If you are Canadian you probably cannot not know who this Ghomeshi fellow is. I saw this video today where his lawyer speaks out and found it absolutely brilliant. I must say that the interviewer still defends the women who committed purgery shows his clear bias.
According to Canadian feminist he is the devil incarnate and not even the widely discredited testimony of the two purgers(?) could convince some that he is not a rapist. His accusers blatantly lied under oath and still some people cannot believe his innocence. It was even said that her lawyer betrayed her own gender for defending a clearly guilty man.
He was somewhat of a corner case in the whole idea of internet mob mentality. Sorry I thought this made news in the US as well. My bad.
EDIT: I may want to add according to some internet feminists. Maybe the feminism you see on the internet does not fit with the feminism you get in the real world.
What bakgat means to say is that this guy was accused of sexually assaulting at least three women and choking one of them (three official accusers at trial, but there are apparently fifteen women who've described him as a rapist to one of the local papers), but the prosecution screwed up to the degree that the three trial witnesses lied under oath and so he's not considered guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Judge says verdict doesn’t mean "these events never happened," only that court doesn’t have sufficient faith “in the reliability or sincerity of these complainants.”
[link] The link also includes details on the guy's personal history and some of these allegations, and is the main link I used to construct this post. Full disclosure: I've not watched the video because it's 20 minutes long and I read faster than I watch.
It was even said that her lawyer betrayed her own gender for defending a clearly guilty man.
She's a defense attorney, it's her job. That's dumb.
I'll point out here that statistically, false allegations of rape are very rare (part of that is that the legal systems of most nations don't really look after rape victims very well). If someone gets that many unconnected people saying they're a rapist they've probably done some unkosher *****, just because that's how statistics work.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
Um, bakgat, I hate SJWism and modern feminism as much as anyone (or at least I thought I did) but even I think that's a biased summary.
So here are the facts:
So Jian Ghomeshi was a musician and media darling, a host of a very popular show on the CBC. He was accused of engaging in nonconsensual sexual activity by several women, dismissed from his job, and brought up on charges. This (old) article summarizes:
Ghomeshi has maintained his innocence throughout the process, claiming that the various alleged instances of assault were in fact consensual BDSM-type activities. The case recently concluded in Ghomeshi's acquittal. Summary of trial here including full text of verdict:
A number of key details arose at trial that weren't known before, including numerous communications from these women to Ghomeshi indicating that they continued to explicitly request romantic contact with him even after the alleged assaults, and in some cases expressing approval or enjoyment of the very behavior that they later alleged to be assault.
Here is some analysis/opinion:
The evidence suggests to me (and also the judge, apparently) that the narrative being pushed by the supposed victims is not credible. A man's career stands in ruins because the "listen and believe" doctrine of modern feminism with respect to sexual assault has somehow gained mainstream media and social acceptance.
It shouldn't surprise the careful thinker that "trust but verify" was always a much better maxim, the Enlightenment judicial process is essential to obtaining the full ambit of the facts in any given situation, and preemptive firings and social media witch hunts based on innuendo are not the way to run a just society.
Though he was acquitted of the charges, and in hindsight the events seem quite a bit less serious than they did at the start, Ghomeshi is still out of a career which he'll never get back. Of course, Ghomeshi was an SJW, so it's easy to see a bit of karmic justice in him dying on the sword by which he lived. Nevertheless, this sort of thing has to stop.
A man's career stands in ruins because the "listen and believe" doctrine of modern feminism with respect to sexual assault has somehow gained mainstream media and social acceptance.
In context, listen and believe is advice to the friends of rape victims if they go to a friend for help, right? It's not the be all and end all of legal process.
I'll point out here that my own standards of evidence required for me to stop trusting people are lower than that of the legal system, so my earlier post isn't supposed to incite anything. I'm just not going to trust him from now on.
Of course, Ghomeshi was an SJW, so it's easy to see a bit of karmic justice in him dying on the sword by which he lived.
SJW is a phrase I mainly see used by the alt-right to turn basic respect into a political act that can be challenged. If that was your intent, nice job~
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
In context, listen and believe is advice to the friends of rape victims if they go to a friend for help, right? It's not the be all and end all of legal process.
Some people might mean it that way, but even then, it should be shortened to just "listen."
But in this context, no, it's absolutely not meant that way. Look at the reactions to the verdict from that side of the fence. The narrative is that the judicial process is broken, that this man should have been convicted in spite of the evidence solely on the accounts of the women, and that his acquittal is the result of patriarchy and institutional misogyny. Googling "ghomeshi verdict misogyny" gives about 10 pages of this.
