Hypocrisy on my part?

[ThrobbingEgo]

snip

YOU claimed that feminism is wrong because men are also represented poorly, and I explained that actually feminism does deal with the limiting gender roles that are assigned to men and women. As does many of Anita's videos.

 

[Alexi089]

snip

YOU claimed that feminism is wrong because men are also represented poorly, and I explained that actually feminism does deal with the limiting gender roles that are assigned to men and women. As does many of Anita's videos.

Where? Please quote exactly where I said that. I'm pretty sure it's not in there. I said I disagree with Anita and I disagree with critics who's style of critisism is based on confirmation bias. Nowhere did I say anything close to the idea that men and women shouldn't be allowed to follow their life interests because it breaks traditional gender roles (I take it that we can agree that this is {or at least should be} the fundamental ideal in feminism?): Post 19, paragraph 2, last 2 sentences. Re-read them. My stance on this should be pretty self-evident.

Look, I got your full original post 22 where you go off on a hyper-defensive, self- righteous rant as a result of you misreading one of my sentences. If you're not even going to read what I say before responding, there's no sense in it. I gave my opinion on her videos to the OP. I gave my reasons. We disagree on the merit of her work. I'm happy to acccept that, why can't you?

I like a good discussion every once in a while, but I'm not wasting time on someone who just wants to dodge my responses; and reply with another deviation from the current discussion because they're determined to look like they're right.

We both know you'll be determined to have the last word. If I'm bored enough, I'll bite.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

snip

YOU claimed that feminism is wrong because men are also represented poorly, and I explained that actually feminism does deal with the limiting gender roles that are assigned to men and women. As does many of Anita's videos.

Where? Please quote exactly where I said that. I'm pretty sure it's not in there. I said I disagree with Anita and I disagree with critics who's style of critisism is based on confirmation bias. Nowhere did I say anything close to the idea that men and women shouldn't be allowed to follow their life interests because it breaks traditional gender roles (I take it that we can agree that this is {or at least should be} the fundamental ideal in feminism?): Post 19, paragraph 2, last 2 sentences. Re-read them. My stance on this should be pretty self-evident.

Look, I got your full original post 22 where you go off on a hyper-defensive, self- righteous rant as a result of you misreading one of my sentences. If you're not even going to read what I say before responding, there's no sense in it. I gave my opinion on her videos to the OP. I gave my reasons. We disagree on the merit of her work. I'm happy to acccept that, why can't you?

I like a good discussion every once in a while, but I'm not wasting time on someone who just wants to dodge my responses; and reply with another deviation from the current discussion because they're determined to look like they're right.

We both know you'll be determined to have the last word. If I'm bored enough, I'll bite.

But, quite honestly, there are issues in the way pretty well every demographic is portrayed in modern society. You can find misandristic adverts if you look out for them (Remember: 'So easy, even a MAN could do it!'?). Sex & the City shoe-horns in plenty of male objectification, because they know it sells to the target audience. Perfume adds do it with both genders. Even whilst being subjected to an episode of Coronation Street last night, I remember a line along the lines of 'Men can't help being sex obsessed pigs' Pretty sure 'pigs' was the chosen noun. On a family show! So, yes, there's lots of bad script and ad writers who will use objectification, or sexism because they think it will gather attention. But these are individuals, not the collective. So drop the gender wars, please.

Remember this? Your post? Where you said that this was a non-issue because men are represented poorly? That little fallacy? Right there?

There's a reason why I edited my post. I clicked send while I was under-caffeinated. Then I looked up, said "fuck it," edited my post, and that was that. The generous thing to do in that situation is to realize that the other person made a mistake and changed it. If I wanted to be malicious, I could have done something other than delete the words that I wanted to take back. In short: Don't be a prick.

 

[Rawne1980]

I watched a couple of her videos to see what all the fuss was about.

