Shop More Submit  Join Login
About Literature / Student Member Nightreign123Male/Belgium Recent Activity
Deviant for 4 Years
Needs Premium Membership
Statistics 161 Deviations 8,853 Comments 9,324 Pageviews

Newest Deviations

Favourites

Activity


I used six words.
About what?
About what?
My opinion on the "six word short stories", with a healthy dose of irony.
Loading...
Well that's a buzz title if I've ever written one, so let me start by doing this:

To the radical feminists: Yes, I am a pig-headed man who enjoys rape, who's in favour of rape culture and women behind the kitchen to make sandwiches for me. Women are CLEARLY inferior to men!!!

To the radical MRAs: Yes, I am a traitor to my gender who was indoctrinated by the feminists to believe that men are nothing but evil rapists who want to rule the world. Women are CLEARLY far more manipulative than men!!!

So yeah, if any of these thoughts entered your mind by just reading the title, don't bother commenting. I'm not going to respond.

EDIT: To clarify: these thread is about feminism and the MRM in the Western world. That means North-America, Europe, Australia and Isreal and South-Africa to lesser extents. I know that not everyone is as priviliged as we from the Western world are, nor do I have any idea how we should try to help those people. Hell, I'm not even sure whether we SHOULD help them, considering that we're not dealing with people who share the same thoughts, socializations and philosophies.

But suffice it to say, I am not a fan of either of these ideologies and I would go so far as to say that I reject them and the solutions they're advocated to bring. I do not believe either of these ideologies would bring about gender equality (for as far as that is even possible) and I identify myself as an egalitarianist.
Now, there are so many things that can be said about these things and so many studies and statitistics that can be given to back up arguments. I'm not going to address any of the mostly radical things these ideologies do and will rather focus on the core aspects of both one gender ideologies.

As I said before I reject both ideologies because they don't bring about gender equality. The main reason for this is a common criticism: both ideologies are solely interested in the issues of their own gender. Any interests they may have that could advantage the other gender still have their main motivations in helping their own gender.
Example: feminists are interested in paternal leave because it could help women advantage their career while the men stay home, instead of it helping women advantage their career AND allowing men to form that necessary basis relationship with their baby and toddler children. 
Example 2: MRA are interested in changing divorce laws because that way men would have more power during a divorce, instead of it giving men more power during a divorce AND the fact that a child needs both their original father and mother to still be active and present in order to enjoy the best possible mental growth, provided both parents do a good job at raising the child and don't abuse it.

It is my personal experience that most feminists and MRA tend to argue rather one-sided in potential solutions to gender-based problems. In order to achieve the closest thing possible to gender equality one must deal with all the gender-based problems that exist in the 21th century, regardless of what gender we're talking about.

Now, there are two forms of reactions that I've received on average (so there is room for exceptions) to statements similar likes these and I do believe they tend to belong to one of the two specific groups within the ideologies:
1) "The gender our ideology stands for is the real victim and/or their problem far exceeds the other gender's problems!" I would assign this sort of reaction to the radical feminists and MRAs. The reason why I'd argue that these people are the radical ones is because I genuinely believe that the gender problems in the 21th centuries are not that simple that one could just label one gender as the real victim. A joke that I've made often before, and that is rather sexist on both fronts, is that men rule the financial and political world like women rule the courtroom.
Granted, it's an extremely simplistic statement that a great many statistics and studies can try to and possible will refute, but what I'm trying to show by that statement is both genders tend to enjoy advantages and disadvantages. Some of these advantages and disadvantages are unfair and even dangerous, others aren't.
Of course, buzzwords like patriarchy or male slavery don't tend to put many points in these people's favour.
2) The second group of people, whom I'd consider the more rational or moderate feminists and MRAs, have often given me the argument that they are in fact interested in both genders, that they understand that both genders have their problems and that they all need to be fixed. They've joined their ideology to try to work on that.

But the irony to that statement is that both feminism and the MRM have never been designed to achieve gender equality. Granted, it's a very common and popular connotation amongst the members of the two ideologies, but feminism is and has always been an ideology designed to "define, establish and defend a state of equal political, economic, cultural and social rights for women".
The MRM has always been designed to "contest claims that men have greater power, privilige or advantage than women and focuses on what it considers to be issues of male disadvantage, discrimination and oppression".
And to some extent both of the ideologies were necessary, though arguably the MRM far less than feminism. Feminism came about in the 20th century, in a society where women were second class citizens in aspects that didn't make sense anymore. The first wave (and to some extent the second wave) feminists did fight for causes that had to be fought. But come the 21th century and the ideology has become largely outdated because at its very core it still focuses on the problems of women, not human beings. The MRM was a reaction to feminism in the 70's and while I do agree with some of the things they say (similar to how I agree with some of the premises of feminism) I don't believe you need an entire seperate ideology for that.

So I would argue that the more moderate feminists and MRAs who make the claim they have an emotional investment are actually egalitarianists who simply don't realize it or don't choose to assign that label to themselves. There are also people who assign themselves as both feminists/MRAs and egalitarianists, but to me that is nonsensical and at best a tautology.
But why would you call yourself a feminists or an MRA instead of an egalitarianists?
1) Well, the first reason is that both feminism and the MRM are better known and carry more weight in society. It can't be denied that feminists and MRAs tend to have better organisations that garner more money and therefore can protest more and organize better events. 
2) Another reason is because of the aforementioned connotation that both ideologies are interested in gender equality when they were never designed to be. The same goes for all the positive PR they're trying to get in order to be seen as a good and necessary ideology.
3) And a third and incredibly vital organisation is that people tend to have a more emotional connection to the two ideologies. Egalitarianism is not well-known and I must confess that at best I know of a few human activist organisations, but no organisation that describes itself as egalitarian. But most people know feministic and MRM organisations, most people might even know or have been raised by others who call themselves feminists or MRAs. People also generally learn about the two ideologies before they learn about egalitarianism or human activism. So I would argue that the socialization of people and the society play a big role. It sells better, it's better known and therefore most people consider it more logical to invest emotional attachment to both ideologies. Two negative consequences of this of course are that lots of people do have difficulties accepting criticism (mostly the radical part) and that some of the people that do acknowledge the shortcomings of the ideology choose to support it due to emotional reasons.
4) And a final reason is the bias by gender. It must be said, but on average men are going to be more interested in male issues and women are going to be more interested in female issues. That is not a bad thing in itself, it's simply natural. 
Edit: I should mention here that not every person who considers themself to be a feminist is a woman, nor is any person who considers themself a man. This argument was never meant to say that, however. I'm merely arguing that there is a bias for this, as I have heard from self-defined feminists and MRAs that is one reason, even if they weren't always that willing to admit it. That doesn't mean that I think that every woman who joins the feminist movement is biased because of her gender, nor does the same count for men and the MRM. It is one of the many factors, not just the one.

Phew, that was quite a forum thread, wasn't it? So now we come to the part where I invite people to give their opinions on the matter.
But, I'm going to make a rule about answering them. I know about the emotional attachment that these sorts of discussions carry and I'm not particularly interested in just creating another warzone for pointless insults and arguments. 
I will only answer your comment if it fulfills three prerequisities:
1) No insults, no accusations, no ad hominem attacks,...
This one is fairly self-explanatory. I don't want to start trading insults with people.
2) You must show that you have read my entire forum thread and that you know my arguments. I know that people in these forums don't appreciate long texts and I do know that I'm inviting trolls to come and try to annoy me, so this rule will be there so that these people hopefully have less chances to do so. A hint I can give here is that you'd better adress certain points I make and that your explanations should probably be longer than one or two sentences. Addressing my entire explanation under the argument of it being nonsensical or bollocks won't gain in points in my favour either.
3) If I find that the discussion we are having becomes too hostile I will suggest to end it and that at best we can just "agree to disagree". I've been guilty of this as well, but a lot of discussions that start polite and genuine can also turn into huge fights. 

Thank you for reading this and have a good day.
After a few months of legitimate being busy AND stalling I decided to finally play the latest installment of the Assassin's Creed series. I was a bit hesitant to play it after the terrible deus ex machina that was ACIII, but I actually enjoyed myself while playing this game. It's been since ACII that I've had that feeling with this series, with ACII only having only major flaw: battle system. But let's split up the different parts of the game and give all of them some commentary.
Needless to say, this little review will have a lot of spoilers. Stay clear if you don't want to be spoiled or have yet to play it!

Plot: the story of the game started a bit slow. It took two whole sequences (or chapters) for it to really get started. It was this slow start that made me a bit cautious at the start, but I feel the story ended up being worth it. 
Of course this game, like all the others, is about the protagonist joining the assassins who stand for freedom and individuality against the templars, who stand for order and control. I feel the story added a new element in the alliance Edward Kenway took: for a long time he decided to just be a pirate. The reason I liked this was because we finally got to see the two organisations from a different, more neutral perspective. For all the other games we had assassins who joined up pretty early in the game and who seemed to have a one-sided mindset of the entire situation. Altaïr, Ezio and Connor all seemed to hate the templars to a fault, which is understandable. The assassins are the protagonists after all. ACIII tried to present a different perspective to the templars and tried to present it as just one of the two possible solutions, but to me it was rushed and something that felt forced. AC;BF, on the other hand, managed to implement it well and it was refreshing to see someone who rejected both camps for a long time. In fact, right after Edward joined the assassins at the end I felt the story got very stale. Three more people to assassinate and that's it. I felt the journey from a free man who loses everything he had far more enjoyable. It showed a certain sense of character development on Edward's part while also showing something stagnant. Edward kept foolishly believing in his own form of liberty, at the cost of everything else. The core tenet of the Assassin's order, but put in a different light. 
One thing I didn't really enjoy was the linear progression of the storyline. With this I meant that all the quests pretty much required one solution and one path to get to it. There was never enough time or possibility to really get creative and fix the problems in your own way. You go to point A, then point B and you get given two challenges along the quest in order to "spice things up".
But as a whole the story was definitely enjoyable and right on par with the story of ACII in my opinion.

