You don't have to approve of the term feminism though, you may even wish it changed. And sure, maybe some other form of the term would do a better job but by now feminism is symbolic and recognized globally, there is no doing away with the form of the word. It feels like you want the tortoise to leap when it can only move forward slowly one step at a time and has to take a non optimal path to even get moving at all.
J/P shit again I guess. Not that I am all that adamant, Descartes can go fuck himself.
You don't have to approve of the term feminism though, you may even wish it changed. And sure, maybe some other form of the term would do a better job but by now feminism is symbolic and recognized globally, there is no doing away with the form of the word. It feels like you want the tortoise to leap when it can only move forward slowly one step at a time and has to take a non optimal path to even get moving at all.
is there perhaps a simpler, more elegant symbolism?
dissatisfaction with the term may be in vain but it may also present alternatives that could facilitate a smoother ride toward peaceful society. we don't know really. you make the process out to be more determined than it has to be.
haha all this is pointless if real feminism is the accurate hypothesis.
understanding and approval are different things and you're moving the goalpost; i got the impression you couldn't allow disapproval of the message, content and delivery of something historically important and sufficiently understood.
I'm not sure why you would think that about me in particular. *shrug*
In general, I don't glorify the past just because it's the past; however, as part of the past, it's part of the system of unfolding history and you have to understand its context to properly analyze where we are today and where we might be going.
I find I make lots of comments like this, especially in light of people in their 20's criticizing something from before their time while making huge assumptions (like forgetting that the Internet did not exist before 1990 or so, in the vast public sphere). There has been so much change in US culture since 1940-1950 or so that people nowadays have no idea what it meant to experience certain things, or inadvertently frame past events in terms of their current experience and thus misunderstand it.
the admiration/reverence is what keeps something in the minds of people by merit of its past influence rather than its own quality (its utility, its potential for future influence), but circumstances change and we don't have to appreciate and condone things because of their previous causal roles.
I don't disagree with this; but now I feel like you are far off-topic of what I was referring to in my initial post, which is dealing specifically with this book and an off-the-cuff judgment I saw being made.
i understand descartes, and i think he shouldn't be taught at all, no matter how many philosophical theories "wouldn't exist" without him. you could remove a coca cola bottle cap in 1957 and maybe i wouldn't exist. that doesn't mean it was a good bottle cap. it's modal realism. it's never relevant to our world and our decisions.
so, SCUM being historically important is different from SCUM being a good text with a sound message. drgregoryhouse's criticism was about the latter while your defense invoked the former.
House's criticism wasn't about much at all, honestly. Just a moral vomit in what otherwise was a more intellectual conversation. it seemed rather out of place, and unfortunately too consistent with other posts by the same person, so I finally made a public note of it.
indeed no arguing about this. it's straight forward facts. i see no reason to question the claims you've made here. i don't think we're arguing at all. we're brushing past each other.
House's criticism wasn't about much at all, honestly. Just a moral vomit in what otherwise was a more intellectual conversation. it seemed rather out of place, and unfortunately too consistent with other posts by the same person, so I finally made a public note of it.
Lol. Well, if you know me IRL, you'd know I don't really give a darn about historical precedence in that kind of way. I have had to deal with too many ISJs in my face all the time about "Oh, we've always done it this way, so you are wrong," blah blah blah.... that kind of attitude is about the furthest from my approach as you could imagine.
On the other hand, it gave me an observation of myself -- apparently I get annoyed by that kind of thing, because I think I've called out people (Chad, him, etc) pretty consistently when I see that kind of pattern, when my patience frays. I didn't know it annoyed me so much.
How silly that I didn't know that until I observed myself over time.
Lol. Well, if you know me IRL, you'd know I don't really give a darn about historical precedence in that kind of way. I have had to deal with too many ISJs in my face all the time about "Oh, we've always done it this way, so you are wrong," blah blah blah.... that kind of attitude is about the furthest from my approach as you could imagine.
On the other hand, it gave me an observation of myself -- apparently I get annoyed by that kind of thing, because I think I've called out people (Chad, him, etc) pretty consistently when I see that kind of pattern, when my patience frays. I didn't know it annoyed me so much.
How silly that I didn't know that until I observed myself over time.
I like it. Do you think a start could be to update the language and get rid of some of the third person pronouns specifically she and he(or he and she). 10 days in jail if that law is broken?
The terms aren't the problem, but rather the baggage that is latched onto them. Take away the terms or replace the terms with which the baggage comes, and the baggage will just be latched onto whatever other terms are used in their place (if not pronouns, then "male" and "female")
I'm really not a big fan of banning symbols because they're just symbols. It's the meanings ascribed to them( typically the stereotypes that arise beyond the dictionary definitions) that matter in these types of controversies.
In short, I find the political correctness that targets terms or symbols to be largely nonconstructive. Banning or discouraging non-sanitized terms may help for a little while, but the negative connotations eventually return with the replacement terms.
But, yeah, if the term is explicitly prejudicial in that it's defined that way in the dictionary (i.e. Women: females who should be cooking, cleaning, etc.), it would probably be useful to redefine it or encourage the use of other terms. I wouldn't advocate jail time or anything like that though.
The terms aren't the problem, but rather the baggage that is latched onto them. Take away the terms or replace the terms with which the baggage comes, and the baggage will just be latched onto whatever other terms are used in their place (if not pronouns, then "male" and "female")
I'm really not a big fan of banning symbols because they're just symbols. It's the meanings ascribed to them( typically the stereotypes that arise beyond the dictionary definitions) that matter in these types of controversies.
In short, I find the political correctness that targets terms or symbols to be largely nonconstructive. Banning or discouraging non-sanitized terms may help for a little while, but the negative connotations eventually return with the replacement terms.
But, yeah, if the term is explicitly prejudicial in that it's defined that way in the dictionary (i.e. Women: females who should be cooking, cleaning, etc.), it would probably be useful to redefine it or encourage the use of other terms. I wouldn't advocate jail time or anything like that though.
Yeah, one may have to search elsewhere to modify symbolic meanings. I also suspect the genderless utopia isn't suitable for the masses, they may find it boring. Sometimes these gender wars can be fun, as long as things doesn't come fully out of hand. I've never seen the point of applying force and imprinting/programming, each individual could find a spot where they are comfy. There is enough room for everyone. Maybe the friction is also productive, so it is of interest to keep stereotypes. Imo it's been a few thousand years now where this has been out of balance. Although extreme feminism can get on my nerves by it's singularity, and sometimes mindlessness. It may be the only antidote on certain things. But as with any strong drug I think it is vital that it is applied with precision and care.
Other then that, I've sort of bailed out on society. Perhaps I am sitting in the bow of Polaris's boat . Although I hope I haven't completely lost faith. Stuff do change, and if one is sufficiently motivated, I believe it is possible to get things as one want.
To be clear, I'm not advocating any kind of genderless utopia or any kind of coercive procedure in altering people's identities. Ideally, individuals would have a good conceptual understanding of identity, socialization, and the potential consequences of socializing someone into some box or another. In this way, parents would have a better understanding and individuals would be more aware of potential choices they could make in individuating. In this way, an individual would be more aware of choosing to be more "manly" or "womanly," but would not be manipulated into being one or the other due to increased awareness. Whether a child is manipulated into one or the other, I'd leave up to the parents, but, ideally, the parents would know what the potential consequences for their child could be. Of course, manipulating a child into being one or the other could very well be abuse if it leads to damage (I'm thinking of abuse here, such as bullying a boy for being more "feminine" than his peers).
The problem with feminism though is that as a movement it only focuses on the issues of women. So the issues of men is some other movement's problem.
This of coarse suggests that feminism is only looking out for the female gender and isn't actually for equality (in that it is there to solve gender issues in general, be it men or women). This obviously doesn't mean that individual feminists may not also be supporters for movements which deal with issues faced by men.
So you can't claim feminism as a movement is for gender equality, because it is only for gender equality in the issues where women are being oppressed.
Another problem I think is that feminism and society is vulnerable to is professional victims. Feminism in that it focuses mainly in helping females, and will look to support females first and foremost while prejudicing that the man or men are probably to blame or are wrong.
Society because of the stances people and institutes choose to take to seem politically correct. This of coarse leads to prejudice and less evaluation of each case on it's own terms/merits.
