I am a feminist....and this is hilarious.

PuckFuppet

Entroducing.
Jan 10, 2009
314
0
0
Luciella said:
PuckFuppet said:
That's just plain lazy art design.

It doesn't seem to do anything for the scene, I looked up the context, and just exists for the quick hit so that people appropriately assume what the designer was intending to convey. No attempt to actually make it part of a story just "LOOK AT THIS! REACT TO IT!".
Aeh... not really. The context is that Carmilla wanted to own Gabriel/Dracula(the protagonist)sexually, so he could go back to be the prince of darkness and forget his dead wife...
I tho question the "lazyness", as a graphic desginer myself who has done models, meshes, skeletons and some animations...it was quite a lot less trouble to just insert the rod in her eye, no blood included, than making it fit the mouth that way.
Every single thing you do as art/game takes a ton of time depending of the action and has to be planned before it.
For that part there had to be a script, a storyboard and a speedpaint. All of them revised over and over again, till the art director aproves it. Its a drag that reapeats itself and gets on every artist's nerves.

So, with so much work and tought, its hard to believe it was not intended, taking in account the skimpy clothings, boob animations and the first 4 bosses being all female "bitches" that needed to be put in their place.
I was primarily criticizing the script there but your point is well taken.

Seen from the perspective I was looking at it, scripting/storyboarding the phrase "stick a rod in her mouth and design the face just so" is totally lazy.
 

generals3

New member
Mar 25, 2009
1,198
0
0
Silvanus said:
This sounds like quite an irrational assumption on your part, really.

I doubt the statement was to the effect that people should vote for women absolutely regardless of position. I imagine they omitted stating that it did not apply in absolutely every hypothetical, because they thought people would think that went without saying.

Similarly, if an organisation states that it is against violence, we do not extrapolate from that that the organisation is against pushing someone over to prevent a murder. We do not assume the extreme.
It's not an assumption at all. All they asked us was to vote for women. If they wanted to push for certain ideologies they would have given more details (it would have literally taken just one word more, like: "Liberal" or "Socialist" or "Progressive"). Technically if i voted for a Vlaams Belang (Neo-Fascist party) female politician i still abided to their wishes. All they wanted was more women.

The republican party is a single organisation; feminism is not. As I said, members of an organisation may be held accountable somewhat for the actions of the organisation.

Who is it who says these figures are "the face" of feminism? The feminists I knew, in my British university, will (in all likelihood) never have heard of them. The same will be true of feminists in dozens of countries, and most feminists throughout the history of the movement.
What makes them the face? The fact they're the ones making the most noise in the public. They're the ones pushing for political agendas, making it in newspapers, etc. Now you may say it's just my nation, perhaps it is, but i've yet to actually hear high profile feminists making statements which didn't make their obvious pro women bias clear. Not even in foreign newspapers. Actually it seems that it's only random individuals on the net who are (or claim to be, because they're often simply unaware of their strong bias or... they just lie, humans do that too) gender-unbiased. I actually find that almost depressing. Because as a consequence we have plenty of individuals who are trying to make a good name for a movement which frankly doesn't deserve it anymore. (I'd go as far as saying that Harvey Dents statement applies to feminism: "you either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villian")
 

Corran006

New member
May 20, 2009
61
0
0
So the NRA says don't blame the gun, but blame the person. So should it not stand to reason you can't blame the video game but blame the person?
 

UberPubert

New member
Jun 18, 2012
385
0
0
Big post so I'll try to take this point by point so I don't miss anything,

Angelblaze said:
Following the outrage started and perpetuated by our gloriously delicious internet community that never seems to run out of different angles to ***** about,
It's funny, I've seen feminists argue "*****" is a gendered insult and shouldn't be used because it demeans women. But I'm guessing I won't see too many gamers or feminists argue with it if it's being leveled at "gamers".

Angelblaze said:
I've repeatedly come across the same anti-feminist comments that usually permeate the arguments surrounding 'female gamers/journalists/anyone that dares to be female'.
Anyone that dares to be female? Really? I'd like to see how every woman on the internet has an argument surrounding her full of anti-feminist rhetoric.

Angelblaze said:
So why is it funny?

Because Feminism and social justice movements/almost anything non-cooperative to the norm that's done by a feminist are to Gaming...what Gaming and school shootings were to the media/news outlets just a few years prior.
This is much funnier considering feminism (going by equal rights definition here) is the norm these days. It's a little difficult to argue you're fighting the man when president Barack Obama of the United States of America - arguably the most powerful man on the planet - is a self-identified feminist, with an outspoken and campaigning feminist wife in First Lady Michelle Obama. I'm not complaining, but tell me how appealing to the reigning political ideology on gender in the US at the moment is non-cooperative to the norm.

Angelblaze said:
I don't think I need to go over it but can no one remember how people and every media outlet took the piss out of gaming because 'it caused violent behavior', 'its addictive', 'its a murder simulator'?

And almost every time, what was our answer?

'This is a person who plays video games, that just happened to shoot up a school'.
'Gaming doesn't cause violence'
And this is even funnier, I see many feminists saying similar things about gaming and dismissing it out of hand. Just switch violence with "misogyny", or just "violence against women". This defense no longer applies because of the touted patriarchy theory and confirmation bias that comes with it.

Angelblaze said:
Now, as if forgetting that we were in basically the exact same place quite some time ago, we judge feminism by its few idiots we see that get attention from the media because clickbait and proclaim - almost proudly even - that it is absolute evil. Maybe less here and more on (certain sub-reddits of)reddit, 4chan and the inescapable troll black-hole that is Youtube, but the point stands.
Haha, you're accusing the anti-feminists of using click-bait articles? Right, because columnists hammering out titles with "misogyny" "rape" and "straight white men" don't attract page views. And how do you justify classing reddit, 4chan and youtube of being "the media"? The former two have nothing to gain from proclaiming this or that about feminists. Youtubers can at least claim ad revenue but I can't think of any "anti-feminists" with more than a few thousands subscribers at most.

