Defining Misogynism

[Tono Makt]

Do you agree or disagree with this guy? Thoughts in general?

I couldn't get past about 1:30 before I decided I didn't care if it was real or satire. I know it doesn't really help in the discussion to not watch the source video, but assuming this guy is being serious, then this is the kind of guy who we need to allow to make as many videos as he wants... then just ignore him.

 

[Tono Makt]

And while I don't agree that videogames should be a boys club or a male space, after going through high school during a time where you pretty much had to hide that you played videogames because most girls would put you on their blacklist for it, yeah I guess now it seems a little bit insulting that they come in making demands and expecting game devs to cater to them. There's already incentive to market to you. If a game markets to you you'll buy it, if it doesn't you won't. Condemning its existence and getting pissed that it isn't for you operates on the premise that everything should be for you.

You would make a valid point... if the same women who said "You have a Nintendo? Eww, no sexy time for you, EVER!" came back to the same group of men and said "Please admire my body in this awesome hand-made skin tight Rikku outfit!". That doesn't seem to be the case - it seems to be that women in the 80's and 90's (ages 14-25 at the time) said "You play video games? Okay, enjoy your little Princess Leia Star Trek doll, 'cuz that's the only girl you're going to be playing with for a long time!" whereas women now (women who are 14-25 NOW) are saying "You mean I can dress up slutty and people will actually APPLAUD me for it? Where do I sign up? And hey, now that I've played the games to see just how much skin I can show while still be considered in character, these are actually kinda fun - can you make something that is more what I really like?"

 

[A random person]

Oh, it's this guy.

For those who haven't figured it out, he's pretty much just an MRA. Hardly the worst out there, but still.

 

[Aramis Night]

Another thing that bothers me is all of this congratulatory ****e for women who manage to do anything more complicated than tying their shoelaces. "Women in Business" and all this crap.
I'm sorry... you just told me that women could do things just as well as men... now you expect me to be impressed that a woman did something that millions of men do every day?
That just sounds insulting to women, not to mention unfair that it assumes things are so very easy for men and we're justified in highering our expectations for men.
Doesn't exactly seem to help, if people being seen equally is indeed one's goal... and I doubt it is the goal of many of these disingenuous wretches.

Ever heard of inspiration? Surely you were inspired by someone you thought you could relate to and wanted to achieve the same or something similar to what they did.

So, now it's wrong for women to try to inspire other women with stories of success?

Maybe we should start a new strategy in schools. Just to be equal we will say the same thing to boys and girls. God forbid we do something sexist and show a boy/girl something about another successful boy/girl so we'll start telling these kids, "no one remotely like you has ever achieved anything meaningful, worthwhile, or even sustainable, if you want to succeed you need to find a way to be something besides what you are right now". Yeah isn't that nice?

I'm sorry but this part of your argument just doesn't fly.

I fail to see the downside to this or why you think it doesn't fly. Actually this is the exact message i was given growing up: That i would have to change to be anything worthwhile. This is the reality most boys face, or at least used to before we started encouraging entitlement to everyone. Do you honestly think that people need idols so much? Do you really believe that people need encouragement to such a degree? I will acknowledge that it could be that most women work this way, but men do not. Men in fact have a natural tendency to defiance.

As a historical point to illustrate what i mean: Black slaves were not encouraged to make music. In fact many of them suffered greatly because of it, enduring beating and all manner of other punishments most harsh. On the other hand women were encouraged in the use of instruments during the same time periods. Yet black slaves created the blues and later jazz. Women on the other hand created no new cultural forms of music. Almost no great female composers.

Meanwhile the former slaves who were originally not encouraged to foster any musical talent have either created or influenced almost every modern musical genre from rock and roll to rap. The same can be said of almost every great artistic or scientific mind throughout history. Great men throughout history have not been encouraged. Plato was ordered to ingest poison by his own people. Galileo was proclaimed a heretic by the church and placed under house arrest by the inquisition(lucky). Tesla was marginalized by monied interests and died poor with nothing to show for his attempts to give everyone access to cheap/free/safe energy. I could go on and on with examples. None of these men were given encouragement and all of them were facing institutions that were entirely hostile to their goals.

