A video game on 'gold diggers' is fuelling a sexism debate in China
A video game on 'gold diggers' is fuelling a sexism debate in China
So heated was the criticism that creators quietly renamed the game Emotional Anti-Fraud Simulator.
You're viewing a single thread.
Goldiggers are both men and women. Love scams are perpetrated by men all the time, especially online. Creating a game about golddiggers is useful, making it all about women only is sexist and dangerous.
Creating a game about golddiggers is useful, making it all about women only is sexist and dangerous.
Why? Most violent games have protagonists and antagonists that are full of men, with no women.
Classic "all lives matter" take
Whose take, mine or hers?
Sorry, yours. Feels like whataboutism to use sexism against men in a different genre as an contrary example
Ok , the majority of golddiggers are women; this genre of drama is most likely to appeal to men. Why would it have a ...
you know what the other post did it way better, go argue with him https://lemmy.world/post/32590529/18139494
Idk man, I think you neither looked at the statistics, nor lived that long on this world. While true, it is extreme to only have one side of the coin, the other side is just not as likely by statistics...
In the end... it's a game? I mean, I guess I grew up to live with rifles and walk with a switchblade while going to the store. And expect all women to be scantily clad mages walking with staves and high heels.
It's a tabloid-quality "study", but if you shuck away all the words she uses, and look at the numbers which are more easily attributed to actual gold-digging
There are five million members on SeekingArrangement. Overall, the site has 3.8 million Sugar Babies, and 12% are male: 460,000. Moreover, this is an 84% jump in male Sugar Baby membership from the start of 2014.
Kind of 10 vs 1
Millennial men are also more likely to want to have a prenuptial agreement than males of other generations (32% vs. 25% of Gen X males and 17% of Boomer males) perhaps because they are more likely to be viewing marriage as a financial/contractual arrangement as much as a romantic partnership.
And this is just pure farce. Prenuptial agreements are for protecting from gold-diggers and taking the money away from having to do anything with the marriage. i.e. The opposite. Focusing on romance (if it exists).
To clarify, everybody knows marriage is a financial arrangement. You would have to be an intense fool to ignore that. Whether you do something to protect yourself against unbalanced finances is just a question of your perception of society.
You could probably say I am picking out pieces. And I am. But if you just look at the numbers and ignore the farce of the author, I think you can make more truthful conclusions. (The whole piece reads to me like purposeful twisted propaganda, starting from the title. Or, well, just tabloid-quality journalism)