I'll point out here that my own standards of evidence required for me to stop trusting people are lower than that of the legal system, so my earlier post isn't supposed to incite anything. I'm just not going to trust him from now on.
Even if you were primed to always believe accusers in such situations, and hence had a very high level of distrust for Ghomeshi in your prior, the acquittal verdict should cause you to adjust your posterior probability towards trusting him...
SJW is a phrase I mainly see used by the alt-right to turn basic respect into a political act that can be challenged. If that was your intent, nice job~
The conflation of the acceptance of a delusional cod-Marxist political philosophy with "basic respect," and the concomitant well poisoning, is diagnostic of stage 5 SJWism. Prognosis: terminal.
And if we are not Canadian, who is this Ghomeshi fellow? Contextualize what you're posting.
To try fully understand, I'll and give an answer that takes into account his public reputation and handling of the case, which was a big part of why this has gathered so much focus here in Canada.
As Crashing00 mentioned, he was a much beloved radio host here. Young, handsome, soft spoken, erudite, he was considered a first class interviewer, with the sort of cultural / political program you might find on NPR over in the States. A little over a year and a half ago, he was fired by his employer, the CBC, for undisclosed reasons. Immediately he filed suit an eight figure suit against them, and posted an extremely long public post on his Facebook page explaining that he was fired after the CBC found out he was a practitioner of BDSM (choking, hitting, etc.) CBC is a news organization, but it's a publicly funded one, and the idea of a company funded by taxpayers firing people for their sexual preferences caused an outrage. The word on the street was that they were screwed.
Soon a woman came out and said that while she'd been involved in such an incident with him, it wasn't consensual. Then another. Eventually, nine women came forward (not all gave their names if I recall, though I'm fuzzy on that part.) Public opinion utterly switched, except in regards to CBC, as many of these women had been employees under him at the same time of the allegations. It also came out around this time there had been several internal work allegations into his conduct. Some people were fired, mainly producers of his show, but nobody at the top, who were able to claim ignorance. Further hurting his case were the sort of details that, while legally (or even morally) of no relevance, stick in the public imagination while out, like his having a pet teddy bear who he would turn around during these encounters, so that the bear "wouldn't have to see." (These are now his own words.) Does this matter in a court of law? Like I said, no, but once the average guy (I'll admit, myself included) hears things like that, they think "This guy might be a little nuts," and it's not the sort of thing that goes away easily.
Interestingly, there's actually a pretty good chance this case would have made headlines in the States, even if just for a few days, but this all happened about a month before the Cosby accusations resurfaced, and eclipsed this case in scope and celebrity. In a gross way, it was his lucky break.
So, very recently, wehewas charged with sexual assault and choking on three women. Eight charges total. At a bench trial, were dismissed before the trial, five he was found not-guilty on, one will be tried in June. The general consensus is that a) the prosecution and victims screwed up and b) a justice system biased against sexual assault victims let it happen. Mainly due to:
1) The women gave contradictory statements under oath or were found to have withheld information when they went to the police. Mainly, at least one of the women remained in correspondence with Ghomeshi after the attacks in question.
2) The women got practical - peripheral - details wrong when describing their attacks. For instance, one described the interior of a car he had that he didn't get until some time after the date she gave. That this was singled out by the judge as an example of why the women could not be treated as trustworthy was singled out by numerous activists for the way rape victims are treated.
3) The women were found to have been in private correspondence before and during the case, and possibly corroborated their stories. Legally, I believe this was what most likely to have sunk them.
Additional issues, like that Ghomeshi wasn't asked to testify once during the trial, or that the women spent more time being cross examined and asked about details regarding their media appearances, or their post-attack correspondence with Ghomeshi, rather than the details of the assaults in the first place, have received a ton of criticism in the media, mainly at the prosecution. What happens next remains to be seen, though it's safe to say his career as an A-lister is over. Overall, while I think he's guilty, I can't really blame the judge. The defence did a first-rate job framing the trial, and the prosecution did a terrible job. At the end of the day, the judge can only rule on the facts admitted into court, and the prosecution really didn't prove their case.
The conflation of the acceptance of a delusional cod-Marxist political philosophy
Wait what.
If your next reply involves the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory then everyone in this thread owes me a drink.