Gender equality itself is problematic. You're basically asking for two different sexes that have been fine tuned both on a biological and behavioral level to be treated of as equal. I know this sounds borderline or fully sexist, but there are going to be differences in how each of the sexes perform in certain fields of work. Statistically this will be seen and labeled as a form of patriarchy. This leads well into the gender wage gap is one of the points feminists give. Here is a video to help understand it.
An issue for females is that they are not well represented in the it and science fields. I actually have a youtube video explaining that too but I can't find it right now, so I post it when I do...
Atheism plus and the other similar types of feminism that has come into contact with the atheism community is very anti-free speech and isn't friendly to the open discussion of ideas. Especially the atheist community, after ages of arguing against religious propaganda, they have generally learned that restricting freedom of speech is probably the first sign of a movement that's not about rationality and not about change through improvement, but is rather an old lingering idea that attempts to keep it's status quo by blocking criticism and scrutinization.
I really agree with the fact that women aren't institutionally oppressed in most western first world countries. Women are having a lot of success in education and aren't really limited in their opportunities. So really I think that feminism should probably focus on women's oppression across the world, because that is where real oppression and domination of women can be found.
This video shows my point. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwHLJnLvBSQ
I understand that it's just a parody and is making the point that females are objectified as sex tools in current society. However I fail to see what feminists hope to see come out of this. Do they really expect to change a trend that is NOT based on PATRIARCHY, but rather is the result of a free market? I mean that's just it. There are no behind the scene schemes, no conspiracies. Do they really think that a group of white, middle-class males had a secret meeting and plotted this against women? The sexualization of women in modern society is the product of a free market. Men want it. There is a market for it. Karl Marx said something along the lines of capitalists will do everything possible to gain an advantage.
Feminist Frequency(a youtube channel) is another supposedly feminism movement? group? I'll just use incident, that tried to question the product of capitalism and the free market. It is the gaming industry and how women are portrayed in games. Sadly if you do more research on this particular user you'll probably find that she is most likely a con-artist.
I watched all the videos on youtube. She's as provocative as the videos claim. I generally like her personality, she seemed like a genuine, no bullshit, not fazed by norms type of person. Common traits of people who I usually admire.
There're male centered tropes as well ie. stupid/idiotic men in television commercials and low budget television series. It is quite prevalent. The other ridiculous male centered tropes are the hyper masculine action hero and the assertive/driven/leader/intelligent/empathetic/family-man hero. Both stereotypes are completely unrealistic and are perverse role models.
There're female centered tropes and they're male centered tropes. Now, what argument can be made regarding gender and equality? None. Tropes in fiction are simply narrative tools.
Sure by saying the media has made a straw-feminist trope, feminism can just dodge all criticisms and scrutinization of feminism. Maybe there is a straw-feminist trope and it does downplay feminism. But as far as I can see it just means that feminists will have to present logical arguments and debates, to disprove the straw-feminist trope. I am actually looking into this. I say time and again that useful feminism does exist. It's the radical feminism and the super sensitive, get offended as much as possible, feminism that has got to go in modern first world society.
She has been refuted time and again. She censors all her videos and disables ratings. She is against free speech and any criticisms she faced is just labelled sexism or harassment. The damsel in distress trope was born out of a market for it. Most gamers are males, and a female in distress is just what it would take for them to risk their life or do heroic deeds like in the games. So really games are exploiting the desire for male to save and protect females.
Here watch these videos. Feminist frequency is a disaster. Many people think Anita Sarkeesian is a conartist and they do this rightly so. She's probably a fake feminist, a hijacker trying to milk money out of society that doesn't question feminism. She's doing more damage to feminism than anything.
There are about 30 more videos on youtube with high videos, good ratings and an open comment sections. Notice that feminist frequency has disabled any source of any form of criticism. She is against debate? against free speech? that sounds like religious dogma to me. Notice also that all videos made criticizing her have enabled ratings and comments section, so they are open for scrutiny. But have they been refuted? are they received badly? No. That's because they are logical and in this case correct.
The way it's turned out, it seems that women are always given the benefit of the doubt by society. Feminism seems to have turned into a scared cow (I remember someone said something about a sacred cow in the earlier posts), that is above criticism, above scrutiny and ultimately above improvement through change. The same radical approach is no longer necessary, nor is it relevant to the times. Females have all the basic rights as men do. The rest should be on meritocracy and the free market/capitalism. Yet they still manage to convince themselves that they are being oppressed, and that OUTSIDE INTERVENTION is required to make the playing field better for them. Does the fact that most high level jobs require a degree, which most minorities don't have, make society racist?
useful feminism does exist. It's the radical feminism and the super sensitive, get offended as much as possible, feminism that has got to go in modern first world society.
by distinguishing useful and radical you are implying that the useful variety is useful specifically in maintaining the very system which the radical variety aims to destroy. do you deny that male aggression isn't as nifty a survival mechanism as it used to be?
by distinguishing useful and radical you are implying that the useful variety is useful specifically in maintaining the very system which the radical variety aims to destroy.
Feminism doesn't maintain the status quo of society. Whether it is moderate or radical feminism, both are striving for change. So no, useful feminism is not maintaining what radical feminism sets out to destroy. Maybe you misunderstand me when I say "useful". "Useful" to what exactly? Well, useful for gender equality. That's advocating improvement on the status quo through change, so there's no "maintaining" that any feminism does (am I right about this? I suppose they want to maintain some things, but only for gender equality for females). I just used "useful feminism" because as you can see in my previous posts, I said radical feminism and sensitive professional victim feminism are doing more damage to the movement than anything. Making them "useless" or more accurately "unnecessary". So I called feminism that does do good for the movement useful/moderate feminism.
Depends on the situation. There's still shit going on around the world. In a stable society there's still crime. Some jobs require that sort of mentality. I'm not saying it doesn't have it's own flaws though. Perceiving danger that may not be there, is of course the thing that cause the male passive aggression/aggression to be wrongly directed. This may come in the form of straw-feminists. But I do think there are redundancies in the feminist movement, which need to be cast out, else it will be detrimental to itself. I think the information I've posted here at least gives people the doubt to take a second inspection at what so many people passively and automatically agree with, in other to be politically correct or for other reasons.
I never said radical meant or was equal to any of the things you said it wasn't. I'm saying their views and beliefs are redundant to today's first world society. I assume radical means what it's definition says it means. Something different, big and unnatural, a challenge to the norm. The problem lies of coarse in why radical feminism first even came about. Radical feminism was an answer to the oppression of females in a world that is very different to modern society, where women get all the basic rights males do. This includes the freedom of expression and right to vote.
Proxy: the same phenomenon existing for males is a given fact and beside the point. What matters is its frequency in proportion to other portrayals.
Rabind: She disabled comments because they consisted of 90% vulgar sexist ad Homs from angry young males. And even though she both overshoots and simplifies things the gist of her arguments are sound facts.
These atheists that you link to do not even bother using correct terminology, they are overshooting and simplifying to the same degree that Sarkesian does.
The thing is, while she isn't all that, she isn't nearly bad enough to warrant the hatred against her without factoring in sexism. There's something about outspoken females that ticks people off.
So does driving abilities. But it's not like one can drive faster just cause one is good at it. Voting abilities. Etc and so on. Equality isn't that difficult. And gender equality is far nearer biological then individual skills. There is one chromosome that give the order to produce a little more of one substance, and a little less of another(slightly simplified). That is enough to create two sexes. Now, throw one grown man against a bear. Then a grown woman. Will there be a difference in the outcome? Not likely. To build a house from timber, difference? Probably one will do it a little faster. But in most serious situations. Both will fare the same fate, as the capabilities are not that much different.
Of course, in a human made, almost totally controlled artificial society. One can make differences as large or small as one like. A human is a human. Like with an icebear, who cares if the bear is female or male? What does it matter. Are it's abilities drastically different?
Proxy: the same phenomenon existing for males is a given fact and beside the point. What matters is its frequency in proportion to other portrayals.
Rabind: She disabled comments because they consisted of 90% vulgar sexist ad Homs from angry young males. And even though she both overshoots and simplifies things the gist of her arguments are sound facts.
These atheists that you link to do not even bother using correct terminology, they are overshooting and simplifying to the same degree that Sarkesian does.
The thing is, while she isn't all that, she isn't nearly bad enough to warrant the hatred against her without factoring in sexism. There's something about outspoken females that ticks people off.
She raised $150,000 on kickstarter. An online platform for crowd funding. She used feminism as a way of receiving back up for her project, which consists of less than what many youtubers already do for free. She took advantage of the fact that society is gullible to such causes as feminism. Causes which have been made sacred and are given trust without much inspection.
The tropes she mentions are born out of story telling and the way the free market is. If the free market demands it, you cash in on it by giving them what you want. That is how capitalism works. Because the gaming community is mostly dominated by men, apparently saving helpless damsels in distress is what the gaming community wants, so what can be done about this? Teach men not to want to save women? take down capitalism?
Threats on the internet are almost always taken over the top. Plus the atheist community had the same problems of threats. You think the religious nut-jobs out there just stayed silent, while the very foundation of their lives where being called into question? All outspoken people will receive threats, that's just the way it is. The last thing someone who is striving for social change and liberation should do in limit the discussion of the issue.
Your point about the free market is what exactly? That the world is sexist? That's her point as well.
There's a pretty big difference between being attacked for your views on something and being attacked just because you were born with a vagina. The response she got was all along the lines of "get back to the kitchen whore" and/or "I will find you and rape you"
The irony of it all is quite apparent to me. These gamers are so upset over her attack on the demand (that they themselves are responsible for) and the following supply, that it's insane.
You don't seem to notice yourself the absurdity of the fact that you have to bring religion (which is notorious for its ability to cause upsettedness when discussed, which while sad is understandable since religion is pretty serious business constituting peoples worldviews and all that, not quite the same thing) in order to get some comparable hate to showcase.
People are oh so friggin obviously feeling very threatened by Anita Sarkesian.
Oh and what do you mean gullible? How does the gaming industry not need a heads up feminism?
It's that there is no point in this sort of feminism. I respect feminism that will get something done. Like the suffragettes, feminism that actually had something they wanted to change and set about doing that. Risking their lives to fight for liberation. What is modern feminism trying to do? trying to illuminate the sexism in modern first world countries, much of which comes directly from capitalism and men's desire to have sex with females. How will you ever change men's nature or capitalism?
There's a pretty big difference between being attacked for your views on something and being attacked just because you were born with a vagina. The response she got was all along the lines of "get back to the kitchen whore" and/or "I will find you and rape you"
I disagree. She was attacked for her feminist views. More specifically her sensitive professional victim style feminism. The kind that says "Look at the sexist tropes about women demonstrated in these games. This should not be happening in modern first world societies, so I want the whole of industry and society to change to suite my preferences." It has been suggested in the videos I posted earlier, but if she really thinks female friendly games are such an awesome idea, than she can just make and publish a game herself. Is that what she does? No. She wants other people to come up with the solution. Why? Because she's the victim. The oppressed and it's politically incorrect to not do anything about such an apparent problem. A lot of people hate this type of feminism. It preys on society's willingness to serve those who society perceives are the vulnerable and oppressed, without question.
The irony of it all is quite apparent to me. These gamers are so upset over her attack on the demand (that they themselves are responsible for) and the following supply, that it's insane.
Her attack is to gain the moral high ground, so society will easily side with her. There is no way that the demand in a million dollar market such as gaming, is going to even be fazed by what she is pulling. The only thing she did is troll a lot of actual gamers, and then proceed to use their frustrations as an evidence for the harassment she is facing. Of coarse this follows in her disabling ratings and comments because she got death threats from people who she trolled.
You don't seem to notice yourself the absurdity of the fact that you have to bring religion (which is notorious for its ability to cause upsettedness when discussed, which while sad is understandable since religion is pretty serious business constituting peoples worldviews and all that, not quite the same thing) in order to get some comparable hate to showcase.
I don't see the absurdity in it. Care to tell me? As far as I'm concerned, anyone against freedom of speech and the open market of ideas are the same. I have deep admiration for the scrutiny of all ideas/theories in science, and I believe that principle of scrutiny should be applied to all things, be it religion, politics, business, philosophy... feminism is no exception.
Because it won't change. The gaming industry is for sole the purpose of gaming, just like the atheist community is solely for the purpose for blowing of religious dogma and ignorance. Why should anyone care whether someone is offended by what they like and enjoy as entertainment.
I said society was gullible, because everyone wants to be politically correct.
How is raising awareness of the issues at hand pointless? The mere reaction demonstrated by the male gaming crowd shows its necessity.
Furthermore, it doesn't matter if the attacks on her where due to her feminist views, the nature of the attacks remains just as disgusting and the irony remains just as apparent.
Seriously, apply this line of reasoning to something else and the absurdity of it is obvious.
"Hey man stop saying slavery is wrong, it's just supply and demand - which if you didn't know already makes wrong things right - oh and btw get off your high horses you ain't on no higher moral ground, and please you useless idiot: do it before I kill you! Now let me get back to whippin ma negroes in peace"
And the reaction is absurd for the reasons I gave in my last post (which you ignored). If you think a woman is being an idiot and you tell her to get back to the kitchen or threaten to rape her, rather than call her an idiot (or even better, get in on the subject to explain why she is one properly) then you're a sexist, simple as that.
She has gotten surprisingly little done? Of course nothings going to change over night. That doesn't make what she did pointless, and; moreover, you're supposing her to do something which she didn't even propose to do herself now. Take a look at any other social change, those happen bit by bit over time, thanks to small efforts from innumerous people.
Your last paragraph is naive, the demands put on the gaming industry reflect the current social climate. It's not some isolated system of set rules.
It's pointless because it won't change. She felt a backlash from the gaming community, because she doesn't understand how what type of game is made and produced is decided.
Furthermore, it doesn't matter if the attacks on her where due to her feminist views, the nature of the attacks remains just as disgusting and the irony remains just as apparent.
Seriously, apply this line of reasoning to something else and the absurdity of it is obvious.
I was of coarse responding to the fact that you said
Originally Posted by Cherry Cola View Post
There's a pretty big difference between being attacked for your views on something and being attacked just because you were born with a vagina. The response she got was all along the lines of "get back to the kitchen whore" and/or "I will find you and rape you"
and I was pointing out that she was attacked for her feminist views, not personally. This is the internet. What did anyone expect would happen if a troll went and seriously tried to nag and rant at a huge community full of adolescents(which a big portion of the gaming community is).
"Hey man stop saying slavery is wrong, it's just supply and demand - which if you didn't know already makes wrong things right - oh and btw get off your high horses you ain't on no higher moral ground, and please you useless idiot: do it before I kill you! Now let me get back to whippin ma negroes in peace"
And the reaction is absurd for the reasons I gave in my last post (which you ignored). If you think a woman is being an idiot and you tell her to get back to the kitchen or threaten to rape her, rather than call her an idiot (or even better, get in on the subject to explain why she is one properly) then you're a sexist, simple as that.
Idk. Could you copy and past those reasons so I know exactly what you're referring to. Also if next time you think I ignored one of your argument's than please tell me, I do want to try and respond.
Is that what a sexist is? I got "discriminatory on the basis of sex" when I looked for the definition on the web. I suppose you mean the verbal assault being sex specific is why it makes it sexist. The "go back to the kitchen" is a popular internet meme. It has it's roots as a joke. I don't think it's a big deal to be honest. Females are welcome to make the same type of stuff about men.
I do have a problem with feminists making them for the sole purpose of pointing out sexism though. What is this problem? well it's the fact that, if feminists were to make meme/jokes just to point out sexism, such as that found in meme/jokes, than I'd doubt the importance of what those feminists were doing. Making me feel that they are unnecessary. Note that I'm saying feminists not females.
The "I'll rape you" is different though. It doesn't have it's roots in memes. However it is a widely used threat/insult over the internet. In the internet how females should react to that is based on whether they know or don't know the person who said it and other factors. Outside the internet it is a threat and against the law. I seriously doubt anyone says that outside the internet, not even people who have the intention of raping someone. Why does it matter if something is a joke?
She has gotten surprisingly little done? Of course nothings going to change over night. That doesn't make what she did pointless, and; moreover, you're supposing her to do something which she didn't even propose to do herself now. Take a look at any other social change, those happen bit by bit over time, thanks to small efforts from innumerous people.
Well the evidence is out there. I guess it's the individual's job to make conclusions. Yes, because she finds sexism everywhere in games. As if she knew what the market demands were or why games are made a certain way (the answer is that there is a market for it). If she thinks she knows how games ought to be made than she should make a game herself and publish it, to show how it's done. Is there anything wrong with this suggestion?
It reflects the attitudes, beliefs and values of the consumers, not the whole of society. The majority of gamers are males. Previous trends are also partly direct the industry. Previous successful games mostly having a lot of masculine features.
It reflects the attitudes, beliefs and values of the consumers, not the whole of society. The majority of gamers are males. Previous trends are also partly direct the industry. Previous successful games mostly having a lot of masculine features.
I disagree. She was attacked for her feminist views. More specifically her sensitive professional victim style feminism. The kind that says "Look at the sexist tropes about women demonstrated in these games. This should not be happening in modern first world societies, so I want the whole of industry and society to change to suite my preferences." It has been suggested in the videos I posted earlier, but if she really thinks female friendly games are such an awesome idea, than she can just make and publish a game herself. Is that what she does? No. She wants other people to come up with the solution. Why? Because she's the victim. The oppressed and it's politically incorrect to not do anything about such an apparent problem. A lot of people hate this type of feminism. It preys on society's willingness to serve those who society perceives are the vulnerable and oppressed, without question.
Since when does criticizing gaming have anything to do with justifying behavior like this?
On May 17, 2012, Sarkeesian began a Kickstarter campaign to fund a new series of short videos that would examine gender tropes in video games. The campaign was featured as a campaign of note on the official Kickstarter blog,[10] and reached its funding goal of $6,000 within 24 hours.[11]
The project triggered a campaign of sexist harassment that Amanda Marcotte in Slate magazine described as an "absolute avalanche of misogynist abuse," in which "[e]very access point they could exploit was used to try to get to her".[12] Helen Lewis of the The New York Times reported that Sarkeesian was e-mailed images of herself being raped by video game characters.[13] Attempts were made to hack her Twitter and Google accounts, doctored images of her were posted online, and negative comments were posted to her YouTube and Facebook pages.[14][15] Her Wikipedia article was repeatedly vandalized with images of sex acts.[16] Her website was subjected to denial-of-service attacks, and there were efforts to obtain and distribute her personal contact information.[17]
Sarkeesian posted examples of the harassment on her blog, and supporters responded by donating over $150,000 to her project.[14][15] This further enraged the harassers; one man made an internet game called Beat Up Anita Sarkeesian, where users could punch her image until the screen turned red.[14][18] The people behind the campaign awarded each other "Internet points" for the abuse on forums; Sarkeesian argued that they had "gamified" misogyny.[13]
It kind of changes the perception of the disagreement when you look at the specifics of the abuse that have been leveled at someone over it. There is disagreement, and then there's this kind of destructive aggression meant to destroy/silence someone. It's absurd.
I'm also not aware of anyone but women being threatened with rape in situations like this. I'm not sure how that can be considered anything but misogynistic, in that thinking a woman could do or say something that would legitimize violating her body in such a way. They would not be raping a man or threatening to, over a disagreement over video game content.
(All this is said as a gaming female who actually enjoys some shooter and fighting games.)
It kind of changes the perception of the disagreement when you look at the specifics of the abuse that have been leveled at someone over it. There is disagreement, and then there's this kind of destructive aggression meant to destroy/silence someone. It's absurd.
I'm also not aware of anyone but women being threatened with rape in situations like this. I'm not sure how that can be considered anything but misogynistic, in that thinking a woman could do or say something that would legitimize violating her body in such a way. They would not be raping a man or threatening to, over a disagreement over video game content.
(All this is said as a gaming female who actually enjoys some shooter and fighting games.)
The gaming community is full of trolls. How can you stop assholes from acting like assholes? especially on the internet, where they think it's their god given right to be able to anonymously be as much of a dick as possible.
Rape threats over the internet I assume. Men aren't as offended or scared of rape threats. If I had an argument with someone in a game and they said "I'm gonna rape you" than I probably reply with something like "go fuck yourself".
I wonder if I'd recieve rape threats if I were to impersonate being a female? (just Hypotheticals here)
That being said I hardly ever argue with anyone so badly that it gets to just hurling insults at each other. There's no point in that. It's a game. The main point is to play it for fun. And I play MOBA games like DOTA and LeaugeOfLegends which have some of the most asshat, know it all communities in them.
What specifically did she do that you are labeling "trolling"? I want to make sure we're on the same page.
The gaming community is full of trolls. How can you stop assholes from acting like assholes? especially on the internet, where they think it's their god given right to be able to anonymously be as much of a dick as possible.
Rape threats over the internet I assume. Men aren't as offended or scared of rape threats. If I had an argument with someone in a game and they said "I'm gonna rape you" than I probably reply with something like "go fuck yourself".
Which is again saying nothing about how a woman perceives a rape threat -- not just a threat, but by people taking her image and virtually raping it in front of her, posting her personal information online, etc? So that someone COULD exploit and rape her if they got a hold of it?
I'm not sure what argument you're making here, so far you haven't really addressed my complaint.
It doesn't justify anything nor am I trying to justify anything. I'm saying It's a pointless thing to try and achieve. Which is what I find modern feminism to be, pretty pointless. Their time, effort and resources would be used so much better in third world countries for humanitarian aid or feminism (the liberation of oppressed women in third world countries).
Which is again saying nothing about how a woman perceives a rape threat -- not just a threat, but by people taking her image and virtually raping it in front of her, posting her personal information online, etc? So that someone COULD exploit and rape her if they got a hold of it?
Women, like all people, should react to any given situation on it's own terms. I'm saying general rape threats on the internet should be taken in as trolling. The other bit though, is nothing like trolling and people (this could potentially happen to both men and women, be it rape, assault or murder) should take caution in keeping their anonymity preserved. This is a potential threat for any gender, I don't know why it's a feminist issue. More like an issue for the police at this point.
It was, but I'm gaming tonight and can't watch vids -- I'm just reading online when it's not my turn.
I plan to watch it later, just to make sure I have a decent sense of how and what she is saying.
It doesn't justify anything nor am I trying to justify anything. I'm saying It's a pointless thing to try and achieve. Which is what I find modern feminism to be, pretty pointless. Their time, effort and resources would be used so much better in third world countries for humanitarian aid or feminism (the liberation of oppressed women in third world countries).
I think people fight for causes they happen to believe in. Why do you post on this forum to share your knowledge and not somewhere else, or invest your energy in more effective pursuits? You do it because you want to, and because you believe in it. She is investing her energy in something she caress about as well.
You do sound like you are making an argument: It's needless for her to invest her energy in this particular cause, even if she believes in it, so she should expect to have people threaten her safety by posting her personal information only after being bombarded with images of her being raped. Otherwise I'm not sure why you are making these points at all, if they serve no purpose in the discussion.
Women, like all people, should react to any given situation on it's own terms. I'm saying general rape threats on the internet should be taken in as trolling.
Again, it ceased to be trolling once people were trying to publish her person information online. How can you possibly assume that these people who see no problem with creating and posting images of her being beaten and raped would NOT take advantage of her personal information? There are enough crazies in the world and enough anger for someone to do something stupid... and how can she trust that no one would?
The other bit though, is nothing like trolling and people (this could potentially happen to both men and women, be it rape, assault or murder) should take caution in keeping their anonymity preserved. This is a potential threat for any gender, I don't know why it's a feminist issue. More like an issue for the police at this point.
sure. The police and court orders always do a wonderful job of protecting a person from the crazies. Typically they're there to clean up the mess after the crazy violates the order. A whole word of gamers, but it only takes one to ruin her life.
And as I said above, I don't think it's typical for men to be threatened with graphic images of themselves being raped and to fear being raped. They are not typically the target of men who rape as an act of violence, and they are not typically targeted just because they are men. If she was a man, I really doubt she would be receiving images of being raped by other men. Hence, it's because she is a woman. Hence, it's a feminist issue. It's a punishment that these men directed at a woman because she is a woman.
I'm trying. Maybe you're writing in code? No, seriously though I am trying. Try to tell me exactly what it is you want to hear.
I don't know how much more explicit I can make it. Honestly. I'm even kind of shocked you're telling me to be more explicit. I've explained it all, and I think you're only not getting it because you can't imagine what it's like to be her in this situation. You don't really understand what it's like to be vulnerable and to seriously be a target of violence and rape when you're a woman.
The criticism of video games that contain very sexual or otherwise stereotypical women seems strange in that it views the aforementioned women as women, and specifically symbolic, normative statements of what women are and should be, rather than as very sexual people whose gender merely reflects that of the video game's intended audience (young males). Seeing all female characters as such might be a property of the "professional victim" criticism in that it declares an affront to women any sexual female video character and thereby intends an effect that eerily resembles that of 1950s censorship.
