It's like you're saying "if you're flirting only with women, and never with men, you're being sexist". Really?

I'd say it's somewhat more homophobic (is there a word for "judgmental and rigid about sexual preferences, including your own"? Puritanical isn't quite right, I don't think. I'll stick with homophobic). It's hard to say since homophobic and sexist behavior can be very similar. I think you could re-frame what you do as "I only flirt with people that I'm attracted to" and that would be less sexist. It opens up the possibility that you might flirt with either gender given the right circumstances. I mean, how do you really know you won't meet a man you want to flirt with? How do you know you haven't already flirted with a man, but didn't realize that's what you were doing? Flirting isn't necessarily telling the other person how sexy they are. It's more an attitude and playfulness and less what words you use to get that across. You maybe didn't recognize it as such because of internalized, unconscious notions about appropriate desires, so you didn't think of it as flirting and the other person maybe didn't recognize it as such for the same reason.

Either way, this is something that annoys and frustrates me about sexist and homophobic culture permeating society. I can't be sure how much of my behavior is by choice and how much is because of ingrained attitudes and fears that are preventing me from fully expressing my true self. Had I grown up seeing heroes of all genders, sexual preferences, skin color, body types and seen these people all as celebrated for it, and not treated as punch lines or only worthwhile because they meet a narrow spectrum of 'acceptableness'... how different would I be today? How different will the future be if people that make games and other media tried harder to give children many different kinds of people they can look up to instead of only giving them occasional table scraps as an afterthought, at best? I don't think anyone expects perfection on this, just... try harder.

I'd say it's somewhat more homophobic (is there a word for "judgmental and rigid about sexual preferences, including your own"? Puritanical isn't quite right, I don't think. I'll stick with homophobic).

Or, you know, just identifying yourself as a heterosexual. That word exists, right? I'm pretty sure it means "person who is sexually attracted exclusively to the opposite gender". Similarly, persons that are attracked exclusively to the same gender are homosexuals, and not..."heterophobes", which is a neologism made up by homophobic people against the LGBT community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia

It really seems to me we should at least bother to look up the terms as they're widely defined, and then discuss them, instead of talking based on what we think the definitions are. I might as well go ahead and call "discrimination" the fact that I buy meat from the butcher and not from the plumber.

And...yeah, this conversation is way sidetracked at this point. We better get back on topic.

I'm curious, where exactly did you get the definition "sexism is when you treat someone different based on their sex

The Merriam Webster link you use defines it as; 1) prejudice or discrimination based on sex

And discrimination is defined, by the Cambridge Dictionary online as; "treating a person or particular group of people differently, especially in a worse way from the way in you treat other people, because of their skin colour, sex, sexuality, etc."

Ergo by treating someone different because of their sex you are discriminating against them on that basis which is sexism.

Nothing in any of the links you posted refutes that nor does it give any support to your position that just because it is sexual preference it is not sexism.

I also didn't so much as invent the extra terms as carry them forward from the post you originally quoted (although I believe that used "positive" and "negative") to separate the fact that doing something because someone is a woman could be 'good'/'positive' in the relationship seeking sense but 'bad'/'negative' in a "I must do this because she isn't able to" sense.

I'm curious, where exactly did you get the definition "sexism is when you treat someone different based on their sex

The Merriam Webster link you use defines it as; 1) prejudice or discrimination based on sex

And discrimination is defined, by the Cambridge Dictionary online as; "treating a person or particular group of people differently, especially in a worse way from the way in you treat other people, because of their skin colour, sex, sexuality, etc."

Ergo by treating someone different because of their sex you are discriminating against them on that basis which is sexism.

Note how that definition explicitly states "especially in a worse way from the way in you treat other people", in order to further clarify the matter as much as possible in the space of a short succint definition. You chose to keep just the first part of the sentence?

If you're going to go with the completely neutral definition of discrimination, go with the second one, which is "the ability to see the difference between 2 different things or people", in which case being able to tell one person is a man and another is a woman is an act of discrimination based on sex, thus a sexist act. I hope you see how nonsensical it is to use "sexism" in that manner. I don't think anyone uses it that way, and for good reason. We don't use words in a void. Sexism has negative connotations because that's the reason we use that word and that concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism

Nothing in that whole article even implies that sexism is merely the ability to tell a man from a woman, or even having a sexual preference towards one and not the other. Everything listed is about prejudiced discrimination, one way or the other.

I'm with mikeman on this, this definition talk is especially silly and not useful, even in the context of this thread. Let’s be real, when people say “this game is sexist” they aren’t implying some overly broad definition where even a person being romantically interested in one gender over the other could be considered sexist, the word as most people understand it means a more negative kind of prejudice.

I tend to agree -- Phantom's on point with the definition, but we're not talking about all interactions in which sex plays a role here. That being said, we're not only talking about actions that are perceived as "clearly sexist" by outsiders, and that something as simple as differentiating how you might interact with someone based on whether or not they are the sex you're physically/romantically interested in is a valuable point to remind everyone of -- Sexism isn't just the boogeyman, and its important to keep that in mind because boogeymen are all too easily transformed into strawmen.

