A gamer's model of gender, toxicity, and diversity
Games have drawn criticism from feminists for creating a culture of toxic men who disrespect and push women away. Their claim is that entertainment media present sexist themes about women that men just take for granted, indoctrinating men into thinking that women are mere objects of desire for men rather than as independent persons with their own separate interests. These perceptions can influence how men behave in interpersonal relationships and careers. However, there is a correlation versus causation issue here. Does media teach men to be sexist, or are men inherently sexist and attracted to sexist media? You can even go further. Is sexism necessarily a bad thing? Why are we attracted to certain things over others? Is it not in our best interest to identify the best and associate with it?
Entertainment media is created by people who have certain beliefs about how things work and what things should be. However, those beliefs are not necessarily shared by everyone because different people stand to gain or lose from them, and disagreement can spiral into a culture war over what is "correct" representation. These beliefs reach down to ideas about gender, so it is necessary to understand gender to establish what is correct, and thus, what should be represented in media. Of course, this leads to conflicts of interest due to the real-life political implications of media representations, and those who stand to lose will not go quietly.
The nature of gender
Sexual intercourse is a common interest that brings people together, enables the continuation of the human race, and naturally selects the genes and memes that promote more sex to create a sustainable cycle. There can be no humans without sex, so it is something that is deeply ingrained into our psyche since it has been done since the beginning of human existence. However, men and women have different sexual organs that are used in different ways. In order for people to reproduce, they have to take pleasure in the use of their organs as designed, and I hypothesize that this bleeds into the kind of things people enjoy. The science shows that gender has a biological basis, but it does have a social component as well. Biology predisposes you to a certain gender, while specific expressions of gender are socially constructed. The fact that there is a biological predisposition implies that there is a perceivable difference between what activities are masculine and feminine. Since sexual role is what differentiates men and women, it makes sense to define masculine and feminine activities in terms of sexual role.
Masculinity is the will to penetrate:
- Cars are about penetrating places.
- Sports are about penetrating the opponent's goal.
- Guns and violence are about penetrating opponents.
- Engineering is about penetrating complexity to build stuff that penetrates things better.
- Men's clothing have straight lengths and sheathing, and they penetrate the air.
- Being strong and confident is about showing off how you can push through adversity and accomplish.
Femininity is the will to take in or consume:
- Dolls are about consuming imaginary companionship.
- Shopping is about consuming nice things.
- Drama stories are about consuming the characters' personalities and emotions.
- Empathy and caregiving are about consuming people's feelings of need to satisfy them.
- Women's clothing have openings and loose folds that catch the air.
- Being pretty and nurturing is about showing off how accommodating and protective you are.
The numbers show vast differences in game genre preference between males and females. Action games are male dominated because shooting things is analogous to penetration. When you charge up to an enemy and unload your shotgun into their face, the satisfaction is the feeling of masculinity. Games about acquiring stuff and experiencing the characters have more females because they represent consumption. When you get giddy about getting nice things, that is the feeling of femininity. These are the "visceral" feelings of fun. It is certainly possible, to have both masculine and feminine interests, and I would say it is ideal for the sake of open-mindedness so you can understand the opposite gender and get along with them. But chances are, you have a bias in favour of one or the other in accordance to your sex.
Gender is the symbolic expression of your sexual role, which also communicates your sexual desirability to others. This leads to finding ways to maximize your attractiveness to others and the pursuit of the best way to express gender is a major part of our culture. Entertainment media is filled with attractive people as artistic expressions of what ideal men and women should be like, giving you ideas of how to present yourself to be attractive. Certain gender expressions become popular and persistent because they resonate with the majority of people and stand the test of time, resulting in a naturally selected standard of gender. Men show off their prowess while women show off their beauty because masculinity is about pursuing while femininity is about attracting. This encourages men and women to come together and reproduce while passing down their genetic and cultural traits to their descendants.
Men have historically been more suited for masculine roles because they do not have to bear the burden of pregnancy, which makes them more able to survive in the wild and bring resources back to women. However, because men possess the resources, men will prefer to offer their resources to the women who are best at catching their attention while women have an incentive to choose the most competent men. This is the human mating ritual, and those who present themselves well are the ones who get the best mates. Those who mate produce children, forming a mainstream culture that demonstrably works, while those who don't will have their genetic inclinations and beliefs vanish, only reemerging on the fringes as a possible, but sub-optimal existence.
Normalizing the abnormal
There is always going to be variance, but that does not mean all variations are equal in both frequency and value to society. I don't consider LGBT normal because the design of nature conveys the most objective narrative of what is normal. Sexual organs are shaped for heterosexual sex, humans reproduce heterosexually, and natural selection favours the survival and prosperity of those who reproduce. In the grand scheme of the universe, the only thing that matters is continued existence. That which ceases to exist is forgotten about and might as well not have existed in the first place. That which survives continues to exist to set the standard of what works, which defines normality. You can certainly define your existence by your accomplishments, but chances are, you aren't special enough to produce something that will last forever in the way descendants can. And if everybody only cared about accomplishments, no one would be left alive to use them, making them all pointless, so existence precedes accomplishment.
Nature does not love diversity, it hates the weak, which is why over 99% of species have gone extinct. The diversity you see is actually homogeneity on the grand scale of nature, the convergence of infinite possibilities into a relatively few viable ones. It doesn't matter what you subjectively feel, what matters is what gets things done in a deterministic world of limited resources and unequal possibilities. If you don't do what works, you will be the one complaining about why everyone has stuff you don't. Because some things work and other things don't, that implies a baseline objective standard of what is valuable.