Angelblaze said:
Now, you can argue all different levels of stuff but the fact of the matter is that feminism is not inherently by its own merits evil.

'Prove it'.

Replace just about any anti-feminism argument with any radical movement over the past...forever and its history repeated.
I wouldn't take anyone seriously who calls things "evil" if they did so outside of the context of a joke or at least with some hint of irony. That said, Feminism: The Idea is difficult to denounce just as any idea is relatively harmless on it's own, which is part of why I don't believe in censoring any of it. Feminism: The Movement, on the other hand, has it's issues. But it seems so ill-defined and decentralized it's difficult to criticize it without naming names of people or organizations, though it should be pointed out this doesn't stop said parties from blanket-judging their detractors.

Angelblaze said:
Now, I'm not stating that you can't be 'against' or 'non-supportive' or 'neutral' to feminism.
Obviously you, as a living breathing individual (man, woman, child, grown up or anything in-between or nothing at all) are entitled to your own opinion. But attempting to blame one group for all the problems is....unrealistic to say the least.
I don't think I've seen anyone blame feminists for "all" the problems, even the hard detractors seem to spread blame to progessives and other "SJWs". Blaming all feminists or blaming "it all" on feminists is unrealistic, of course. However, I think we can narrow the list down and pin certain trends or topics on this or that feminist, maybe even "these feminists" and not be incorrect in still referring to them as feminists.

Angelblaze said:
And of course, because someones going to post it eventually...
#notallfeminists
Ah, what was the response to #notallmen? Oh yes:

"You say not all men are monsters?

Imagine a bowl of M&Ms. 10% of them are poisoned.

Go ahead. Eat a handful.

Not all M&Ms are poison."

Faulty logic of course so I won't resort to it, just food for thought.

Angelblaze said:
Now, why am I posting this here? If it's not one of the 'more feminist bashing' places?
Well, for starters for conversation. The more you talk about something the more of an impact it leaves.
Thing is? I got tired of talking about feminism for a while. And now I'm back to being tired of femnism again. It's made quite the impact on me already.

Angelblaze said:
Secondly, I want to ask you if you've seen any anti-feminist postings or comments on the internet pertaining to the recent....Zoegate as some have called it.
Yup. I don't have quotes for you, sorry, but rest-assured they're out there, more than a little of it having to do with ZQ being a self-proclaimed feminist, supporting and being supported by other self-proclaimed feminists, etc etc.

Angelblaze said:
And finally, I want to assure myself that I do in fact spend time around rational human beings when I'm on the internet. Not many. Just a few.
I think that was a typo and you mean to assure the reader. I'm not convinced most people are rational, let alone when they're on the internet. I demand proof!


Angelblaze said:
P.S. I'd like to point out I was a gamer before I was a feminist, I didn't just jump in with this mentality of my form of feminism, I developed it while being painted by and with gamer culture. I only say this because people keep separating the two as if someone can't be both or as if someone can't be a gamer that eventually became a feminist, whilst retaining their 'gaming' roots. Like all hours they spent gaming and all knowledge of the games they loved got zapped out of their heads after they read their first pro-feminist words.
And I would like to point out while I was a gamer before I was a feminist, I am also a gamer after I have stopped identifying as a feminist. I like "egalitarian" more.
 

supajasiu

New member
Mar 3, 2010
2
0
0
I love it how... well everyone in this thread seam to gleefully ignore a rather serious accusation surrounding Quinn.

Instead of caring weather Quinn was Advocating that cheating is Rape and Empowered women can achieve what they want without using there sex-appeal - she allegedly F.... her way in to her position, traded sexual favors for good press and repression of bad press, and also cheated on her partner.

Shouldn't precisely feminists be interested in finding out weather this is correct or not? because it seams to me this sort of behavior would poison your well way more than Dudebros from the internet, I'm sure as heck curious about that.


And then there is the issue of Journalistic Integrity being SEVERELY called in to question, which in the past week was only enforced by the Gaming Media wide Black Out and flat out Banning anyone who dares bring it up.

Something we should ALL be concerned about...


Honestly guys, how can we claim to strive for equality when Gaming Media report on the Creator of Cards against Humanity being a rapist ( which was just proven to be here say) and had nothing to do with gaming - but then when a Woman is alleged to have ruined 2 Gaming Jams, defrauding money for her own jam ( No Date, time, location, or updates, her own personal PayPal? Seams fishy, hope it's not.) and using the Media for both promoting herself and repressing coverage she doesn't like - that's suddenly not news worthy?

Please, enough with the double standards - or at least explain how this isn't a double standard.
 

Kameburger

Turtle king
Apr 7, 2012
574
0
0
Angelblaze said:
Following the outrage started and perpetuated by our gloriously delicious internet community that never seems to run out of different angles to ***** about, I've repeatedly come across the same anti-feminist comments that usually permeate the arguments surrounding 'female gamers/journalists/anyone that dares to be female'.

So why is it funny?

Because Feminism and social justice movements/almost anything non-cooperative to the norm that's done by a feminist are to Gaming...what Gaming and school shootings were to the media/news outlets just a few years prior.


I don't think I need to go over it but can no one remember how people and every media outlet took the piss out of gaming because 'it caused violent behavior', 'its addictive', 'its a murder simulator'?

And almost every time, what was our answer?

'This is a person who plays video games, that just happened to shoot up a school'.
'Gaming doesn't cause violence'

Now, as if forgetting that we were in basically the exact same place quite some time ago, we judge feminism by its few idiots we see that get attention from the media because clickbait and proclaim - almost proudly even - that it is absolute evil. Maybe less here and more on (certain sub-reddits of)reddit, 4chan and the inescapable troll black-hole that is Youtube, but the point stands.

Now, you can argue all different levels of stuff but the fact of the matter is that feminism is not inherently by its own merits evil.

'Prove it'.

Replace just about any anti-feminism argument with any radical movement over the past...forever and its history repeated.

A list to get you started:
Gay marriage
Black president
Woman (running) for president
Black people being allowed to vote
Sex changes
Gaming.
Muslims
Immigrants/illegals
the mentally ill

Now, I'm not stating that you can't be 'against' or 'non-supportive' or 'neutral' to feminism.
Obviously you, as a living breathing individual (man, woman, child, grown up or anything in-between or nothing at all) are entitled to your own opinion. But attempting to blame one group for all the problems is....unrealistic to say the least.

And of course, because someones going to post it eventually...
#notallfeminists

Now, why am I posting this here? If it's not one of the 'more feminist bashing' places?
Well, for starters for conversation. The more you talk about something the more of an impact it leaves.

Secondly, I want to ask you if you've seen any anti-feminist postings or comments on the internet pertaining to the recent....Zoegate as some have called it.

And finally, I want to assure myself that I do in fact spend time around rational human beings when I'm on the internet. Not many. Just a few.

'Capt'cha : Which of these trash bag products are you most likely to use?'

Ruffles. For the jimmies.
P.S. I'd like to point out I was a gamer before I was a feminist, I didn't just jump in with this mentality of my form of feminism, I developed it while being painted by and with gamer culture. I only say this because people keep separating the two as if someone can't be both or as if someone can't be a gamer that eventually became a feminist, whilst retaining their 'gaming' roots. Like all hours they spent gaming and all knowledge of the games they loved got zapped out of their heads after they read their first pro-feminist words.
I just wanted to say that I somewhat disagree with your premise. I don't think that gender is the same kind of battle that a lot of these other causes are. I mean I think that every problem is unique and requires a case by case look, but more so gender is one of those things where equality is tricky because we are not just training our cultural perceptions but in many ways we are challenging our very instincts as humans. That is not to say it is not a worth while cause, but I think the word 'feminist' has one of those Pro/Anti implications, calling yourself pro-life subtly implies that your opponent is anti-life, meaning to imply that if I am not a 'feminist' I am against women or women's equality.

So when I say this, I want to make it abundantly clear that while I don't call myself a feminist, I would absolutely support and promote both equality and a greater female presence in our governments and business world wide. The reason I feel compelled to make this distinction has more to do with the subjects that tend to arise. Anita Sarkeesian springs to mind, where I don't think she deserved any kind of harassment but I have several disagreements with her fundamental logic. But I am not against women because I disagree with her, however this is not how I am made to feel.

The social justice warrior moniker that is used as both a pejorative term and a badge of honor to some people but I want nothing to do with either side of this word. I would never want to make anyone feel bad for wanting social justice, but I also don't want to imply that those who are not focused on these things are inherently somehow bad people.

To put it simply I really dislike the loaded terminology and antagonistic tone that tends to be, I suspect largely unintentionally injected into these discussions.
 

UberPubert

New member
Jun 18, 2012
385
0
0
Jumplion said:
Frankly, I don't really know what to say that won't get drowned out in this thread anyway, so I'll make it as brief as I can.
Oh, don't worry, I didn't miss your short essay.

Jumplion said:
Many detractors of feminism don't understand basic concepts of feminism. If they did, they wouldn't be attacking Sarkeesian the way they have been doing for nigh on two years now. It's literally basic Feminism 101,
And it should have stayed in the classroom where it belongs. Feminist theory is not simply a critical thinking tool, it is not logic, it is not science; it would take even a good professor a small essay, an interview, and a degree in psychology to "prove" on their own even one video game's narrative is misogynistic, never mind broadly condemn the majority of them. The only people who have misunderstood feminism harder than it's close-minded detractors is Anita and her supporters, and have condemned it to a laughing stock in the public eye as a result.


Jumplion said:
Not to mention the personal attacks, oh the personal attacks. Every single time there's some stupid controversy with a woman at the forefront it's almost impossible to actually talk about the subjects and topics surrounding that person without first addressing the incessant harassment that they receive. I guarantee if the purveyors of the controversy were male, we would not be seeing these types of reactions. Claims of "lying", "hypocrisy", "scamming" are made without a basic understanding of what Kickstarter is and furthermore reduce the conversation to ad homeniem instead of actually, you know, discussing the work that is actually being done.
While ad hominem never effectively solved any argument there was absolutely a case to be made that Anita Sarkeesian was a fraud, and calling her character into question is a viable defense against her claims of constant harassment over nothing, ie: if she lied about the parties involved or purposefully provoked them it would go a long way to disproving the pervasive idea of gamers as misogynists.

Jumplion said:
Another problem with detractors of feminism is that they take things way too personally when discussing these issues. They claim as if feminist are saying "all men" rape or that "all men" are sexist pigs, then go "I don't see women as objects! I'm not sexist! You think everyone is sexist!"
This argument never ceases to amuse. If gamers are taking it way too personally when they're casually referred to as knee-jerk misogynists, why do feminists take it so personally when they're criticized? I always hear there's no such thing as spokespeople among feminists and that their version of it can mean anything from misandry to c-sections being rape then why always rush to the defense of it if it's clear they're not targeting you?

Jumplion said:
Let me make something very clear; This is not about you.
And this is where you go off the rails, this statement in particular being puzzling. How can you claim an ideology for the equal treatment of men and women, doesn't concern men?

Jumplion said:
When a woman says "#yesallwomen experience sexism to some degree", you do not need to go "but what about men! #notallmen! You're saying all men do these things, you're not for equality!
What a nice strawman you've built here. Even if a man did express this in these exact words, isn't it a little...sexist to paint them all with this brush?

Jumplion said:
Reverse sexism!
lol

Jumplion said:
Now, look, men's issues are important, sure. But they are not the same issues. When someone brings up "but what about the men", it only serves to derail the topic and make it about you. It's not always about you.
Oddly enough, when men do actually do gather to discuss their own issues they're written off as fringe crazies, is it really a wonder they try to elbow in on important discussions, desperate to be heard? If you don't believe me, tell me how credible you believe MRAs are in comparison to feminists. By their definitions, both people are fighting for the same thing, but I doubt I'll find many people who agree. I'm not even an MRA.

