Anita Sarkeesian states that sexism against men is impossible
- Thread starter Lightknight
- Start date
Recommended Videos
To be fair, most people are saying she's giving feminists a bad reputation and accepting that she does not represent the majority of people in the whole "Video game sexism" debate.Not The Bees said:
And that's really the best you can hope for with somebody as out of touch as she is.
She said sexism cannot exist against men. How is that true even on the grand level? Does the government not have discriminatory laws in place that would require hiring a woman for a position if certain criteria exist? How is sexism against men incapable of existing then? She is belittling us, trivializing those of us who have indeed faced institutional sexism. You should not be defending this kind of sexism anymore than people should have defended Donald Sterling's racism. Does she have the right to say it? Sure. But it should absolutely not be socially acceptable for her to say that anymore than it'd be cool for someone else to say that there's no such thing as sexism against females.SaneAmongInsane said:
If she did recant and retract her statement then the link I produced would disappear and anyone reading the thread would not understand what we're talking about. So my intention for that sentence was to explain why I would post a picture of the tweet and quote the text it contains despite the redundancy of doing so.
If she decides that she crossed the line here then fine. That would be adult of her and aid in her growth towards not being sexist.
Oh, I was bringing an additional criticism towards her argument. I wasn't saying that she said that but that it is a point of disagreement with her sentiment. We live in a world where if sexism and racism exists in the heart of people in control, it generally stays there or the company faces significant legal action and harm to their reputation. That men are the primary power in society by and large doesn't mean that they have all the power or even that those who are in power are inherently sexist.Colour Scientist said:
This is important because for her statement to make sense, the majority of men in control also have to be sexist. Otherwise, they are a minority just like she is claiming that women are. It is sexist to draw the line at males when having this discussion because she is automatically tallying each male as a mark towards sexist control when that simply isn't the case.
Wouldn't a person claiming that there is no such thing as sexism against women be called misogynist? I'm pretty sure I'd consider them as such so I'm not sure why Anita should receive special treatment just because she's a girl. The belief that men are out to get women. That we are by and large misogynist assholes bent on subjugating women is a misandrous belief.
The absolute focus her, the part that should piss people off, is that she dismisses that sexism, even institutional sexism, can occur against men.
Without examples or data it is impossible to discuss it in any meaningful way. What's more is the quality of data can be wildly different according to who you speak to. Take the Ferguson riots. On one side you'll see people claiming that a bigot cop walked up and shot an unarmed saint who had his hand submissively raise in surrender. On the other side you'll see people showing this as an example of racism in which a community wanted to put an innocent man in prison by giving false testimony that the evidence appears to prove to be false.
So, people say society is racist/sexist. How can that be discussed in any intellectually honest ways without a legitimate evaluation of society to prove that? The last I checked, hiring and wage discrimination is illegal, abortion is almost universally legalized, voting and ownership rights have been well secured by first and second wave feminists. The same goes for racial equality and while it's not the end-all answer a majority of Americans did vote for a black leader twice. I'm not sure that we can say that the institution is sexist anymore. We can really only point to specific examples that make sense. We can point to specific areas where racism and sexism hasn't been stamped out. But I'd honestly say that society as a whole abhors those things and will strip individuals of their authority if we are able if they show themselves to be bigoted. Honestly, it seems that white males would have a far harder time bringing a discrimination suit against a company than a black female would. We've seen this happen multiple times, actually. But there hasn't been a public outcry because it would make people seem sexist or racist to be too vocal about it due to the negative taint left by the generations that really were bigots by and large.
This is the kind of intellectual discourse we can have regarding her actual statement though. We need to discuss this as a society and be able to exclaim that everyone of any race or gender or religion can get the short end of the stick and it's all bad. We need to be lights rooting out and dispelling any sort of darkness wherever we find it, not casting shadows on some area to further our causes. Seriously, shame on her for this sort of unapologetic sexism. I wish her no harm or harassment in any way. But shame on her.
I?m sorry; maybe I?ve missed something, but why is still giving this vile woman attention? I mean, that?s what she wants, whether good or bad. All you?re doing is feeding the clickbait-craving troll.
For some reason, people just keep fishing in Sarkeesian's Twitter account and regurgitating the same pointless, banal posts instead, to do nothing other than say "look at this, I disagree with it". The first line just epitomizes it:Not The Bees said:
Well, frankly, fuck. That. If you're going to trawl Twitter, OP, then at least be a little more discerning. Give us something to work with, don't just drop a fishing rod in the toilet.
If it were put to a vote, I imagine the majority of Escapist regulars would be for the banning of topics beating this particular dead horse by this point. It's been going on for years and threads like this pop up every single time a Twitter account produces another irrelevant, uninformed opinion. What a sorry state of affairs that is.
True, but that's basic stuff that we should all know as adults. Why should we keep covering old ground like that? We shouldn't.The Lunatic said:
People started caring deeply about what some opinionated woman on Twitter thought of their hobby. They've been unaccountably torturing themselves with her denunciations ever since.IceForce said:
This is what happens when people rely on the same sources for their information on a subject. This is what happens when you keep giving exposure to irrelevant posts on Twitter. We don't get discussions, we get this.SOCIALCONSTRUCT said:
We should be talking about something like that instead. That'd be interesting. That's a topic.thaluikhain said:
Because she said something new. She took a step in the wrong direction. Most of all though, because other people are listening to her. Game developers are having her serve as a consultant on their games, news organizations both parody (Colbert) and real are inviting her to speak, and her videos number in six figures of views.Relish in Chaos said:
Not pointing out sexism then becomes more harmful than "not feeding the troll". She isn't popular because people discuss her intellectual. She grows in power from assholes that threaten her or say generally insane misogynistic comments.
Honestly, her general sentiment that women represent a legitimate consumer market and aren't particularly being catered to is fully worth discussion. To dismiss all of her points because of the few ridiculous ones are silly. Just because a bad man says it's raining outside doesn't mean it isn't, you know?
She clarified her statement right after that tweet; "The system of Patriarchy privileges men as a social group, however a byproduct of that system is that men and men?s humanity is also harmed." and "?Men are not exploited or oppressed by sexism, but there are ways in which they suffer as a result of it.? - bell hooks" and "Even when I point out how one of the consequences of patriarchy is that it harms men & men?s emotional capacity, I?m accused of hating men."
She's saying that men are negatively effected by the "patriarchy" in a different way than women are. I'm not looking to get into this whole argument but at least look at all of her tweets that day and not just one bullet point from a whole statement she was trying to make.
Sources:
https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/533446372574625793
https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/533448102867664896
https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/533456958112948225
She's saying that men are negatively effected by the "patriarchy" in a different way than women are. I'm not looking to get into this whole argument but at least look at all of her tweets that day and not just one bullet point from a whole statement she was trying to make.
Sources:
https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/533446372574625793
https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/533448102867664896
https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/533456958112948225
I am sorry I get the point you made but it is total bullshit. Want to not be constrain by twitter? Okay use one of the trillion ways to get out of the 140 charter limit. Post a link use twit longer, make a YouTube video and embed it there are so many ways to avoid "the confines of twitter" it is absurd. The ***** means what she tweeted "sexism against men is impossible" means sexism against men is impossible, it does not mean sexism against men is rare, it does not mean sexism against men is unlikely, it means sexism against men is impossiblethaluikhain said:
Saying that we are not exploited and oppressed by sexism is the same thing. It still comes down to her saying that sexism against men does not exist. That isn't her clarifying, that's her digging deeper and installing an drill. She somehow thinks that saying, "Oh, but men still suffer because sexism exists" does not exonerate or change the comment she made.Jak2364 said:
Men absolutely suffer at the hands of sexism, even institutional sexism. Violence is more acceptable to be performed against us, we are viewed more suspiciously when pursuing jobs where we'd deal with children, males between the ages of 20-30 often make less in the same job than the female counterpart with no convenient "child raising" explanation to account for it, we are frequently the ones expected to pay for meals and to endanger ourselves to protect others if danger arises.
Anita must think I wake up every morning, walk out the door, and get nothing but high-fives and higher paying job offers from people who happen to notice that my crotch bulges then the right places. Again, shame on her. Male privilege is bullshit. Rich male privilege? Maybe, but I'm pretty damn sure that comes down more to the rich side of the equation than on the male side.
Well obviously she's right. All she wants is equality. Why would you ever think she's in for the money and making problems? That's just unreasonable to expect from a professional victim, scam-artist... what was she again?
I mean, that's all that 3rd wave feminists want. Equaltiy.
I mean, that's all that 3rd wave feminists want. Equaltiy.
Okay, haven't read through everything on this mostly because I see a few certain posters I tend to want to avoid springing up here.
Anyways it does sound like the prejudice + power kind of institutional saying of an -ism. I'll give a more moderate example, a poor person can hate the rich based upon prejudice, but they can technically not be classist or rather a rich person can't face classism because it is at least viewed they have the power.
Also, I believed Anita linked Laci Green before this little kerfuffle, this being the video:
Anita even, if I recall correctly, says that sexism hurts men, but based upon the definition above they don't technically face it. This should apply to @TopazFusion 's case since the sexism in that case is essentially regarded by both Green and Sarkeesian as one where rigid gender norms limits options because there is this sort of hatred, fear, confusion, or disgust of a man exerting feminine traits. There is still some asserted on the other side for women, but I don't think I see it too often and things resembling "man up" arguments are very common for women to have while guys don't have nearly the same kind of "well just act like a woman and all your problems will be fixed" type arguments. Oh and Topaz, sorry if it seems I used your post as a bounce point or something if you didn't want to, it was just the first I saw and felt like I could use it.
Anyways, not outraged, not my definition of sexism necessarily but I understand to an extent, I know she knows about disenfranchisement and pressures of men, and I don't think she is stupid for what she said but more for what she did. Just think that she really shouldn't talk about these things on twitter considering how limiting that website is for expressing complex thoughts and opinions.
Anyways it does sound like the prejudice + power kind of institutional saying of an -ism. I'll give a more moderate example, a poor person can hate the rich based upon prejudice, but they can technically not be classist or rather a rich person can't face classism because it is at least viewed they have the power.
Also, I believed Anita linked Laci Green before this little kerfuffle, this being the video:
Anita even, if I recall correctly, says that sexism hurts men, but based upon the definition above they don't technically face it. This should apply to @TopazFusion 's case since the sexism in that case is essentially regarded by both Green and Sarkeesian as one where rigid gender norms limits options because there is this sort of hatred, fear, confusion, or disgust of a man exerting feminine traits. There is still some asserted on the other side for women, but I don't think I see it too often and things resembling "man up" arguments are very common for women to have while guys don't have nearly the same kind of "well just act like a woman and all your problems will be fixed" type arguments. Oh and Topaz, sorry if it seems I used your post as a bounce point or something if you didn't want to, it was just the first I saw and felt like I could use it.
Anyways, not outraged, not my definition of sexism necessarily but I understand to an extent, I know she knows about disenfranchisement and pressures of men, and I don't think she is stupid for what she said but more for what she did. Just think that she really shouldn't talk about these things on twitter considering how limiting that website is for expressing complex thoughts and opinions.
N'yeah because the whole all men on planes by themselves are pedos so kids cant be near a guy in case he's a pedo. That's not sexist, no. /sarcasm
At times I think she cops a bad wrap for having an opinion, but then she goes out of her way to ay something so fundamentally stupid. The 'professional victim' claims seem to make a whole lot of sense.
At times I think she cops a bad wrap for having an opinion, but then she goes out of her way to ay something so fundamentally stupid. The 'professional victim' claims seem to make a whole lot of sense.
But she didn't say institutionalized sexism, she just said sexism. A failure to communicate would be her failing, not ours. However, I don't think this was a failure to communicate, I think she was being honest. Otherwise she'd presumably apologize, alter her statement, or add something to it. Since she did none of these things I have to assume that she meant what she said: that sexism can't exist against men. She is, quite simply, wrong about this.thaluikhain said:
I find this sad, as the leading icons in video games are apparently... Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn. This is unfortunate, since I would consider myself a feminist, and I support feminist changes in gaming. I just wish there was someone a little more qualified leading the charge. She's the Pariah everyone had gathered around, though, so this is unlikely to change. Of course, for every vaguely idiotic thing she has to say, we have twelve gamers threatening to rape/kill/bomb her, so on the sliding scale of morality, she still holds the high ground.
Thankfully some of us can still support feminism without necesarily supporting Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian.
Why are you carrying water for someone who is obviously stupid/manipulative?thaluikhain said:
She means exactly what she says here. And if you think she's denying only "institutionalized" sexism against men and not just sexism against men on any level, well then I can't help you friend.
There is no doubt an issue of institutionalized sexism against men, and one must look no further than the adoption process in the United States. I know plenty of single women that can adopt children with nary a second look, yet let a single man with a heart to raise an unfortunate child, and lets see how far he gets.
Then feminism is ignorant and stupid. Sexism is discrimination based on gender, and while traditionally against women, not exclusive to women. Also one does not require power in order to be sexist. In fact I find a lot of feminists to be quite sexist ironically.SOCIALCONSTRUCT said:
I assume you can back up this claim with evidence?SOCIALCONSTRUCT said:
It's hard to say that a cause like feminism holds an extreme view as the consensus view when people who identify as feminists or hold feminist ideals are as diverse as they are and there's no singular uniting doctrine which they all subscribe to to some degree or another besides "sexism is bad."
More reason why I'd love to see Twitter burned to the ground.thaluikhain said:
However, I still sort-of disagree with her; sexism goes both ways when certain stereotypes of genders are enforced. That's possible with bad masculine stereotypes as well. Certain men can suffer from other men's stereotypes regarding masculinity and what's supposed to be 'male behavior'.
Of course it has to be noted that in society as a whole, women obviously have it worse. But a statement like one in that Twitter message above is sort of silly. But that's as much Twitter's fault because you just. Cannot. Discuss. Such complex issues. In goddamn 140 characters.
See, that's the practical problem I have with the argument that sexism has to include power. Your italics just show me that it boils down to semantics. So guys suffering from masculine stereotypes reinforced throughout society is in practice and perceived moral wrongness equal as reinforced female stereotypes, but it's not technically sexist? Sounds a bit useless to me. If both are equally morally reprehensible what then makes the distinction useful?Skatologist said:
And even if you apply the "sexism has to include power" argument, why wouldn't individual men be able to suffer under patriarchal rules? And if they can, doesn't that mean that sexism can affect men too?