While you are free to be what you want, other people are free to form opinions about you and not associate with you for it. Real decisions have to be made, and if you are not what people want, you don't get the benefits of associating with them. Marginalization is simply the consequence of being undesirable, and there is nothing wrong with this because people's time and resources are limited and best spent on those who provide the most value to them. However, marginalized people will notice the inequality and push for more rights in an attempt to gain relevance because they insist that their way of doing things is valid and deserves to be artificially propped up. But who is going to pay for and tolerate it? This is why the whole issue is not as simple as just respecting everyone.
The problem with arbitrarily declaring the LGBT as normal arises once you consider the logical extension of that: they rationalize their feelings, form an ideology from it, express their views through their work, and influence others. They do not just stay in their own isolated corner, they try to change society towards their vision because they have ambitions like most people. They do not want to admit that they are abnormal because it threatens their social value, so they create a radically progressive ideology that rewrites the definition of normal to include them. If their ideology is accepted as universal truth, it will influence creative decisions in mainstream art as well as set the standard for how to interpret and criticize art, which affects everyone. Therefore, it should be subject to scrutiny. People are not as isolated as you might think, and this has a lot to do with anti-discrimination laws and the push for inclusion, which I will get into later.
Progressives claim that humans are blank slates and gender is a purely social construct to make LGBT an equal alternative to being straight, eliminating any hierarchy of social value that could lead to discrimination against them. The implication is that reproduction is not considered an ability that makes straights more valuable to society by necessity. The concept of man and woman exists to facilitate reproduction because there is no other reason for such distinction to exist. Even though gender can be expressed within a spectrum, there is no need for it to be anything other than binary to communicate your sexual role to others. Social hierarchies are fundamentally a good thing for protecting society from ignorant radicals who want to dismantle the institutions that gave them life and made society as prosperous as it is. It is not just the LGBT, but feminists who use similar reasoning to impose equality between men and women, claiming that masculinity and femininity are completely arbitrary and should be changed because it gives men advantages that they should not be allowed to have.
Here is an article that explains how RimWorld's design of gender dynamics is sexist, which assumes gender differences are bad by default even though the design has statistical basis in reality. The comments section has ideas like randomizing everyone's characteristics, even though reproductive success favours traits like heterosexuality, assertiveness, and physical beauty, which get passed down to descendants to create trait bias. Even PCGamer's review of the game makes the claim that the future should not be "heteronormative", even though it would require the effective genocide of straight people and teaching everyone that heterosexual sex is not the default way of reproducing. There would have to be fields, endless fields, where human beings are no longer born, we are grown in equal ratios of sexual orientations and gender identities.
The point of all of this arbitrary equality is for progressives to pretend their uniqueness is valuable and their flaws do not exist, failing to understand how the majority came to be the majority through the use of nature as designed. They don't understand that social constructions are built around how nature works to promote socioeconomic efficiency and create the greatest overall prosperity rather than to conceal a more just state of society out of malice. They don't understand the logistics of what they propose, which is why their ideas are terrible, yet they are being propped up by the mainstream media believing they are fighting discrimination as if there is no valid reason to discriminate.
We portray things in the media because we hold them up as examples of cultural quality. Cultures that can explain and use nature well become the most prosperous. Heterosexual relationships promote reproduction, which enables human civilization to continue existing and progress well beyond a human lifespan. Beautiful and competent people are better than ugly and ignorant people because beauty and competence attracts people together and gets things done. These are useful lessons to teach to people in the hopes they will copy them and replicate their success. Therefore, if you want to produce good art, you model the best cultures, which forms a narrative explaining how people and societies become the best, and this educates and inspires the audience.
Good art is relevant to people's lives because it has basis in reality, teaching useful messages and encouraging you to apply them to your own way of thinking. Even fantasy is best used as a caricature of real-life things, like magic being about introspection to build your creativity, bring it out, and skillfully apply it to make useful things happen, different races to portray the value of cultural differences, and giant creatures to illustrate how to deal with large, scary problems by breaking it down into smaller parts and using the logic of the world to find a solution. Weak art either fails to make a point or is misleading in the themes it presents. It may come across as wish fulfillment, even propaganda because it presents an idealistic vision with no understanding of how it came to be, how it sustains itself, and how it extrapolates without undermining its idealism.
Progressives extol the value of diversity, but don't talk about what exactly a particular culture adds. The value of a culture is based on what it provides that other cultures do not, and there is no reason to believe every culture is equally valuable. If the best excuse you can come up with is that it is a subjective preference, it is not worth protecting, much less propping up. Heterosexuality makes the world go round, homosexuality doesn't. That tells you everything about their relative value to society and thus, worthiness of cultural representation.
To me, watching a homosexual couple is like watching zombies engaging in robotic behaviours that are only a shadow of their original purpose, portraying a culture that has forgotten the meaning of tradition and collapsed into nihilism. Having a homosexual couple make out in front of an overlook to civilization is an insult to civilization itself because their ancestors who built that civilization were here to eternalize their love and fulfill their destiny to create the next generation who will inherit and improve upon that civilization, and this gay couple was selected to be the representatives of humanity to somehow continue the cycle rather than terminate it.
Why is such a tradition romantic? Why is heterosexuality the default? Because it fits into the cycle of life that allows humans to exist and be relevant. If people do not follow the cycle of life, it will lead to the end of humanity and render human existence pointless, which is why homosexual love will never be on the same cultural level as heterosexual love. Heterosexuality earned its place in culture by its vital function to humanity that will not change no matter how much you try to claim it is an arbitrary social construct that oppresses the LGBT. Homosexuals can certainly use artificial insemination to reproduce, but their romantic partners are detached from the process and it places a burden on people outside of the relationship, making the whole thing look like an awkward hassle that could be avoided by just being heterosexual, which only reinforces the fact that homosexuality is a handicap, not a normal state of being.