Jumplion said:
No one has ever said that "video games cause you to be misogynistic". What they have said is "video games often contain elements of misogyny that can reinforce misogynistic behavior"
So the claim isn't that games are turning people into misogynists, it's that everyone is already a misogynist and games just add fuel to the fire? No, I can't see how anyone would have a problem with that message either.

Jumplion said:
because games are not made in a vacuum. By itself a woman wearing scantily clad clothing is fine. But in the larger cultural and societal context that games are made in, they can be seen as a problem. And no, a few examples of "strong female characters" do not nullify the rest of the issue.
I've mentioned this in another post and it basically comes down to patriarchy theory and confirmation bias. Scantily clad women are misogynistic because we live in a patriarchal society, and we must live in a patriarchal society because - well, look at all these scantily clad women! Somehow the "vacuum" argument as a substitute for context enjoys the privilege of ignoring subject-specific context and uses whatever the critic decides is a more fitting backdrop instead, ignoring the intentions of the creators or the reactions of the consumers.

Back to the Anita thing: The feelings and thoughts of the creator and the viewer are irrelevant, the one that confirms what she suspected even before she began her project is the only one that matters.

Jumplion said:
For fuck's sake, if Jim Sterling can realize how he was being sexist to some degree back in the day and change his viewpoints, I can't see why more people can't do the same.
False appeal to authority. Even if someone reading this were to agree - mostly or in part - with Jim Sterling, why is his perspective on the subject so much more important than anyone else's? I mean, he's a game critic, not even someone who studies sociology.

Jumplion said:
It's not a hard thing to understand, people. Representation matters.
And at the end of all this, you know what? Sure. If people want to create more female characters or help female developers get into the industry, I'm cool with that. Why not? It sounds fun. If Anita had kickstarted a project to help educate girls and women to create more games, or just a project to give current female developers the spotlight so others would have role models to look up to, I wouldn't have a single complaint.

It's the constant shaming of gamers and anyone who criticizes feminism/feminists that I can't stand, the overbearing broad brush of misogyny and sexism claims - it's the negativity, ultimately. People trying to tear things down rather than build them up, and I'm tired of it.

Jumplion said:
Out of the ashes I cometh again.
Please go back.
 

Dragonbums

Indulge in it's whiffy sensation
May 9, 2013
3,307
0
0
supajasiu said:
I love it how... well everyone in this thread seam to gleefully ignore a rather serious accusation surrounding Quinn.
Nobody is ignoring it. We all universally agree that what Quinn did is a shitty thing to do. But that thread has basically become an echo chamber of "revolutionists" where everyone with a dissenting opinion either "doesn't get it." or is "derailing the thread". After all- the whole reason why this started in the first place is because Zoe Quinn was found out to of slept with 5 men, with a few of them reviewing her game. Even though said reviews were as objective as it gets, with the biggest "culprit" article simply mentioning her game among a good hundred of other Steam games as well. That wasn't to mention that the article was written 2 months prior to the relationship.

Instead of caring weather Quinn was Advocating that cheating is Rape and Empowered women can achieve what they want without using there sex-appeal -
Awesome. You found her out to be a hypocrite. Can we please move on? She wasn't a big deal anyway until people who had a beef with her made her into a celebrity icon in videogames. Just like how Anita went from Youtube nobody to superstar because the very people who couldn't stand her elevated her to a status worth taking note of.

she allegedly F.... her way in to her position, traded sexual favors for good press and repression of bad press, and also cheated on her partner.
Yes yes, journalistic integrity and all that. Where were you guys when we were consistently talking about how EA, Activision, and other big brand third party companies bought their way into good reviews of their AAA $60.00 games so they can sell millions? You guys didn't come in the fucking thousands to go on a witch hunt (because that's what it is at this point.) for all the journalists who were probably paid by EA and friends under the table to write favorable reviews or even outright lie about the game to garner mad money from the masses that don't know any better. You didn't nearly care enough. But the moment some small dev nobody does the same thing as EA and friends but used sex instead of money, all of you in hypocrite fashion bring out the pitchforks and torches and are now proceeding to go on some sort of gaming news purge.

Shouldn't precisely feminists be interested in finding out weather this is correct or not? because it seams to me this sort of behavior would poison your well way more than Dudebros from the internet, I'm sure as heck curious about that.
Feminists are not a single entity with set goals in mind. It is a philosophical rule set that applies to many different fields and interests. Gaming feminism is but a small sub sector of the feminist group. Most feminists honestly don't even know who Zoe Quinn is, couldn't give two shits about that nobody, and couldn't' give two shits about vidya to care enough to look into her. This is not to mention the fact that her being a feminist has nothing to do with her actions at all. It's about as unrelated as a shooter also being into videogames. The reason why you are "asking" us to slam her is because this is the perfect storm to really rev up the anti feminists and have them go and point us all out as the "true" scum and pieces of shit we supposedly are. I'm fairly certain in the 200 pages monstrosity that is this thread, quite a few Escapist videogame feminists have called Zoe out for being a shit lord. But apparently they don't count unless they wear the feminism badge on their fucking account.

Why should I waste my time with that? Whether we do or not isn't going to change the perception afterwards. Your still going to say "feminists didn't even shame Zoe for what she did! That means they support her!" Even though the latter is hardly true.


And then there is the issue of Journalistic Integrity being SEVERELY called in to question, which in the past week was only enforced by the Gaming Media wide Black Out and flat out Banning anyone who dares bring it up.

Something we should ALL be concerned about...
Right, and it being like 200+ pages means that nobody cared at all. I mean really now. We knew how corrupt journalism was for years now. Your acting like this is some breaking revelation.


Honestly guys, how can we claim to strive for equality when Gaming Media report on the Creator of Cards against Humanity being a rapist ( which was just proven to be here say) and had nothing to do with gaming -
but then when a Woman is alleged to have ruined 2 Gaming Jams, defrauding money for her own jam ( No Date, time, location, or updates, her own personal PayPal? Seams fishy, hope it's not.) and using the Media for both promoting herself and repressing coverage she doesn't like - that's suddenly not news worthy?