Being a hobby writer of fiction and avidly reading TV Tropes has increased my awareness of the challenges that male writers face in fairly portraying female characters or women in general. Many of them are simple blunders--Women Are Wiser, Women Are Delicate, Damsel in Distress--but others are paradoxes and double standards that are imposed from without. If I say that a female character brings tea to a male character, then readers instantly cry "Housewife!" but a male character who does so for a female character is just a nice person or good friend; in other words, many feminist readers look upon women as not just people who happen to be female, but women. Such criticisms greatly frustrate me when a female character is actually a nice person who has been for months trying to convince her male friend that the tea will help him.
Or perhaps the case of injuries and healing. If I have a female character heal a male character, then readers cry out, "Sappy, doting girl!" and if I have the reverse, then they cry. "Useless, idiot girl!". Either way, the female character is derided for doing something that no-one would find offensive if a male were healing a male. In fact, a story of a combat medic named John sprinting through machine gun fire to rescue a wounded grenadier named Dave is a tale of heroic altruism, but if Dave were Darcy, then all of a sudden we have a reviled tale of a damsel in distress being rescued by a white knight. So what's an author to do? Leave his female characters to die? And may better judgment forbid me from ever writing about a cowardly female character: every girl has to be brave! In other words, we become so fixated on the symbol that we forget its meaning and subsequently help perpetuate the very concepts that we wish to eliminate.
Finally, men are usually simply more sexually visual than women are, and they can be aroused by a girl whom they've only seen once. Should they therefore harass and mistreat attractive women with catcalls or other such deeds? No! Being visually aroused is natural, while objectifying indicates a lack of respect. Hence, we should look not as much at how sexy female characters are, but at how males treat them and how these actions are portrayed. Further, we should strive not to look at all female characters as women but as people unless many female tropes come into play lest we become obsessed with gender and lose sight of greater messages.
Dux... I do empathize with your comments about tropes, and I think sometimes people can overanalyze and find fault with everything. There are blatant abuses of stereotypes, and there are abuses that can be read into anything that aren't really abuses.
i think the hallmark of a decent piece of writing or story is that you don't even really think or have the idea of a stereotype run across one's mind. For example, if one wanted to rip apart Lost, one could try to pigeonhole many of the female characters (Kate's a weak-willed runner, Juliette is a kind of whimsical healer, etc.) Then again, the women do pass the test of having things to talk about besides the men... they have their own lives .... but my main point is that you don't even really THINK about checking to see if they are just tropes because they seem real to start with.
It's only when the female characters are shallow to start with, or they seem to be tokens, or they're all glammed up as eye candy, that you start to also analyze them as possible tropes.
I watched the video above when I got home a bit ago.
Things that ran through my mind as I watched:
1. Where did the $156,000 dollars go? What did she do with it? Why hasn't she made more videos? And what purpose do the videos serve?
2. Where can I find more information that might be a little more unbiased, since it's clear the maker of the video above is not a fan and is picking and choosing what to show? And why did RaBind pick this video out of all the possible ones to "inform" me of the situation? if I were wanting to inform someone about the situation, I would have tried to pick something that fairly expressed the opinion of both sides... or offered a video from each perspective to balance things out. The choice of video bothers me, and now I have to go do more research.
3. Why are they showing Tomb Raider, out of all things, a few times, in this video (played in a nice cozy living room by a sedate male who is blurred out) as an example of female exploitation? Was this a choice of hers or a choice of the critic who created the above video as a way to downplay the claims being made? (Lara Croft is in some ways a trope, but enough of her own woman that she never bothered me... aside from the unrealistic size of her breasts in the first few releases. I think there are far more extreme examples if someone wants to complain about video games.)
4. Why is the narrator so extreme in his own views? The reality, in my experience, has been somewhere in the middle. I mostly play MMOs (in terms of games where I interact with other gamers), and I have female friends who play MMOs. The attitudes can change depending on the game, and they also change depending on whether you're playing PVE, PVP, or raids. I've seen environments where men and women play cohesively and supportively. I've seen environments where females are verbally harassed in the chat window and have female friends who actually play male characters in order to avoid said harassment -- which can consistent of everything from being abused in the negative to being chased and smothered and catered to as a woman when she just wants to be treated like any other player. I also have trans friends who have been harassed for being trans -- to the degree where gamers have followed them to OTHER SERVERS to continue the harassment, if they can figure out who she is. But again, not every gamer does this; in fact lots of gamers are cool. You just never quite know who you'll run into. Basically there are some good apples and there are some bad apples.
In other words, I need to do more research on this particular person and the dynamics here before I can feel more confident in my assessment... aside from the things I said before about threatening someone you don't like with rape. I don't understand why someone would think that was acceptable, or downplay it as a "fake threat."
Dux... I do empathize with your comments about tropes, and I think sometimes people can overanalyze and find fault with everything. There are blatant abuses of stereotypes, and there are abuses that can be read into anything that aren't really abuses.
Perhaps the late hour is making me punchy, but aww, thanks. Your words were like the softest hug.
i think the hallmark of a decent piece of writing or story is that you don't even really think or have the idea of a stereotype run across one's mind. For example, if one wanted to rip apart Lost, one could try to pigeonhole many of the female characters (Kate's a weak-willed runner, Juliette is a kind of whimsical healer, etc.) Then again, the women do pass the test of having things to talk about besides the men... they have their own lives .... but my main point is that you don't even really THINK about checking to see if they are just tropes because they seem real to start with.
Precisely. Great literature can be written about a housewife or damsel in distress.
It's only when the female characters are shallow to start with, or they seem to be tokens, or they're all glammed up as eye candy, that you start to also analyze them as possible tropes.
In less regulated or unregulated male domains men regularly engage in such behaviour where they are insulting other men. It is a social ritual which establishes bonds and hierarchy withing groups. I have witnessed and experienced this in competitive and casual settings. Both playing (sports, martial arts, computer games, etc.) and casual environments. I can not remember a single occasion where I am hanging out with male friends and we have not engaged in insulting each other. Depending on which group of friends I am with, the type and intensity of insults vary. If a guy is black, he is made fun of for being black. If a guy is tall, he is made fun of for being tall. If a guy is smart, he is made fun of for being smart. If a guy is more masculine than the norm, he is made fun of for it. This is the nature of the domain. Sometimes the jokes are grotesque as accusations that one individual is going to rape another. My female friend's jokes about each other are certainly more reserved when in my company but I know for a fact that they can be just as brutal with each other in terms of their jokes and insults. Regardless, it is banter and most men and women I know accept it as what it is. Some of my female friends jokingly said that they were going to rape me on many occasions. What must be highlighted is the joke. Occasionally we find our selves in a situation where a person has encountered a domain they're unaccustomed to and become all whimsical due to not taking into account the social rituals and norms of that domain. In recent times this has taken route as feminist activist manifestations. People are getting tired of it.
After feminists accusations of sexism, rape apology, all men rape, men are borne to rape, patriarchy, yes doesn't mean yes, always sexuality women regardless of what ever the hell the interaction is about, her giving you consent does not mean you're not raping her, etc. have been institutionalized in recent years, a lot of people are going to see their actions as not the ideal they purport they're upholding. Pointing out that feminists be crazy and institutions are adopting the crazy raises the ire of feminists. In response they continue to purport their ideal when it is no longer manifest. What in the world are outsiders to be believe? If outsiders are going to believe that feminists still purport the ideal, the ideal feminists having a lot of explaining to do...
There's a difference, in the cases you mention there is a mutual understanding in place.
And as Jennywocky pointed out there is a genuine hatred behind the attacks on Sarkesian, people with bulging veins boiling with hatred.
Furthermore, feminism is still young, and it's a reactionary movement. Of course it has a long way to go. The attacks on men that you list are to be taken seriously, but that they would warrant all the hatred is strange.
If such where to be the case then the oppression suffered by women would warrant the irrational elements of their response going by the same rules. Especially considering that theirs is an oppression far greater which has been going on for a far greater period of time.
All I can say is, stop watching YouTube videos as a reference point for arguments.
Secondly, thunderf00t is a biologist, and he's got some good scientific videos. However as a social commentator, he's really not that great. He has his own agenda that he wants to push and he doesn't really seem interested in presenting an unbiased analysis of the entire issue of feminism.
His purpose is really just to debunk idiots, which is fine - it just doesn't get to the heart of the issue.
Feminism is no different to any other issue in that some people just blow things way out of proportion and spread bullshit all over the place.
My advice? Stop having knee-jerk reactions to YouTube videos. Read about why feminism started and thoroughly investigate the concept of gender inequality in western society and investigate specific cases thoroughly. I'd say you're looking at about a month of solid reading.
Well yeah, it is kind of fun how he's so ignorant that he thinks he's addressing feminism as a whole with his blatant cherry picking, all the while being unable to use the correct terminology; thereby, effectively making him largely ignorable.
In less regulated or unregulated male domains men regularly engage in such behaviour where they are insulting other men. It is a social ritual which establishes bonds and hierarchy withing groups. I have witnessed and experienced this in competitive and casual settings. Both playing (sports, martial arts, computer games, etc.) and casual environments. I can not remember a single occasion where I am hanging out with male friends and we have not engaged in insulting each other. Depending on which group of friends I am with, the type and intensity of insults vary. If a guy is black, he is made fun of for being black. If a guy is tall, he is made fun of for being tall. If a guy is smart, he is made fun of for being smart. If a guy is more masculine than the norm, he is made fun of for it. This is the nature of the domain. Sometimes the jokes are grotesque as accusations that one individual is going to rape another. My female friend's jokes about each other are certainly more reserved when in my company but I know for a fact that they can be just as brutal with each other in terms of their jokes and insults. Regardless, it is banter and most men and women I know accept it as what it is. Some of my female friends jokingly said that they were going to rape me on many occasions. What must be highlighted is the joke. Occasionally we find our selves in a situation where a person has encountered a domain they're unaccustomed to and become all whimsical due to not taking into account the social rituals and norms of that domain. In recent times this has taken route as feminist activist manifestations. People are getting tired of it.
I think in general context helps determine how something is perceived.
I think in a known group of friends, one has far more leeway to indulge in social games of insults, even to the degree of joking about rape, and not have it read as something serious. I'm very aware of how guys will get on each other in this way purely as jest, and even females can do so with each other. (Some of my friends and I will call each other bitches just to be funny, and that's at the tame end of things, it gets worse sometimes.) Things get a little more tenuous when the "play" crosses gender lines, although if people know each other and can process the words as a relational/in-group game of sorts, then it still works.
This particular example, though, seems to be outside the established social rules for such speech and behavior, and it certainly does not seem to be motivated by comaraderie. I think it would be helpful for people to consider how their behavior is being viewed by outsiders. I do seem to notice a cultural shift where people are more relaxed but perhaps also more indifferent to what kind of messaging they are putting out and how it is interpreted.
For the record, I'm not really thrilled with a lot of the activist mindset either. I'm more pragmatic and I weary of all the overanalysis which seems to have less validity than notions like subliminal advertising. There are forums I participate in where I typically just avoid threads or leave when the activist crowd goes off on yet one more social deconstruction of cultural behavior; it's not just pointless to engage, but tedious as well.
I think people fight for causes they happen to believe in. Why do you post on this forum to share your knowledge and not somewhere else, or invest your energy in more effective pursuits? You do it because you want to, and because you believe in it. She is investing her energy in something she caress about as well.
It's interesting to me. Aside from the fact that I just like discussions, I think there is something that can be taken from this subject, even if I'm the only one to take it away. So I guess my reason is to learn something? hence asking for other's opinions.
I think her work is different though. She is calling for, and probably expecting, a change in culture to suite her preferences. I'm not expecting that to be honest. I'm not say or arguing that the whole of feminism is bullshit and pointless. I'm saying there are subs in feminism (specifically the radical and professional victim type), that are more detrimental to feminism than anything. You might say that the men's attitudes and backlash is more detrimental than the subs of feminism, but I'd argue that the men's attitudes and backlash towards feminism, was against the subs of feminism.
You do sound like you are making an argument: It's needless for her to invest her energy in this particular cause, even if she believes in it, so she should expect to have people threaten her safety by posting her personal information only after being bombarded with images of her being raped. Otherwise I'm not sure why you are making these points at all, if they serve no purpose in the discussion.
Words sandwich going into my mouth. Nope. I'm not making that argument. My argument is the one on the top "there are subs in feminism (specifically the radical and professional victim type), that are more detrimental to feminism than anything". I believe Anita is the professional victim feminist. She is urging the gaming culture to change because it doesn't suite her preferences. Hence my response that the video games made and published are partly due to the demands (which comes from the higher male ratio), previous sales figures and I realize it's probably also to do with what kind of game the developers want to make. People can't expect game developers to bend over backwards to suite their needs. Duxwing explained this better. Authors shouldn't be limited by what people find offensive. This is the trolling that Anita did. This was the main cause of the backlash from the gaming community. Ok, I've seen the memes and they are pretty brutal, but it's not unexpected of a huge internet community, that has lived it's life in the culture of trolling. There is no off limits in this culture. Your talking about the founders of 2 girls in one cup, and the people that find it funny to post images and videos of brutally murdered and mutilated people, just to see the reactions of others.
(The porn comes from the website/culture Rule34, I advice you not to look. The point of the website is that there is a porn for everything you can think of. It comes from the saying "Rule 34 - If it exists there IS porn of it.")
I'm not saying this makes their behavior acceptable, but that's the way the internet community is. If you want to moderate the internet than you'll have to join the long queue of people, who have already expressed the same thoughts.
I replied to this
Again, it ceased to be trolling once people were trying to publish her person information online. How can you possibly assume that these people who see no problem with creating and posting images of her being beaten and raped would NOT take advantage of her personal information? There are enough crazies in the world and enough anger for someone to do something stupid... and how can she trust that no one would?
The other bit though, is nothing like trolling and people (this could potentially happen to both men and women, be it rape, assault or murder) should take caution in keeping their anonymity preserved. This is a potential threat for any gender, I don't know why it's a feminist issue. More like an issue for the police at this point.
. Essentially I'm saying I can't give you an answer to that. I'm not knowledgeable enough to give advice, but my opinion of it is that it's a crime. It should be dealt with as a crime. You'll have to find information from the police or other group regarding how to keep safe over the internet. Keeping anonymity is probably a useful advice.
sure. The police and court orders always do a wonderful job of protecting a person from the crazies. Typically they're there to clean up the mess after the crazy violates the order. A whole word of gamers, but it only takes one to ruin her life.
I'm sorry to be such an apathetic person, but outspoken people take this risk. I posted videos of several atheists getting the same treatment. Again I don't know what you do at the point that people start giving you death threats (I don't mean over the internet) or you've lost your anonymity. I also don't condone this behavior.
And as I said above, I don't think it's typical for men to be threatened with graphic images of themselves being raped and to fear being raped. They are not typically the target of men who rape as an act of violence, and they are not typically targeted just because they are men. If she was a man, I really doubt she would be receiving images of being raped by other men. Hence, it's because she is a woman. Hence, it's a feminist issue. It's a punishment that these men directed at a woman because she is a woman.
I'm saying men can get raped. It's physically possible. Rape in no different from death threats. They are equally bad and I don't condone or justify either, for any reason. The fact that I say "it was expected", means just and only that. A backlash such as this should've been excepted. And Anita probably did expect it. She used the backlash as proof that the community was sexist and against feminism, when really the backlash was against her and a certain type of feminism, specifically the professional victim type, which Anita is.
I don't know how much more explicit I can make it. Honestly. I'm even kind of shocked you're telling me to be more explicit. I've explained it all, and I think you're only not getting it because you can't imagine what it's like to be her in this situation. You don't really understand what it's like to be vulnerable and to seriously be a target of violence and rape when you're a woman.
Sorry. It was 3 a.m. then. Maybe that's the reason. I can't imagine being a woman let alone being in her situation. I don't understand what it's like to be vulnerable and to seriously be a target of violence and rape. However I don't think whether the person is a man or a women should make a difference. Lots of great women have cause social change in the past, all the while risking their lives and receiving threats. Thatcher is an example. The atheist community was/is in the same position I believe. They face death threats and threats of violence, however limiting the freedom of expression is probably the last thing any atheist would do.
I'm not suggesting moderating the internet btw, but I disagree with that it's just the way the internet is. Or well, in a sense it's true, but these hate campaigns against women nevertheless stand out. It's the same shit that happened to Mary Kirby.
Moreover, the fact that the acts are characterized by misogyny is not insignificant. It's the same with racism and it's the same with homophobia, the racists and the homophobes attack the ethnicity and/or sexual preferences of the person they disagree with, that's the jugular vein they always go for if it's available rather than actual arguments. It's a telltale sign, and in the case of the gamers it shows that there is a great deal of sexism and misogyny needing to be dealt with.
Thus I don't this point of yours holds:
"She used the backlash as proof that the community was sexist and against feminism, when really the backlash was against her and a certain type of feminism, specifically the professional victim type, which Anita is."
And what is a "professional victim type feminist" anyway? The whole point of her trope video was that it is wrong to portray females as though they were passive victims.
You say that nothing will change, and that she expects immediate change, I think neither are true. Her being so naive as to think it realistic that her video would have an immediate effect of changing the mindsets of gamers worldwide is highly unlikely.
And what do you mean her preferences, I'm sure there's quite a lot of people including gamers who would prefer that women be portrayed in a more nuanced way. The tropes are just one example of the sexism that games are riddled with everywhere. You speak of supply and demand. Yet again that's basic that she's probably aware of as well.
It's just that a demand for sexism can only come from people who are sexists. What's she doing is rather urging gamers to think and question this :S
Meh, I don't even like her either, she simplifies and overstates, as I mentioned before. But christ so do sooo many other youtube video makers, very few of which manage to garner the same level of hatred. And I can't deny her points just because she doesn't put them forward in a good way.
I'm not suggesting moderating the internet btw, but I disagree with that it's just the way the internet is. Or well, in a sense it's true, but these hate campaigns against women nevertheless stand out. It's the same shit that happened to Mary Kirby.
Moreover, the fact that the acts are characterized by misogyny is not insignificant. It's the same with rasism and it's the same with homophobia, the racists and the homophobes attack the ethnicity and/or sexual preferences of the person they disagree with, that's the jugular vein they always go for if it's available rather than actual arguments. It's a telltale sign, and in the case of the gamers it shows that there is a great deal of sexism and misogyny needing to be dealt with.
Thus I don't this point of yours holds:
"She used the backlash as proof that the community was sexist and against feminism, when really the backlash was against her and a certain type of feminism, specifically the professional victim type, which Anita is."
And what is a "professional victim type feminist" anyway? The whole point of her trope video was that it was wrong to portray females as though they were passive victims.
You say that nothing will change, and that she expects immediate change, I think neither are true. Her being so naive as to think it realistic that her video would have an immediate effect of changing the mindsets of gamers worldwide is highly unlikely.
And what do you mean her preferences, I'm sure there's quite a lot of people including gamers who would prefer that women be portrayed in a more nuanced way. The tropes are just one example of the sexism that games are riddled with everywhere. You speak of supply and demand. Yet again that's basic that she's probably aware of as well.
It's just that a demand for sexism can only come from people who are sexists. What's she doing is rather urging gamers to think and question this :S
Meh, I don't even like her either, she simplifies and overstates, as I mentioned before. But christ so do sooo many other youtube video makers, very few of which manage to garner the same level of hatred. And I can't deny her points just because she doesn't put them forward in a good way.
The conclusion of her reasoning is therefore that no passive victim should ever be female (oddly enough, all passive victims would therefore have to be male or genderless--a strange, enforced sexism). Further, she could be a professional victim feminist and surrounded by misogyny.
What? That is hardly her point, but the fact that she's getting that interpretation is why she isn't very good at what she's doing what with using bad examples and rambles on with example after example without bringing any overarching logic into play.
Edit: But it's also strange how the gaming males assume that she's polarizing and dealing in absolutes; people jump the strawman, no one takes a moment to think and interpret. Another tell tale sign, the subject is very heated for some reason.
Tropes are necessary plot devices that have been in use since the dawn of man. The issue is that females portray them like 10x more than males do all the while being portrayed 10x less as independent and powerful (figures pulled out my ass, point is the frequency though).
I can only find the term professional victim feminist in dubious places when I google and the its definition seems to be someone who isn't a rabid feminist but still an annoying fuck and a feminist. What makes her a professional victim feminist? I really don't see it.
I mean it's hard not to be a victim in a sense when you're coming from below.
Edit2: Actually watching her video, there's really nothing to justify your interpretation. You assume too much and know too little of what feminism is about.
I think this differs on the situation. On the internet it's pretty standard to do just that. In reality it's rude and offensive so social norms make it less common. In the media (magazinges, music videos, movies, books...) I think it's the author's choice. Sure, they will asses the market beforehand, if they're business focused. I don't think it's alright either but I think it's heavily influenced by capitalism, the culture of the internet and men's biology depending on where and what you're looking at.
Being visually aroused is natural, while objectifying indicates a lack of respect. Hence, we should look not as much at how sexy female characters are, but at how males treat them and how these actions are portrayed. Further, we should strive not to look at all female characters as women but as people unless many female tropes come into play lest we become obsessed with gender and lose sight of greater messages.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think objectifying women is born out of male sexual frustration. The need for sexual relief and the failure to find a partner, or disappointments with relationships, leads to men just wanting sex without the personal attachment.
I don't know. I'm sure her backers would like to know too. There are already many threads and discussions, on and outside youtube, that suggest she is a conartist.
2. Where can I find more information that might be a little more unbiased, since it's clear the maker of the video above is not a fan and is picking and choosing what to show? And why did RaBind pick this video out of all the possible ones to "inform" me of the situation? if I were wanting to inform someone about the situation, I would have tried to pick something that fairly expressed the opinion of both sides... or offered a video from each perspective to balance things out. The choice of video bothers me, and now I have to go do more research.
Find it on youtube? I know you are probably sick of youtube at this point, but I think it's a open arena for the discussion of ideas, and that the better ideas are generally popular there. Well I think she has her own website if you wanna see her side. Watch the original videos, I'm sure I posted them above.
Well there are lot's of refutes for feminist frequency. I just thought that thunderf00t has already had a lot of experience dealing with advocates against the freedom of expression, so I thought he'd do a good job. There's also The Amazing Atheist's refute video. Main reason probably is because I listen to them talk a lot about religion and other stuff. I usually agree with them and I pretty much agree with them on this too.
If you're gonna take another/a closer look at this, that's one of my reasons for posting this on here completed. I didn't post this stuff here to convince everyone or anyone to accept the anti-feminist side of the argument. I actually want people to take a closer or another inspection of the arguments at hand. Than we can discuss your/my views.
3. Why are they showing Tomb Raider, out of all things, a few times, in this video (played in a nice cozy living room by a sedate male who is blurred out) as an example of female exploitation? Was this a choice of hers or a choice of the critic who created the above video as a way to downplay the claims being made? (Lara Croft is in some ways a trope, but enough of her own woman that she never bothered me... aside from the unrealistic size of her breasts in the first few releases. I think there are far more extreme examples if someone wants to complain about video games.)
4. Why is the narrator so extreme in his own views? The reality, in my experience, has been somewhere in the middle. I mostly play MMOs (in terms of games where I interact with other gamers), and I have female friends who play MMOs. The attitudes can change depending on the game, and they also change depending on whether you're playing PVE, PVP, or raids. I've seen environments where men and women play cohesively and supportively. I've seen environments where females are verbally harassed in the chat window and have female friends who actually play male characters in order to avoid said harassment -- which can consistent of everything from being abused in the negative to being chased and smothered and catered to as a woman when she just wants to be treated like any other player. I also have trans friends who have been harassed for being trans -- to the degree where gamers have followed them to OTHER SERVERS to continue the harassment, if they can figure out who she is. But again, not every gamer does this; in fact lots of gamers are cool. You just never quite know who you'll run into. Basically there are some good apples and there are some bad apples.
I don't think a game is where you should share you're personal information. The trolling community is one that will use your personal information against you, to make their insults and threats as personal as possible, to high the chances of eliciting responses from you.
I'm a guy and when I see female characters in a game, I'm more likely to assume that it's a guy than a girl playing. Many guys play girls characters and impersonate being female to gain advantage of other players. If they figure out who she is than the situation has already gone out of hand.
In other words, I need to do more research on this particular person and the dynamics here before I can feel more confident in my assessment... aside from the things I said before about threatening someone you don't like with rape. I don't understand why someone would think that was acceptable, or downplay it as a "fake threat."
Because it's everywhere. It's generally better to be safe than sorry, but if being safe is going to stop you from functioning effectively than you need to work out a risk&gain system so see how best you can function, without being completely in danger.
It's part of what comes with your own anonymity, other people's anonymity. So if they wish to be assholes they can do so anonymously.