It also should be said that it cuts both ways -- it would be a fair observation to say that most men (and most women) are intellectually and inter-personally most-interested in people who share their sex, and that's equally sexism, and equally harmful to the degree that it creates exclusion.

But I think we're getting further and further off topic, so maybe we should bring it back to the context of games and such.

i think its laguahble that she thinks she can control a multination industry. sure she can go on her crusade but that wont stop the games from other nations coming into america. However it is concerning that some of what she says is true, and that often times gamers really act in the ways presented by her and the media. I know I at least do. But its hard to not act that way when thats what you are around all the time. i like playing games with my friends, but really the only games we can play have these horrible black hole gameplay.

Take grand theft auto for example, it isn't my fault that prostitutes were added into the game and give you a health bonus. Of course any respected citizen in a city with the crime like that would get a refund. But it doesn't make me want to bash girls faces in with baseball bats or car wheels. how is that fair that i am being represented as wishing i could do those things irl? i mean ive now just gotten used to the constant teasing, no one should really take it seriously.if they do well then they should just quit the game. it gets old hearing sob stories both from them and on here though i wish it would just sorta go away and back to how things were before. it also my parents fault for allowing me access to these games in the first place. game ratings dont matter and are pretty useless now, nor do they even care about online activities.

i just think that everyone needs to put there big boy underwear on and not take things so personally..

When you widen things up to any form of race or gender recognition, then you have to also realize (which Phantom mentioned), that there is also positive sexism and positive racism. It feels weird to say that, because normally when people say 'racist' or 'sexist', they mean only the negative forms of it, which is understood implicitly from context. If we say any recognition of distinctions is bad, then we create a culture of rigidity and negatively constricting uniformity. This is what 'discrimination' means - treating someone worse based on some arbitrary characteristic. Merely treating someone differently does not equal discrimination.

There are differences between men and women. In my opinion, to ignore those differences is as much a mistake as to mistreat someone for those differences. There are alot of differences between cultures. There are also differences between ethnicities (very minor biological ones), but those differences almost never have legitimate bearing on interactions, unlike gender interactions and cultural interactions.

We should be able to acknowledge someone's race, culture, or gender as long as we're not being offensive. They still might get offended, but that's on them needing to learn how to live in society where everyone has different views and opinions. Those positive views should be expressed, and the negative views shouldn't be expressed unless you know the person personally.

If I'm walking past someone who's wearing a cool shirt, I might say, "Nice shirt!" even to a stranger (in a non-sexual way). If I'm walking past someone with a shirt that I don't like, I'm not going to say "I hate that shirt!", unless I know the person well enough and I'm confident they won't take it badly.

If you know me, and my hair is a mess, and I'm walking out the door into public, you should let me know. There may be a reason behind it ("I didn't have time to shower this morning, I overslept"), but I shouldn't get offended by it because you and I already have a friendship and I know you have my best interests in mind. But if you don't have my best interests in mind when saying it, then you shouldn't say it. Are you informing me for my benefit or for your own?

I can use any judgement I might have to say the things I think will be taken positively, and to not say the things I think won't be taken well. Occasionally I might make a mistake! But then a simple apology should be enough to cover that.

For example, if I see a stranger who's Korean, and we need to interact for some purpose (he approaches me or I approach him for some specific purpose), I might greet them with a typical Korean-language / Korean-culture greeting. This is racism (or "culture-ism" more like). This is giving honor and respect to the differences between our languages and cultures. But! They might not speak Korean, may never have been to Korea, or might even be Japanese(!), and get embarrassed or insulted. Oops, my bad. A simple apology should cover that. If not, that's a problem on their side, and an issue they need to deal with. If we have a continued (non-sexual) relationship, it's on me to respect them as individuals by remembering that they don't speak Korean or are actually not even Asian ().

In actuality, some Japanese or Koreans might get really offended at being mistaken for the other ethnicity (this never actually happened to me, it's just a theoretical example). My mistake is ignorance (lack of knowledge) on my part, but their offense is actually revealing their own racism by viewing the other ethnicity as inferior or viewing them with hatred for past historic wrongs. I'm not liable for their flaws (the hatred/racism), and even though they might get offended that I accidentally revealed it, it's still their problem - exposing what already exists doesn't make its existence my fault.

They shouldn't be any more offended than the two times in the past I was mistaken as a female by strangers - once catcalled at, and another time complimented ("dang, that gal's strong!").

I want to be able to honor people for their individuality as well as for their gender and their culture and other aspects of them as well. I try not to joke about people's culture or gender, only my own culture and gender. If they share my culture/gender and get offended, I should honor their individuality above my joking about our common culture, and refrain from those jokes in their presence.

'Honoring' can even be acknowledging something their gender or culture is weak in. This 'recognizing a weakness' can be taken as an insult very easily, so again, your personal judgement must come into effect, which is easier when you have a (non-sexual / sexual) relationship with the person.

