Anita Sarkeesian states that sexism against men is impossible
- Thread starter Lightknight
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well, those are common examples, they are hardly the be all and end all of male fantasies. I mean, for lots of guys a catgirl would be a sexual fantasyEvilRoy said:
The other thing is, the gaming community doesn't profit from female fantasies, but they exist.
I once spent some time sticking barcodes on the back of romance novels at a library and read the blurbs. The sex fantasy seemed to always revolve around a rugged billionaire (never a mere millionaire) who was exotically foreign[footnote]Once, and only once, this meant "Welsh"[/footnote] that the woman initially didn't get on with, often a doctor.[footnote]One noteworthy example featured something along the lines of him being "a good looking mechanic from the wrong side of the tracks...but can their relationship withstand the revelation that he's really a secret billionaire?"[/footnote]
Likewise, paranormal romance stories often are rather formulaic as well[footnote]http://www.fangsforthefantasy.com/2013/04/written-by-numbers-drinking-game_26.html[/footnote]
No worries. Yeah, my main point was that since "reverse" sexism/racism/whatever is usually far less serious than the regular kind, it doesn't really make sense to devote equal attention to each. If one group is being insulted and the other is being assaulted, it's only logical to spend more time and effort trying to protect the latter.WhiteNachos said:
We haven't had a draft since 1973. Yes, it's stupid that men still have to register with selective service (incidentally, that was because women were banned from the armed forces, a policy which feminists oppose), but if you really think the draft is coming back I have a bridge to sell you. And if that's really the best example you can find of discrimination against men, it can't possibly be anywhere near as serious as sexism against women.
thaluikhain said:
Yup, just kind of thinking out loud here. Although I have to laugh at the items you brought up - it sounds like The Boss from saints row is a female sex fantasy. Rugged, wrong side of the tracks businessman, implied millions to billions at the end of the earlier games or start of the later, and with the magic of appearance and accent choices, delightfully Australian - foreign, without being "foreign" foreign.
Apparently she has not felt relevant in the past couple of weeks, so she posts a profoundly wrong statement. Look! She is getting people (including me sadly) to post stuff about her again. Her relevance is reestablished.
Gold! Comedy gold as far as the eye can see!Reasonable Atheist said:
I love the way she wants to lead some kind of holocaust against men and create a heap of totalitarian rules that men will live under while dismantling the military, the state, law, industry, economics, agriculture, medicine, education, and every facet of society required to actually enact it or keep order. It's as if she has envisioned a world in which there is only one political faction, and all men (and women) just decided to submit and never rebel against the world's most defenseless regime. You were right, A+ material here.
Yeah, same here about working in a book store. The Cinderella Scenario in romance novels is pretty humorous in it's frequency. The female character is usually some downtrodden woman, either in a shitty relationship with an asshole guy, or just finished with such a relationship. And the new guy swoops in to give her the life of luxury and panty dissolving sex she's always dreamed of. Oh and the guy usually has some major damage of his own, that is cured by her Magic Vagina, that soothes all of his past fears and pains, and let's him stop being a playboy and just Settle Down with one Good Woman. I actually have a game with my wife, where I have her tell me the title of the book, and then I randomly toss out various plot elements off the top of my head, and she tells me how many actually show up in this book. I usually get 75% of them correct, even down to small details like "he's actually a werewolf/vampire hybrid love child, lost son of a yakuza crime family (thus why he's rich and such a badass at combat)"thaluikhain said:
So yeah, the female equivalent of the male fantasy stuff does indeed exist, it's just mostly in the literature section of entertainment, instead of gaming.
To be honest, that sounds difficult to the point of impossibility to include in a game without it being the primary and only focus of the story and gameplay...Happyninja42 said:
Edit:
Okay, wait, I got something cooking here.
Main character is female, has some kind of mental healing ability - its like "the power of Christ compels you" except we wouldn't reference that ever. Primary enemies in the game are crazies of different types (some hyperactive, some something like the psycho from borderlands, maybe some like American Psycho)- so gameplay consists of thwacking enemies with some kind of bludgeon to knock them over, and then jumping them to un-crazy them however that works. It would be set in a reasonable city, except it is more or less understood that these guys exist, and people who can fix them exist, and regular people and police are more or less powerless. Maybe the police don't attack because they either don't want to hurt the crazies, or because of some kind of crazy mutant healing factor. Healing factor could be how the American Psychos get detected - like its a virus that lets you heal super fast, but makes you nuts and different people react different ways.