So either we need to stop coddling women or acknowledge that sadly sexism may have some grounding in objective reality and women need different treatment. Which would you prefer? If women do in fact need to be encouraged to such a degree then it will send the message that women are not equal. You can't expect different treatment and be expected to be treated the same. If equality is to have any chance women need to complain less and do more without needing positive feedback.

 

[generals3]

Oh so this is all about logic and science now?

No, but arguments gain validity by being proven.

Tell me what is logical about playing a video game? Logically shouldn't you be doing something more productive with your time?
It is not logical to waste time and energy in pursuits that do not benefit your species, your immediate family, and most of all yourself.

Too bad that people who play video games do believe it benefits them. Having fun makes them happier. And the reasons why people play video games are quite irrelevant. If you want we can start an argument about that but this was about the validity of arguments. And there, regardless of the field, it is expected that arguments backed up with proof are given more weight than those without.

"I can sympathize with the former kind of argument but i will instantly dismiss the latter." -- Where is the logic here?

Very logical actually. Because the former is merely an opinion, it doesn't involve unbacked claims. If i say I like blondes that's me expressing my opinion, there is no evidence needed because it's my own claim about myself. If i claimed that blondes were universally more attractive people would expect some evidence because now i'm making a claim which involves a lot more individuals than myself. And the idea that I know what others like needs to be backed up.

You dismiss what people have to say just because you don't like how they frame it? These people feel underrepresented, and worse yet insulted, by the lack of variety in games on the market. They don't feel that sexism might be a factor of their desire to want something different. They KNOW IT. Just like you know you have an illogical desire to play video games, and how you know you will be very upset if this movement goes too far and every game released plays like a "Twilight" movie.

Nono, I dismiss what people say because they make very big claims with no evidence. Ironically in certain cases we're fighting the same fights (I'm personally not a big fan of sexualization in videogames) but that doesn't make their arguments more valid and I still won't overlook blatant speculation and will point out it's just that. And how can they know it's because of sexism if there is no hard evidence which backs it up? You see there were Moroccans who thought they knew my eyes happened to look at them because i was a racist white guy who looks at Moroccans because I hate them. But that was obviously not true, I happened to look at them for a moment because I tend to look around when i walk on the streets. But they made that unfounded assumption and started making all sorts of threats and throwing all sorts of insults based on that unfounded assumption. And this is the type of unfounded assumptions i see in all of these discussions.

Hell I don't want to get rid of any possibility of sexism in games, to remove the specter of guilt. I want to SPREAD it around. I want to see more games were men are pretty pieces of eye candy that do nothing more than fetch ammo for their dominant, and clearly has her shit together, heroine.

And there is nothing wrong with wanting change. But I do find this part to be a bit weird. You said sexism in games was part of the social issue and yet you want more of it? That seems a bit weird.

And then you have some game developers saying that they aren't thinking of women when they make their games and don't even want to hear from women in focus groups about the game. I tried to look for a source and then realized I was wasting my precious time trying to appease you. I am not here for that.

How are they "not thinking about them"? Because there is a big difference between not thinking about them because they make a game for a predominantly male segment and just never thought about women because they just don't care about women in general. The former being an entirely justified marketing strategy and latter being quite a weird move. You see i doubt Beiersdorf cares about the opinion of women when they make Nivea For Men products but that makes sense since those products are targeting men.

And if you don't want to do it to appease me do it for yourself. You're the one challenging the status quo so you're the one who will benefit from backing up his claims to rally more people to the cause.

I'm sorry but humans aren't robots. If we were then logic would be the end all and be all for us. You dismiss people because they see a gender bias and bring it up as a social issue. I dismiss you because you are trying to force logic in to an illogical subject. Your argument has no value to me because you have not yet demonstrated an emotional investment in it.

The logic of the subject itself is irrelevant. What is relevant is the idea that people tend to give more consideration to claims backed up with evidence, or at least they should. I'm not asking you to be 100% logical. I'm asking you to back up your claims.

 

[Batou667]

I made just over 5 minutes before realising that I was wasting time that I'd never get back. The guy might have one or two points hidden away in there, but they're lost in the white noise of his ego, his PUA bullshit, and him conspicuously taking a drag on his bloody fag (that's a cigarette to the Americans) every ten seconds like a 14-year old trying to look tough in front of their mates.

Yeah, I thought this one was a lot more interesting, and only slightly marred by somebody/something breaking wind into the right speaker every ten seconds. It's true: men as a whole work harder, longer, in more dangerous jobs and unlike women are expected to risk their lives in times of war. These are facts I've yet to see a feminist tackle head-on - either they get dismissed as MRA propaganda, or hand-wavingly used as "proof" that "the Patriarchy hurts men too, duh", or else twisted into proof that men are still more "privileged" since fighting and dying in wars is more socially valued than childcare (which is great consolation to the soldiers coming home with limbs missing, or in boxes, I'm sure).

And now for a proper deconstruction of Feminism:

 

[Saviordd1]

I made just over 5 minutes before realising that I was wasting time that I'd never get back. The guy might have one or two points hidden away in there, but they're lost in the white noise of his ego, his PUA bullshit, and him conspicuously taking a drag on his bloody fag (that's a cigarette to the Americans) every ten seconds like a 14-year old trying to look tough in front of their mates.

Yeah, I thought this one was a lot more interesting, and only slightly marred by somebody/something breaking wind into the right speaker every ten seconds. It's true: men as a whole work harder, longer, in more dangerous jobs and unlike women are expected to risk their lives in times of war. These are facts I've yet to see a feminist tackle head-on - either they get dismissed as MRA propaganda, or hand-wavingly used as "proof" that "the Patriarchy hurts men too, duh", or else twisted into proof that men are still more "privileged" since fighting and dying in wars is more socially valued than childcare (which is great consolation to the soldiers coming home with limbs missing, or in boxes, I'm sure).

And now for a proper deconstruction of Feminism:

Okay I gotta object to the military thing.

Women are becoming a bigger and bigger part of the military as of late, and even before then women still fought in wars depending on the culture or hell even in disguise or as spies.

I know that's a smaller part of your argument but its a pet peeve of mine.

 

[Xisin]

The most tragic and hilarious thing about douchebags like this is that they will never be fully aware of just how much of a douchebag they are.

His performance is fascinating, but the shelf behind him is even more so. Does he really think that owning a human skull makes him more sophisticated? Is that a stuffed possum? Did he buy that specific copy of Gonzo because it has the title in really big letters on the spine so it would be visible when seen from mid-distance by a webcam? Fascinating...

Glad someone else was trying to figure out what was behind him. I thought it was a stuffed anteater.

OT: Shit I've gone Feral! Someone better take me out back, Old Yeller style.

Edit: Actually watched it all. If I dislike him, does that make me a Man-Eater who has committed treason to her country? Wonder if I can find that on a sticker somewhere.

 

[Batou667]

Okay I gotta object to the military thing.

Women are becoming a bigger and bigger part of the military as of late, and even before then women still fought in wars depending on the culture or hell even in disguise or as spies.

I know that's a smaller part of your argument but its a pet peeve of mine.

I take your point, women are seldom unaffected by war, they generally suffer along with the rest of the country in times of war and usually contribute to the war effort. And as you say, there have been some notable female spies, snipers, saboteurs etc. But let's not pretend that the number of women directly killed in warfare is even comparable to the number of men killed, the figures just aren't comparable.