Gameplay and combat: This is a bit of a mixed bag. One one hand I did enjoy the vast exploration possibilities and the fact that the game really gave you a lot to play with. You can plunder ships, explore islands, collect a few special items, look for treasures,... I really got a sense that I was a pirate who enjoyed getting his booty, so the game succeeded in that part.
On the other hand the combat system was clumsy. This is mostly because of the camera angle, but often I got hit by my enemies simply because I couldn't see them. AC: Brotherhood and AC: Revelations really shined in their combat system that gave it all a smooth sense, but both ACIII and AC;BF somehow messed it up. I feel that the game developers were perhaps trying to go a bit too far in creating a smooth system?

Graphics: this is lazy work. It's essentially ACIII with a different paint job unto it. I understand that this game explored further into the Kenway line, but even then I had hoped they might've improved the graphics a little bit. It's clear they copy pasted it, but maybe that's for the best considering it gave them more time to focus on the rest.

Economy: now this is where the game truly shined for me. Arr matey, ye get enough booty to be a pirate! Plundering ships or seeking treasures, you got just enough gold to want to continue plundering and exploring. And there were so many different ways to spend that money. Upgrade your ship, your pirate cove or just Kenway himself. I always felt myself in need of more cash and because of that feeling I kept exploring and doing side-quests, of which there are a lot. This is also one of the few games where I didn't use the fast travel option a lot. It was really worth it to sail from one place to the other, because that way you could get money from the merchant ships along the way. And even the notoriety system worked very well. Getting notorious in this game meant that hunter ships will come after you to bring you to justice. But the thing is, those ships carry booty and quite a bit of it, essentially at the start of the game. It was actually worth it to get into trouble in this game, as it gave a mixed blessing: ships that bother you, but who carry some booty matey.

So on the whole I definitely enjoyed this game. There were some problems, essentially plot and combat wise, but I felt that it has redeemed the entire series after the blunder that is ACIII. I would give it a 7/10 and recommend it to everyone to play. It's fun, there's a lot of content and you'll be enjoying most of it!
  • Mood: Lazy
  • Listening to: The sounds of the world.
  • Reading: The words of men.
  • Watching: The images before my eyes.
  • Playing: with questions
  • Eating: Pizzas!
  • Drinking: Water.

deviantID

Nightreign123

Artist | Student | Literature
Belgium
One should let one's actions speak for oneself and let others base an opinion based on those actions.
Interests

AdCast - Ads from the Community

×

Groups

Comments


Add a Comment:
 
:iconxxdraxx:
xxdraxx Featured By Owner Oct 29, 2014  Student Artist
Hey~~

Just wanted to thank you for the fave!

Also, since I'm currently focusing on music, I was wondering if you'd be interested in supporting me in that endeavor of mine?

If you are, I can link you to where you can find that stuff!
Reply
:iconnightreign123:
Nightreign123 Featured By Owner Oct 29, 2014  Student Writer
What kind of support are we talking about here?
Reply
:iconxxdraxx:
xxdraxx Featured By Owner 4 days ago  Student Artist
Just listening and/or sharing it.
Reply
:iconexplosivebang:
ExplosiveBang Featured By Owner Oct 4, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
NIGHT_NII! I missed ya!
Reply
:iconnightreign123:
Nightreign123 Featured By Owner Oct 4, 2014  Student Writer
You should go to the chatroom when I'm there then!
Reply
:iconlordmep:
lordmep Featured By Owner Sep 7, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
Would you be interested in joining Facts-not-feminism
Reply
:iconnightreign123:
Nightreign123 Featured By Owner Sep 7, 2014  Student Writer
I just took a look at your group and I'm not interested. I got out of the whole "men's right" thing and I want to stay out.
Reply
:iconlordmep:
lordmep Featured By Owner Sep 8, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
Kay.
Reply
:iconnightreign123:
Nightreign123 Featured By Owner Sep 7, 2014  Student Writer
What's the group about?
Reply
:iconrainquaza:
Rainquaza Featured By Owner May 22, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
You. Are my arch nemesis. Congrats on being my first one!
Reply
Add a Comment: