No, I know it because unlike you guys my view of feminism doesn't come from angry male atheists. You're the one making assumptions, Why would she not be speaking of overarching structures and tendencies? Why would she be dealing in absolutes only? The only explanation is you're not really familiar with feminism, or being autistic in absurdum.
And, now you're going by some weird fiction has to reflect reality argument that I don't get. Man stop being so categorical. You don't need to follow your own logic to it's ultimate ending point when it's just impractical. If were talking games your argument simply doesn't hold up, people want to play heroes, there's no need to change that, instead of making everyone ordinary avg people, just grant both sexes the same unrealistic powers.
Finally, that doesn't make Anita Sarkesian a professional victim. No one here has bothered explaining why she is one.
Here's a summary of what you guys think:
"Anita Sarkesian thinks that all games released after her youtube video should contain no female tropes whatsoever, and she thinks this is realistic"
None of the above is true. And I don't understand how you could even make such an interpretation of it.
Her video is just not good. Her point is obvious as fuck disregarding the fact that its overshot and simplified with bad examples being used.
But because of the subject matter and because of her sex, people get pissed and start assuming a bunch of shit.
No, I know it because unlike you guys my view of feminism doesn't come from angry male atheists. You're the one making assumptions, Why would she not be speaking of overarching structures and tendencies? Why would she be dealing in absolutes only? The only explanation is you're not really familiar with feminism, or being autistic in absurdum.
Just a little while back you said that she didn't connect her examples with overarching logic: if you're so good at interpreting her statements that you can see beneath her stated arguments, then why do you disagree with yourself?
And, now you're going by some weird fiction has to reflect reality argument that I don't get. Man stop being so categorical. You don't need to follow your own logic to it's ultimate ending point when it's just impractical. If were talking games your argument simply doesn't hold up, people want to play heroes, there's no need to change that, instead of making everyone ordinary avg people, just grant both sexes the same unrealistic powers.
Fiction that intends to realistically portray human sexes should be as I described; sure, if you want a hero, then make them anything that you want to be--female included. Having most heroes be male is somewhat silly.
By declaring at an arbitrary point that following your own premises is "not practical," you willfully ignore their inconvenient, unfortunate, and nonetheless real implications.
Finally, that doesn't make Anita Sarkesian a professional victim. No one here has bothered explaining why she is one.
Here's a summary of what you guys think:
"Anita Sarkesian thinks that all games released after her youtube video should contain no female tropes whatsoever, and she thinks this is realistic"
None of the above is true. And I don't understand how you could even make such an interpretation of it.
Your interpretation of the statement is separate from the statement itself.
Her video is just not good. Her point is obvious as fuck disregarding the fact that its overshot and simplified with bad examples being used.
But because of the subject matter and because of her sex, people get pissed and start assuming a bunch of shit.
We're all pretty calm around here as far as I can tell, though you seem quite angry. We should hold her to her words lest we endlessly reinterpret them, and her words seem to be what you said that they were not.
In a sense, attacking these feminist tropes is missing an effective target, since they are a reflection of misunderstanding, which is typical in any controversy. It's missing the real target in the same way as attacking the explicit content of rap music.
The loudest and most absurd feminists become the face of feminism and the straw men they make easy to perpetuate. If feminists have anyone to attack in any constructive way, it's their own PR campaign and the outliers in their movement that have become their face.
The woman in the above video is more likely to remind male viewers of a belligerent sister or mother (based on the eye rolling and things like that) than someone they'll want to listen to. She actually provides a really good projective target as well as a good target for simple frustration ( a sense of male impotence ameliorated through absurdly aggressive and condescending internet personalities), based on her age, attractiveness, condescension, etc. I haven't seen all her videos, but she may want to explore this without the eye rolling.
If feminists want to get anywhere with people, attacking their favorite television shows won't do much. Creating entertaining television shows of their own, however, that intertwine accurate feminist ideology, while perhaps mocking and thereby distancing themselves from straw feminists, may be more effective.
In this way, they'd be affirming some male perceptions that are the result of some observations that are accurate, all while insisting that these observations are not generalizable to feminism as a whole.
More projection analysis:
I wonder about some feminists. Are some of them projecting, but just in the opposite direction from culturally feminine women? In wanting to be strong and independent, they've alienated their capacity for traditionally feminine helplessness, project it onto these tropes perpetuated by others, where they despise them.
