I'm tired of the anti-feminist circlejerk here (and every where else on the internet)
- Thread starter Stalkingpanda14
- Start date
Recommended Videos
http://unwinona.tumblr.com/post/24598000184/they-dont-even-fit-heres-the-thing-about-mensminimacker said:
This is for you.
You know what also destroys people's lives?
Being raped and having the person get the fuck away with it because everyone else wanted to talk about what you did and what you wore.
Yes, false rape claims are bad- but they are not as prevalent as actual rapists getting away with rape.
Last week i was in the kitchen of my flat with two of my female house-mates, and when the topic of feminism came up they were very quick to criticise it and came out with a lot of similar things said to what i've read on these forums. I think when you have female grad students being hostile to feminism you know the ideology or movement is in trouble- and at least one of them was informed about feminism, having done her first degree in English Lit. I know more people who would identify as a socialist than a feminist at my university.
I think the main problem is that for whatever reason a lot of feminist ideas don't resonate with the general public anymore. Back in the 60's i feel there was public interest because women wanted to be paid the same as men and be able to pursue the same career paths- but now that public interest has gone. Does this mean women don't feel oppressed anymore? I'm not going to answer that question, but i certainly think feminism has been relegated to the corners of public debate, and so we now only hear those radical feminists who shout loud enough to be heard, which only serves to dig feminism deeper into the hole its already in.
What i think is interesting though is how feminism is a topic that keeps coming in internet debates between geeks and nerds. My personal impression is that female geeks are more pro-feminist than regular females, which i think is evidence to say that there certainly are issues about gender that need to be resolved in geek culture- and that most likely comes from the fact that demographically we're very male orientated, so the views and values expressed in video games- being made by and made for chiefly men, and so its quite natural that women are likely to feel marginalised. And i think men, who don't really feel there's that much of a problem, are influenced by wider public scepticism of the feminism as a whole. It's not entirely because, as some put it, teenage sexual frustration. That's far too simplistic and condescending but i wouldn't deny that it's a factor among others.
But i think its certainly a valid and useful question to ask how we can increase female participation. I'd love it if more women shared the same hobby as i do, and that's not just because i'm a hetrosexual male
I think greater female participation is happening as games diversify as the industry matures, but its slow going.
I think the main problem is that for whatever reason a lot of feminist ideas don't resonate with the general public anymore. Back in the 60's i feel there was public interest because women wanted to be paid the same as men and be able to pursue the same career paths- but now that public interest has gone. Does this mean women don't feel oppressed anymore? I'm not going to answer that question, but i certainly think feminism has been relegated to the corners of public debate, and so we now only hear those radical feminists who shout loud enough to be heard, which only serves to dig feminism deeper into the hole its already in.
What i think is interesting though is how feminism is a topic that keeps coming in internet debates between geeks and nerds. My personal impression is that female geeks are more pro-feminist than regular females, which i think is evidence to say that there certainly are issues about gender that need to be resolved in geek culture- and that most likely comes from the fact that demographically we're very male orientated, so the views and values expressed in video games- being made by and made for chiefly men, and so its quite natural that women are likely to feel marginalised. And i think men, who don't really feel there's that much of a problem, are influenced by wider public scepticism of the feminism as a whole. It's not entirely because, as some put it, teenage sexual frustration. That's far too simplistic and condescending but i wouldn't deny that it's a factor among others.
But i think its certainly a valid and useful question to ask how we can increase female participation. I'd love it if more women shared the same hobby as i do, and that's not just because i'm a hetrosexual male
I think greater female participation is happening as games diversify as the industry matures, but its slow going.
Sorry, not good with the quote boxes:Katatori-kun said:
1. There can be plenty of listeners who hear sexist connotations but realise that the word is not being used in a sexist way. Not everything that can be construed from a word or its usage is part of the intended meaning.
2. (Well I feel like an idiot) I can understand how the meaning of ball is refined as it is used. But I fail to see how, in an environment where the word 'mankind' is very scarcely used to mean exlusively males, its meaning is anything other than gender inclusive. From what I understand (which may not be much...) you're suggesting that since the word 'humankind' exists, using the word 'mankind' instead is deliberately being exclusive, because humankind is inclusive (because no two words are exact synonyms...?). I think they're synonymous in common usage, and that when you use the word 'mankind', you are referring either to all males or to all humans. There's no middle ground where you're referring to all humans but the implication is males are more important. It may just be that I'm not exposed to many situations where mankind is used exclusively, but my understanding of the word is that it means humankind exactly, although its origins were from a male-dominated society. I doubt that many people using the word 'mankind' WANT to imply males are more central to what they're saying.
3. I'm suggesting that condemning a practise based on assumed intent inherited by the history of that practise is not a sensible thing to do without considering what the actual intent is.