If someone infalted a rubber glove, smeared it in jam and then wibbled it in my face it would make more sense than her prattlings.

Can't say I hate her though, she's more of a non entity. She has no impact on my life so I go on my merry way blissfully ignoring her existence.

 

[Alexi089]

snip

YOU claimed that feminism is wrong because men are also represented poorly, and I explained that actually feminism does deal with the limiting gender roles that are assigned to men and women. As does many of Anita's videos.

Where? Please quote exactly where I said that. I'm pretty sure it's not in there. I said I disagree with Anita and I disagree with critics who's style of critisism is based on confirmation bias. Nowhere did I say anything close to the idea that men and women shouldn't be allowed to follow their life interests because it breaks traditional gender roles (I take it that we can agree that this is {or at least should be} the fundamental ideal in feminism?): Post 19, paragraph 2, last 2 sentences. Re-read them. My stance on this should be pretty self-evident.

Look, I got your full original post 22 where you go off on a hyper-defensive, self- righteous rant as a result of you misreading one of my sentences. If you're not even going to read what I say before responding, there's no sense in it. I gave my opinion on her videos to the OP. I gave my reasons. We disagree on the merit of her work. I'm happy to acccept that, why can't you?

I like a good discussion every once in a while, but I'm not wasting time on someone who just wants to dodge my responses; and reply with another deviation from the current discussion because they're determined to look like they're right.

We both know you'll be determined to have the last word. If I'm bored enough, I'll bite.

But, quite honestly, there are issues in the way pretty well every demographic is portrayed in modern society. You can find misandristic adverts if you look out for them (Remember: 'So easy, even a MAN could do it!'?). Sex & the City shoe-horns in plenty of male objectification, because they know it sells to the target audience. Perfume adds do it with both genders. Even whilst being subjected to an episode of Coronation Street last night, I remember a line along the lines of 'Men can't help being sex obsessed pigs' Pretty sure 'pigs' was the chosen noun. On a family show! So, yes, there's lots of bad script and ad writers who will use objectification, or sexism because they think it will gather attention. But these are individuals, not the collective. So drop the gender wars, please.

Remember this? Your post? Where you said that this was a non-issue because men are represented poorly? That little fallacy? Right there?

There's a reason why I edited my post. I clicked send while I was under-caffeinated. Then I looked up, said "fuck it," edited my post, and that was that. The generous thing to do in that situation is to realize that the other person made a mistake and changed it. If I wanted to be malicious, I could have done something other than delete the words that I wanted to take back. In short: Don't be a prick.

That paragraph does not translate to 'Feminism is wrong because men are also represented poorly'. You're going out of your way to misinterpret me and insinuate I have a sexist bent. Ultimately, my issue with Anita's work is that she is seeking out oppressive propaganda where there is none. If everyone reviewed every piece of media with her kind of biased scrutiny, no-one would ever stop being offended, and nothing would ever be made, for fear of someone finding a way to view it as propoganda-ridden. Frankly, if the focal point of feminism is how the Powerpuff girls scripts might contain underlying misogynistic propoganda, when looked at with a kind of skewed tunnel vision; then, yes, I'd say that's a pretty trivial issue. If the main focal point of feminism is equal opportunity and civil rights: I've made it clear that I'm supportive of that.

Calling me a prick after looking up at the condescending posts you've left in this thread is pretty damn hypocritical. In most instances, you're going out of your way to be rude towards people who hadn't said a word to you. Your initial post to me was less than polite. I've been pretty patient with your tone thus far. The fact is, you obviously aren't taking any time to read what I say before responding, yet you seem insitent that I see things from your perspective. You've also totally side-stepped most of my return comments with tangetial comments so far, which makes any discussion with you a total waste of time for me. This is the first time you've actually responded directly. I've agreed to disagree 2 posts back. You're the one who took issue with my stance to begin with, rather than simply posting your thoughts on Anita's work with reasons. I'm not fussed if you're offended now I'm caling you out for being an arrogant time-waster.