We all have our own sense of acceptable identities to maintain. Some feminists, in trying to maintain strong and independent identities, may be attempting to render other female identities inaccurate so as to ameliorate their own doubts in regards to their independent and strong identities because their identities may not be as independent or strong as they'd like them to be.
Just a little while back you said that she didn't connect her examples with overarching logic: if you're so good at interpreting her statements that you can see beneath her stated arguments, then why do you disagree with yourself?
Fiction that intends to realistically portray human sexes should be as I described; sure, if you want a hero, then make them anything that you want to be--female included. Having most heroes be male is somewhat silly.
By declaring at an arbitrary point that following your own premises is "not practical," you willfully ignore their inconvenient, unfortunate, and nonetheless real implications.
Your interpretation of the statement is separate from the statement itself.
We're all pretty calm around here as far as I can tell, though you seem quite angry. We should hold her to her words lest we endlessly reinterpret them, and her words seem to be what you said that they were not.
You need to stop reading everything so literally. I meant that she didn't give overarching logic much prominence.
And yeah there's no denying it I get irritated too easily. Atm I'm hypomanic as well which just makes it worse.
You also tend to engage in what seems to me like sophistry with your posts which are often long, intricate, and hard (at least for me) to connect to the actual subject being discussed, which adds too it.
"Fiction that intends to realistically portray human sexes should be as I described; sure, if you want a hero, then make them anything that you want to be--female included. Having most heroes be male is somewhat silly.
By declaring at an arbitrary point that following your own premises is "not practical," you willfully ignore their inconvenient, unfortunate, and nonetheless real implications."
I don't get what the above is about or what point is being made.
Your interpretation of the statement is separate from the statement itself.
You also tend to engage in what seems to me like sophistry with your posts which are often long, intricate, and hard (at least for me) to connect to the actual subject being discussed, which adds too it.
"Fiction that intends to realistically portray human sexes should be as I described; sure, if you want a hero, then make them anything that you want to be--female included. Having most heroes be male is somewhat silly.
I forgot a "however," after the semicolon. I meant that intentionally realistic characters should have accurate sexes while unrealistic characters need not. E.g., Superman is not a man, but rather a male Kryptonian.
By declaring at an arbitrary point that following your own premises is "not practical," you willfully ignore their inconvenient, unfortunate, and nonetheless real implications."
I was referring to your hand-waving that eliminating all helpless characters who happen to be female on the grounds that such characters are an insult to egalitarianism would leave only male and sexless helpless characters; such a result would also be unequal.
Your interpretation of the statement is separate from the statement itself.
I was pointing out that you contradicted yourself by saying that she overshot and is not a professional victim: while we may be able to glean some knowledge from her words, they remain hyperbolic.
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'm not sure myself, but it sounds like at least one viable pathway. Also, at this point in life, I think I see personal energy as a limited resource, and energy that is being channeled in one way isn't getting channeled elsewhere. We can channel it into work, hobbies, relationships, parenting, or whatever else, but the reality is that it is not a limitless pool. Gamers spend a lot of time gaming, sometimes all their free time outside of working to pay bills, at the expense of other pursuits. I could see people frustrated with relationships investing that pool of energy into games, but you can't escape the underlying disappointments. Gaming is easier than relationships, the goals and pathways to reach said goals are more obvious and achievable IMO, but it doesn't remove the underlying frustrations in the neglected areas of life and that tension has to come out somewhere.
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.
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.
Not sure "popularity" means better, it just mean it resonates more with the demographic of people who see YouTube as a viable channel of information. It's more a matter of how much interest I can maintain in the subject, apart from wanting to respond to the "rape threats" thing in this thread. The rest just seems to be typical whine-and-moan pissing matches, frankly.
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.
Okay. I do listen to AA's vids, when I get around to it, so I'd be interested to hear what he said to say. I usually agree with where he's coming from.
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.
Well, like I said, I don't know if I care enough beyond what I've already brought up about the unacceptable public behavior (due to context differences) needing to be changed to continue to research in detail, I have other things in life I'm more interested in and only a fixed pool of energy. So we'll see.
Idk why they choose to show Lara Croft or blur the guy in the background playing. It was on CNN, so I guess it was CNN that decided to do that.
If that was the case, it was typical half-assed mainstream media not bothering to really understand the topic they were doing a newscast about, IMO. Just kind of pathetic.
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.
it's always a risk in any public forum. even on forums like this one, people tend to obscure any truly public identifying information; and on the type forums I've been on, posting identifying information about another member will typically earn you an infraction + removal of said post, let alone a more serious action up to and including banning from the forum. Why? Because it creates an unsafe atmosphere that dissuades people from participating. Now consider someone publicizing personal information about a disliked public figure to the world in general; it's harassment and intimidation, to me, meant to scare someone into shutting up, and shouldn't be part of any actual mature dialogue... let alone the actual threat being generated.
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.
There are likely more women gamers nowadays than you suspect, especially as Gen Y and younger women grow up and can fund their own gametime, gender roles have loosened up and gender interests are far broader than when I was growing up; but yes, a fair number are guys... even if it's just because of the, "If I'm going to stare at a butt all day, I want it to be a female one," perspective. Or it could be downright exploitation. I'm wary of making assumptions about a particular player just because of character gender alone.
I don't think that's a viable excuse for the behavior. It's a concern to consider, but never an excuse.
Public figures have gotten popped before, for making large numbers of enemies over causes they believe in, but it's never an excuse for that violence or threat of it, and I think it says something bad about the antagonists and also undermines their own opinions, if they cannot even handle open dialogue on an issue without resorting to threat AND actual violence.
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 would be interesting if people actually got lists and started posting the names of these trolls publicly as well, to see how they appreciated it. Started losing their jobs and sources of income because of what they were doing in their spare time, etc. Be under some level of threat themselves. People do dumb-ass things when they feel invulnerable, and sometimes that includes bullying and abusing others because they don't think they can be touched.
Was it stated how people got a hold of her personal information? I mean, if she's speaking out boldly in public venues, people don't even need to know if she was playing characters in games. Some gamers are computer-savvy and I'm sure they could hack their way around and dig it up; it's only a matter of time.
EDIT: I just saw your other post, and I don't know how much of that <<bullshit>> I even would want to bother to address. For just one issue, does "Men can get raped too" have ANYTHING to do with the reality that women are typically the rape victims of men (versus other men) and typically being weaker and smaller than said man of same age and race are much more vulnerable? That it's typically men who slip date rape drugs into women's drinks? That a woman has to think about where and when she wants to walk at night, especially if alone, where a man can just blithely go to his car in a dark parking lot without thinking twice about it, typically?
(Have you ever actually had to reconsider going somewhere or doing something just because of the higher risk that you could be raped? Seriously? Is it even a concern for you?)
The post I responded to has more lucid points, but comments like that in your earlier post (and some of the other points) just really leave me rolling my eyes. It tells me you don't really get it, because you've never HAD to get it. Your experience is still abstracted on this matter, rather than something you've had to actively consider.
EDIT: I just saw your other post, and I don't know how much of that <<bullshit>> I even would want to bother to address. For just one issue, does "Men can get raped too" have ANYTHING to do with the reality that women are typically the rape victims of men (versus other men) and typically being weaker and smaller than said man of same age and race are much more vulnerable? That it's typically men who slip date rape drugs into women's drinks? That a woman has to think about where and when she wants to walk at night, especially if alone, where a man can just blithely go to his car in a dark parking lot without thinking twice about it, typically?
(Have you ever actually had to reconsider going somewhere or doing something just because of the higher risk that you could be raped? Seriously? Is it even a concern for you?)
The post I responded to has more lucid points, but comments like that in your earlier post (and some of the other points) just really leave me rolling my eyes. It tells me you don't really get it, because you've never HAD to get it. Your experience is still abstracted on this matter, rather than something you've had to actively consider.
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.
Please read the paragraph fully and carefully. The "men can get raped too" statement refers to the fact that rape isn't just limited to women only. That's all it means. I never tried to justify rape, and never said men are more or as likely to be raped as women are. I also never tried to make rape less that what it is. I said men are as likely to get assaulted (be a victim of violent crime), if not more so than women are likely to be raped. If you disagree I can see why. Maybe I took this too far. However I will say that men are more likely to be victim of violent crime than women.
I was responding to rape threats by the way. I said death threats are no different to or even more serious and grave than rape threats. Than I said both men and women get death threats, so the situation is not special or more dangerous for women. Anyone who expresses an idea that goes against the norm will receive such threats, be it men or women.
I don't think my personal experience needs to be input actually. More so because you seem to be probing for it, to use it against my argument. Sure I'll give you my personal experience if you really want to discuss it, but I don't think one person's experience can prove anything.
I am trying to address most of the comments in this thread by top to bottom order. I just though that this bit was urgent to respond to. I am slowly getting through it, because I have work and other stuff to do. I will respond to people's arguments, even though it might take a while as you can guess from my previous posts responding to arguments that were posted hours ago.
To go where exactly? They're certainly places in the world where the genders are not treated equally under the law. Attention and resources are required to be directed to these locations. Yet I see feminist lobby groups advocating laws such as having sex without a condom is rape; utterly perverse.
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.
No. Just no. Criticism is not hatred and no one is beyond criticism. People will be judged based on their actions, the ideas they advocate and the content of their character. Modern feminism is denoted by these irrational elements vis a vis the ideas and policies they advocate. These ideas and policies are being reflected in social institutions because those who forward criticism are labelled anti-woman, they hate women, they are rape apologists or they advocate patriarchy. The debate is silenced by the mud slinging.
Oppression? This is debatable. Whether or not the oppression actually existed does not entail that women in this day and wage in the West suffer this oppression. Individuals are separate and distinct. If my friend get's punched in the face, it does not mean I also have been punched in the face.
What you have posited in a non-argument. It does not mean anything. You wrote for the sake of writing it hoping it would stick to something. Well, it didn't.
To go to equality. Condomless sex being rape is cherry picking, it's bullshit. But who cares. All the run ins and experiences you guys have had with feminism seem to differ a lot from mine :S
Sarkesian deserves a lot of criticism, which I'm sure she got, but it's utterly overshadowed by the hate she's been showered with.
Oppression is not debatable. If you think that so long as the laws are fine then everything is, there's probably little point in us debating though. Don't mean it as an insult or anything.
What you have posted is ignorant, what I posted was an argument and so was yours. But yours lacks a foundation in reality anyway, and you consistently go for cheap shots.
But I don't think you wrote for the sake of writing, that you think I do is slightly worrying.
To go to equality. Condomless sex being rape is cherry picking, it's bullshit. But who cares. All the run ins and experiences you guys have had with feminism seem to differ a lot from mine :S
I have met a number of activists who purport to for gender equality. These people are not the ones shaping and directing the movement. They seem to just put up with the irrational bullshit which has now become the narrative of the movement.
What you have posted is ignorant, what I posted was an argument and so was yours. But yours lacks a foundation in reality anyway, and you consistently go for cheap shots.
I find it amusing that when ever someone fronts a position which is critical of your beliefs or perceptive of reality you call the person ignorant. When you can't handle the discussion just sling some mud. Perfectly fine, dandy and honorable discourse.
This sentence is not an adequate justification for irrational behaviors and beliefs. Nor does it invalidate the perception of outsiders of the feminist movement. The use of it in the paragraph you wrote is a non-sequitur.
Yeesh. I am reading, and I think you make contradictory statements. I think if you don't mean it the way that you say you don't mean it, then why even bring it up? It's irrelevant.
To put it in context, when someone says women seem to be far more in danger and afraid of rape than men are, and you agree with that, why even bother saying, "Men can get raped too" and expounding on that? If you do bother to do that, isn't it any wonder that someone might wonder where you're going with that, and might be confused as to what your actual belief actually is?
You seem to bring up points that later you insist are not reflective of your actual intent. Don't say things like that, if you aren't using them as rungs on the ladder of your argument.
I don't think I said that the trolls don't hate. They probably do. Well if you think it was predictable than you've got conflicting views with Anita. The fact that she claims to be scared implies that she was surprised by the reaction, because she wasn't prepared for it. Because of this, she stopped the ratings and comments on youtube.
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.
I don't know about that. Our opinions probably differ on the specifics. I think that all people, who are facing difficulties should be helped equally. You shouldn't prioritize support to minorities and females in poverty, or other difficulties. A Caucasian male should be just as important as any other person. So I'd say the inequality in society has a lot more to do with class, than race or gender.
