You should take it for what it says. I don't know how much clearer she could have been.Lightknight said:
Anita Sarkeesian states that sexism against men is impossible
- Thread starter Lightknight
- Start date
Oh, I agree (hence me making this thread). But it is always fair to at least consider alternate possibilities. Having considered the possibilities I was able to come to a much stronger confirmation that all possibilities lead to sexism on her part here. Particularly misandry.WeepingAngels said:
Do you have some sort of problem with people discussing a popular gaming pundit? This is a gaming focused websight so you should be able to fill in the gaps as to "what happened".IceForce said:
This thread was made because someone I thought was interested in equality turned out to be a sexist bigot. While I may have disagreed with many of her comments in the past she hadn't tried to dismiss any possibility of men being on the receiving end of sexism. It is shameful and relevant to gaming. Deal with it.
Either way, this part of the forum rules may interest you to know about:
" If you don't like a thread, the people in it, or anyone involved then don't post in it. If you feel the need to deride the reappearance of an old topic or particular sore subject, then don't post. See "Don't Be A Jerk," above, for details."
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/codeofconduct
I'm sorry, but how long have you been up to date on the site's forums? I don't mean this in a condescending way (I really, really don't), but before the whole "Gamer Gator" thing you couldn't go a week without yet another Anita thread popping up and getting 10+ pages of replies.IceForce said:
Shit, there were multiple Anita theads on each forum at times. I'm happy that now there's only one per forum as it means people are seeing Anita as less and less noteworthy, which is good because she never was all that noteworthy to begin with.
Also, people have been saying what Anita said in that tweet for ages. Just because she said it doesn't mean it's worth really worth discussion as it's obviously wrong and stupid. And if anyone really does agree with her they're going to get replied to death very quickly, so why would they do so and put themselves through that?
Pretty much this.Phasmal said:
I think she was trying to make a point of institutionalised sexism but she made a balls of it or just misses the complexity of the idea.
It's not like she's ever oversimplified concepts to make a point before.
It is?SOCIALCONSTRUCT said:
I guess I never got the memo. Still, if Anita said it, it must be true.
What point do you think she was trying to make? Either she's claiming that no women hold any power or that women can't be sexist because they're women.Colour Scientist said:
Discussions on institutional sexism often fail to realize that many things constitute institutions. A manager not giving you a promotion because of your sex is a person combining prejudice and power to your detriment. So at the very least this would be an incredibly naive if not awkwardly ignorant comment and still sexist.
Do you have an interpretation in which she would not be implying or stating something sexist here? Because I'm scratching my head for one that exists when her first sentence is that sexism against men does not exist.
Heh, hopefully I've made it clear that I don't agree with the poster there. No group as large as that could have a firm consensus like that beyond the basic point of the group.
Firstly, she said that you can't be sexist against men, not that women can't be sexist. Not that I agree with her but it's kind of an important distinction. She also said that men are the dominant gender in terms of power, not that men hold all of the power or that women hold none so I think your conclusions in that regard are a little off.Lightknight said:
You're asking me an intentionally loaded question. I think there're interesting discussions to be had about institutionalised sexism, I don't think they should revolve around Anita Sarkeesian's Twitter account.
This.thaluikhain said:
Folks, just because the statement is true on grande level doesn't mean you, individually, can not be discriminated against for being a dude. So calm the fuck down.
Heaven forbid if she ever did. It's not like people run their mouth and say stupid shit all the time and it's radically unfair to judge and hold a person to comments they made years, even months ago. As if people can't change their minds.Lightknight said:
You're right, that was rude of me.Lightknight said:
Alright, to address the topic; what Anita is saying here is the same sort of misinformed and misguided nonsense you see from people who try to claim that "men cannot be raped".
They're ridiculous broad-brush-stroke generalizations at best, and horribly offensive at worst.
That's not what she said. She said that society, as a whole, has tended to favor men being in power. That doesn't mean women can't get into power or that men can't be in unfortunate situations, but as a whole, society tends to put men in a better place. Acting like her words are suddenly a claim that women can never reach power isn't that different than people claiming that scientists are claiming it will never get cold anywhere on Earth because of global warming.Lightknight said:
And it is hardly sexist to describe a societal problem. It would be sexist to say, "There's no way a woman could make a good leader." That is vastly different than saying, "Society makes it harder for women to become leaders."
She never said that there there couldn't be misandry. She said that that prejudice means very little in the absence of power.
How is it misandry? OK, with your twisted version of what she said it might come across as misandry, but like I said, you're twisting her words, so it doesn't mean much.
I'm not entirely sure, but it probably comes from the way discussions regarding sexism and racism have shifted. Racism and sexism often don't describe single acts of discrimination. They are describing how institutions (i.e. society) leaves certain groups at a disadvantage. The problem with this element of racism and sexism is that it is significantly harder to deal with, since you can't simply point at a few people and say, "Don't give them power and we'll never deal with sexism again." If racism and sexism are ingrained into the society, then everyone in that society potentially has discriminatory viewpoints, and it is on everyone to analyze their own worldview and actions and deal with discriminatory aspects of them.
The thing is, then it isn't to justify Anita's position. If sexism is a problem with society's view of women, then you aren't far from finding a way to justify saying that men can't face it. Yes, men can face the problems associated with sexism, but the sexism itself, at least as society is concerned, is directed towards women.
Now, there is a lot of merit in understanding the underlying problems in society and viewing discrimination as more of a society problem rather than just "Y said something bad about X." It at least gives us an underlying explanation to the discrimination that we see in studies. With that said, activists like Sarkeesian are so shit at explaining this that no one would actually know that's what they are talking about. Instead, they choose to use terms that have one meaning in one circle and a different meaning in another, and it just leads to confusion like this.
But with all that said: Yes, a woman can show hate towards a man under the simple pretext of him being a man. But no, that does not mean that we just suddenly act like sexism, as far as society is concerned, is somehow just as bad for men. It's incredibly gendered, and men, as a whole, are in a significantly better position than the other genders. Granted, the fact that we are now starting to see the way men are harmed by sexist views of women may do some good in getting more men to care about these issues.
If she defines sexism as being in power, then how, praytell, could a woman ever be sexist even against other women if women aren't in power?Colour Scientist said:
I'm asking you to explain what she could have intended to say here that wouldn't ultimately still be sexist. You and the other poster stated that she had a somewhat hidden message that she was actually getting at but that she just messed it up. So I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you arrived at some conclusion that I did not. So what possible interpretation would you come to that wouldn't be sexist towards men here? I don't know how that question would be loaded. Difficult to answer, sure, but loaded?
This is a gaming website. Anita is marketed as a gaming pundit focused on gender equality in games. She just made a comment that is inherently sexist and decidedly not equal where gender is concerned.
So why not? Why is it not valid to discuss something negative that she said on her twitter account regarding this matter but perfectly fine to discuss the mere controversial things she espouses elsewhere? It's a bit of having it both ways, don't you think? Though I don't know your background on the subject so I'm not going to presume I know where you're coming from here.
I can't speak for her, the general idea would be that institutionalised sexism espouses a certain set of ideas about women and their place in society (this is not to say anything about men, I'm just talking about one thing at the moment so don't jump on me for ignoring men or something) and these can be internalised and propagated by the population at large, men and women alike. In this scenario, both men and women can be sexist. These notions are so deeply ingrained that they can often be difficult to see as they seem so natural and normalised.Lightknight said:
Some people believe that there is a distinction to be made between institutionalised sexism and instances of discrimination against men. It doesn't necessarily make it any less of a concern for individuals involved, it's just a different way of expressing a different scenario. I think that was the point she was trying to make but again, I'm not Anita Sarkeesian so fucked if I know. You see a similar point made in relation to race, discrimination against white people versus institutionalised racism against ethnic minorities.
Let's be fair, you are presuming a little bit. My post history regarding Anita Sarkeesian is pretty easy to find if you really think that it makes a difference.
Feminism is getting some piss-poor representation lately, with insane, bigoted, and frankly WRONG statements cropping up all over the place.
I want to learn what feminism is about, I really do, but fuck me raw if people like her don't do everything in their power to convince people that feminism is hypocritical bullshit through and through.
I want to learn what feminism is about, I really do, but fuck me raw if people like her don't do everything in their power to convince people that feminism is hypocritical bullshit through and through.
Homophobia. It's sexism, hatred and fear all wrapped up in a bow and you don't even have to be gay to be a victim of it. In fact, the vast majority of victims of homophobia are straight men.
But just try telling any gay man that sexism against men doesn't exist...that'd be fun
But just try telling any gay man that sexism against men doesn't exist...that'd be fun
Prejudice without power isn't really the same thing at all. The whole thing reminds me of this:
[tweet t=https://twitter.com/sweatpantspapi/status/539259309214162945]
EDIT: just to clarify, the "early hours" being referred to are after the Ferguson grand jury decided not to indict. Black people fear being killed by cops who won't even go to trail, white people fear being called "mayonnaise boy". It reminds me of that old Margaret Atwood quote: "Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them."
[tweet t=https://twitter.com/sweatpantspapi/status/539259309214162945]
EDIT: just to clarify, the "early hours" being referred to are after the Ferguson grand jury decided not to indict. Black people fear being killed by cops who won't even go to trail, white people fear being called "mayonnaise boy". It reminds me of that old Margaret Atwood quote: "Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them."
You want to talk bias?WeepingAngels said:
Read Eternally Bored's post.
Now go through the thread and see how many people have quoted/replied to it, including the OP. People don't want an explanation for this. People want their outrage. It's what drives angry young men to read the radical feminism section of Tumblr in the first place. People LOOOVE their outrage. Delicious dopamine. Can't get enough of it.
It's why folks will cherry pick inflammatory threads to comment in. It's why they'll browse through looking for the most easily attackable viewpoint to reply to. Much like I've done here. I'm hardly immune to this phenomenon.
I mean what's more exciting to talk about? Sarkeesian expresses a complex idea poorly over Twitter, and either intentionally or unintentionally it results in click-bait? Or that she's a crazy witch who hates men wargle bargle fargle! We must delineate camps! SJWs everywhere! To war! To war!
And see what we've accomplished with all our nonsense? A nice poster wants to quit. Well done.Not The Bees said:
Might I suggest NOT trying to learn about complex social ideologies through Twitter? Just a thought.MeatMachine said:
Then how would you interpret her words. That "there is no such thing as sexism against men"?Colour Scientist said:
If I granted you the possibility that this was her intention and assumed that she actually meant "institutional sexism" instead of mere sexism like she said, then that first part still wouldn't make sense.
What's more is that men being the dominant gender in society doesn't mean that sexist men are the majority or that the sexism they wield can't be against males. See, here's another fundamental flaw that makes the argument sexist. Just because the people in power are men, doesn't make them sexist. Men can be feminists, too, for example. Many companies are currently priding themselves on specifically scouting CEOs that are female or minorities or both, for example. In those scenarios, if it is men who are in charge they are being sexist against other men too.
In my opinion, she made a huge mistake here. She let slip something that in my mind places her in a Donald Sterling category where he accidentally outed himself as a racist. She has accidentally outted herself as misandrous here if misandry can even be termed that way. Heh, this is funny, misandry comes up as misspelled according to spell checker but misogyny comes right up as a valid word.
Hmm, there's a problem in discussing it that way then. If it's a huge broad "institutionalized" scenario, they're pointing to all of society. But how would we ever corroborate society as a whole as being sexist or racist? You can only evaluate the various subsets of such a large set to come to a conclusion but if no subsets are discussed then communication can't be done effectively. If I made the claim, "People are evil" then that's not really something you can disagree with without bringing in specific examples and explaining how it is normative. I would generally agree that society had been sexist and even racist. But it looks like society has evolved and now we've got institutions that are even sexist against men or racist against whites as well as any institution being one slip up away from being demonized and torn down if caught with such practices. Do you think, for example, that a racist society is one in which a man like Donald Sterling can be found out to be racist and immediately be forced out of ownership of his business? We can certainly point to specific elements of racism, specific subsets of the whole but as far as society we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore and in America society is the institution of control in most ways.
I don't generally make a habit of running a background check on people I discuss things with. If you make a valid point, I'll listen. If you don't, I'll explain why I disagree. Your background in the topic is therefore irrelevant to anyone willing to listen to reason and evaluate an argument based on its merits.
The quote reminds me of the phrase i hear about how: "Black people cant be racist because they are not the dominant race in society."
Even if its true by definition, similarly to Sarkeesian's quote, I think when people claim someone is being racist or being sexist, they really mean someone is being an arsehole.
Therefore, I guess the "logical" thing to do would to call someone who does not approve of white or male people as arseholes instead of racist or sexist. But in doing so I think personally, and I assume others would feel that their complaints of the person being an arsehole wouldnt be taken seriously as one's of racism or sexism.
So is one's person problems more important than the other? I am not too well versed in argumentation fallacies, but that feels like a slippery slope, or maybe instead a "race to the bottom" scenario. For every disenfranchised minority of x, would there not be by extension a minority of x and y, and x and y and z, and so on?
In the end, people tend to be moved by emotion more than schools of thought, so if one is a person in this day in age, and feel that they are being treated racist or sexist, but cant use whatever existing platform there is to complain about it, then the only course of action i see is to make one's own. Is it fair? Not at all, but given we live in the information age and have interconnected lives now more than ever, I wager one at least has the opportunity to do so.
Sorry mods if i used profanity , I wrote this assuming arsehole is PC enough.
Even if its true by definition, similarly to Sarkeesian's quote, I think when people claim someone is being racist or being sexist, they really mean someone is being an arsehole.
Therefore, I guess the "logical" thing to do would to call someone who does not approve of white or male people as arseholes instead of racist or sexist. But in doing so I think personally, and I assume others would feel that their complaints of the person being an arsehole wouldnt be taken seriously as one's of racism or sexism.
So is one's person problems more important than the other? I am not too well versed in argumentation fallacies, but that feels like a slippery slope, or maybe instead a "race to the bottom" scenario. For every disenfranchised minority of x, would there not be by extension a minority of x and y, and x and y and z, and so on?
In the end, people tend to be moved by emotion more than schools of thought, so if one is a person in this day in age, and feel that they are being treated racist or sexist, but cant use whatever existing platform there is to complain about it, then the only course of action i see is to make one's own. Is it fair? Not at all, but given we live in the information age and have interconnected lives now more than ever, I wager one at least has the opportunity to do so.
Sorry mods if i used profanity , I wrote this assuming arsehole is PC enough.
Are you justifying any from of prejudice? It's all evil. All of it. Individual occurrences can carry a greater impact on the individuals effected than others, but it is a cancer worth fighting back everywhere we find it lest it regrow to it's former proportions. The racist/sexist without power only differs from the racist/sexist with power in the degree to which their prejudice can cause harm. But the person themselves? The flawed reasoning they employ? It's the same. The implication being that if the power disparity flipped, the other side would cause the same harm as the other because at our core, we're all humans and none are flawless.DataSnake said:
It's important to realize that the group of people who identify as feminists is incredibly broad. From people who want just want equality (something I'm sure we can all agree with) all the way over to people who want a full flipping of power and men entirely reduced to submissive non-entities.MeatMachine said:
So assume first that when someone is talking about feminism that they're just talking about equal rights. Equal access to jobs, equal pay for the same work, etc. Potentially throw in women's non-equality specific issues like abortion depending on who you're speaking with but that's not even a given from what I've seen. The only general thing we know about feminism. The only thing feminism appears to demand, is a desire to see fair and equal treatment of females and that's something most of us can get fully behind. It is shameful to have prominent figures like this fall to such levels to discredit themselves. But just remember that this is just a person and not the end-all, be-all face of the entire multi-century cause.
To be fair, you had an opportunity here to honestly discuss the conversation that her tweet brought up but instead of doing so, you fell prey to your own complaint and made your response instead about "Sarkeesian = baaaaaaaaaaaaad". If you want to be able to frame an honest and intellectual discussion on the matter then I'm likely the one to have that. Is it somehow unfair to point to a prominent gaming gender studies pundit's words for a springboard? I mean, until last month I never made a thread about Anita. It's her saying that sexism against men doesn't exist that got me to make one. How is that not fair?Not The Bees said:
Could have spent this time talking about sexism with me and how it effects people in the gaming sphere, but you didn't. That's on you, not me.
It's not true definition-wise. As like when she confused the grammatical term object with the term objectification, she misdefined this term to cater to her purpose even though a casual glance at the dictionary would prove her wrong. Sexism itself is as already defined is just prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination based on sex. It does not require power to happen. Institutional sexism does though, but even then there would still be situations in which a woman is in power and able to discriminate.Rosiv said:
Ha... I'm sure she's changed substantially in the last 3 weeks. Can we go back in time and give Brandon Eich the benefit of the doubt? He might have changed his tune a little in those interim years.SaneAmongInsane said:
I buy that it's good to be forgiving of people. I do place slightly different standards on everyday people and preachers when it comes to what they're espousing though. If you're confident enough to preach, you should have your shit in order. You're aware that this is literally her life's work at this point, right? This is what she does. She claims that she spends a lot of time making sure she's communicating properly via these mediums.