Side story is there is one guy in the American Psycho strain who the main character has never been able to fix no matter how many times she knocks him out. So they cross paths now and then and talk a bit, but stay out of each others way, since she doesn't want to get murdered, and his murder efficiency is decreased when she is attacking him. Maybe now and then she swoops in to rescue a hapless victim from him leading to more chatting.
I've kind of hit a wall here because I think "the power of love" saving the sympathetic antagonist is kind of cheesy horseshit, but I can't think of another way to make the "uncrazyifying" skill power up. Gotta sell this shit to Sudo though, bet he has an ending already.
She posted it almost a month ago, mind. People posted about it at the time on this forum and then forgot about it.NeutralStasis said:
She is using a reconfigured definition for racism. The definition has been expanded to multiple concepts, however if often criticized and scrutinized. I believe the definition came into being in the 70's (I cannot remember who originally coined it). It is a very limited way to look at "isms" though.Queen Michael said:
Old news to me.
I've seen that political re-mix of "sexism" before in a couple of my requisite humanities (poli-sci) courses, and it's just as bullshit now as it was then. To show how flimsy that line of reasoning is, just replace the operating discriminator "Sexism" with any other "ism" identifier and it makes just as little sense.
By adding the Power requisite to the definition, it effectively changes any definition into "Only minority power holders are victims", or by taking its inverse form produces "Majority power holders cannot be victims."
Either form is factually untrue, and anyone that asserts to the contrary is either very dishonest, or very ignorant of human history. (Probably sort of person that would insist the February Revolution and associated extermination of the Russian Czar's family was just a wild party gone too far. Or that the French Revolution was just the Aristocracy mistaking Guillotines for barber poles.)
So, Anita is either an ignorant fool, or a bold faced liar...also old news to me.
I've seen that political re-mix of "sexism" before in a couple of my requisite humanities (poli-sci) courses, and it's just as bullshit now as it was then. To show how flimsy that line of reasoning is, just replace the operating discriminator "Sexism" with any other "ism" identifier and it makes just as little sense.
By adding the Power requisite to the definition, it effectively changes any definition into "Only minority power holders are victims", or by taking its inverse form produces "Majority power holders cannot be victims."
Either form is factually untrue, and anyone that asserts to the contrary is either very dishonest, or very ignorant of human history. (Probably sort of person that would insist the February Revolution and associated extermination of the Russian Czar's family was just a wild party gone too far. Or that the French Revolution was just the Aristocracy mistaking Guillotines for barber poles.)
So, Anita is either an ignorant fool, or a bold faced liar...also old news to me.
An astute observation. It certainly reinforces the notion that Sarkeesian's relevance is driven by her professional victim status rather than her arguments.Verlander said:
Specifically, victims of something that they've defined as requiring the victimisers to be powerful.Atmos Duality said:
No that was just the most obvious refutation of the idea that institutionalized sexism against men can't exist. If you want a current example there's the fact that women get longer sentences than men for the same crimes.DataSnake said:
Anyway I haven't said either side has it worse, just arguing that institutionalized sexism (which is different than regular sexism) against men can exist and has existed.
One thing that I haven't seen brought up is that if she thinks you need power to be sexist then doesn't that mean that a video game cannot be sexist?
A video game cannot oppress anyone or hurt them in anyway so that would mean it's impossible for them to be sexist under her definition.
A video game cannot oppress anyone or hurt them in anyway so that would mean it's impossible for them to be sexist under her definition.
Except that such a line of reasoning undermines either equality under the law (when applied by relevant authorities), or the crucial concept of reciprocity that buttresses egalitarian moral systems and makes society work. Also, humans being human, any mindset that applies, to an ongoing problem one spends a great deal of time thinking about, the notion that 'this group is more victimized as a whole, therefore I will concentrate on them' will through habituation eventually devolve on the subconscious level into 'this group and the injustices done toward them are more important, and I will ignore the other'.DataSnake said: