The reason for reading your work differently as a woman is that the article (and a lot of articles you write) is about being a woman, and about sexuality, and there’s a huge difference between how a guy would write about that and how a girl would write about that. You might just come off sounding gay, or as someone with no credibility as a woman (because you aren’t named as one).

I read that being a woman and a jew is “a bad thing”, and being a man and not a jew is “a good thing”. Instead you were saying “I wonder how these markers in my name effect the way my work is read”, which is great, because then it’s my fault that I read the markers as being charged with some sort of assumed prejudice on my part.

As for the femo-nazi reference, I take it back. I was trying to hit a point which was neither relevant or one I actually made with any success. (Incidentally, it was about the passive aggressive way feminists use their victim position to take shots at men. Anyway, it’s a moot point).

The truth is your opinion is probably respected more because you're a woman.
This, on the other hand, may be a valid point. I hadn’t really thought of it that way; thanks for bringing it up. But I’ll stress again that my original intent wasn’t to say “I’m being treated so badly now,” only, “How would things be different if I were writing as a man?”

Maybe that’s where the “femo-nazism” comes in — your own expectations.

First, let’s get past what I’m offended at: I’m actually not quite offended at the article, and I’m not offended at the opinion. The problem I’m having is that articles usually prompt some sort of action. It could’ve been a “come on girls, let’s build our own game and show those men etc. etc.”, which I’m all for. But this was talking about positive female rolemodels in gaming. I thought this might be a good article for my male-centric mind to get around in case I was ever in a position to make a game. The problem I had was the article was all to confounding, and seemed to suggest contradictory things.

Incidentally, I think other people had problems with your article because it was right after Chris Crawford. He yanks one way, and you yank the other. For a guy just trying to understand the plight of the female gamer, it’s very confusing.

The biggest issue I had was that you couldn’t successfully de-throne Jill Valentine as a decent female role-model, in my eyes. I mean, isn’t she exactly what women have been talking about all this time? I mean, think about how a guy feels when a girl gamer says “Jill would’ve been a great role model, but because you’re checking out her arse she’s really just a plaything for your sick, twisted mind.”

The worst thing is that you then go on to say that the monsters are better because they have sexual energy. So now the guy (in this case me) is not only insulted, but confused. I mean, can I make a heroine you would like, at all? What’s this positive rolemodel actually like, anyway? I mean, does she have to be ugly or is it about protecting a weak man? Because Jill Valentine does hurt strong men (zombies).

Now for my hypothesis:

The thing about this whole femo-nazi crap is that you play victim, a lot. “I’m a woman, and a Jew.” I doubt you could write an article as a man because then you wouldn’t be the victim anymore. The truth is your opinion is probably respected more because you’re a woman.

For example, I actually initially thought Chris’ article was written by a woman, and I actually gave it some weight, but then I realised it was written by a retard. Guys always pull their punches with girls but they’re very “no quarter” with other guys.

So, if you are in fact interested, please write an article as a guy and a girl and see the responses you get. I’d like to be proven wrong in my hypothesis.

Naaaaah… not that !

How am I to fuel my masochistic “Woe work is such a hard burden but one has to do his share” persona’s drive with such arguments ? ;)

Which says a lot about how our respective formulations still need to be reworked. :)

Don’t know if I’d put it that way myself actually.
Let’s take a detour via Neil Gaiman’ blog to look at this Chales Adams illustration.

Remember when I told you women were “the chief medium of society, in every sense of the word” ? Well I think Adams got it right, here. You could also use classic japanese woodblock prints as a good exemple, where men may have been differenciated if importants, but women hardly ever were (at least as far as I can remember, but I’m sure an expert could draw some counter exemples… just not enough to undo my case), the point being that women are expected to be the normative force… which is why society is so often ruthlessly pressuring them from being different.

It’s just a matter of rôle distribution I guess. The slowly develloped concept of “male domination” only got one interest: it ensures that males are as productive as females in the human species, which gives it an edge other most others.
Women were forced into the normative/apparently submissive role because they were already paying most in term of reproduction/upkeep. Men ended up into the differentiating/apparently domineering one because, then, it allowed for male competition to be turned into profit instead of loss (just compare with other species).

I think feminism is a product of capitalism. The old model no longer is the most productive one in richest societies, where it would be more profitable to actually maximize all workforce toward capital creation instead of reproduction.

Well… anyway that, in short, is were I’ve been getting at with my latest model.
Hope I’m making sense.

I think the thing with that piece is that it doesn’t fit easily into one existing school on thought the issue, so it’s very hard for readers to cubby-hole it and walk away. It’s too pro-female power for men, and too non-traditional feminism for most women. Needless to say, the people it does jibe with have had very positive reactions. And for those others… well, it has ruffled feathers.

And for anyone who doesn't think so, the sex of the author does make a difference when reading something, whether consciously or unconsciously on the part of the reader. Why do you think women writers (even to this day!) have used male pen names when writing about certain subjects, or just writing at all.
Thank you! In our culture, men are the norm, women are the marked others. If a man writes something, it’s just something; if a woman writes something, it’s something written by a woman. The gender of the writer impacts the way we read…