Even if you were primed to always believe accusers in such situations, and hence had a very high level of distrust for Ghomeshi in your prior, the acquittal verdict should cause you to adjust your posterior probability towards trusting him...
Ghomeshi was accused of sexually assaulting 15 people. 15 minus 3 is still 12, breh.
The conflation of the acceptance of a delusional cod-Marxist political philosophy
Wait what.
Feminism uses the Hegelian dialectic which evolved into Marxist dialectic. Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis.
So in Marx, you have rich and poor. Class warfare. One opposes the other, and the workers of the world unite and create socialism that leads into communism.
Okay now this isn't gender politics.
Now what happened during the Civil Rights Movement was that people were looking for a way to explain why they were suppressed. So then comes along Marxism. Group A dominates Group B. For blacks it was whites. For women it was men. Patriarchy was/is still a buzzword, and has come back more and more in recent years.
I've studied a lot of intellectual history, and anyone including Nancy Friday have outright used both Marxist and Freudian analytical framework because that's what was available at that point during the mid-century whenever the Civil Rights Movement really pushed ahead. The issue was that while Marx was a brilliant man, and equally many women and blacks were brilliant people. Marx as a philosopher is lacking some key details, and especially when you build your new world order on the dialectic process without using more other types of approaches you kill off better analytical frameworks being created.
I'll be straight up, best feminist author I ever read was Jean Kilbourne and her book Can't Buy My Love. I recommend that book to people who study business and social issues and any casual interest. This is effective feminism at its finest. Jezebel.com. There, that's the range where I like feminism and where I really tend to dislike feminism.
And let' head straight to Anita Sarkesian while we're at it. The issue with her is basically that once you watch her pieces she's less of a researcher, versus say Jean Kilbourne who talks about issues like anorexia, and talks about over sexualization of video game characters. And basically shows that the best video game for her was one with an alien who didn't look like a female anything until you were told through in game text that it's a she. The game had great reviews, but whenever I look at cosplay and some of the major characters women really like. If you look over at any cosplay community, you have people run the gambit on cosplay according to their own feelings of body image and alter wardrobe to their own. Some women and men go full authentic, others carve out less materials to show more skin, and others add in more coverage and alter the design to be more amenable to their aesthetics.
With that said, it renders certain aspects of the major portions of Sarkesian's arguments null. She talks about damselling and hates aspects like Princess Peach. I agree that the stand alone game that used emotions as a power up was not exactly the best idea, however that the main thrust of different Bowser captures Peach is integral to the entire continuity. Certainly I believe they could play the concept up better with Bowser as the main antagonist with using Peach more as a main character. Or even a Zelda game saving Link for a change would be welcomed.
However, the axiom that female sexuality in a game hurts men's image of women is problematic as a starting axiom. Rather men and women need something better in general. And this is beyond gender. It's called communication. That's it. Period.
What I wish Anita would push more forwards and other feminists would be to engage in better communication and conflict resolution skills, equally outlining moreover some better acceptability traits.
The problem with Sarkeesian's dialectic is that it is Women Versus. Rather many of her own points are countered whenever I see someone like Zelda Williams, late Robin William's daughter, tell a story where her mother played as Metroid and looked at Samus Aran and thought it was the coolest thing in the world to have played a girl character all along with her mother beating the game as a defining memory for her. Rather, perhaps I would rather see some of the balance towards the strengths of a character like Samus Aran and what detracts from her as a character in her own opinion.
The issue is that Sarkeesian has some valid points. Overuse of kidnapping, damseling in her parlance, or using revenge as a theme by killing off a character as motivation for the player. Video games that are specifically targeted at a male demographic without appeal to the women demographic.
But.
I would like to hear her say more about characters like Samus Aran about the positive benefits of having those characters wantonly played by men as support for not being sexualized in games but rather used for most of the years as a strong warrior woman. We need to come to the conclusion as a society that feminism does provide a good framework to understand through a lens the world we live in. But not everything can be reduced to gender inequality, nor should it.
Equally, there are times whenever Elspeth exists and Liliana exists and a woman will dress up as both characters.
It's the us vs. them mentality that starts with an ought about feminism on what women should do and be. Remember that during the 1970's that beauty pageants were seen as an anathema, until some feminists found out that some women actually enjoyed dressing up and moderated their stance. This is where we see the point, that there are different types of women and what "feminism" means and female empowerment.