 

[Batou667]

Grr! Argh! Snarl!

You seem upset. Please calm down and stop wildly projecting all over the place.

I wasn't "blaming" feminism or feminists for anything (this time).

What I was doing was agreeing with the points made in the video, and noting that, hey, when feminists talk about workplace equality, that rarely means getting involved with the dangerous and unpleasant things that a lot of men are expected to do on a daily basis. Manual labour. Working in dirty or unsanitary conditions. The occupations with the greatest rates of work-related injury or death. Where's the "privilege" here? If "the patriarchy" hated women that much, then why aren't the mines, the oil rigs and the lumber mills all full of women, coerced or forced to work there against their will, while the men sit around at home?

Spoiler

You think it's a "privilege" to die for your country? That death is so special that we cruelly withhold it from women out of spite because we're vain macho men who don't want to share the glory? Oh come on, get real. Back in the bad old days men didn't get to choose either; men were conscripted and women were left at home to care for the children. That's based on the simple biological principle that women get pregnant, men don't, and therefore men are more disposable. Without going hardcore evopsych, I think that's a fairly clear case of biology informing society.

But hey, if YOU want to become a tin miner or join the bomb squad, god speed and good luck.

 

[bananafishtoday]

or hand-wavingly used as "proof" that "the Patriarchy hurts men too, duh"

I don't understand how you can so readily dismiss arguments along these lines. It's one thing to say "some men tend to have it worse than women in X Y Z," but you do realize... that isn't the fault of feminists, right? These systems are largely enforced and were created almost exclusively by men. The social pressures that push men into traditionally masculine roles are defined by misogyny. The threat to a man's social standing if he refuses is based on the notion that he is feminine, and this is taken to be an objectively bad thing, rather than the way some people are, no better or worse.

And it's worth noting that a lot of the most dangerous/dirty jobs are also the most hyper-masculine in culture. As hostile as the tech sector is to women, I'm sure the trades tend to be much worse. You can't really blame women for the fact that there is incredible pressure, both from society in general and from those sectors in particular, dissuading women from pursuing those careers.

That's based on the simple biological principle that women get pregnant, men don't, and therefore men are more disposable. Without going hardcore evopsych, I think that's a fairly clear case of biology informing society.

 

[Batou667]

I don't understand how you can so readily dismiss arguments along these lines. It's one thing to say "some men tend to have it worse than women in X Y Z," but you do realize... that isn't the fault of feminists, right?

Both you and Boots seem to assume that I was blaming feminism/feminists. Please show me where I said that in my first post. Perhaps in the context of this thread it's reasonable to assume that's something I would have said, but I didn't.

And it's worth noting that a lot of the most dangerous/dirty jobs are also the most hyper-masculine in culture. As hostile as the tech sector is to women, I'm sure the trades tend to be much worse. You can't really blame women for the fact that there is incredible pressure, both from society in general and from those sectors in particular, dissuading women from pursuing those careers.

I think we're mixing up "masculine" with "beneficial" or "desirable". Sure, the coal miner or firefighter can come home after a hard day at work and console himself that he does a difficult job. Perhaps his pals at the bar give him an extra bit of kudos for it. Maybe it's helped him impress the ladies a few times, the ladies who like a rugged man, anyway. But that's where the social power and influence associated with these professions starts and pretty much ends. Look at who's really at the top in capitalist, patriarchal society: the CEOs, the bankers, the politicians. People - mostly men - who quite notably don't get their hands dirty on a daily basis.

To say that this is a sex issue is an oversimplification. It's equally, if not more, a class/wealth issue.

You seem upset. Please calm down and stop wildly projecting all over the place.

And bam, straight in with the tone arguments. You don't hang about, do you?

Well let me see, I posted a fairly innocuous observation in which I didn't attack a particular group, and you weigh straight in with assumptions, circumstantial ad-hominems and SHOUTY CAPS FOR EMPHASIS. Do you realise how aggressive and confrontational you come across? Or do you justify that to yourself as you're "fighting the good fight"? Either way, it's not pleasant to read or conducive to a good discussion, so I'd appreciate it if you could spare me the fire and brimstone.

To answer the rest of your post, see my answer to bananafish. I don't feel that all nuances of workplace inequality can be neatly explained away by patriarchy theory - because here we have a system that is supposedly set up for the benefit of all men, and yet tends to ensure that working-class men work longer and die earlier than anyone else, while upper-class men and women are both in positions of power/privilege. I don't think that's a patriarchal society, that's a plutocracy.

Since we're going down this route, could you tell me what your definition of "patriarchy" is?

 

[generals3]

Well i must say i can see some very defensive positions in here. It is actually easy to find literature which explains differences in society through biology. Do mind i said "explained" not "justified", which is a common mistake made by over-defensive sociologists (in this particular case feminists).
http://books.google.be/books?id=vq_0BUkcZ5MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Biology+at+work+rethinking&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=rJ-cUbmtCcODO6ORgOAJ&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA

Is an example of such literature. Personally, being a scientific person who loves science because it explains things i don't understand the hatred towards science explaining (or at least partly) certain social behaviors. Sure it may hurt "free will" extremists who feel inferior due to the mere idea some of their behaviors may be encoded to a certain extent rather than a result of their own choices. And sure I can understand how feminists may act butt hurt towards it because by removing agency from the human free will you also remove a certain ability to change things.

But here is a statement that the author of the book wrote on the back cover: "what needs to be questioned is the notion that either sex is a victim". Because that's a predominant attitude when we discuss genders in society. That somehow the situation is bad and as such we have victims. But are there victims? If more men than women decide to join the armed forces does that mean there is a victim gender? If less women decide to work their asses off and as a consequence reach the top of the corporate ladder does that mean there is a victim gender? Why do so many people actively seek explanations, often with little evidence, which involves a victim status for either sexes and at the same time disregard any theories which would weaken this "victim" status of either gender? Are our lives really so awesome we need to get out of our way to find things to complain about? Because that's how it sometimes feels like.

 

[Batou667]

snip

I hope that was nice and cathartic for you to write?[footnote]At least your fingers got a good workout? That's a positive, I suppose.[/footnote] Look, I can tell you're simply spoiling for a nice juicy internet fight but that's not what I'm here for. My original post wasn't inciteful or inflammatory, I didn't "sneer" at or "belittle" anyone. What I was hoping for was to get some different opinions on how a system that patently disadvantages, endangers and frankly kills so many men can be seen as part of a "privileged" position. I'm in the process of learning about feminism at the moment and occasionally throwing out questions or observations on forums like these is sometimes valuable. But if you'd rather just insult me, leap to conclusions about my attitudes towards feminism/women in general and make deductions about my level of education, that's cool too I guess.

See, what you're actually asking me is, "What is the definition of patriarchy?" But why not, allow me to compensate for your inability to use Google one more time:

You misunderstand me. I wasn't asking for the definition of patriarchy, I was asking for your definition of patriarchy. I've come across at least three different definitions of "patriarchy" in the past and I was wondering which you're using, or else we're just arguing past each other and trading insults.

 

[generals3]

But you didn't throw out any questions, unless you put them in invisible text that I somehow missed. What you threw out were sexist remarks (you still haven't addressed your claim that men "work harder" than women, by the way, though I'm happy to keep quoting it back at you until you do) and dismissals of the feminist explanations that you've already heard without any basis for dismissing them or legitimate counter-arguments.

http://www.oecd.org/els/family/43367847.pdf
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php?title=File:Employment_rates_for_selected_population_groups,_2001-2011_%28%25%29.png&filetimestamp=20121030183007

Was it really that necessary to ask for evidence for a fact as commonly known as the fact males have an XY chromosome set?