It's super controversial to even suggest that different cultures or genders have moments or areas of weakness. The assumption is that weakness = flaw = me claiming my gender/culture is 'superior', which can be a false assumption. Both genders have their weaknesses and strengths. Failing to recognize the weaknesses and strengths of different cultures and genders creates blindness - blindness to differences is easier, but ultimately worst than, acceptance and recognition of the differences. Equality does not mean identical, it means fairness, balance, and recognition of bringing equivalent value.

Example of recognizing a weakness in females: When someone is in late-stage pregnancy, do you honestly feel you shouldn't offer to help them e.g. carry something heavy? Or after they've given birth, offer to cook a meal for their family so they aren't as pressured to? Using your best judgement to not come off as creepy.

Pregnancy as a whole is not a weakness, but it makes women physically weaker (and, at times, physically stronger), stamina-wise, and brings a large number of other minor or not-so-minor nuisances, even prior to the actual birth.

If someone is old, should you not offer assistance because that'd be biased against young people or because it's acknowledging their present feebleness? They may not want help - but they can easily and politely refuse a genuinely kind offer. To not even make the offer means you are denying them freedom to accept the offer and are deciding for them.

This even applies to entire families. When I was younger, my family as a whole was going through a tough time because one of my siblings was recuperating for several months in the hospital, my dad was working long hours to provide financially, and my mom was extra pressured between visiting the hospital which was almost an hour away, caring for the younger kids (which the older kids helped out with), and cooking meals. Some strangers from our church recognized the weakness and offered to help out with meals for our family - we weren't in too much in need of financial assistance, but we were in need of skilled labor (cooking) assistance, which was provided by strangers who made (correct) assumptions about our needs (I'm actually not sure how they found out - our family doesn't "advertise" our needs, usually being self-sufficient almost to a fault. But word must have gotten around from our close family friends to people we weren't familiar with).

Another example, day-to-day example, of recognizing a gender-related "weakness" is female periods. If I need help on a home-construction project, I ask my competent sisters for a hand. If I realize they are having their period, I try to find someone else to help me before even asking them - and if I can't find help, I inquire if they are capable to help, and based on their decision, might even post-pone my project to a different week if I'm absolutely incapable of getting it done solo.

I must be sexist for thinking of a women's period as a moment of weakness for them.

I must not be sexist for assuming females are capable of being skilled contractors.

I must actually be using judgement on a case-to-case basis, to recognize both strengths and weaknesses, gender-specific or not, in individuals.

Firm hard rules are clumsy substitutions for actual decency and sound judgement. When people lack judgement, they need rules. Guidelines are fine, rules less-so.

To be constrained by super-tight political correctness makes you crippled from being able to offer actual assistance to people who might actually need it. Only when your "offer of assistance" is actually an insult-in-disguise, or when you force your 'assistance' on people who have decided not to accept your original offer, does it become a negative thing.

Even if someone makes a genuinely kind offer based on a stereotype, that's a situation where they need to be taught that the stereotype is wrong; but they shouldn't be criticized for trying to be kind.

We are getting into language lawyer territory here so I'll make this quick...

Note how that definition explicitly states "especially in a worse way from the way in you treat other people", in order to further clarify the matter as much as possible in the space of a short succint definition. You chose to keep just the first part of the sentence?

I did not 'choose to keep the first part'; the 2nd part has no direct impact on the meaning pulled from the first.

Consider, if I was to say to you, "man, compared to England Egypt is really hot, especially in June." would you assume from that the June was the only time it could be considered to be hot? Or consider "I love the night, it is so dark, especially in the country side where there are no lights for miles"; the same idea applies.

The especially calls out a specific instance or instances when it applies, it does not invalid the earlier part of the definition, merely adds reinforcement to particular conditions.

Thanks for that Servant.

What you're recognizing is that its misguided to try to create equality by ignoring our differences, when really we should be recognizing differences as potential strengths.

It gets off-topic, but I want to mention it since its important, I think. There's this notion floating around that the way to not be racist is to be intentionally "color-blind" and while the sentiment might be correct, the activity is inherently flawed because it attempts to wipe away something that makes that individual who they are. When we ignore it, we can't recognize it as a potential strength, and what it does is turn people from individuals into cogs -- everyone becomes round when you chip away everything that makes them different -- and you start to value individuals based on how effectively they work as a cog, rather than valuing them the unique traits they bring to the table.

To bring that to a real-world example -- we have this thing called Affirmative Action (which, to be clear, I believe to be an unfortunate necessity in past and current climes) which says that the government is beholden to hire an ethnically and otherwise diverse workforce, and which many larger companies have followed (but are not technically beholden to). As I said, I believe it necessary, but I also think the ways people tend to think about it are flawed (arguably, even racists) because people tend to think "We'll hire more women or people of color because we have to in order to make quota", when really we should be thinking "We'll hire more women and people of color because a diversity of experiences and perspectives will make us a stronger, more-effective organization." People get hired in spite of their gender or race because we're supposed to ignore it, rather than people being hired because of their gender or race because it is a source of strength. And that's the really insidious part, because by definition it creates a system where a person's minority status can never be viewed as a strength, and it keeps the whole group down as a whole -- thus, despite what might be good intentions, "color-blindness" is ultimately racist, and ignoring gender is ultimately sexist (which leads into the miss-male trope).