, I think, purely because I find it interesting.

The stakes are far lower for males when it comes to procreation. Their investment in a single gamete is minimal, resulting in far more of it and once it is deposited requires no more energy input on the male's part for the progeny to reach term. For a female, a single gamete requires more energy and is far smaller in number requiring a female not to waste her precious ova on unsuitable candidates. With a vast majority of species, one (or both) parents play no part in raising progeny. Certainly in mammals it is not uncommon for a mother to raise her children alone. This means that there is no need for a male to “invest” in the female, rather the a female would seek assurance that the male has survival traits. He is brightly coloured indicating a more vigorous immune system which he can pass on to his progeny. He has a large … set of antlers and therefore has been able to defend his territory and herd from weaker invaders. He has an elaborate and cumbersome tail but has still managed to avoid predation. Hence a male will try and prove that he is a worthy choice for copulation. Females require no proof of personal investment or flattery in the animal kingdom. One night stands for humans, on the other hand, are probably a little bit different. This does only hold up, though, where females are the ones who determine who they mate with.

If we spun this a little further to apply to the human species, it would be in the male interest to dismantle female sexual selection. Things like marriage and monogamy serve well for parental assurance although certainly not a guarantee for it as Jeremy Kyle will attest. Even in the modern world, these things work to shackle women. Women seem to find it difficult to get out of sexual selection behaviours. Even well into our twenties we will wear short skirts and high heels. We subconsciously advertise our fertility. Even when we aren't competing for male attention, we are competing for each other's attention. I had the opportunity to read through the two most recent editions of Glamour, which I lapped up as a 16-19 year old but have discovered is a pile of shit as a 25 year old. We have a slew of magazines which tell us what accessories we NEED, which clothes we MUST have, which movies and books we CANNOT miss. If men aren't putting us down, we're doing it to ourselves. At its basest, we live in a world where women invest time and energy into competing against each other and allow men to pick and choose without particularly needing to prove fitness (obviously does not apply to all situations). We have managed to thwart nature again!

I think I have run as far as I can with this angle, without disintegrating into a pile of senseless pulp. Thoughts, expansions, rebuttals?

I might also venture into grooming in a little bit also. I seem to have written several essays thinking this through and deleted them all as drivel, but I do have thoughts on this subject. I am more than willing to offer my female thoughts in this male-dominated thread on feminism. Who says the world isn't changing?

I thought butters was good? Is it not? 

Am I out of the loop?

If you haven't had a face full of vaginal sweat and expulsions, you haven't lived adequately.

Wear me like a feedbag.

Women are judged mostly on appearance? Maybe by you.

Little Franklin wrote:

handsofblue wrote:

At its basest, we live in a world where women invest time and energy into competing against each other and allow men to pick and choose without particularly needing to prove fitness (obviously does not apply to all situations). We have managed to thwart nature again!

Men can pick and choose? That would only happen if women vastly outnumbered men. Humans are naturally compelled to pair off so men are judged just as much as women, it's just that women are mostly judged on appearance and men are judged on a much wider range of criteria, so you can't really have a male equivalent of Vogue et al.

I do exaggerate which I am unfortunately prone to do but I would say that at a younger age that this is more true. Still looking through the feminist eyehole, if girls and young women (to which age group this is most prevelent) are spending time preening and competing with each other there is less time and energy available to them to assess male suitability. I will concede that this doesn't happen across the board, of course. I certainly did not exhibit any preening behaviours when I was younger.

I have no slant on sexual selection after the age of, say, 21. Brain hasn't thought on that and I feel that this angle may be weak.