I feel that the best embodiment for characters are like Buffy the Vampire Slayer series, Metroid, and arguably Star Trek. But when you read something like Jezebell.com your eyes bleed over. Humanism has a better foundation than feminism, since it is more wholistic to the human identity.
My mother was a conservative feminist, so I was raised with feminist ideals. Many of the strongest people I know are women, and in part I model myself after those strong people. But as a person, I cannot stand whenever talk about social justice reform is only limited to minority and issues such as rape are restricted to just women. Why? Because justice is a part of conflict resolution. And justice is a part of what it means to be truly human.
I feel, though, most of the problems are that women and minorities still have a lot of problems and whites are also having a lot of problems that go unaddressed. So when group tries to move forward, it creates a backlash from another group. Now, there is also the social conservative movement that wants to limit freedoms. And I feel deep down, just like during the original Civil Rights Movement, that the anger we see today in Jezebell.com and other places is a reflection against the social conservatism of the day. Especially over gay rights which is degenerating into being a stupid backlash by backwater people making other traditionally disenfranchised groups to cry out in an equally stupid manner at times.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
If you are Canadian you probably cannot not know who this Ghomeshi fellow is. I saw this video today where his lawyer speaks out and found it absolutely brilliant. I must say that the interviewer still defends the women who committed purgery shows his clear bias.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
He was somewhat of a corner case in the whole idea of internet mob mentality. Sorry I thought this made news in the US as well. My bad.
EDIT: I may want to add according to some internet feminists. Maybe the feminism you see on the internet does not fit with the feminism you get in the real world.
[link] The link also includes details on the guy's personal history and some of these allegations, and is the main link I used to construct this post. Full disclosure: I've not watched the video because it's 20 minutes long and I read faster than I watch.
She's a defense attorney, it's her job. That's dumb.
I'll point out here that statistically, false allegations of rape are very rare (part of that is that the legal systems of most nations don't really look after rape victims very well). If someone gets that many unconnected people saying they're a rapist they've probably done some unkosher *****, just because that's how statistics work.
Art is life itself.
So here are the facts:
So Jian Ghomeshi was a musician and media darling, a host of a very popular show on the CBC. He was accused of engaging in nonconsensual sexual activity by several women, dismissed from his job, and brought up on charges. This (old) article summarizes:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/the-jian-ghomeshi-scandal-what-we-know-so-far/article21379820/
Ghomeshi has maintained his innocence throughout the process, claiming that the various alleged instances of assault were in fact consensual BDSM-type activities. The case recently concluded in Ghomeshi's acquittal. Summary of trial here including full text of verdict:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/jian-ghomeshi/article28476713/
A number of key details arose at trial that weren't known before, including numerous communications from these women to Ghomeshi indicating that they continued to explicitly request romantic contact with him even after the alleged assaults, and in some cases expressing approval or enjoyment of the very behavior that they later alleged to be assault.
Here is some analysis/opinion:
The evidence suggests to me (and also the judge, apparently) that the narrative being pushed by the supposed victims is not credible. A man's career stands in ruins because the "listen and believe" doctrine of modern feminism with respect to sexual assault has somehow gained mainstream media and social acceptance.
It shouldn't surprise the careful thinker that "trust but verify" was always a much better maxim, the Enlightenment judicial process is essential to obtaining the full ambit of the facts in any given situation, and preemptive firings and social media witch hunts based on innuendo are not the way to run a just society.
Though he was acquitted of the charges, and in hindsight the events seem quite a bit less serious than they did at the start, Ghomeshi is still out of a career which he'll never get back. Of course, Ghomeshi was an SJW, so it's easy to see a bit of karmic justice in him dying on the sword by which he lived. Nevertheless, this sort of thing has to stop.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
I'll point out here that my own standards of evidence required for me to stop trusting people are lower than that of the legal system, so my earlier post isn't supposed to incite anything. I'm just not going to trust him from now on.
SJW is a phrase I mainly see used by the alt-right to turn basic respect into a political act that can be challenged. If that was your intent, nice job~
Art is life itself.
Some people might mean it that way, but even then, it should be shortened to just "listen."
But in this context, no, it's absolutely not meant that way. Look at the reactions to the verdict from that side of the fence. The narrative is that the judicial process is broken, that this man should have been convicted in spite of the evidence solely on the accounts of the women, and that his acquittal is the result of patriarchy and institutional misogyny. Googling "ghomeshi verdict misogyny" gives about 10 pages of this.
Even if you were primed to always believe accusers in such situations, and hence had a very high level of distrust for Ghomeshi in your prior, the acquittal verdict should cause you to adjust your posterior probability towards trusting him...