4. A bit like keeping my elbows off the table when I eat. In the company of particularly sensitive people to table manners, I may change my behaviour to accomodate that. In my own house, I probably won't, and in many situations in between, I probably won't, because it's more comfortable, and more practical, and simply happens, that I have my elbows on the table. What I'm saying is that I do not use the word 'mankind' deliberately, to make a point or to offend people. It is just part of my language, and I should not be expected to deviate from that purposefully when the responder can be practically certain I am not using it to exclude anyone or to imply anything. Which, if someone wanted to abbreviate my views even further and make me look stupid at the same time (I know I do), roughly translates to "I shouldn't have to consider the feelings of excluded people because I think they shouldn't feel excluded and because I don't intend to exclude them".
No, Rape Culture stands independently, WE are not a rape culture, you can can support 'rape culture' or be against it. Obviously one should do their very best to be against such terribleness. The term is not useless because it pretty much describes the problem with rapists, they quite literally think its okay to rape.Father Time said:
Let me put this as plainly as I can state: Under No Circumstance one should blame the victim. There is no middle ground in this regard. You do not blame the victim because the victim is not the one who committed the crime.
That doesn't apply to Antia Sarkeesian. It was far from constructive, it was misrepresentative from the start.
And I neither approve nor control the minority of psychopaths who make criminal threats to famous people. The Republican Party who opposed JFK in 1960's is not responsible for Lee Harvey Oswald shooting the President with a rifle. Nor are democrats responsible for that other nutcase taking a few shots at Reagan.
Judging a large group making reasoned and restrained arguments by the actions of a few nutcases is disingenuous in the extreme.
And I'm pissed off because after all this time you most likely have heard that explanation and ignored it.
Huh... it's funny that I still can't tell whether or not your serious. I suppose it speaks to the style of the narrative that such statements can, and often are, still made in direct face of reality. It reminds me of the people that say dinosaur bones were placed there by the devil to trick us.Stalkingpanda14 said:
I agree on both counts. False accusations are a minor issue when compared to rape. However, comparing the two is still somewhat permissible given the potential outcomes of each crime. We live in a very complex world where people's lives are affected through physical means, mental means, financial means, emotional means, social means, etc.Phasmal said:
Rape has a high chance for physical damage, and near universal emotional damage. These two things then have a chance to damage the person in other areas of their life from the fallout of the first two traumas.
False Accusations had a low chance for physical damage, a high chance of emotional damage, a high chance of social damage and a high chance of financial damage.
A somewhat twisted sense of irony in that when someone is sent to jail on a false rape charge, are often subjected to they very crime they were accused of committing; which then creates an equal and sometimes greater disparity on those being falsely accused.
I honestly can't say how prevalent either crime is considering the nature of the research that has gone into the subject; but I can say that typically crimes committed do statistically outweigh the accusations of said crimes. Having said that though; I find no fault in people fighting for whatever cause they want regardless of the mathematical severity of the issue when compared to alternative or even similar problems others might face in society. And arguments against such discussion based solely on statistical significance seem rather counter productive to any discussion regarding basic human suffering.
Its becoming evident that as time goes on its less and less wise to identify yourself as "feminist" or any other label. When you start throwing names like that around the discussion never manages to stay on topic, since people already have opinions on those labels and the conversation will sift to those opinions instead.
I advise if you really want to have an intellectual conversation about anything, don't label yourself, or anyone else feminist or anti feminist.
I advise if you really want to have an intellectual conversation about anything, don't label yourself, or anyone else feminist or anti feminist.
Helmholtz Watson said:
ToastiestZombie said:
Reading back in the cold light of day, I think I owe you guys a bit of an apology. I wrote the first post as a message of support to our original poster, and I didn't really think about my use of language. Anyway, reading back over the post today I can see how it would sound kind of bad to someone who wasn't already sympathetic to the point.Father Time said:
I'll still stand by what I said, but I should have expressed it differently. What I mean to say really is that there is the average dude has a great deal of misunderstanding about feminism and privilege in particular because, to a large extent, it just doesn't make sense to them. I wrote this as if it's a one sided thing which can be explained by subject positions, but really.. it's not just that. It's a weakness in the theory, or certainly the language around the theory, and one which pro-feminists, myself included, need to learn from.
I think the concept of privilege remains incredibly useful in explaining many elements of society which could not otherwise be reasonably explained, and I don't think it's something you can dismiss because it doesn't fit your personal experience as a man. There are very good reasons why it wouldn't. However, it is wrong for me to sit here and talk down to you about your lack of understanding when it's as much a consequence of my failure to communicate as anything else. I shouldn't be blaming you for my poor communication, that wasn't on and I shouldn't have gone anywhere near it.
That said, @FatherTime. I'm really not sure what you think I'm talking about. Also, don't mean to get technical but what I said is no more "sexist" than saying "most women like buying shoes". At worst it's just an unfair thing to say, and I accept that the way I worded it it probably was.
Not really.PhiMed said:
I gave a more detailed explanation later on, but let me try again.
"Male privilege" is a manifestation of male hegemony, that is to say the social dominance of men in all the arenas which are really important. We use the word "hegemony" because this is not necessarily a violent or coercive dominance. Instead, it's an expectation that almost all the people who really mean anything in our society, who wield genuine power or whose opinions are most valid, will exhibit traits deemed (arbitrarily) to be "masculine", associated with (though not limited to) men.
If our world was ever in a position where it was dominated by women. Where women occupied all the key positions in society and the valuable traits which made the eligible to do so were considered "feminine". In a world where being "feminine" meant being strong, intelligent, self-sufficient, sexually agentive and all the other things which it currently does not, in a world where the default position in human society was that of a woman and men became the marked category, if the opinions of men were seen to be peripheral and tainted by their own subjectivity, then there would be a "female privilege".
Most of the disadvantages described in this thread are actually themselves symptoms of male privilege, because of course the hegemonic organization isn't as simple as just having a homogeneous bunch of men who are superior to a homogeneous bunch of women. Very few men will ever live up to the demands of "real" or "proper" masculinity, and none of us can do it forever. It is a competition which we are doomed to lose at some point.
Men don't suffer the overwhelming majority of violence in society, become the overwhelming majority of suicides, live shorter lives, die more frequently from preventable diseases and so forth because society doesn't care about them and thinks they're useless. Quite the opposite. These things happen because society expects and on some level believes men to be invincible. When you can buy into that, when you are healthy and strong and able and you know how to fight and can look after yourself the rewards to you are significant but, of course, not everyone can keep this up forever, and that's where the disadvantages start to show up.
Women don't get off lighter in court (at least for petty offenses) because society considers them to be innately good people. Again, kind of the opposite. Women are seen as weaker, both physically and emotionally, and thus their choices are seen to be more limited or less malicious.
Again.. privilege is not advantage. Advantage is completely situational based on what you're trying to achieve, privilege is related to broader social trends regarding what is considered important and valuable in a given society.
That's a complete U-turn from saying people active support monsters. Now you are undermining the very idea of humour.Quadocky said:
Humour is a coping mechanism that is needed more than ever for the worst traumas of the human condition. When British Sailors in the Falklands had their ship blown apart and were floating in the Antarctic ocean - scores of their comrades dead and dying and their fate extremely uncertain. They all banded together and sung in chorus "Always look on the bright side of life"
First responders to disasters and soldiers will regularly seen joking and laughing, with their hands covered in the blood of people they tried and failed to save... because if you don't laugh you'll cry. And you'll lose all ability to go on.
Making light of unbearable horrors is as human as it gets. It doesn't somehow make us in favour of such evils in the world, they are just part of making it bearable. If I make a joke making light of death and human mortality, that doesn't mean I'm in favour of people dying. I mean if I make a joke about Hitler, one that explicitly makes fun of him, that doesn't mean I support genocide.
and lo the problem with labeling complicated ideologies with single words has been revealed. For instance, I am pro-strong women. Strong women who don't feel they have to rely on other people (male or female) for support are awesome. Women who are intelligent, creative, and motivated are the only kind of women (or even men) that I respect. But I am not a feminist. Labeling is so narrowing! One word can't convey all of my beliefs! I want all people to be strong and self-sufficient, not just women. I don't think anyone should be forced or want to be in a subservient position. "Feminism" doesn't convey all of that.
And then we come to the strange concept that just because men, in general, have been in a dominant position of society for...well a very long time, that they are never abused or oppressed. Let me point you to this: http://news.ufl.edu/2006/07/13/women-attackers/
tl;dr on that article: women can be abusive in relationships too!
YES there is a dominating anti-woman mentality on the internet. YES there is a trend in the media including video games to display women as sexualized objects. NO, THESE ARE NOT OK. most of us here, I would say, believe that women and men are equal and should be treated that way. but implying that ALL white, heterosexual male internet users are SOMEHOW ALL ok with treating women poorly is what creates such a massive distaste for feminists. because the most vocal feminists always seem to be the most annoying and unwilling to co-exist peacefully with their male counterparts. trust me, we know that there are less extremist feminists out there and wherever you are we respect you and we want to help you change our society and open it up to both females and males.
also OP, you keep bringing up the amazing atheist and claiming that no one bothered to call him out. yet I remember just reading about how he had to leave reddit for his comments because of a swarm of negativity. He also lost a ton of Youtube followers. a lot stuck around but I think we can pretty much agree that anyone who agrees/defends him is an arse.
And then we come to the strange concept that just because men, in general, have been in a dominant position of society for...well a very long time, that they are never abused or oppressed. Let me point you to this: http://news.ufl.edu/2006/07/13/women-attackers/
tl;dr on that article: women can be abusive in relationships too!
