As I mentioned before, I've been collecting comic books since childhood and I've also collected sports cards (baseball/football/hockey). Yesterday Beckett (price guide for sports cards) had an article for Women's day or month about a female card collector and it hit all the notes you have heard from every "as a woman/minority in this hobby" rant.
There has to be some standard script they all go by. I guess it is the one way to expose a fake fan because there are women and minorities who can enjoy a hobby without needing to get on a platform and draw attention to themselves.
She was talking about mean comments on her youtube channel which reminded me of some panel of female gamers at one of the conventions who talked about guys saying "mean things" to them because whenever I've played Madden of Fifa with friends, nobody has ever said anything mean to me. She also whined about lack of sports cards for female sports (obviously has no clue about how a market/demand works) and she talked about how at a card show a vendor tried to sell her a card for more than it was worth. Shocking! There are unscrupulous vendors out there!!!!
At this point I feel like I need to put up a sign in front of any gathering of nerds that says that a lot of what are perceived as "nerdy" hobbies are male dominated and most likely white male dominated, so don't enter a hobby and demand that everything change to suit you. If that bothers you then find a hobby you do like.
In a normal and sane world a gaming company would've told Sarkessian that she can make her own games because if you are marketing a female character to a male audience it is probably wise to make her attractive and vice versa. Or maybe they should've been ruder, but you get my point.
Reminds me of someone who joins a D&D campaign for the first time and demands that all the rules change.
Though unrealistic, their demand for "instant accommodation and respect with no effort" falls in line with the general western societal experience of a woman, correct?
A girl eventually becomes a woman, and women are essential for the next generation as they are the baby makers and the keepers of sex. A man, if he wants a woman, must demonstrate his value. A woman, and I apologize for being incredibly reductive here as I do not want to wall of text everyone, must not die or be completely undesirable if she wants a man.
It is no mystery that some women feel entitled to success without effort; it's been their entire life.
I don't see how that is in any way reductive.
Now if the woman wants a specific man, there's a few more qualities she might have to bring to the table. But to get a man that's plenty
Of course. They're not even allowed to fail, the sisterhood will bail them out.
A man who wants someplace warm and wet to dip his wick occasionally will bail them out.
Well, is it possible to earn/deserve a birthright? Please allow me to ramble as I try to explain. TLDR at the bottom
If my parents are short, and I grow up to be tall while all my siblings are short, is my height undeserved or unearned? It's certainly unusual, and likely an advantage, though not fair to my brothers and sisters as I should have been short, just like them. My birthright is shortness, yet I received something with considerably more potential. As it is a blessing, I would hope that I am humble and gracious in regards to my height.
A girl is born with all she needs to become pregnant and sustain a newborn once she reaches a certain age, barring injury or tragedy or birth defect. Bearing children is her birthright, something only she and other women can do, something unique and essential to the survival of the human race. This gives our hypothetical girl an inherent value. As the value is inherent, it cannot be earned, though her actions outside of being able to give birth would argue for or against how deserving she is of this priviledge. One would hope that she recognizes this unique value and use it to her advantage in a way that does not lessen how deserving she is of this birthright.
This also ties in to the keeper of sex aspect, which is based on the above inherent value. Pregnancy and birth are difficult and expensive, with the potential for permanent injury including death. It makes perfect sense to be selective about sexual partners, but the societal trend seems to be "All the dicks I can manage, but none of the consequences when it eventually goes wrong." Because birth control and abortion are more readily available, there is less reason to be selective with sexual partners. As single mothers are no longer shamed and can, in part, depend on the state to take care of them through various means, there is even less selection pressure.
To me, the inherent value of women, the birthright of child bearing, has been cheapened by our society and by the actions of women who engage in reckless sexual pursuits, which also weakens their role as keepers of sex and makes them less deserving.
There is a male component to this, but this post is already long enough to merit a TLDR, so I'm not interested in sorting that today.
TLDR: Women have inherent value by birthright, but are diminishing that value by not recognizing the value of that value.
Science could nullify their value in less than a decade with proper funding. Governments are simply not allowing it.
Why though? A womanless birth could likely be achieved and would be beneficial as an alternative for those who cannot conceive by normal means, but doing it to hurt women and strip them of their unique value is almost pointlessly cruel. It would also taint the technology to be used in such a spiteful and petty manner.
No worries! It is hard enough to be understood in person, let alone through the internet by text.