 

[corvuscorrax]

I quite liked sucker punch.

People are so hardcore in their movie preferences!

 

[Tanis]

She's an attention whore, like when EA did it's fake protest of it's own game (Dante's Inferno I think it was).

She's got butt-loads of money because she not a butter-face, and was attacked by 4chan types.

If she had look more like roadkill, you probably wouldn't know her name.

Sexism swings both ways.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

If you missed my problems with your posts, here it is. Cue neon letters.

Ultimately, my issue with Anita's work is that she is seeking out oppressive propaganda where there is none.

You're misinterpreting Anita's work. Hegemony isn't propaganda, and Anita isn't claiming that it is in her videos. Just because Power Puff Girls' writers aren't trying to destroy feminism, while drinking human blood from a chalice and laughing on a throne made of the skulls of women, doesn't mean that they aren't presenting a strawman portrayal of feminism that primes viewers to take actual feminist or social critiques less seriously. There's a difference between an allegation of malice and internalization of patriarchal roles in the intent which Anita may portray poorly (and isn't really the point, whether it's careless or malice doesn't matter), but her underlying argument about the portrayal that she is often quite correct about.

On a side note: Just because you're willing to waste more time responding to me than I am to you does not mean that my comments are less valid than yours. It only means I don't take you seriously. You're welcome to take me as seriously as you want to. I really could care less.

 

[Alexi089]

You're misinterpreting Anita's work. Hegemony isn't propaganda, and Anita isn't claiming that it is in her videos. Just because Power Puff Girls' writers aren't trying to destroy feminism, while drinking human blood from a chalice and laughing on a throne made of the skulls of women, doesn't mean that they aren't presenting a strawman portrayal of feminism that primes viewers to take actual feminist or social critiques less seriously.

I really don't think I am. I think she's seeing what she wants to see in other people's work and arguing that it should be stopped; whilst never saying a word about what she would like to see instead and why she thinks this would be better.

Second: Militant, misandristic women who pose as civil rights figures do exist. You can't tell people they're not allowed to include these characters in their work just because you don't want to acknowledge that. And acknowledging their existence and the flaws in their attitude does not undermine equality because they are not an embodiment of equality. People don't pay attention to the bad whilst disregarding the good, anyway.

There's a difference between an allegation of malice and internalization of patriarchal roles in the intent which Anita may portray poorly (and isn't really the point, whether it's careless or malice doesn't matter), but her underlying argument about the portrayal that she is often quite correct about.

Ok, so now you seem to be saying that writers are subconsciously prone to discredit ideas about equality for women? I'm just going to say that I think that opinion is a little paranoid; and I don't believe that people are conditioned to fear equal opportunity for both sexes. You're welcome to feel otherwise.

On a side note: Just because you're willing to waste more time responding to me than I am to you does not mean that my comments are less valid than yours. It only means I don't take you seriously. You're welcome to take me as seriously as you want to. I really could care less.

1.) If you want to discuss something with somebody, you do have to acknowledge their points. You don't get to pick and choose.

2.) *sigh* Really? You?re going with the 'well, I don?t even care that much anyway!' line? Then why'd you bother approaching me in the first place? Surely, you'd simply ignore a comment you didn?t take seriously when it wasn?t even written to you?

For someone who presents themselves as passionate about feminism, you don't half do a lot of damage to the credibility of your chosen movement by picking directionless arguments to get attention and have someone to complain at (I'm stuck for any other motivations now). Far more than a male protagonist guiding a female support character in Ico ever could.

Anyhow, I gave my opinion on Ms. Sarkeesian as a critic for the OP to consider or disregard as they wish. If you don't like it, that's your problem. I simply disagree with her methodology; question her motives and I think her frankly convoluted, biased analysis does more to encourage friction and paranoia than promote equality.

Just don't bother me in future, we're not going to get on.