This line of reasoning is not even new, it is taught by Christianity (Romans 1:18-32). However, religion has lost much of its influence in Western culture because its adherents emphasize its superstitious and cryptic messaging rather than its naturalistic meanings. I see God as just an anthropomorphic abstraction of the objective reality in which we live in rather than a literal man in the sky. The universe works this way and not in any other way, which constitutes the will of God. Social constructionist gender is idolatry, rejecting the will of God in favour of a pseudoscientific model designed solely to justify homosexuality. God punishes children for the sins of their parents because that is how genetic and environmental inheritance works. Follow the will of God, and you can create technology, art, and prosperous civilizations. The laws of nature are static and universal to everyone, so if you work to change your failed beliefs to align with what is correct, you will find forgiveness and succeed. You can boast about your freedom, but it is impossible to be free from reality, so ideal living is in accordance to reality, that is, to God's will.
Jesus represents a genius who understood the truth of nature and could bend it to his will to do what no one else could to inspire people and create abundance for everyone. The only thing that could stop him was the rule of the ignorant mob. Certain influential people stand to lose from the truth, so they will go as far as to claim the truth is blasphemy to shut down whoever opposes them. But the truth is not so easily mocked, crucified, and buried, it will be realized by others who will observe the truth and resurrect it to make a fool out of the unbelievers because no amount of lies and deception can change nature itself. You cannot disprove the truth once it is observed and established, so aligning with it will make your faith in reality, the basis of self-confidence, indestructible.
Transgender is the logical extension of blank slate gender. However, it is a culture of gender nihilism, narcissism, and concealing a harsh reality with a comforting illusion, even though transitioning does not reduce the lifetime risk of self-harm. Their expression erases the meaning of gender and turns it into an arbitrary, detached, subjective preference that exists in isolation of the world around them. 87.5% of people wouldn't consider dating a transperson, but then the article writers accuse people of "cisgenderism" and "transmisogyny" rather than respect that most people prefer authenticity in both mind and body. They do not consider that straights do not want to be sucked into a homosexual relationship and expect clear communication so that what they see is what they get to avoid awkward situations. However, if transpeople don't guilt straights into validating their identity and accepting them, not only will they experience cognitive dissonance from the contradiction, they will find their relationship options extremely limited and end up not being as equal as they wanted to be. Their lifestyle is built around maintaining appearances against reality, so it is no surprise that manipulating people becomes second nature to them.
Progressives claim all sorts of "mental health difficulties" of transpeople due to stigma, but it is really just a euphemism for being butthurt over being proven wrong. Who doesn't suffer stress, anxiety, and depression from being bad at life? The rational solution is to stop believing the things that make you wrong so you can align yourself with what is right. But that is lost on progressives because they have no concept of personal responsibility. They want to be whatever they want without negative consequences. Their problems are always other people's fault because other people are not allowed to have their own interests to protect. As a straight man, you are expected to recognize transwomen as women and be sexually attracted to them, or else you are a transphobe who should be excluded from progressive circles, as if you should want to be a part of their abusive relationship that is all about sacrificing you for their happiness.
When writers replace straight characters with LGBTs, it reduces the quantity and diversity of straight people, thus giving the straight audience less choice of who they can associate with. You get something like Mass Effect: Andromeda, where you have five bisexual romance options and only three out of ten who are straight. Apparently in the future, heterosexuality serves no higher purpose than homosexuality. But the real kicker is that the game ends up excluding traditionally feminine women. You can even break down such women into sub-categories such as introverted versus extroverted, sporty versus elegant, and arrogant versus humble. Including more characters to satisfy every specific niche requires stretching your development resources, which means you have to exclude those you think are expendable to fit whatever diversity allocation you think is more important.
LGBT representation is of no value to straights, so straights end up with less content they like while progressives still complain that their representation isn't good enough. The author of that article believes transgender should not be a defining trait of a character, yet wants it to be mentioned somewhere as if it mattered, ignoring the possibility of just not mentioning gender at all if it has no relevance to the plot, like normal people would do. The author also expects transgender backstories to be non-existent, basically erasing history to deny the curiosity of players because it undermines the desired image of transpeople as always having been a normal part of society that no one questioned. The author also implies that straight players should become attracted to a companion and then find out later they are trans, effectively wanting to manipulate straights into a homosexual relationship.
All the talk about representation begs the question of why developers should sacrifice the interests of the majority to cater to a small minority of the population who are overrepresented in culture. People being a minority does not automatically mean they are virtuous people without a self-interested agenda. If you play white knight, they will push the envelope of how far you will go for them and you will end up sacrificing your own interests for theirs, resulting in the "get woke, go broke" pattern in the media. Do you really think that a transwoman will eventually become a beautiful real woman who will bear your children if you believe hard enough?
Unlike in fantasy, the power of love will not break reality and give you what you really want. If you do not pursue and protect your own interests, you will end up with the short end of the stick. Excluding people is a necessary part of focusing your attention on the limited number of people who are most valuable to you. Not only is it rational, it is a moral imperative so you don't dilute your loyalty and waste all of your time and resources babysitting narcissists. There is no such thing as satisfying everyone, so you might as well satisfy those you want and exclude the rest.
Legally enforced ideology
The WHO declared that transgender is not a mental disorder, so transpeople should be personally responsible for their choices. However, to ensure they do not actually have to be, laws have been passed to protect them, such as protection orders against deliberate misgendering and fines up to $250,000 for employers and landlords. There is no consideration of whether these people even deserve protection when it undermines the most basic freedoms of Western society. Transpeople are nothing more than a collection of people with a common interest. They do not have any less rights than anyone else and should be responsible for the consequences of their expression. Being right is not a human right, respect is earned. Otherwise, you are eliminating a vital market self-regulation mechanism to punish bad ideas.