In less regulated or unregulated male domains men regularly engage in such behaviour where they are insulting other men. It is a social ritual which establishes bonds and hierarchy withing groups. I have witnessed and experienced this in competitive and casual settings. Both playing (sports, martial arts, computer games, etc.) and casual environments. I can not remember a single occasion where I am hanging out with male friends and we have not engaged in insulting each other. Depending on which group of friends I am with, the type and intensity of insults vary. If a guy is black, he is made fun of for being black. If a guy is tall, he is made fun of for being tall. If a guy is smart, he is made fun of for being smart. If a guy is more masculine than the norm, he is made fun of for it. This is the nature of the domain. Sometimes the jokes are grotesque as accusations that one individual is going to rape another. My female friend's jokes about each other are certainly more reserved when in my company but I know for a fact that they can be just as brutal with each other in terms of their jokes and insults. Regardless, it is banter and most men and women I know accept it as what it is. Some of my female friends jokingly said that they were going to rape me on many occasions. What must be highlighted is the joke. Occasionally we find our selves in a situation where a person has encountered a domain they're unaccustomed to and become all whimsical due to not taking into account the social rituals and norms of that domain. In recent times this has taken route as feminist activist manifestations. People are getting tired of it.
After feminists accusations of sexism, rape apology, all men rape, men are borne to rape, patriarchy, yes doesn't mean yes, always sexuality women regardless of what ever the hell the interaction is about, her giving you consent does not mean you're not raping her, etc. have been institutionalized in recent years, a lot of people are going to see their actions as not the ideal they purport they're upholding. Pointing out that feminists be crazy and institutions are adopting the crazy raises the ire of feminists. In response they continue to purport their ideal when it is no longer manifest. What in the world are outsiders to be believe? If outsiders are going to believe that feminists still purport the ideal, the ideal feminists having a lot of explaining to do...
This is precisely correct. Much better explained I'd say. Much of the gaming community and trolling community overlap, so if you get a large number of trolls attacking you when you're trolling the gaming community, it's not all that surprising. I mean I was watching and commenting in the comment section of this
video. I was rationally trying to debate people about the point of the video and then a wave of comments, generally going "fuck feminism", flood the comment section. Apparently at that time, someone had posted the video on 4chan. Obviously the 4chan community, being what it is, came to insult and troll the video.
Much of the male interaction style explained above is magnified on the internet. Especially in certain social sites. The general agreement among users of such sites is to expect anything.
There's a difference, in the cases you mention there is a mutual understanding in place.
And as Jennywocky pointed out there is a genuine hatred behind the attacks on Sarkesian, people with bulging veins boiling with hatred.
I'd call them troll. She herself called them trolls, at the end of the thunderf00t's video.
She differentiated trolls from a real predators by saying trolls are usually in one to one discussions, and what she was attacked by was a mob of angry trolls, some which who working together. This is wrong trolls are trolls, whether it is one or many. Plus this isn't the first time a bunch of trolls victimized someone for making stupid claims or just doing stupid things. (Example Rebecca Black, Justin Bieber, Twilight and it's actors, Shirley Phelps, Kate Lacey...)
Furthermore, feminism is still young, and it's a reactionary movement. Of course it has a long way to go. The attacks on men that you list are to be taken seriously, but that they would warrant all the hatred is strange.
Not strange. It's standard. When you give trolls something to be angry about, they will troll passionately. I know her attack was weak compared to what the trolls are doing, but I don't justify what the trolls are doing. Especially not the threats. I'm just saying it was predictable.
If such where to be the case then the oppression suffered by women would warrant the irrational elements of their response going by the same rules. Especially considering that theirs is an oppression far greater which has been going on for a far greater period of time.
Correct. And Radical feminism WAS necessary for a long time. However, now that women have the same basic rights that men do, including the freedom of expression, radical feminism is no longer necessary, nor it is justified.
All I can say is, stop watching YouTube videos as a reference point for arguments.
Secondly, thunderf00t is a biologist, and he's got some good scientific videos. However as a social commentator, he's really not that great. He has his own agenda that he wants to push and he doesn't really seem interested in presenting an unbiased analysis of the entire issue of feminism.
His purpose is really just to debunk idiots, which is fine - it just doesn't get to the heart of the issue.
Feminism is no different to any other issue in that some people just blow things way out of proportion and spread bullshit all over the place.
My advice? Stop having knee-jerk reactions to YouTube videos. Read about why feminism started and thoroughly investigate the concept of gender inequality in western society and investigate specific cases thoroughly. I'd say you're looking at about a month of solid reading.
Noted. It's just that I thought, since he did a lot of debates with religious nut jobs, he'd or atheist speakers would be very good at identifying bullshit and arguing for the freedom of speech. He debunked Anita Sarkeesian, who I, and probably some others, believe is a con-artist and a professional victim feminist. This is the exact type of feminism and publicity to feminism that is detrimental to more moderate and rational feminism, is how I thought we were getting to the heart of the issue.
Trolls cant hate? Semantics. I've never said it was not predictable either.
And this:
Correct. And Radical feminism WAS necessary for a long time. However, now that women have the same basic rights that men do, including the freedom of expression, radical feminism is no longer necessary, nor it is justified.
I know I'm being an asshole now but there's no point for me to discuss with you if you think that all is good because women are legally on par with men. Again: Redbarons point is apparent. Youtube is not a proper arena for discussion in general, and in the case of this subject it is a disastrously shity one.
You wouldn't see too many women protesting violently when men open car doors for them. But they'll raise a loud hue and cry when reports show that women earn less than men because they know the outcry could potentially cause their salaries to be raised.
Similarly, you don't see too many women in the western or even east Asian world caring very much about the fact that many middle eastern women are unable to vote. That's because it's not their rights which are being affected.
Why do feminist professors et al continue doing what they're doing and saying what they're saying? They're getting paid, that's why. If you set up a computer science school with an all female faculty they wouldn't care about feminist ideology because that wouldn't advance their careers.
What? That is hardly her point, but the fact that she's getting that interpretation is why she isn't very good at what she's doing what with using bad examples and rambles on with example after example without bringing any overarching logic into play. Edit: But it's also strange how the gaming males assume that she's polarizing and dealing in absolutes; people jump the strawman, no one takes a moment to think and interpret. Another tell tale sign, the subject is very heated for some reason.
Now you're saying that you know her point better than she does or presents.
Tropes are necessary plot devices that have been in use since the dawn of man. The issue is that females portray them like 10x more than males do all the while being portrayed 10x less as independent and powerful (figures pulled out my ass, point is the frequency though).
Males and females equally often participate in tropes in general; many of the male-specific ones are so prevalent as to be implied, e.g.
--A Real Man is a Killer
--A Man is Not a Virgin
--Men Are Tough
The last one is especially problematic because it not only isn't a human-scale standard, but it interacts with the girl-power zeitgeist to become the standard by which we judge the strength of all characters. Visually:
<---F----N----------------M--->
Where W represents the average toughness, power, and independence (TPI) of female characters, N represents the average TPI of real people, and M, the average TPI of male characters. The enduring presence of Men Are Tough throughout the history of mankind has slowly yet steadily eroded our concept of how tough, powerful, and independent an average male is and replaced it with a hyper-masculine, ultra-tough superman. Although the TPIs female characters were, on average, far below average, the advent of Girl Power in response to the male-female toughness discrepancy has brought them far closer to the average of real people while those of male characters remain still.
Writers should not therefore categorically raise the TPIs of their female characters the impossible levels of male ones, but rather write both their normal male and normal female characters (in other words, such deliberately created super-beings as Wonder Woman excluded) as closely to the norm as possible while acknowledging that the average real human male is somewhat larger, stronger, and more aggressive than the average real human female and that accurate literature should reflect this slight sexual dimorphism. Outliers should still exist, however, to reflect that not everyone is normal.
I can only find the term professional victim feminist in dubious places when I google and the its definition seems to be someone who isn't a rabid feminist but still an annoying fuck and a feminist. What makes her a professional victim feminist? I really don't see it. I mean it's hard not to be a victim in a sense when you're coming from below.
That's the problem: a professional victim constantly perceives themselves as being oppressed by everything. Open a door for them, for instance, and they'll feel that you insulted their strength. Professional victims need not be feminist.
This site uses cookies to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies. We have no personalisation nor analytics --- especially no Google.
Your words were like the softest hug.