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.
Yea. I stopped and so did my motivation. I guess it was my Fe fueling the desire to be involved in this discussion and Ti trying to make the argument rational.
I'm not sure. I'm pretty sure she is a professional victim (who are people whose only real objective is to secure their status as the victim, in order to receive outside intervening support). I think saying that a whole culture/community is sexist, and must try to better accommodate the needs of a certain group of people is radical. If it's not radical, I'd at least say that its calling for quite a big change.
True but society doesn't see this. In society's eyes feminists are good, lovely and caring women, who aim to free women from male oppression, and give them equal rights and privileges to men. I don't really have a problem with this type of feminism. However I do have a problem with society viewing all feminists as these types. The problem is of coarse is that you're pigeon holing a diverse group of people into one category, which you happen to support. That ignorance leads to passively and unknowingly supporting even the most egotistical and narcissistic ideologies and females, who claim to be feminists.
Basically I don't think mainstream society is exercising a healthy level of challenging the feminist ideas that it comes into contact with. Instead most people opt to just supporting the ideas, because they are labelled feminist.
No, I know it because unlike you guys my view of feminism doesn't come from angry male atheists. You're the one making assumptions, Why would she not be speaking of overarching structures and tendencies? Why would she be dealing in absolutes only? The only explanation is you're not really familiar with feminism, or being autistic in absurdum.
In a sense, attacking these feminist tropes is missing an effective target, since they are a reflection of misunderstanding, which is typical in any controversy. It's missing the real target in the same way as attacking the explicit content of rap music.
The loudest and most absurd feminists become the face of feminism and the straw men they make easy to perpetuate. If feminists have anyone to attack in any constructive way, it's their own PR campaign and the outliers in their movement that have become their face.
The woman in the above video is more likely to remind male viewers of a belligerent sister or mother (based on the eye rolling and things like that) than someone they'll want to listen to. She actually provides a really good projective target as well as a good target for simple frustration ( a sense of male impotence ameliorated through absurdly aggressive and condescending internet personalities), based on her age, attractiveness, condescension, etc. I haven't seen all her videos, but she may want to explore this without the eye rolling.
If feminists want to get anywhere with people, attacking their favorite television shows won't do much. Creating entertaining television shows of their own, however, that intertwine accurate feminist ideology, while perhaps mocking and thereby distancing themselves from straw feminists, may be more effective.
In this way, they'd be affirming some male perceptions that are the result of some observations that are accurate, all while insisting that these observations are not generalizable to feminism as a whole.
More projection analysis:
I wonder about some feminists. Are some of them projecting, but just in the opposite direction from culturally feminine women? In wanting to be strong and independent, they've alienated their capacity for traditionally feminine helplessness, project it onto these tropes perpetuated by others, where they despise them.
We all have our own sense of acceptable identities to maintain. Some feminists, in trying to maintain strong and independent identities, may be attempting to render other female identities inaccurate so as to ameliorate their own doubts in regards to their independent and strong identities because their identities may not be as independent or strong as they'd like them to be.
Yea. That's very similar to what I think. Moderate/rational feminists should discourage and condemn feminists, who claim absurdities to be true. What goes on mostly right now is that they are ignored, this gives the idea, to the general population, that the absurdities are an accepted part of feminism and for that reason there isn't a divide in the movement. This just tarnishes the face of feminism.
I'm not sure myself, but it sounds like at least one viable pathway. Also, at this point in life, I think I see personal energy as a limited resource, and energy that is being channeled in one way isn't getting channeled elsewhere. We can channel it into work, hobbies, relationships, parenting, or whatever else, but the reality is that it is not a limitless pool. Gamers spend a lot of time gaming, sometimes all their free time outside of working to pay bills, at the expense of other pursuits. I could see people frustrated with relationships investing that pool of energy into games, but you can't escape the underlying disappointments. Gaming is easier than relationships, the goals and pathways to reach said goals are more obvious and achievable IMO, but it doesn't remove the underlying frustrations in the neglected areas of life and that tension has to come out somewhere.
If gamers are relieving their underlying frustration, by objectifying women in games, I don't really see a problem. Better it be women in games, than women in reality. I also don't think objectifying women in games, leads men objectifying women in reality. This is similar to how I don't think violent video games makes people violent in reality. It's probably the other way around, women being objectified (most women in first world countries allow or choose to be objectified to be honest) in reality leads to women being objectified in games, because that is what's expected of.
Not sure "popularity" means better, it just mean it resonates more with the demographic of people who see YouTube as a viable channel of information. It's more a matter of how much interest I can maintain in the subject, apart from wanting to respond to the "rape threats" thing in this thread. The rest just seems to be typical whine-and-moan pissing matches, frankly.
Okay. I do listen to AA's vids, when I get around to it, so I'd be interested to hear what he said to say. I usually agree with where he's coming from.
I did link some of his videos. I think he's easier to listen to that thunderf00t, probably because he doesn't have a monotone. But I thought thunderf00t put in more effort and thought in this particular issue.
If that was the case, it was typical half-assed mainstream media not bothering to really understand the topic they were doing a newscast about, IMO. Just kind of pathetic.
it's always a risk in any public forum. even on forums like this one, people tend to obscure any truly public identifying information; and on the type forums I've been on, posting identifying information about another member will typically earn you an infraction + removal of said post, let alone a more serious action up to and including banning from the forum. Why? Because it creates an unsafe atmosphere that dissuades people from participating. Now consider someone publicizing personal information about a disliked public figure to the world in general; it's harassment and intimidation, to me, meant to scare someone into shutting up, and shouldn't be part of any actual mature dialogue... let alone the actual threat being generated.
There are likely more women gamers nowadays than you suspect, especially as Gen Y and younger women grow up and can fund their own gametime, gender roles have loosened up and gender interests are far broader than when I was growing up; but yes, a fair number are guys... even if it's just because of the, "If I'm going to stare at a butt all day, I want it to be a female one," perspective. Or it could be downright exploitation. I'm wary of making assumptions about a particular player just because of character gender alone.
Yeah. I stand corrected on this one. I saw stats that said 40-45% females. Although it also said about 75% of female gamers own the wii, which I would say isn't the console that most game developers focus on.
I don't think that's a viable excuse for the behavior. It's a concern to consider, but never an excuse.
Public figures have gotten popped before, for making large numbers of enemies over causes they believe in, but it's never an excuse for that violence or threat of it, and I think it says something bad about the antagonists and also undermines their own opinions, if they cannot even handle open dialogue on an issue without resorting to threat AND actual violence.
That's a problem of the internet for the police/authorities though. I don't think this is female problem. More of a problem for any user of the internet.
I'm not trying to make an excuse. This is my explanation of the behavior, it is up to you to decide if it's justified.
It would be interesting if people actually got lists and started posting the names of these trolls publicly as well, to see how they appreciated it. Started losing their jobs and sources of income because of what they were doing in their spare time, etc. Be under some level of threat themselves. People do dumb-ass things when they feel invulnerable, and sometimes that includes bullying and abusing others because they don't think they can be touched.
Was it stated how people got a hold of her personal information? I mean, if she's speaking out boldly in public venues, people don't even need to know if she was playing characters in games. Some gamers are computer-savvy and I'm sure they could hack their way around and dig it up; it's only a matter of time.
To go to equality. Condomless sex being rape is cherry picking, it's bullshit. But who cares. All the run ins and experiences you guys have had with feminism seem to differ a lot from mine :S
If you go on to youtube and search for "Anita Sarkeesian refuted", you can choose from a selection of deluxe thought out criticism, which all of she has ignored.
Oppression is not debatable. If you think that so long as the laws are fine then everything is, there's probably little point in us debating though. Don't mean it as an insult or anything.
I wouldn't call that mistake contradictory. I don't think "men can be raped too" establishes that I believe that men are/are likely to be raped just as much as women. The sentence means what it says that "men can be raped too". Therefore it was never established that I think men are/are likely to be raped just as much as women. So it wasn't contradictory of me to deny that I think men are/are likely to be raped just as much as women. It only seems contradictory to you, because you assumed and established that I think that, men are/are likely to be raped just as much as women, when you read "men can be raped too".
If you think I made a contradiction or mistake in any points, please point them out there and then.
I apologize for that. I'll try not to add any more irrelevant information. That probably came in because most feminists seem to outright refuse to even acknowledge the fact that men can physically be raped. That's the only point I was trying to make, hence the wording
I'm saying men can get raped. It's physically possible.
To put it in context, when someone says women seem to be far more in danger and afraid of rape than men are, and you agree with that, why even bother saying, "Men can get raped too" and expounding on that? If you do bother to do that, isn't it any wonder that someone might wonder where you're going with that, and might be confused as to what your actual belief actually is?
Yeah, I don't like misunderstandings. I didn't and usually don't mean to imply anything other than what it is I say. That's why I don't like expressions of ideas through poems. They're too open to interpretation, I prefer long explanations through metaphors or just point by point explanations. Yeah, so just please don't assume stuff about what I believe. I'm not imaginative enough to express ideas/views subtly, and if I do think a point is important to be made than I'll write a lot about it and the point should be apparent.
You seem to bring up points that later you insist are not reflective of your actual intent. Don't say things like that, if you aren't using them as rungs on the ladder of your argument.
-------------different point
It's been revealed for a while now that even some of the gameplay footage used in Anita's videos are stolen from other people's gameplay videos. As I've said before she's probably not even a feminist and therefore certainly not the person to talk about, if we're having a discussion about modern feminism.
The article seemed emotionally charged. Gives it a minus on how I took it in. I don't think it was the best refute to the arguments, but at least it's rolling on the debate in the right direction. There were several points I am quite confident I could refute, although looking at the comment section of that article, it seems some people may have done so already.
First of all, seeing images like this perpetrates a stereotype that teaches men to consider women sexual objects rather than humans
This bit kinda stood out for me, cause I disagree with it. It's the same argument about how violent video games make gamers violent. That's just not true though. Reasonable gamers only need to interact with females (mother, sister, friends, coworkers, strangers) to see how inherently far fetched, from reality, the depictions of women in certain games are. Only gullible and people with unstable psychology wouldn't be able to see this. At which point the cause is the person's predisposition to believe unrealistic claims.
as well as constructing highly unrealistic expectations about the female body.
The lines have blurred. Females are not the same as men, nor will they ever be (biological reasons). Females are/are not equal to men, depending on the criteria used. Females are different to men, with privileges and disprivilege of their own.
Nobody has the right to not get offended. Even though this is objectively equal for everyone, people have different lengths of fuses, making it relatively unequal.
I think the author seemed quite rational, a little emotional charging tends to add readability imo!
Differentiating is easy in theory. Yet there's eating disorders (counting bodybuilding and not just anorexia) caused by body dysmorphism. And there's quite a lot of other stuff. It's not easy in practice.
Oh yeah agree with this bit:
"Females are not the same as men, nor will they ever be (biological reasons). Females are/are not equal to men, depending on the criteria used. Females are different to men, with privileges and disprivilege of their own."
But the rest I find strange. I rewatched Amazing Atheists 33 refutations of arguments in favor of feminism. Pretty much all his answers came in two forms: "This is not a problem because it's about people being stupid which is their own fault" and "This is a problem but feminism doesn't have any solution to it so; therefore, Feminism is refuted".
Both are weak, all social problems have to do with dealing with the stupidity of people, and feminism prompts discussion and encourages feminism, doing so in a ton of ways, including ones that are directly aimed at remedying issues that have to do with sexism and/or inequality.
I find the same thing going on in the comments to the article I linked.
He also rambles a lot about what feminism is and does without having any idea about it, cluelessly doing his own pigeonholing. Lastly he's definitely one of those who just wont see.
That depends on the reader. Articles written to inform and ignite discussions are kept rational and objective, so that the target audience of the article is varied. When an article attempts to elicit emotional responses/views from the readers, than it's pretty safe to assume that the article is one which has been written to persuade/encourage action.
Differentiating is easy in theory. Yet there's eating disorders (counting bodybuilding and not just anorexia) caused by body dysmorphism. And there's quite a lot of other stuff. It's not easy in practice.
This along with other psychological disorders, such as depression, comes from people's freedom to choose how they view themselves, how they view others and how they choose to behave.
If many people were to become chronically depressed, and at very high risk of self harm, when they were exposed to people more successful, and in better situations, than themselves, does that mean successful people shouldn't be depicted of in the media? This isn't a sarcastic question nor is it a rhetorical one, it is a serious one, which attempts to find solutions for problems. Problem is that the solutions are so far fetched that people don't take it seriously.
Another thing that comes into mind is that psychologically healthy and independent people can cope and not develop these disorders. Doesn't this mean that those people, who do develop these disorders, were unstable, prior to developing the disorders, and were likely suffering from Social anxiety disorder, Avoidant personality disorder, depression...
But the rest I find strange. I rewatched Amazing Atheists 33 refutations of arguments in favor of feminism. Pretty much all his answers came in two forms: "This is not a problem because it's about people being stupid which is their own fault" and "This is a problem but feminism doesn't have any solution to it so; therefore, Feminism is refuted".
Feminism doesn't provide solutions. This doesn't mean that feminism is refuted, or wrong, as much as it is irrelevant, if it's not going to or proposing to do anything. The gaming issues's solution is probably to get more females developing games, but that doesn't seem to be what feminists are going for. Instead of inspiring and encouraging females to get into the industry, feminists seem to be more focused on getting the industry to change to suite their preferences. There seems to be another issue in females working in the gaming industry though, which is that they do not adapt well into the male dominated field.
Both are weak, all social problems have to do with dealing with the stupidity of people, and feminism prompts discussion and encourages feminism, doing so in a ton of ways, including ones that are directly aimed at remedying issues that have to do with sexism and/or inequality.
I don't have a problem with anyone who can discuss something. Yet there are feminists who want a one way dialogue. Are these feminists denounced by other feminists, for wanting to silence people? No. That's troubling.
He also rambles a lot about what feminism is and does without having any idea about it, cluelessly doing his own pigeonholing. Lastly he's definitely one of those who just wont see.
I couldn't resist, I'll maybe receive strong polemic from a lot of people, but my mind must pour into something
Feminism Is undesirable
Feminism is the way of thinking that, with irony, put space between gender. They don't want to be equal, they want to be treated a different way. Not I am not misogynist nor sexism but I want equality.
And don't bring me the argument that in some Arabic country they treat woman wrong.
Sure, by the way of thinking ofwestern country this is unacceptable. And I'm sure that some woman won't be pleased by that way of life. I don't say that tradition is best by some old man premise. There'll be a time where ( if humanity stupidity end )
Find the answer of this equation:
Woman Rights = Equalitism > Feminism ?
(Sorry for the high amount of typos, je suis francophone)
There has been some huge movements in the UK on women's rights. Things like the police force and Army taking on women purely to fill their gender quotas, rather than on merit.
But for a long time women were deemed as safer drivers and as such had lower premiums. The European courts deemed this to be illegal and there was a huge outcry from the female population. Also, during divorce battles where children are involved the mother usually has the upper hand based purely on the fact that she is missing a penis. This infuriates me.
I saw a video a few weeks back where a couple of actors went out in to public and acted out a scene of domestic violence. When the male was pushing and shouting at the female people intervened instantly and we're generally shocked and appaled at the behavior. When she started to shout, scream and push the male people just laughed and carried on with their busy lives. This sums up society for me.
I don't think equal rights for women and feminist are the same thing. And I have noticed that they can sometimes be selective about which things they want to be treated equally on, and which things they want to keep traditional where they have an advantage. I belive there are female chauvinist just like there are male chauvinist, and those have nothing to do with equal rights. They hijack the equal rights cause to promote their own agendas.
Feminism isn't a discrete 'they'. It's many different philosophies held by different people and groups across a number of generations. The binding thread is largely that feminism considers issues from the perspective of female needs. In some cases, those needs may be closing inequality gaps where equality should exist. In other cases, it may mean examining issues which are more relevant to women, or have a unique impact on women. For some, feminism may mean outright female chauvinism.
The point I'll make here is that I do not see feminism as inherently problematic. Like most things, it can be problematic, beneficial, neutral, or of relative value. I think it will always be required to some extent even in a world where all people are given equal value and consideration. Equality does not mean identicalness. Considering issues from a female perspective does not mean excluding consideration of other perspectives. I'd wager every person who identifies as female sees themselves as more than just female, and as such considers many issues from more than one angle.
I merged the two most relevant threads together. Be sure to use the search function as there are often a number of discussions already going about your intended subject.
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.