In a free society, it is not the law's place to self-righteously pick winners and losers because the legal system is not omniscient and lawyers are not free. The free market rejects people for a reason, and laws can have unintended, even malicious effects in deciding whose rights take precedent. Considering that hate speech prosecutions under human rights tribunals in Canada had a 100% conviction rate, defendants are liable for hefty legal fees even if the case is dismissed after years of stalling, and the burden to the legal system necessitates the use of such kangaroo courts, lawmakers are not trustworthy in understanding how freedom works and passing fair laws. They may very well be driven by the identifiable victim effect to do something about every instance of suffering as if freedom comes without responsibility and people should not be allowed to fail. The idea that people are going to die if you don't meet their demands to sacrifice your liberties for them sounds awfully close to terrorism.
A major problem with anti-discrimination laws is that ideology and identity tend to go hand in hand. If you discriminate against an ideology that is used to justify a certain identity or even just a mentality that is overrepresented among a certain identity, you are also discriminating against the identity. The law has the concept of disparate impact, which means if you discriminate on the basis of some factor that happens to be correlated with a protected characteristic, that factor is also protected from discrimination, which extends the possible discrimination factors far beyond what is explicitly listed in the law.
For example, if you work in journalism and write an article claiming that transwomen are not women, it would create a hostile work environment for transpeople, especially since publishing it under the company banner would make it a company endorsed perspective that can be built upon. Because the law protects transpeople, the company has no choice but to suppress your views or fire you to protect themselves from legal liability even though you are not directly stopping your transgender colleagues from doing their jobs. This also means that transpeople have the freedom to push social constructionist gender without opposition because any attempt at justifying rejection of that will be an attack on their protected identity. Their work gets published, the company is forced to adapt to their views, and they feel like they succeeded on their own merits due to the lack of criticism.
The law goes beyond protecting surface characteristics and bleeds into protecting ideologies. Because of this, companies are forced to adopt progressive ideologies to create an inclusive culture that ensures the emotional safety of protected identities, even in opinionated industries like journalism, social media, and entertainment. What constitutes harassment is so vague that it leads to zero-tolerance policies, so companies are not allowed to have ideological diversity and must cater to the most easily offended people. It encourages more progressives to come in, while conservatives get pushed out because they are unable to meaningfully contribute, resulting in an effective takeover.
The censorious effect of the law has resulted in a number of major tech companies becoming progressive echo chambers.
- PayPal blacklisted conservatives out of a belief in being a "force for good".
- Facebook cracked down on broad notions of hate speech.
- Twitter bans users who misgender transpeople.
- Google fired James Damore for presenting his views on why there are few women in technology and why that is okay.
Damore provided examples of the radically progressive culture at Google, which prompted him to write his memo, which created a hostile environment for progressives, which led to his firing and the declaration of his firing as legal by the labour board. Furthermore, Google scrapped an AI ethics board due to the presence of a single conservative because they believed "representative views" should exclude conservative views, even though there are more self-identified conservatives in the U.S. than progressives, suggesting that progressives are overrepresented in Google.
It is hypocritical to say that private companies have a right to censor conservatives, but then demand regulation when they discriminate against marginalized groups. Companies are not truly private when the law mandates progressive employment practices while telling conservatives their opinions are illegal. It is disingenuous to claim that the law is neutral when it was designed to suppress conservatives who believe people are not equal, even if they have data to support it. Why are conservatives denied their preferences when progressives are allowed to have theirs? The fact that the law neutrally protects men, women, straights, gays, etc. is a red herring to the fact that the law biasedly protects against conservative opinions. You see, it is the progressives who deny other people their dignity while lacking it themselves. They are the ones who are trying to force their way into other people's properties because they cannot take "No" for an answer and will push and persist like a desperate salesperson.
Since the law implicitly protects ideologies, this implies a legally mandated truth that you are obligated to believe in regardless of its factual accuracy. Gender is a social construct, gays are equally valuable to humanity as straights, transwomen are women, women are just as strong as men, pregnancy does not add considerable burden to a company, etc. These are all derived from the law's codified premise that people are equal along surface characteristics and should be treated as such without regard to reality. If you reject these beliefs because you want to produce traditional, heteronormative art in a business environment, you could get into legal trouble by LGBT employees or job candidates who are offended by it. They could argue that adherence to heteronormative values has a disparate impact against women and LGBTs and is not a business necessity since art can be anything.
The law was designed to override freedom of expression and association to eliminate discrimination, so it is within the spirit of the law to censor discriminatory work and allow progressives to assume control of companies to prevent the empowerment and spread of discriminatory ideology. The law doesn't care about facts, it has already decided what is true to protect people according to their surface characteristics as promised. Discrimination is assumed to be an objective evil and anything that justifies it is also evil. If truth is allowed as a defense, it will render the law moot, so you are required to change your company's direction to fit a progressive narrative. The only defense conservatives have is religion, but secular conservatives will find no mercy. The law has not made society more tolerant, it just shifted the systemic discrimination onto conservatives, leading to the rejection of tradition and the rise of cultural ignorance affecting the quality of art.
A big part of being a decent person is the ability to understand perspectives other than your own. However, empathy is quite complicated because you are often dealing with conflicting interests, so you have to carefully decide who takes priority. Empathy is limited by your own knowledge because you cannot accurately virtualize the thought patterns of people who know things you don't. Knowledge shapes how you feel about things because knowing more means you are able to consider more factors and possible outcomes to arrive at more refined and nuanced conclusions. Therefore, you cannot say that any given person's feelings are correct since they may very well be ignorant of important facts and perspectives, and have rushed to a conclusion they are suffering from or angry about. If you empathize with that person, you are also mirroring their ignorance and contributing to a wrong consensus that the person is correct and should be catered to. People are not always what they appear to be, so you need to know how reality works, analyze their claims, analyze the other side, and protect those who actually deserve protection.