Those are news worthy. You want to know what wasn't gaming news worthy? The initial accusation levied at Zoe Quinn. Which was her sleeping with 5 guys behind her husband's back. Sourced from a bitter ex boyfriend and no more concrete proof than that. That shit has no fucking place in videogame forums. Had you of started off with relevant stuff like the game jam shutdown than you would of had a lot more room to prove your point. However the first 8 pages of that thread (which for many Escapists here 8 pages of one specific topic tends to be the summary of the whole thread.) was basically a bunch of dudes getting piss mad that Zoe Quinn slept around with 5 other guys and that her nudes (paid or not is irrelevant) was passed around on the likes of 4chan. This is the kind of shit I see on garbage tabloid papers at check out in the supermarket. It's shallow, invasive, dirty laundry that has nothing to do with gaming, or me and I would rather stay out of it. As of right now the only people continuing that thread are the same 10 people basically linking and archiving this drama so they can one day be 4chan internet heroes and be forever remembered for their noble deeds in an Encyclopedia Dramatica article.

Please, enough with the double standards - or at least explain how this isn't a double standard.
The only double standard here was that not a single one of you guys were here en mass for the other more widespread and corrupt journalistic practices that was big and med sized companies paying their way to good reviews or coercing reviewers to give them good reviews by being super nice to them (The Mass Effect 3 reporter being based off of an IGN reviewer anyone?) yet the moment some feminist nobody sleeps around with a couple of guys that's enough to spark off the "revolution" as you all are so lovingly calling it. It wasn't until later when more shit started to come up that you actually had information to warrant the larger masses paying attention to.

But honestly after I got my initial summary of the whole thing I decided to tune out. That thread is seriously creeping me out with how many users on there are going out to target journalists that didn't really have anything to do with this aside from making social commentary in videogames and making a statement about Zoe Quinn during the Depression Quest era. Claiming they are all for the "unbiased" opinion yet it's clear that a lot of the people under this "banner" are simply willing to shut up any sort of "SJW" talk because it annoys them.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
supajasiu said:
Shouldn't precisely feminists be interested in finding out weather this is correct or not?
And hey, aren't all y'all hypocrites for being against the "doxxing" that Anita Sarkeesian did, accepting it as legit, but either supporting or dismissing as fake the "doxxing" of Zoe and Phil?

I'm going to go assume you didn't actually hop on that bandwagon for a moment. Perhaps as you read that, you were preparing a mental defense as to how you didn't think that and I shouldn't lump you in with those who did. Perhaps you think it unfair.

And it is. And that's the point.

"Feminism" isn't a collective hive-mind. We are not the Borg, we do not take orders from a queen, and we do not all follow the same ideology in anything but the loosest sense. We just had a thread on here where a bunch of second wave feminists insisted porn was degrading and dehumanising to women, even as other feminists/women/feminist women disagreed.

My opinion on Zoe Quinn as it relates to feminism begins and ends with her having the right to self determination and be treated as an equal. That's it. Whether she's corrupt or not is not a feminist issue as far as I'm concerned, and I'm nowhere near alone on that. Trying to bring feminism into a judgment or even interest of her guilt or innocence is as inane as trying to bring in atheism on it.

But don't forget why we got here. A pissed-off boyfriend accused her of fucking five guys and the internet jumped on that with little else to go on at the time. As a feminist, that is an issue that bothers me and should bother others. In fact, even if she did everything she's been accused of, that still won't make it right to go after a woman based on how many penises she's had. This is a site that's defended PUAs, FFS.

Yes, yes. I'm sure that you specifically only care about journalistic integrity, though you've only sprung up recently to voice your opinions on this specific instance. I'm sure that's just a coincidence. Or rather, I really don't care what your personal motivations are, and am preemptively pointing this out because I'm sure that the protest will be along those lines. I'm still concerned with a trend of double standard, like the way two weeks ago Anita Sarkeesian was a criminal for Doxxing people, but there's almost zero about how it was wrong to Dox Quinn (and the double standard of deciding whose dox is legit based on convenience and ponies). I'm concerned with the relatively minimal focus on the ethics of the dudes who slept with her, unless there's some evidence she raped them or enslaved them with vaginal witchcraft.

Hell, just the fact that you posted this:

Please, enough with the double standards
That you are so concerned with made-up double standards, falsely ascribing values to feminists, yet seem wholly unconcerned with the double standards that got us here is amazingly telling.

I agree. Enough with the double standards. So practice what you preach and don't chuck stones from houses made of glass.
 

sumanoskae

New member
Dec 7, 2007
1,526
0
0
Saltyk said:
The loudest voice gets the most attention.

I don't have any problem with feminists that are reasonable. It's just when you find people that write nonsense like this [http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/], which I frankly consider a fine example of misogyny (yes, you read that right, misogyny) that I have a problem. Or some of those horrible feminists that Amazing Atheist seems to find that come up with crazy lists on how people "support rape" with a list so vague and extensive that virtually no man, and even some women, would be defined as such.

Effectively, those who use the guise of feminism to explain their own hatred of people and come up with insane ways to rationalize it and yet not be horrible people in their own twisted minds. "I'm not horrible, because that man is a rape supporter because he is Pro-Life."

However, don't quote these wackos and then when I tell you that they are a wacko, say that their work is satirical. Plenty of it isn't.
Christ, that link is the most insane shit I've seen all year... I mean... WHAT THE FUCK? o_O

I can definitely agree that the views expressed within were misogynistic, but I hesitate to try and even attempt to document all the levels of insanity at work here.
 

Riot3000

New member
Oct 7, 2013
220
0
0
I am a feminist and I find it hilarious that so many are going out of their to keep the victimization of woman intact but still want to call themselves feminist. This use of victimization as liberation which as been in many critical feminist discussion sense the 70s if I can remember and the one who was critical about it was Bell Hooks who I can remember off my head right now.

