Matt_LRR said:
That's a lot of words spent answering a question I didn't ask.
You did come close to touching on something important to my question though, and acknowledging that you can't respond, I'm going to address it.
Never say I can't do something. Cause realize that there is a major difference between having a conversation between two people to which are both lay people and unless we want to go back to the whole "you have to have a degree to be qualified" then that is only going to divide us from actually having a conversation that we should be more focused on our opinions and feelings. We aren't fact checking here. If you want me to actually do the research then I'm gonna need the time to actually do it.
Also, I really don't believe that having a degree makes you the only authority to talk about the issue. Especially when I know a lot of people who get their master's degrees and they still don't know jack shit about the degree they studied so hard in. Nevermind forget it all when they actually get a job that has nothing to do with what they studied.
Matt_LRR said:
Tenmar said:
nice loaded question.
That is its own ticking time bomb that blows up on me no matter how I answer cause it makes the logical leap that admitting there is a problem in the first place.
The fact is, the question wasn't loaded, because I was asking you if you understood why the creation of women-only spaces is not
anti-feminist. Feminist theory asserts that a problem exists. Answering the question does not require you to agree with feminism on this issue (though you should anyhow), it requires you to understand why advocacy of minority safe spaces (but not necessarily
majority safe spaces) squares with that particular assertion of feminist theory.
Because it's true that, on the surface, it appears like the creation of women-only spaces is antithetical to the idea of "equal rights", but contextually the creation of such a space is actually seen as either an unfortunate necessity of circumstance or as an actual interim step towards creating spaces that do hold men and women in equal regard.
I bring this up, because among the most common complaints of Ms. Sarkeesian's work has been to attack her understanding of feminist perspectives, and virtually ever criticism of the sort I've seen so far (including both your personal attacks onher arguments in the Bayonetta video, that destructoid article, and that "College Graduate" video, have been launched from a lay perspective that fundamentally misunderstands what feminist theory
actually says, and how feminist theory underpins the specific claims Anita makes in her work.
-m
You are right that on the surface it does run contrary to equal rights. But on the other hand there was a reason that women did fight to be treated to be equal to that of men. Yet the issue comes towards that of safety and security comes the question of if there "is actually a problem?" that does warrant that trade of liberty for that security. Personally I will disagree with such a notion and while we all know that molestation is bad, violence is bad, the hard truth is that there are a lot of bad things out there that affect us. However it is up to us to be vigilant and also understand that we have a code of laws that empower people to stop such acts and also punish people who decide to violate said law based on our philosophical standards that are constantly changing.
However do note the action to solve a problem does not always relate to the quantity of the problem. As sad as this maybe for me to say this and this is coming from a person whose father was a police officer there is only so much crime you can prevent. It is up to the people to uphold the law and understand the consequences. You can't actually have a certified system and when it comes to urban areas where populations are extremely condensed and considering the various cultural standards other countries have there are going to be victims due to people being uneducated for their own personal heritage from their family where these people do not treat people as equals. That's the sad hard truth. However to then point to video games and ignore the economic situation, cultural, and individual heritage is a bit off. Especially when we make the cultural jump from applying more western standards and how we understand the world to other countries like Japan and India. Wouldn't their definition of feminist theory be quite different than our own? Or is it really meant to be a universal theory that should be applied regardless of the religion or culture?
But I think the reason that I try and ignore your statements is that more or less I find it to be a non-issue from the actual heart of the issue which is the actual development of video games. I mean we can bring up all these assholes who make flash games as kneejerk reactions with all the conspiracy of a scam but that doesn't really get us anywhere. Neither does a project that analyzes the characters but outright ignores the logical extension of her stance which is the question, "are video game developers making games for fun, or are they actually sexist pushing a sexist agenda?". As black and white it is that is the logical extension. Cause you can't really give a pass if you firmly beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt to all the game developers and artists if you think they are causing or promoting sexism to which I would argue has actually gone down much like violence as a crime.
Call me a bit ignorant but I honestly can't look at a game like Duke nukem and say that Gearbox Software is sexist because of some feminist theory that is based on the treatment of women. I can't look at Shigero Miyamoto and say he's a sexist cause of his depiction of women with Princess Peach as a damsel in distress and even when she gets to be the protagonist she uses the powers of emotion to save the Mario Bros gets as much complaint despite the narrative offering a reason that there was a magic artifact explaining why she has those powers.
It all just seems like looking for ghosts where none exist and undermines the integrity of the video game industry who I'm pretty certain doesn't actively hire people who are sexist or are actively misogynistic. I'd rather allow developers to freely create the content they want and then once published be critiqued on how to make the game better and not have to actively in the mid development process appease a player base that could cause financial harm to the company and their deadline. Cause the way I see it is that people are trying to relate all these tragedies(cause that is what they are) and somehow have that tragedy affect the industry that doesn't actually have any relation to it at all yet now have to walk on eggshells and limit what they want to create cause of a sensitive subject of what is actually a loud minority.
P.S.
Matt, are you feeling okay man? I know these topics can get emotion but I've noticed you get quite negative in these topics. I mean "acknowledging I can't respond"? Really? That's a pretty low blow here cause it puts my intelligence on display and on judgement. Rather have a conversation with you than have you judging me. I don't do that crap to you cause I use these forums to have a discussion by sharing our thoughts and feelings on the subject. Neither of us are talking from some authoritative standpoint or talking as if our opinions are facts.
Also, "attacks"? Sorry but I'd like to think of them as dissents. You don't see me saying she is a bad person or any of that crap. Heck in a previous post on this thread I defended her cause he project as much as people want to think is a scam, isn't a scam. I'm sure she's also a nice person that I could get along with. But saying I attack her is a stretch from what it actually is, a dissent, a disagreement. I'm not actively trying to stop her project either but simply voicing my disagreement on her views or as of late how one sided the publishing of actual reasonable dissent gets buried in the tabloid trash where some asshole with a conspiracy somehow gets more attention and where you have the news section that should stick to the facts instead of making logical leaps that cause there is a dumbass attack from a random flash animation means that the video game industry is sexist. It's the same logical fallacy that exists when she herself used the youtube comments to critique the video game industry as sexist. That completely ignores the actual work of the video games and the employees involved in creating said video games and if they are in fact sexist and just jumps to the conclusion that the video game industry is sexist.
I mean by the same logic I can say that liberals and conservatives are "sexist, racist, homophobic and other slanderous terms I can't think of at the moment" because I saw an opinion piece on Fox News and Huff Po where all the commentators made lewd and nasty remarks. I see the same crap in politics and even candidates at least focus on the other candidate and people directly hired by the candidate instead of random forum posters when it comes to the smear. It's that logical leap that Anita made and Funk made that is a problem.
Sorry sidetracked, it happens a bit with so many issues thrown in. But I should be more concerned about you Matt. I like you man, you are a good person but when it comes to these kinda of issues you really come off as negative or questions the other person's intelligence as if they shouldn't say anything at all and just let conversations go one sided. Really shuts down communication or becomes some contest where it stops being about the subject and becomes an ego contest where no one actually gets anywhere. Cause sometimes the best way to take some posts is to just take their opinion as opinion and see where they are coming from. Sometimes deciding if a person is right or wrong doesn't really matter but understanding what exactly they really care about when it comes to the issue.