The conflation of the acceptance of a delusional cod-Marxist political philosophy with "basic respect," and the concomitant well poisoning, is diagnostic of stage 5 SJWism. Prognosis: terminal.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
To try fully understand, I'll and give an answer that takes into account his public reputation and handling of the case, which was a big part of why this has gathered so much focus here in Canada.
As Crashing00 mentioned, he was a much beloved radio host here. Young, handsome, soft spoken, erudite, he was considered a first class interviewer, with the sort of cultural / political program you might find on NPR over in the States. A little over a year and a half ago, he was fired by his employer, the CBC, for undisclosed reasons. Immediately he filed suit an eight figure suit against them, and posted an extremely long public post on his Facebook page explaining that he was fired after the CBC found out he was a practitioner of BDSM (choking, hitting, etc.) CBC is a news organization, but it's a publicly funded one, and the idea of a company funded by taxpayers firing people for their sexual preferences caused an outrage. The word on the street was that they were screwed.
Soon a woman came out and said that while she'd been involved in such an incident with him, it wasn't consensual. Then another. Eventually, nine women came forward (not all gave their names if I recall, though I'm fuzzy on that part.) Public opinion utterly switched, except in regards to CBC, as many of these women had been employees under him at the same time of the allegations. It also came out around this time there had been several internal work allegations into his conduct. Some people were fired, mainly producers of his show, but nobody at the top, who were able to claim ignorance. Further hurting his case were the sort of details that, while legally (or even morally) of no relevance, stick in the public imagination while out, like his having a pet teddy bear who he would turn around during these encounters, so that the bear "wouldn't have to see." (These are now his own words.) Does this matter in a court of law? Like I said, no, but once the average guy (I'll admit, myself included) hears things like that, they think "This guy might be a little nuts," and it's not the sort of thing that goes away easily.
Interestingly, there's actually a pretty good chance this case would have made headlines in the States, even if just for a few days, but this all happened about a month before the Cosby accusations resurfaced, and eclipsed this case in scope and celebrity. In a gross way, it was his lucky break.
So, very recently, wehewas charged with sexual assault and choking on three women. Eight charges total. At a bench trial, were dismissed before the trial, five he was found not-guilty on, one will be tried in June. The general consensus is that a) the prosecution and victims screwed up and b) a justice system biased against sexual assault victims let it happen. Mainly due to:
1) The women gave contradictory statements under oath or were found to have withheld information when they went to the police. Mainly, at least one of the women remained in correspondence with Ghomeshi after the attacks in question.
2) The women got practical - peripheral - details wrong when describing their attacks. For instance, one described the interior of a car he had that he didn't get until some time after the date she gave. That this was singled out by the judge as an example of why the women could not be treated as trustworthy was singled out by numerous activists for the way rape victims are treated.
3) The women were found to have been in private correspondence before and during the case, and possibly corroborated their stories. Legally, I believe this was what most likely to have sunk them.
Additional issues, like that Ghomeshi wasn't asked to testify once during the trial, or that the women spent more time being cross examined and asked about details regarding their media appearances, or their post-attack correspondence with Ghomeshi, rather than the details of the assaults in the first place, have received a ton of criticism in the media, mainly at the prosecution. What happens next remains to be seen, though it's safe to say his career as an A-lister is over. Overall, while I think he's guilty, I can't really blame the judge. The defence did a first-rate job framing the trial, and the prosecution did a terrible job. At the end of the day, the judge can only rule on the facts admitted into court, and the prosecution really didn't prove their case.
If your next reply involves the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory then everyone in this thread owes me a drink.
Ghomeshi was accused of sexually assaulting 15 people. 15 minus 3 is still 12, breh.
Art is life itself.
Feminism uses the Hegelian dialectic which evolved into Marxist dialectic. Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis.
So in Marx, you have rich and poor. Class warfare. One opposes the other, and the workers of the world unite and create socialism that leads into communism.
Okay now this isn't gender politics.
Now what happened during the Civil Rights Movement was that people were looking for a way to explain why they were suppressed. So then comes along Marxism. Group A dominates Group B. For blacks it was whites. For women it was men. Patriarchy was/is still a buzzword, and has come back more and more in recent years.
I've studied a lot of intellectual history, and anyone including Nancy Friday have outright used both Marxist and Freudian analytical framework because that's what was available at that point during the mid-century whenever the Civil Rights Movement really pushed ahead. The issue was that while Marx was a brilliant man, and equally many women and blacks were brilliant people. Marx as a philosopher is lacking some key details, and especially when you build your new world order on the dialectic process without using more other types of approaches you kill off better analytical frameworks being created.
I'll be straight up, best feminist author I ever read was Jean Kilbourne and her book Can't Buy My Love. I recommend that book to people who study business and social issues and any casual interest. This is effective feminism at its finest. Jezebel.com. There, that's the range where I like feminism and where I really tend to dislike feminism.
And let' head straight to Anita Sarkesian while we're at it. The issue with her is basically that once you watch her pieces she's less of a researcher, versus say Jean Kilbourne who talks about issues like anorexia, and talks about over sexualization of video game characters. And basically shows that the best video game for her was one with an alien who didn't look like a female anything until you were told through in game text that it's a she. The game had great reviews, but whenever I look at cosplay and some of the major characters women really like. If you look over at any cosplay community, you have people run the gambit on cosplay according to their own feelings of body image and alter wardrobe to their own. Some women and men go full authentic, others carve out less materials to show more skin, and others add in more coverage and alter the design to be more amenable to their aesthetics.
With that said, it renders certain aspects of the major portions of Sarkesian's arguments null. She talks about damselling and hates aspects like Princess Peach. I agree that the stand alone game that used emotions as a power up was not exactly the best idea, however that the main thrust of different Bowser captures Peach is integral to the entire continuity. Certainly I believe they could play the concept up better with Bowser as the main antagonist with using Peach more as a main character. Or even a Zelda game saving Link for a change would be welcomed.
However, the axiom that female sexuality in a game hurts men's image of women is problematic as a starting axiom. Rather men and women need something better in general. And this is beyond gender. It's called communication. That's it. Period.
What I wish Anita would push more forwards and other feminists would be to engage in better communication and conflict resolution skills, equally outlining moreover some better acceptability traits.
The problem with Sarkeesian's dialectic is that it is Women Versus. Rather many of her own points are countered whenever I see someone like Zelda Williams, late Robin William's daughter, tell a story where her mother played as Metroid and looked at Samus Aran and thought it was the coolest thing in the world to have played a girl character all along with her mother beating the game as a defining memory for her. Rather, perhaps I would rather see some of the balance towards the strengths of a character like Samus Aran and what detracts from her as a character in her own opinion.
The issue is that Sarkeesian has some valid points. Overuse of kidnapping, damseling in her parlance, or using revenge as a theme by killing off a character as motivation for the player. Video games that are specifically targeted at a male demographic without appeal to the women demographic.
But.
I would like to hear her say more about characters like Samus Aran about the positive benefits of having those characters wantonly played by men as support for not being sexualized in games but rather used for most of the years as a strong warrior woman. We need to come to the conclusion as a society that feminism does provide a good framework to understand through a lens the world we live in. But not everything can be reduced to gender inequality, nor should it.
Equally, there are times whenever Elspeth exists and Liliana exists and a woman will dress up as both characters.
It's the us vs. them mentality that starts with an ought about feminism on what women should do and be. Remember that during the 1970's that beauty pageants were seen as an anathema, until some feminists found out that some women actually enjoyed dressing up and moderated their stance. This is where we see the point, that there are different types of women and what "feminism" means and female empowerment.
I feel that the best embodiment for characters are like Buffy the Vampire Slayer series, Metroid, and arguably Star Trek. But when you read something like Jezebell.com your eyes bleed over. Humanism has a better foundation than feminism, since it is more wholistic to the human identity.
My mother was a conservative feminist, so I was raised with feminist ideals. Many of the strongest people I know are women, and in part I model myself after those strong people. But as a person, I cannot stand whenever talk about social justice reform is only limited to minority and issues such as rape are restricted to just women. Why? Because justice is a part of conflict resolution. And justice is a part of what it means to be truly human.
I feel, though, most of the problems are that women and minorities still have a lot of problems and whites are also having a lot of problems that go unaddressed. So when group tries to move forward, it creates a backlash from another group. Now, there is also the social conservative movement that wants to limit freedoms. And I feel deep down, just like during the original Civil Rights Movement, that the anger we see today in Jezebell.com and other places is a reflection against the social conservatism of the day. Especially over gay rights which is degenerating into being a stupid backlash by backwater people making other traditionally disenfranchised groups to cry out in an equally stupid manner at times.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>