So please continue this Us vs Them narrative they caused this whole mess to explode all over the place, villify the opposition as the enemy and cherry pick info to suit your narrative your just being the other side of the same coin.
 

Jumplion

New member
Mar 10, 2008
7,873
0
0
UberPubert said:
Oh, don't worry, I didn't miss your short essay.
Woohoo~

And it should have stayed in the classroom where it belongs. Feminist theory is not simply a critical thinking tool, it is not logic, it is not science; it would take even a good professor a small essay, an interview, and a degree in psychology to "prove" on their own even one video game's narrative is misogynistic, never mind broadly condemn the majority of them. The only people who have misunderstood feminism harder than it's close-minded detractors is Anita and her supporters, and have condemned it to a laughing stock in the public eye as a result.
This statement shows to me you still don't understand some basic concepts of feminism. If you are seriously saying to keep a relevant, historical, cultural, and societal movement "in the classroom" then you don't understand the importance of understanding and educating one another on broader social movements. Replace the "feminist movement" with the "civil rights movement" and what you are saying would be ridiculous. This stuff wouldn't be taught in the classroom if it didn't have relevance in the real world.

While ad hominem never effectively solved any argument there was absolutely a case to be made that Anita Sarkeesian was a fraud, and calling her character into question is a viable defense against her claims of constant harassment over nothing, ie: if she lied about the parties involved or purposefully provoked them it would go a long way to disproving the pervasive idea of gamers as misogynists.
So, again, ad hominem that is irrelevant to the actual discussion that she is bringing. Whether or not she did "lie" about whatever thing people claim she lied about, or "purposefully provoked" people to get into this (which by any other standard would be considered "advertising"), you are deliberately proving my point. You are employing ad hominem by your own admission and not actually discussing the ideas that she brings forth.

This argument never ceases to amuse. If gamers are taking it way too personally when they're casually referred to as knee-jerk misogynists, why do feminists take it so personally when they're criticized? I always hear there's no such thing as spokespeople among feminists and that their version of it can mean anything from misandry to c-sections being rape then why always rush to the defense of it if it's clear they're not targeting you?
I didn't say feminists don't, or may not, take it personally. The main difference is that feminism is a large historical and cultural movement with many different theories and interpretations, though fairly consistent within said theories and interpretations regardless. When many forms of feminism talk about concepts relating to men it is from a social perspective, not a personal "you specific men" perspective, and when anti-feminist detractors such as yourself rail against feminism it is purposefully in a large brush stroke in an effort to discredit the movement.

And this is where you go off the rails, this statement in particular being puzzling. How can you claim an ideology for the equal treatment of men and women, doesn't concern men?
It doesn't concern you. It concerns everybody. That's how.

What a nice strawman you've built here. Even if a man did express this in these exact words, isn't it a little...sexist to paint them all with this brush?
There are many people who railed against the #yesallwomen. It was literally a trending on twitter. And I am not detracting men due to their sex. I am detracting people, who are most likely men, due to their ignorance on the subject matter.

Hue hue indeed.

Oddly enough, when men do actually do gather to discuss their own issues they're written off as fringe crazies, is it really a wonder they try to elbow in on important discussions, desperate to be heard? If you don't believe me, tell me how credible you believe MRAs are in comparison to feminists. By their definitions, both people are fighting for the same thing, but I doubt I'll find many people who agree. I'm not even an MRA.
I've already divulged my opinion on the overall MRA movement. I would take it more seriously if it was created as a result of injustices against men rather than as a more anti-feminist, anti-women movement. I believe I linked this article earlier [www.cracked.com/blog/5-uncomfortable-truths-behind-mens-rights-movement/] which, to me, showcases some of the more problematic aspects of the MRA movement.

So the claim isn't that games are turning people into misogynists, it's that everyone is already a misogynist and games just add fuel to the fire? No, I can't see how anyone would have a problem with that message either.
Why not? I readily admit that I may have racist tendencies and I try to improve myself on that, even some sexist ones. I'm not a paragon of virtue, yet people claim themselves otherwise. Why is it so hard to believe that in a world where white, heterosexual men have historically, culturally, and socially have been in positions of power over minorities, there might be some issues with people's interactions with said minorities in a history, culture, and society that has been dominated by these people?

I've mentioned this in another post and it basically comes down to patriarchy theory and confirmation bias. Scantily clad women are misogynistic because we live in a patriarchal society, and we must live in a patriarchal society because - well, look at all these scantily clad women! Somehow the "vacuum" argument as a substitute for context enjoys the privilege of ignoring subject-specific context and uses whatever the critic decides is a more fitting backdrop instead, ignoring the intentions of the creators or the reactions of the consumers.
You are essentially saying to look at every piece of media in a case-by-case basis, trying to understand specifically what the creator wanted to convey, am I correct? Because that's not a healthy way of looking at media.

In the specific and singular context of the work in question things may be justified. That is a totally valid way of looking at different works of media and art. But do not try to claim that it should be the only way to look at art.

People do not live in a vacuum. There is a reason where there have been decades of study on the works of Socrates, Nietzsche, Confucius, study of art movements like Cubism, Latin American modernism, Russian constructivism, film movements like French avant-garde, realism, cinema du look. These movements and perspectives matter in addition to the individual philosophy, art, and film that make those movements up. They give us perspective on the . And yes, these movements could of had aspects of them that could be considered sexist or racist or imperialist or hetero-normative. They're part of the complex workings of how humans interact with each other, and to deny concepts and ideas of a large, comprehensive, historical movement like feminism is to essentially deny any one of these movements because "stop looking at the movement, just talk about the movie and what it's like". It's arbitrarily limiting.

Back to the Anita thing: The feelings and thoughts of the creator and the viewer are irrelevant, the one that confirms what she suspected even before she began her project is the only one that matters.
Wait, now you're saying to not look at the piece of media to understand what the creator wanted to convey? So now her thoughts and views on the subject matter are completely irrelevant, even though they're the central point of the content she is creating?

