>
 |
| Cats: Not hardcore gamers. |
On MGTOWforums.com, the central questions about women and gaming aren’t “what do women want, game-wise” or “is there something about certain types of games that repels women, or do they stay away because it gets really tiresome really quickly to have to listen to 14-year-old boys calling them “cunts” on XboxLive?” No, to the MGTOWers the big question is simpler: Why are women allowed to play video games at all?
Why can’t men have their own space? …
Women, back the fuck off. You stole our TV. You stole our movies. You stole our malls. You stole our clothe shops. You stole our supermarkets Meanwhile the gays are stealing our gyms, our theater, our dance, our music. Video-games is all we have left.
I don’t hear this bitch [note: a commenter on CNET] complaining about the lack of inclusiveness of games like bejeweled to men (I’ve played bejeweled maybe 10 minutes in my life, fun for about that length of time or when you are sitting on the bus). …
Companies like Zynga want to make casual games to target the hundreds of millions of girls on facebook. Fine! … Why not push to make casual games more “male-friendly”, you bitch? Farm-ville and City-ville could use some thought. Those games suck. They are clearly designed for the modern day brainless airhead bimbo with too much time on her hands.
The only casual game I’ve ever sucked dry was Plants Vs. Zombies. And if you aim to finish everything it becomes really hardcore in the survival levels.
1) Women identify with their gender too much. It seems that taking control of a male avatar is a problem for most of them. They cannot identify. I can identify with almost all avatars today. Male, female, adult, child, alien etc…
2) Females have less interesting personalities in real life, and therefore in fiction. There is a reason fiction involves men going through challenges and being transformed by them. In video games the two female archetypes are: the princess and the “you go grrl”. Women in real life have less dimension. They aren’t interesting. They bitch or they submit. That’s it. And I don’t care to hear some loud mouthed bitch barking orders at me through an ear piece. It’s unpleasant. If I’m in a war simulator I like hearing men talk. They usually have unique personalities, accents, character traits etc… When female characters do this they come off as pretending to be men and it doesn’t work.
Bitches like the one above form groups funded by donations to artificially fuck with the market. Men’s money today goes overwhelmingly towards good video-games. Let the market decide what women get. Bitch!
>If we start from the premises that [1] the vast majority of reported rapes are legitimate, [2] many women are raped and never report it, and [3] women are more willing to report rapes to the police than they were in the past, we would expect to find exactly this pattern. So far, I've never encountered an MRA who was willing to accept 1 or 2. 3 is generally taken as gospel, with all the blamed place on feminism.
>"throw out all the research," I mean.
>That's what I'm saying, Captain. I'm saying that my premises, as a group, fit the evidence we have. Cold's premises don't. Cold's argument is a sort of radical skepticism. "We can't know anything about the incidence of rape, so I'm free to make up whatever I want." But we've got data, stretching across decades, from multiple sources using multiple methodologies. Whatever theories we put forward have to account for that data somehow.
>Agreed, student. "Dem bitches was probably lying" isn't really a valid critique, in the absence of compelling evidence to support such a contention.
>Those wily feminazis, plotting to falsely ensnare men by….reporting in complete anonymity, which prevents prosecution.Learn to read, idiot! The motivation for an anonymous false report is to inflate the numbers for political gain, not to ensnare any specific man.
>That's what I'm saying, Captain. I'm saying that my premises, as a group, fit the evidence we have. Cold's premises don't.An anonymous survey isn't "evidence"; it's testimony from witnesses on whom no credibility assessment has been performed.old's argument is a sort of radical skepticism. "We can't know anything about the incidence of rape, so I'm free to make up whatever I want."No, radical skepticism would be if you had time-stamped video of a rape taken straight from a security camera and I said "Well we can't know for sure that the camera wasn't hacked and that this isn't just something that was staged earlier. Having doubts about the testimony of random people isn't radical skepticism, it's just skepticism.But we've got data, stretching across decades, from multiple sources using multiple methodologies. Whatever theories we put forward have to account for that data somehow.You have only pointed to one source, with a methodology that has come under criticism from the National Research Council, and which offers nothing but the testimony of random, anonymous people.
>Cold, there's this:http://www.standyourground.com/boyc.phpYou may not have heard of it, because MRAs are idiots when it comes to organizing anything (beyond riling people up to harass people they don't like), but this is indeed a call to boycott about a zillion companies due to supposed "male bashing" in ads.I'm quite familiar with Stand Your Ground. It is a list of business to not patronize; not an effort to shut down those businesses. Not doing business with companies that have male-bashing ads is the same as not buying media which has male-bashing content.
>I was going you the compliment—which I won't do again—that even a froth-spitting loser like you wouldn't be so paranoid to assume that women lie for shits and giggles. Or political gain. However, there's some interesting research out there about abusers—rapists, woman-bashers, etc.,etc.,—-believe that most other men are liars. And so one can extrapoloate that liars believe others lie.
>No cites? Oh right, a lack of cites is only a concern for you when it's someone other than you failing to provide them.