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.
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.