YES there is a dominating anti-woman mentality on the internet. YES there is a trend in the media including video games to display women as sexualized objects. NO, THESE ARE NOT OK. most of us here, I would say, believe that women and men are equal and should be treated that way. but implying that ALL white, heterosexual male internet users are SOMEHOW ALL ok with treating women poorly is what creates such a massive distaste for feminists. because the most vocal feminists always seem to be the most annoying and unwilling to co-exist peacefully with their male counterparts. trust me, we know that there are less extremist feminists out there and wherever you are we respect you and we want to help you change our society and open it up to both females and males.
also OP, you keep bringing up the amazing atheist and claiming that no one bothered to call him out. yet I remember just reading about how he had to leave reddit for his comments because of a swarm of negativity. He also lost a ton of Youtube followers. a lot stuck around but I think we can pretty much agree that anyone who agrees/defends him is an arse.
Uh, no. The point is that the number of games has been narrowed so much that I only had a bit over 30 titles at my disposal, and a significant number of which A) did not feature women at all or B) were aimed at children. That isn't evidence against sexualisation by any means. I do agree that there's a problem with a lack of female main characters, but rampant sexualisation is still a thing that exists, and especially during a recession (as tough economic times means writers have to ensure sales at all costs, which often involves slapping T&A on anything in the hopes it will garner more sales).Vault101 said:
I do realise, yes. As a feminist ally, I acknowledge that women can be whatever they want to be, and that includes anti-feminists.Father Time said:
What? When did I say that all who disagree are that? I'm saying that anti-feminism isn't surprising because it's a natural reaction of people who are losing their privilege. That doesn't mean that everyone who spouses that belief does so out of the same reasons, but that we should expect anti-feminism as a reaction from the privileged. Every time a marginalised group has wanted to fight for equal rights or stand against oppression, those who benefited from the oppression have reacted against them to avoid losing their benefits. It's normal and part of human nature.
Sigh. Because a minority of male characters are sexualised for the benefit of non-lesbian women/non-straight men, it doesn't mean that it's done just as often, or as blatantly as female sexualisation. Dante has been sexualised too, for the benefit of those who like men, and I'm sure you'll find a scant handful of male characters along the same vein (and a recent episode of Glee). These are not evidence that things are equal or that the disproportionate female sexualisation is justified.Father Time said:
Excuse me, but since when has sexualisation equalled physical attractiveness? If a woman is plain-looking, overweight, older, with no curves to speak of, or somehow similarly unlike the stereotypical media portrayals of beauty, that doesn't mean that if you put them in a tiny bikini and the camera fixates on every inch of their flesh, they aren't sexualised. Sexualisation is all about authorial intent, it has nothing to do with the characters themselves. Because they are. And even if a woman doesn't fit the stereotypical portrayal of beauty according to the media, she's still beautiful and people will still find her attractive, further dispelling your argument.Desert Punk said:
While I admit that the sexualisation in Borderlands 2 is pretty tame when compared to other games, it's still completely unnecessary. Why are the sirens not wearing practical body suits, instead of gratuitous cleavage and random bits of exposed flesh? Is it really important that one of their hips is exposed so as to give the appearance of bikini/underwear? Is the boob window a crucial part of their attire? What reasons are there for these character design choices if not titillation?
But like I said before, if you restrict the definition "must be specifically and exclusively portrayed as sex objects", you're narrowing down the 15 or so games left from the available pool to about 7 or so. Give me more months along 2012, however, and I'll find you replacements quite easily.
And I never said that no men ever where sexualised for the benefit of people who find men attractive. But the fraction of male characters that are sexualised in such a way is so small as to be irrelevant. Over 90% of all male characters are most definitely a power fantasy for men (see: all those warshooters, for example), and many of them aren't even muscled! Look at Nathan Drake, Gordon Freeman, Dante, Shepard (who is MUCH slimmer than James Vega, despite both of them being in N7, for example), the protagonists of all those sandboxes (GTA, Saints Row, etc), the protagonists of pretty much every horror game ever (like Harry, Henry, Murphy, Alex and James), they are all very much skinny or average.Father Time said:
You said: "If you make light of rape or some such"Quadocky said:
That includes jokes.
That is how you link your completely out there statement that anything other than an extreme minority (i.e. prison inmates) "support rape" or "support rape culture", by saying that includes "making light of rape or some such".
So you can deny it all you like, but it's clear you are trying to have it both contradictory ways.
I take it that you're not into black humor, then?Quadocky said:
Unless you're saying that the act of making rape jokes is "contributing to horribleness", which I think is a noteworthy but ultimately hyperbolic statement. I mean, does me cracking a dead baby joke mean that I'm actively contributing to a sentiment in the world that infanticide is acceptable? (If you say "yes", I'm afraid we're never going to find common ground.)