False appeal to authority. Even if someone reading this were to agree - mostly or in part - with Jim Sterling, why is his perspective on the subject so much more important than anyone else's? I mean, he's a game critic, not even someone who studies sociology.
I was refering to something in my head that I head read, which I probably should have linked to regardless. [http://www.gamingaswomen.com/posts/2013/06/an-interview-with-jim-sterling-about-sexism-in-game-culture/]

And at the end of all this, you know what? Sure. If people want to create more female characters or help female developers get into the industry, I'm cool with that. Why not? It sounds fun. If Anita had kickstarted a project to help educate girls and women to create more games, or just a project to give current female developers the spotlight so others would have role models to look up to, I wouldn't have a single complaint.
And yet Sarkeesian kickstarting a project to just make a few videos is unacceptable? You are confusing what would probably be the best outcome with what you personally would have rather done, and you are not Sarkeesian so you cannot make that call.

It's the constant shaming of gamers and anyone who criticizes feminism/feminists that I can't stand, the overbearing broad brush of misogyny and sexism claims - it's the negativity, ultimately. People trying to tear things down rather than build them up, and I'm tired of it.
There is merit to building things up and being more positive, sure.

But do not claim that it should be how we operate when critiquing art.

Please go back.
I find a lot of problems with that one statement.

I did not ask you to stop talking or to not debate with me. I may ask you to educate yourself better on these issues, or maybe to back off and not speak for a bit to really understand the whole situation, but as far as I know I've never outright told you or anyone else to just stop talking and never speak up, and if I did it probably wasn't the best thing to say.

Yet you demand that I be quiet, that I suppress my own thoughts and opinions on the subject. The hundreds of people who sent death threats, rape threats, anti-Semitic threats against Sarkeesian would prefer her to be silenced. Whenever Polygon or Kotaku or The Escapist or Destructoid or Rock Paper Shotgun or IGN talk about issues of sexism or racism there are people in the comment thread demanding they be quiet and "stop taking it so seriously" and claims of "shaming gamers" or "overbearing sexism claims" or "oppressing the white dude" come about.

I may disagree, vehemently, with what you are saying, or what many other people may believe about this whole situation. I don't demand that you stop, however. I demand you educate yourself and understand the broader cultural contexts of these issues, and hopefully stop those lines of thinking, but I can't control what you'll end up thinking in the end. I doubt many journalists who talk about these issues think differently than me, really. Whether or not you may agree with that sentiment, I dunno.

But I can say, with the rampant harassmet, the general feeling of feminism on the internet, and the very things you said in this post I am responding to, there is far more attempts at suppression of discussing this topic from you than there is from me.
 

UberPubert

New member
Jun 18, 2012
385
0
0
Jumplion said:
This statement shows to me you still don't understand some basic concepts of feminism. If you are seriously saying to keep a relevant, historical, cultural, and societal movement "in the classroom" then you don't understand the importance of understanding and educating one another on broader social movements. Replace the "feminist movement" with the "civil rights movement" and what you are saying would be ridiculous. This stuff wouldn't be taught in the classroom if it didn't have relevance in the real world.
You've confused Feminism: The Movement with Feminism: The Idea. The idea is what is discussed in classrooms because the idea is academic, same as ethics and philosophy; it is not a hard science strictly for real world applications, trying to shove it and it's related terms into that mold is what's caused problems in the first place. The Civil Rights Movement was a clear correction of the law to address inequality, a modern day class concerning the same ideas in a historical context would merely be review, not a tool for change or critique.

Jumplion said:
You are employing ad hominem by your own admission and not actually discussing the ideas that she brings forth.
I didn't come here to argue Anita. I've already addressed her elsewhere; I'm only noting that ad hominem is not a fallacious response to her arguments, but rather a rebuttal to her claims of harassment and criticism of where her kickstarter funds are actually going. They're relevant, just not to feminism.

Jumplion said:
I didn't say feminists don't, or may not, take it personally. The main difference is that feminism is a large historical and cultural movement with many different theories and interpretations, though fairly consistent within said theories and interpretations regardless. When many forms of feminism talk about concepts relating to men it is from a social perspective, not a personal "you specific men" perspective,
None of this means anything in regard to the question I put forth to you. How big or small or different feminism is has nothing to do with why you or anyone else should have problems with people criticizing feminism when referring to extremists, so I'll repeat: If the feminist in question is a crazy as the OP posits, what does it matter to you?


Jumplion said:
and when anti-feminist detractors such as yourself
Oh? This is news to me. Was I wearing my "I drink female tears" t-shirt the other day?

Jumplion said:
It doesn't concern you. It concerns everybody. That's how.
So yes, it does concern me, and anyone else who decides to chime in and respond. How is "but not all men are sexist!" not an appropriate response to an open dialogue about sexism where it's supposed to be about equality?

Jumplion said:
There are many people who railed against the #yesallwomen. It was literally a trending on twitter. And I am not detracting men due to their sex. I am detracting people, who are most likely men, due to their ignorance on the subject matter.
But if people detract other people - who are most likely feminists - due to their own hypocritically sexist behavior or misandry, suddenly they've gone too far?

Jumplion said:
I've already divulged my opinion on the overall MRA movement. I would take it more seriously if it was created as a result of injustices against men rather than as a more anti-feminist, anti-women movement. I believe I linked this article earlier [www.cracked.com/blog/5-uncomfortable-truths-behind-mens-rights-movement/] which, to me, showcases some of the more problematic aspects of the MRA movement.
The actual content of the article that isn't just conjecture and armchair psychology links to random reddit posts on a redpill subforum (not MRAs), then taking quotes from a former white-supremacist (still not an MRA) on how they're totally a hate group. Yeah, as a Cracked reader I can say that was probably one of the most unfunny agenda-pushing articles I've ever had to suffer through, made in the aftermath of the Elliot Rodgers shooting and being rather tasteless in doing so. Somehow it's okay to criticize the MRA based on a recent mass shooter who wasn't actually an MRA, but criticizing feminism based on a few crazies is totally not okay.