Feminists pinpoint toxicity to masculinity, which suggests that toxicity is gender-based, but they never talk about how women can be toxic as well. The problem with feminism is that women have no less rights than men, yet feminists act like they still have a job to do, even to the point of taking over the field of psychology to claim their ideology as science and then try to manipulate men through clinical practice. Being legally equal is not enough to feminists because it has not produced the equal outcomes they want, so they want men and women to be psychologically equal by redefining masculinity away from strength and dominance. They even suggest men should engage in "physical affection with other men" because men are violent and need more hugs and kisses to cure their sexist anger, but women shouldn't provide them because that's gross and goes against the women's empowerment agenda.
There is a reason why a lot of universities tend to categorize psychology as arts rather than science. Psychology statistics are merely snapshots of current trends in human behaviour. Interpreting them is where the field veers into ideology, and psychology is dominated by progressives producing politically biased studies. Peer review is worthless if all of your peers think like you because they were all taught and accredited by the same people in a field that has no standard for political neutrality, even though the findings and recommendations have political implications. It's a case of who audits the auditors, who decides an authority's legitimacy, especially in a field as abstract and open to interpretation as clinical psychology.
I suspect it has something to do with seeing mental disorders as something you cannot choose, so affected people are not responsible for their failures, but they are distressed by being inferior to others, and this somehow justifies violating the rights of normal people. It is easier to see normal people as more capable of taking abuse than emotionally vulnerable people seeking professional help, so progressives see pushing oppressive social policies on normal people as a solution because they are completely stumped at getting vulnerable people to take responsibility for themselves and overcome their weakness so they are no longer a burden to others. Victim narratives are crafted to suck you into the victims' world view to make it feel like forcing other people to cater to them is the only solution instead of quarantining them and getting them the help they need. This mentality is toxic in its own way, but it is hard to call it masculine.
Feminists talk about how sexist portrayals of women in the media objectify women, but such portrayals are only popular because they are attractive to men. To understand how women objectify men, you have to look at what makes men attractive to women. Women are not sexually aroused merely by men's bodies, but by seeing people who burn in their passion for another. Their attraction mechanism is more empathetic than visual. They like men who are assertive and exude strong, independent character, which is why a lot of women like bad boys. Because women like assertiveness, women tend not to make the first move, which allows them to weed out the weak by choosing from men who take the initiative. At most, they will position themselves near men they are interested in, but then they will expect men to take charge.
When a woman says she likes a nice guy, she is actually referring to the "nice" trait added onto the bad boy template. A desirable man is a badass who fights for good. Similarly, when a man wants a pure and faithful woman, that is on top of a sleek, hourglass body, smooth hair, bright eyes, small nose, and triangular jaw. Men and women are not the same. Men are attracted to appearance, women are attracted to assertive character. Do not think that a man can behave like a woman or a woman can look like a man and expect to be desirable under the misguided belief that people like those similar to themselves. Similarity only applies to certain traits like intelligence, fields of interest, and politics, otherwise everyone would be homosexual. A fundamental trait like gender should be divergent, which is the basis of the gender binary. What about androgyny? It really only works in one direction because men are judged by their character more than appearance. You can have a feminine appearance and a masculine character and still be attractive, but a masculine appearance and a feminine character is just ugly because it goes against human attraction mechanics.
If women desire strong, capable men, women objectify men by treating them as free providers, expecting them to do everything with no appreciation of the passion, knowledge, sacrifice, and self-doubt that goes into their work and the development of their character. Men build their confidence and dominance by being right about things and associating with quality, while their work and accomplishments are proof of their strength. They need to demonstrate their prowess to be confident in themselves and become attractive to women. However, it takes great genes, upbringing, and personal effort to achieve the high standards of competence and character that women want. Men suffer when they realize that their best wasn't good enough, that the doors to the highest echelons of society, especially women, have closed on them, that the special someone they were told was waiting for them is banging other men, and that all of the things they need to do to succeed give them deep anxiety because they don't know how to do them without embarrassing themselves.
What makes male objectification so aggravating is that a person's character is attributed to personal responsibility, so discrimination against losers is socially acceptable even though it hurts just as much as any other form of discrimination. Weak men don't have a leg to stand on because they are ignorant and cowardly, yet they have desires for women that they can't just turn off. They don't know how to be productive, they are rejected for being themselves, and there is no one who will speak for them. It is even more disheartening to see older men come out of nowhere to snatch up the best women and create a shortage of good options. It turns out that all of the platitudes about trying they have been told by women were passive-aggressive ways of saying, "No".
Double-standard victim narratives
Elliot Rodger is an example of a man whose desire for women was betrayed by his weakness. He was distressed by the privilege of others and was bullied for who he was, but he did not fall under any protected category of discrimination. Progressives portray people like him as dangerous misogynists who are fully responsible for their character flaws. However, it is interesting how the incel narrative is similar to the feminist narrative. Both are oppressed by a socially constructed system that works against them, preventing them from achieving the level of success they think they are entitled to. They see themselves as unrecognized equals to the privileged class and think privileged people are morally responsible for the inequality, so the solution is a radical restructuring of societal norms to bring down the privileged people and eliminate the inequality. However, feminists are taken seriously, incels are not.
Notice how the author of the Daily Dot article just had to point out that "most incels are straight, cisgender men" to deflect from the double standard. It insinuates that incels don't deserve sympathy because they are a part of a homogeneous, privileged class, even though incels apparently have none of the benefits. Feminists will not tell women, LGBTs, and non-whites to "accept their feelings, come to terms with their [socioeconomic] struggles, and recognize their own agency in facing [socioeconomic] rejection" because the concept of privilege only applies to whoever they want so they can dodge their own responsibility, take advantage of people's empathy, and exploit successful men for their own gain.
If toxic masculinity is the aggressive penetration of others to hurt them to their very core, toxic femininity is the radical extension of the feminine imperative: gluttonous entitlement to attention and resources to drain others for their own gain. Instead of taking a balanced look at gender issues, feminists talk about women's issues exclusively. They frame the narrative so that instead of understanding men and coming to a mutually beneficial agreement with them, they imply that the best way to help women is for men to sacrifice themselves for women. Men cannot play the victim and expect women to save them because it makes them look pathetic. In fact, men face discrimination in domestic abuse cases even though women are just as likely to perpetrate them through psychological abuse.
The idea of "Believe women" shows toxic women's malicious contempt for due process. Even if a man is found not guilty, toxic women still insist they were right and want the judicial system reformed to their advantage. They are so devoid of sympathy for men that they are willing to dispose of innocent men for their own vindictive satisfaction. They don't really care about justice and will only make more false allegations if they know they can get away with them. They are really no better than a lynch mob out to make an example out of someone out of a belief in their own moral superiority. Here's a suggestion: If there is no evidence that a crime even occurred, the incident was not as bad as you think it is and can be put behind you.
The fact that feminists treat the men's rights movement as a joke shows that they don't actually care about human suffering and see civil rights as nothing more than a power game. They believe that extending protections for men is the same as rolling back protections for women because their idea of protecting women is putting women's word above men's regardless of evidence. They see men's suffering as a threat to the feminist narrative that women are pure and innocent victims while men are sexist pigs out to rape women. To them, men's issues must be minimized and ridiculed with extreme prejudice to ensure that feminists maintain authority over all gender topics to push policies that favour women only.
It is astounding that feminists accuse men of whining about their loss of privilege when feminists are the ones who need to steal privilege through diversity policies because they are the ones who feel oppressed by being less successful than men. They talk about how men feel entitled to women's bodies, yet they don't talk about how they feel entitled to men's companies. They believe in women's independence, but then they talk about unconscious biases in hiring as if women rely on men to give them the jobs they want. They believe men and women are equal, yet women are the ones who need special protections as if the ability to protect yourself and function independently is not a factor of competence. They expect men to act as chaperones to help women achieve their full potential, yet men had to achieve their full potential on their own. It is all just an angle to hijack the success of men because feminists cannot create it for themselves.
Whether man or woman, toxic people are so delusional about their own social value, so ignorant of the economics of life that they think they can just be whatever they want and the prettiest woman or the most charismatic man will like them for who they are while they don't have to put in any effort. Conforming to gender roles is not about oppression, but about being pro-social by doing what other people like. People don't like you for who you are, they like you for whether you can satisfy them. Otherwise, they have no reason to be spending their time and energy to be with you when there are more desirable people to hang out with. No one wants to enter a relationship that is just added responsibility, so you are expected to play your role and do it well. If you don't, you will find your options limited because that is what you actually deserve, what your individuality is actually worth in the free market.
Sexism is not a fundamentally bad thing because they reflect what people intrinsically want and is thus an ideal for both men and women to strive towards. There is still plenty of room for decent variation, just don't bother trying to escape the gender binary. Even feminists find sexist men more attractive than "woke" men, indicating they are dishonest and don't really understand how gender works. They expect men to be submissive to make room for women and expect women to be ugly to avoid being objectified, which only makes everyone worse off.
Inclusive versus exclusive diversity
Companies are nothing more than a bunch of people who came together to create what they want, how they want. Using discrimination as an excuse to force your way into someone else's private property is unethical because discrimination is a zero-sum game. If a company is not allowed to hire only men, it is forced to hire women, which requires rejecting the men it wanted to hire instead. If a company chooses to hire a man over a woman, or a white over a black, so what? They hired someone they thought was good enough and best fits their vision, so nothing was wasted. It begs the question of what damages discriminatory hiring inflicts compared to not being hired for any other reason. You don't lose when someone refuses to give you a job, you are just left in the same position as if the job didn't exist. Jobs are not a right, they are a privilege. You still have the freedom to create your own job and earn people's respect in your own way.
What progressives fail to mention is that diverse hiring does not create additional jobs, it just redistributes them because companies cannot afford to hire more than they need or give work they don't have. It merely shifts the marginalization onto less visible people, not reduce the total number of people marginalized. Progressives will then claim that the displaced people are part of a privileged class who deserve it as if those people are somehow all in on some grand conspiracy to oppress minorities. It is not actually about helping people, but seizing power from others out of a sense of entitlement.
This is why inclusion ideology is inherently corrupt. Progressives sell you a promise of prosperous equality that they cannot realistically follow through on because there is no plan to actually create additional wealth and clone desirable people to support the additional inclusion. The end result is either wealth diluted to the point of satisfying no one or excluded people are swept under the rug to maintain a false image of virtue. There is not enough time and resources to go around satisfying those who do not pull their own weight, so people have to be prioritized and excluded anyways, which means progressives are either naive or dishonest. If you are not a part of their inner circle, you are disposable. You are the "friend" they never talk to because you are boring and unattractive. They are like players who say you are their only one while banging several different people behind your back because they are just so diverse and inclusive. If they are found out, they will throw the less desirable under the bus to maintain favour with the more desirable.
Progressives eventually turn into the straw man conservatives they thought they were rebelling against because no human is above reality. It is simply the logical conclusion of the fact that you cannot satisfy everyone and some people are more satisfying than others. People can only afford to be good to the desirable people they want, which leads to the formation of exclusive, elite groups. Trying to rebel against this fact of nature and claiming that all people are equal is just dishonest virtue signalling in the hopes of gaining a competitive edge over others. It is a way of saying, "If you choose me, I will give up more of my resources for you than those greedy conservatives." In the end, it is not about genuinely liking everyone and paying for their existence, but about continuing the cycle of hypocrisy to chase a fantasy of pure good.
The idea that hiring should be objective is meaningless because jobs are created by companies in accordance to their subjective goals. Just because you can mechanically do something doesn't mean you can do it in the manner that aligns with their vision. For example, Southwest Airlines wanted all female flight attendants, which was good for business, but then they got sued for sex discrimination. The law stifled a business possibility because letting the company choose whatever business direction it wants can circumvent the intent of the law to force companies to be diverse. A later, related case mentioned that new male hires were given retroactive seniority, even though they were not affected by the initial discrimination, which did not sit well with the union representing the women, but affirmative action policies were legal. This meant that the women were punished for a crime they did not commit while men who were not victims were rewarded. Even the case warned of the dangers of the law back in 1981:
One final observation is called for. This case has serious underpinnings, but it also has disquieting strains. These strains, and they were only that, warn that in our quest for non-racist, non-sexist goals, the demand for equal rights can be pushed to silly extremes. The rule of law in this country is so firmly embedded in our ethical regimen that little can stand up to its force except literalistic insistence upon one's rights. And such inability to absorb the minor indignities suffered daily by us all without running to court may stop it dead in its tracks. We do not have such a case here only warning signs rumbling from the facts.
Except it has not been stopped dead in its tracks and has mutated into the identity politics of today because when something is legally protected, you can be sure people are going to latch onto it as hard as they can to gain undeserved advantages over others. The problem with the civil rights movement was that instead of just getting rid of mandated segregation, they replaced it with mandated integration rather than just leaving the laws blank and the market free.
The law doesn't "protect" marginalized groups, it entitles them to other people's properties, forcing businesses to operate in ways that redistribute jobs, and thus wealth, to those groups. It violates companies' freedom of expression and association, which prevents the co-existence of both homogeneous and diverse companies. It absolves personal responsibility and assumes a collectivist mentality of punishing and rewarding entire groups rather than specific individuals. It masquerades its inherently socialist intent through its neutral coverage of seemingly innocuous characteristics, when a free market is not supposed to have legal intervention in private business decisions in the first place. Most grievous of all, it is about uplifting people on the basis of their identity, not whether the specific individuals in question actually need help since you are often dealing with people trying to get into the best companies, who are among the most privileged in society for even having the baseline credentials to be worthy of consideration.
The law is downright authoritarian for deciding on behalf of companies what is a business necessity while discriminating against those equal and opposite to those it stands up for. Diversity is discriminatory in itself because you are selecting people on the basis of their surface characteristics under the belief that it makes a difference. It is a belief that homogeneous groups are inferior to diverse groups even though there should be no difference if people are equal. Believing in diversity is an affirmation that the identity groups are not the same and will not produce the same work, which means discrimination should be allowed to create a desired culture that produces a desired product. If it does not harm anyone, why should it be anyone's business?
To put it bluntly, get rid of private sector coverage of anti-discrimination laws. If people want to be racist or sexist in their own space, let them have it as long as they are not holding anyone against their will. The culture of a company is especially important for creative fields like game development because their work can involve fictional representations of protected characteristics, which can lead to a discriminatory work environment if the company designs, say, sexy characters out of their sexist perspectives that they would have to openly talk about and produce pictures of. Riot Games has come under fire for its sexist work environment, insinuating that their sexy characters are a manifestation of their sexism and should be diversified away as if people should not be allowed to like sexy characters. They never needed diversity to become as big as they are, but the laws being what they are, they had no choice but to scramble for more diversity.
By following the logic of the Southwest Airlines case, you could argue that sexy characters are not "reasonably necessary" to make a video game, that the game is still playable with covered up characters, and that consumer preference is not a factor in deciding whether it is acceptable discrimination. If companies are allowed to produce offensive content, it would undermine the intent of the law to protect oversensitive employees from reality. And what makes such people worth protecting over those who actually enjoy the culture? Emotionally weak people are no more deserving of a job than others. In fact, they hold up the work flow and have a censorious effect on the company's work while denying the position to someone else more suitable. If they don't like it, they can go elsewhere and do something they are actually comfortable with.
Discrimination is a fake injustice that you can just walk away from and find other people who will accept you. At its core, discrimination is just making choices in accordance to one's personal preferences. If you have such preferences, why should it be anyone else's business? Is it not gays who champion the idea of liking whoever they want? Disappointingly, people tend to conflate discrimination with harassment and violence, sliding down the slippery slope to outlaw motivations for crimes with no regard to whether those motivations can have useful applications, much like feminists wanting to neuter masculinity believing it is the source of toxicity when in reality, it is themselves.
The idea that games should be inclusive is just a euphemism for saying games should be one-size-fits-all experiences even though men and women do not like the same things. Games are no different than toys, they are gendered. The Quantic Foundry report writer commented that Overwatch had only a 16% female player base despite its diverse cast of characters, which is better than average for its genre, but nowhere near the expected 50% because it is still a fundamentally masculine game about competitive penetration of others. When you make a shooter, you are targeting men by default because charging into enemy territory and shooting people are penetrative activities. Why must fighting be the only prestigious activity worth basing a game around? Why are support roles seen as inferior? Those are masculine standards of fun. If you want to satisfy women, you have to make a whole different genre for them.
Speaking of Overwatch, the pursuit of inclusive diversity has resulted in the game lacking a coherent overarching artistic narrative. Multicultural cities are supposed to be a mishmash of different architectural styles and languages to represent each culture, yet each map in the game is themed in one consistent culture, which is the result of cultural homogeneity, not diversity. Then, you have all of these foreigners invading these national identities, firing guns, creating explosions, and shouting in foreign languages on the streets. Then, the diverse and inclusive heroes pose in victory and boast about their stats after brutally murdering their opposition and presumably burying them in mass graves. Overwatch is basically progressive propaganda, portraying the replacement of conservative nationalism in favour of a diverse and inclusive future.
Blizzard's previous games had single player campaigns telling the main story of each universe that tied together the races, factions, and characters. Starcraft even portrayed both progressive and conservative extremism through Mengsk and Aldaris. However, Overwatch has a ton of background lore for each character, but no story campaign. How do you even write a coherent story that puts all of these wildly different characters into meaningful roles in a global conflict while maintaining an image of diversity and inclusion? Who is the enemy they are excluding by definition of conflict?
There is a backstory about a robot uprising, but why it happened and why there is racism against robots in a diverse and inclusive world are unexplained. Perhaps the robots represent conservatives? They are the only group that opposes progressive ideals. They did all of the work, created all of the wealth, and have determined that progressive ideals are inefficient and oppress the robots because the robots are forced to make up for the lack of productivity of an unsustainably growing number of weak people. Robot racism is just progressives calling them bigots, Nazis, and robot supremacists. Then, the robots protest by hoarding their wealth, which is unconscionable to the progressives, so the progressive heroes rise up to wipe out the robots, seize the wealth, and save the starving people.
But without the robots producing more wealth, and the progressives are feeble in their attempts to replicate the robots' productivity, they set up forced labour camps to both employ and punish robot survivors and sympathizers. But due to increasing resource scarcity, they have to hypocritically prioritize and exclude people, resulting in hundreds of millions perishing under their regime. Now, the heroes are fighting each other to survive, bring back the robots, and atone for their sins, which is the best explanation for the multiplayer-only design of the game. This is probably what the "optimistic future of Overwatch" would actually look like if it followed how real-life communist revolutions worked. Inclusive diversity overstretched the scope of the Overwatch universe and diluted the narrative quality to the point of, "It's just cosmetic."
The problem with media representations are not that men are given all of the "best" roles, it is that no one understands and appreciates the roles women play. Empowering women is about showing that femininity is its own culture that is fun and rewarding in its own way. Instead of trying to force their way into the boys clubs, women should be forming their own girls clubs to create games that appeal to feminine imperatives. Where are the competitors to The Sims? Why should women be hired to make men's games? Creating games that appeal to women is not about making men accept women, it's about making women accept women. One does not simply "tap" into the female demographic, you have to make a whole genre specifically for them and the best people to do it are the people who know that demographic best: women. Let the men create their masculine games, while the women can go create their feminine games, so the market will have both types of games; that's diversity. When groups operate independently of each other, it allows each group to emphasize their uniqueness and demonstrate their value. Once they have shown their strengths, then they can consider collaborative efforts.
Exclusive diversity also decentralizes power so employees are less vulnerable to corruption by those at the top and have greater choice of who to work for, but it requires people to actually step up and create for themselves rather than expect to be hired and promoted into success. If there is no company that does what you want, you make it yourself. There is no sexism holding you back when you run your own business, and since women are a largely untapped gaming demographic who have been allegedly pushed out by toxic men, you should have no problems finding a market for women's games, that is, if you can make a good game that women want to play. Unfortunately, discrimination is necessary to enforce this.
The basics of success
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with gender imbalances. Countries that are more free and wealthy tend to have more pronounced gender differences in career choices because when people have options, they choose what they enjoy doing, not what they have the potential of doing. What do most women do with their freedom? Provide caregiving and people services and there is nothing wrong with that. The idea that there should be 50-50 gender representation in a company ignores the fact that the hiring pool is not a random sample of the human population, it is a sample of the people who are interested in the specific job in the specific field.
It does not matter how intelligent you are or what education you have, you only become good at something because you choose to spend all of your time on it. Just as there are gender differences in game preferences, there are gender differences in job preferences. Chances are, you don't go into programming because you are good at math, but because you want to make something cool like a video game. You have a tangible goal, a vision of something specific you want to bring into existence, rather than some shallow desire of a cushy job that rakes in cash. Hard work is not so much about submitting to oppression as it is about dedicating yourself to something. It emerges on its own as the result of a desire to pursue excellence in your field of interest.
When feminists talk about getting more women to go into programming, they do not realize that you cannot just mechanically learn programming in school and be just as productive as everyone else in the industry. You have to be emotionally invested into a specific product to have the imagination and drive to make it valuable. If gender influences what you are interested in, it influences how well you can produce a gendered product. How many women like playing first person shooters? Do you expect women to be good at making such games if they do not like to play them? Wouldn't you rather have men who understand the satisfaction of penetrating people?
Successful people produce the stuff people like and take it to the max. If what you are doing is not working, it is your responsibility to open your mind to different ways of doing things, learn from others to improve, and become the person others want to do business with. Look at Japan. They picked themselves up after World War II and have provided us with video games and anime. Instead of fixating on the past and blaming others, they moved forward on their own. Where is the racism against the Japanese now? Japan has low racial diversity and weaker concepts of sexual harassment than the U.S., yet anime characters are stylistically diverse, make women competent while retaining their femininity, and even include androgynous characters. The most effective solution to discrimination is to earn your way out of it by producing uniquely impressive stuff that people want. There is only one overarching rule that describes how the world works: Get good or get wrecked.
This was definitely a hard topic to write about because there are so many bases to cover, counter-intuitive ideas to meditate on, and anxiety of committing to political beliefs that will likely piss people off and create a point of no return. It has tested my sanity and taken me almost a year to write, but it will catch up to me eventually given my style of reviews and it has definitely helped improve my insight going forward. I am also not a fast communicator either as I tend to struggle with wording and coherence, which is why I prefer writing over speaking.
On a lighter note, I imagine women would actually make the best tank characters. Attracting attention, absorbing damage, luring enemies into traps, and protecting others are symbolically feminine. Short stature, wide hips, long legs, and tight ass are good for standing stability. Women's fashion does not convey a sense of mobility. Women being attacked triggers men to be white knights, so male attackers and female tanks are an efficient combination. While the sword represents masculinity, the shield represents femininity. Men cannot last long without cover while women cannot do much without heavy weapons, but if they emphasize their strengths and work together, they can accomplish anything. This is how you achieve co-operative equality between the genders without making them the same.