Jumplion said:
Why not? I readily admit that I may have racist tendencies and I try to improve myself on that, even some sexist ones. I'm not a paragon of virtue, yet people claim themselves otherwise. Why is it so hard to believe that in a world where white, heterosexual men have historically, culturally, and socially have been in positions of power over minorities, there might be some issues with people's interactions with said minorities in a history, culture, and society that has been dominated by these people?
So because you have racist and sexist tendencies you think it's okay to project onto others and judge them with a broad brush? And you thought anti-feminists had generalization issues...

Jumplion said:
You are essentially saying to look at every piece of media in a case-by-case basis, trying to understand specifically what the creator wanted to convey, am I correct? Because that's not a healthy way of looking at media.
How is refraining from generalizing pieces of media based on personal prejudices unhealthy? You realize most legitimate criticisms don't work like this, right? Picking up on motiffs, themes and ideas in a single artist's body of work is one thing, but condemning an entire medium is nonsense.

Jumplion said:
In the specific and singular context of the work in question things may be justified. That is a totally valid way of looking at different works of media and art. But do not try to claim that it should be the only way to look at art.
Why not? I wouldn't listen to people who do otherwise for very long. Generalizing other people's work down into a single criticism is a fairly narrow-minded thing to do.

Jumplion said:
They're part of the complex workings of how humans interact with each other, and to deny concepts and ideas of a large, comprehensive, historical movement like feminism is to essentially deny any one of these movements because "stop looking at the movement, just talk about the movie and what it's like". It's arbitrarily limiting.
I don't see how you can justify generalizing movements of art and philosophy and then refute people who do the same to feminism. I disagree with generalization in general, but you're just displaying favoritism and hypocrisy here.

Jumplion said:
Wait, now you're saying to not look at the piece of media to understand what the creator wanted to convey? So now her thoughts and views on the subject matter are completely irrelevant, even though they're the central point of the content she is creating?
I'm merely pointing out her perspective on the matter; she casually disregards the intent of artists and calls their work misogynistic; she projects her own feelings about violence and sexuality onto the game and those who enjoy it, and to top it off she generalizes heavily in naming many dozens of games and examines only a few.

Jumplion said:
I was refering to something in my head that I head read, which I probably should have linked to regardless. [http://www.gamingaswomen.com/posts/2013/06/an-interview-with-jim-sterling-about-sexism-in-game-culture/]
Already read it, and it's ultimately irrelevant. Jim seems like a nice guy, I pick up what he's laying down in his reviews and some of his videos, but I disagree with his views on sexism (and other things).

Jumplion said:
And yet Sarkeesian kickstarting a project to just make a few videos is unacceptable?
Ignoring how tropes vs women isn't just "a few" videos and their problematic content, when did I say it was unacceptable? I only said I'd have no complaints with the alternative I suggested.

Jumplion said:
You are confusing what would probably be the best outcome with what you personally would have rather done, and you are not Sarkeesian so you cannot make that call.
I'm not confusing anything, I'm saying what I would rather her have done. How is that not a valid opinion?

Jumplion said:
There is merit to building things up and being more positive, sure.

But do not claim that it should be how we operate when critiquing art.
I didn't mention critiquing art, but I'll go ahead and claim that too: I'd rather see critics raise titles up that are worth the praise than tear down others, especially when the criticisms are as flimsy and conjecture based as the ones offered by the likes of Sarkessian.

Jumplion said:
I find a lot of problems with that one statement.
Judging by the disproportionate amount of writing you did in response I'd chalk this up to some more projection on your part.

Jumplion said:
maybe to back off and not speak for a bit to really understand the whole situation,
And who gets to decide when I finally understand the whole situation? Seems like something that could be abused easily for simply my disagreeing.

Jumplion said:
Yet you demand that I be quiet,
I did say please, though.

Jumplion said:
that I suppress my own thoughts and opinions on the subject.
If your thoughts and opinions could be summed up as "tearing something down" then yes, I'd prefer you keep your negativity to yourself. I'd rather you create a thread supporting women - or a dozen threads, or a even a hundred - if it meant I didn't have to hear more banging on about straight white male gamers and their misogyny, especially since they don't typically frequent this site in the first place.

Jumplion said:
I demand you educate yourself and understand the broader cultural contexts of these issues, and hopefully stop those lines of thinking,
So you won't demand I stop talking, just that I not speak up again until I agree with you?

Jumplion said:
there is far more attempts at suppression of discussing this topic from you than there is from me.
Did you just call me the entirety of internet harassers and abusers? I'll just attribute that to a Fruedian slip rather than an accusation of me as an evil mastermind (but yes, it was me, it was me all along!).

I've never threatened, harassed or abused anyone.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,028
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
generals3 said:
It's not an assumption at all. All they asked us was to vote for women. If they wanted to push for certain ideologies they would have given more details (it would have literally taken just one word more, like: "Liberal" or "Socialist" or "Progressive"). Technically if i voted for a Vlaams Belang (Neo-Fascist party) female politician i still abided to their wishes. All they wanted was more women.
I've already addressed how an absolutist interpretation of the statement is highly unlikely to reflect the intent behind it, and how the same standard is not applied elsewhere.

generals3 said:
What makes them the face? The fact they're the ones making the most noise in the public. They're the ones pushing for political agendas, making it in newspapers, etc. Now you may say it's just my nation, perhaps it is, but i've yet to actually hear high profile feminists making statements which didn't make their obvious pro women bias clear. Not even in foreign newspapers. Actually it seems that it's only random individuals on the net who are (or claim to be, because they're often simply unaware of their strong bias or... they just lie, humans do that too) gender-unbiased. I actually find that almost depressing. Because as a consequence we have plenty of individuals who are trying to make a good name for a movement which frankly doesn't deserve it anymore. (I'd go as far as saying that Harvey Dents statement applies to feminism: "you either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villian")
If it's just that they make the most noise, I think we can safely disregard that measure: it's arbitrary and misleading. Again, in most movements, those that make the most noise do not reflect the majority.

There are still countless millions of feminists, from its international, century-long history, who have never heard of these American 21st-Century figures.