Kickstarter Video Project Attracts Misogynist Horde

[Condiments]

Hilariously enough, these misogynistic attacks trying to shut her down to prove their point both reinforced the negative stereotypes associated with angry beta male gamers(the ones we argue so vehemently against), and caused their point of interest(feminist frequency)to receive far more publicity. Good job in both failing at your original intention, and demonizing what you stand for spergs.

You're not in a place to make such an inane value judgement that this doesn't deserve to funded on the basis it can be "used better elsewhere". Hell, the money I could have contributed to wasteland 2 could have easily gone towards better humanitarian projects that will have a tangible effect on people's lives. All the people directing their energies into harassing this person could have easily worried about more pertinent social issues than someone criticizing a critical flaw of their "beloved hobby". When blindly applying the "slippery slope" argument when criticizing people you might have to see how it applies to yourself as well.

The fact is, she put up the kickstarter page and it was funded in an amount far beyond her original requirement. It happened, and its time to put on your big boy pants and deal with it. This medium is hardly perfect, and the more viewpoints getting heard the better.

 

[Kahunaburger]

I've already read it multiple times, and once more when you pointed that out.

Uh huh. That must be why you're misstating the study's conclusions. Because you spent a lot of time reading it. Seriously, like I know you're going to maintain that you've read it because you've got this pride thing going on, but you should actually read the study, either now or when you've calmed down a bit. Social scientific literacy is important.

 

[Angryman101]

Just because something on the whole doesn't make you happier doesn't mean that there isn't any benefit from it.

Less educated people tend to be happier too, but that doesn't mean we should all give up education.

Then what the fuck is the point? What are these great benefits worth if you're unhappy? Nothing. You can have all the money and jobs and equality in the world and it won't mean shit if you're unhappy.
'Less educated' typically means 'less intelligent', and there's really not much you can do about that. Less intelligent people aren't going to question the meaning of existence, they're just going to be dumb and happy.

 

[Eamar]

I've already read it multiple times, and once more when you pointed that out.

Uh huh. That must be why you're misstating the study's conclusions. Because you spent a lot of time reading it. Seriously, like I know you're going to maintain that you've read it because you've got this pride thing going on, but you should actually read the study, either now or when you've calmed down a bit. Social scientific literacy is important.

Sorry Angryman, but he's right. What are you seeing that proves your point?

 

[Angryman101]

I've already read it multiple times, and once more when you pointed that out.

Uh huh. That must be why you're misstating the study's conclusions. Because you spent a lot of time reading it. Seriously, like I know you've got this pride thing going on now that you've painted yourself into a corner in an online argument, but you should actually read the study, either now or when you've calmed down a bit. Social scientific literacy is important.

I've already read it multiple times, and once more when you pointed that out.

Uh huh. That must be why you're misstating the study's conclusions. Because you spent a lot of time reading it. Seriously, like I know you're going to maintain that you've read it because you've got this pride thing going on, but you should actually read the study, either now or when you've calmed down a bit. Social scientific literacy is important.

Sorry Angryman, but he's right. What are you seeing that proves your point?

Please point out where my claims are inaccurate. The study indicates that men who are benevolently sexist are happier, and the women in their lives, typically wives and girlfriends, are happier due to their being taken care of and cherished. The attitude of women being things to be protected and provided for are what make the women happier and believe that the gender economics are fair and equitable.

 

[JerrytheBullfrog]

And I've already had this argument multiple times, I don't have time for it right now. I do have studies and sources for my claims, I just do not have the energy or the patience to look for them.

Why is it that in every feminism debate on this website the "I have evidence, I promise, I just don't have it with me" people are always on the anti-feminism side?

You obviously have not seen my debates.

More to the point, I haven't seen your alleged evidence.

I just wanted to say, I read all of your posts in the voice of Samuel L. as Jules. It makes them infinitely more awesome.

 

[hooksashands]

I think the chance of every guy in the world getting laid just dropped 10%.

The only thing I want to say is... Ladies, we don't hate you. This isn't a reflection of how male videogamers think, it's a crowd of cyber jackasses twisted with insecurity and self-loathing slamming their heads into the keyboard.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Please point out where my claims are inaccurate. The study indicates that men who are benevolently sexist are happier, and the women in their lives, typically wives and girlfriends, are happier due to their being taken care of and cherished. The attitude of women being things to be protected and provided for are what make the women happier and believe that the gender economics are fair and equitable.

All that response tells me is that you read the abstract. I can identify at least two claims in the quoted paragraph that are emphatically not supported by the study's findings. Can you?

 

[Kahunaburger]

I just wanted to say, I read all of your posts in the voice of Samuel L. as Jules. It makes them infinitely more awesome.

That's the voice I write them in.

 

[I.Muir]

Ive never seen such ignorance and hatred on display over something I just can't see as being a big deal. If you did not like the project, you might think the best course of action was to go on not caring.

It's sad that people lack the self control to remain civil when there is a lack of any real consequences. I guess they think the videos will actually make an impact and believe this is some sort of battle between the genders. Somehow I doubt they will be the ones making the impact when their first response was racism, sexism and making threats.

 

[Eamar]

Please point out where my claims are inaccurate. The study indicates that men who are benevolently sexist are happier, and the women in their lives, typically wives and girlfriends, are happier due to their being taken care of and cherished. The attitude of women being things to be protected and provided for are what make the women happier and believe that the gender economics are fair and equitable.

All that response tells me is that you read the abstract. I can identify at least two claims in the quoted paragraph that are emphatically not supported by the study's findings. Can you?

I have to go to bed soon, so my apologies for not backing you up further, but you seem to have got this. Enjoy...

 

[Kahunaburger]

Please point out where my claims are inaccurate. The study indicates that men who are benevolently sexist are happier, and the women in their lives, typically wives and girlfriends, are happier due to their being taken care of and cherished. The attitude of women being things to be protected and provided for are what make the women happier and believe that the gender economics are fair and equitable.

All that response tells me is that you read the abstract. I can identify at least two claims in the quoted paragraph that are emphatically not supported by the study's findings. Can you?

I have to go to bed soon, so my apologies for not backing you up further, but you seem to have got this. Enjoy...

Peace. Although I'm prob done here too - I don't get the impression that this guy is in the sort of mood where he's receptive to other peoples' viewpoints haha.

 

[Angryman101]

Please point out where my claims are inaccurate. The study indicates that men who are benevolently sexist are happier, and the women in their lives, typically wives and girlfriends, are happier due to their being taken care of and cherished. The attitude of women being things to be protected and provided for are what make the women happier and believe that the gender economics are fair and equitable.

All that response tells me is that you read the abstract. I can identify at least two claims in that paragraph that are emphatically not supported by the study's findings. Can you?

Ok, I just read it again. Wives and girlfriends not supported. Cool. Can't find the other. Care to enlighten?

 

[orangeban]

I'd say manly most definitely exists, society is really very clear on it. From the very early ages, dolls are for girls, toy swords are for boys, because fighting and swords are manly. Distinguishing things as unwomanly because men are stereotypically known for doing it is the the definition of sexism, but I'm not the first to do it. Rather, I'm commenting on the fact that society has internalised these distinctions between manly and womanly and expresses them in the form of stereotypes.

And our current views of what is manly is not the only way to portray heroes. You mention unemotional, but why can't we have a very emotional hero? Why don't we see more poets or musicians as heroes? Why must they be big and strong, the less strong can still fire guns or command troops or work out puzzles? Why are their very, very few disabled heroes?

I'm not denying that the stereotype exists right now, in that stereotypically people assume one sex is more likely to act a specific way but I don't believe the idea that said traits are tied to one gender. What I mean is, men may be more likely to be written as a tough, strong willed soldier type but that does not mean a woman can't embody this kind of character just as easily without still being a female character (I think Gears of War and Bulletstorm had these soldier type female characters). The sexism comes from assuming females have an inability to have this personality, not that females who do have this personality are less female because of it.*

I may have made this up, but I keep getting the impression that people have problems with stories which put a female character in the exact same role as a male character, IE a big, tough, unemotional female soldier, and I'm not sure I understand why. I think it's sometimes because writers simply create a male character in the story and just use a female voice actor instead of thinking how a female may act differently to the situation. However, I don't think that kind of thing is sexist as much as it is difficult to create a mentally and physically strong character, regardless of gender, without resorting to the easy-to-write tough, unemotional, brooding one (of course writers which resort to this should not be thanked.)

I always thought unemotional characters were, again, easy writing because it made a characters which always knew what they were doing (because they showed no fear) and were incredibly strong willed (because they never panicked) without any actual effort on the writers part. And yes, an emotional hero with a hobbies and, well, personality would always be good; if theres one thing I think almost the whole gaming community would agree with, it's that games need better writing. There is a shooterfest going on right now however, and they all have to feature soldiers in some shape or form apparently; the writing problem is not currently due to sexism.

PS. I'm sure there's some deep psychological reason why theres a lack of disabled protagonists or heroes, maybe most people can't relate to them for some reason, but I'm not smart enough to guess at that one.

*This makes less sense each time I read it, so much so that I had to make the same point 3 times just to try and be clear... it's late, I do apologise.

No, trust me, you're making good sense, very good sense.

I think that the problem with casting women in traditionally manly roles is that this is what keeps happening. When I made my two categories, the problem with having women in those categories isn't because women shouldn't be sexy or tough, it's because most female characters fit those roles. And when these roles become very common tropes you start to realise there must be a larger societal reason for these tropes being common (remembering that tropes are tropes because they are easy to identify with and understand, and thus need little explanation).

Which is why I see the problem, when you have a world where the stereotypical depictions of women are either, "Trying to be a man" or "Pleasing to men" then you see there must be something fucked up somewhere if those are recognised by society as easy to understand tropes.

However, as you clearly point out, sexism isn't the only reason. These stereotypical ideas are really easy to write, partly because they're tropes, but also because "emotionless badass" and "air-headed eye candy" are just easy to write parts. It's part of a bigger problem of a cycle that perpetuates tropes, laziness and sexism.

Now, like you, I'm also tired, it's half 2 AM here, so I'm not sure if I made my points or addressed yours well. I'm gonna sign off now, goodnight, it's been good chatting, good food for thought.

 

[Black Arrow Officer]

I agree with her somewhat, but why does she need $6,000 dollars to do this?

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

I'm just chiming in to say that just throwing out statistics without applying them to context does not actually prove any point, and in this case the only context I can gleam is that 'feminism is supposed to make women happier', which is a gross oversimplification of what feminism is really about. 'Happiness' is an extremely arbitrary factor that is based on personal emotions and doesn't always objectively measure one's quality of life - the improvement of which feminism is trying to achieve.

To counter your example, I could post a link to a survey that ranked the inhabitants of Vanuatu the happiest in the world. Since by and large most people on Vanuatu live in tin shacks, eat tinned foods, fruits and root vegetables, have no electricity and have to boil their drinking water; by your fallacious logic it would be easy to conclude that all forms of development are more or less a waste of time.

What you don't seem to realize is that literally everything anyone has ever done or will ever do has its roots in attempting to achieve happiness in some way or another. If you don't believe that feminism is trying to give its followers and believers at least some level of greater happiness, I would say you're a fool, sir.
And you're on to something there. Tribes in Africa that are still hunter/gatherer are also much happier than the typical western adult, if I remember correctly. I wonder what that says about people? What exactly makes my logic fallacious?

Call me a fool all you like, but you're the one trying to use a reductionist view of human motivations to prove a point about a highly specific social issue. What you're missing are factors that can determine someone's quality of life, including for instance civil liberties and independence. These might not make you objectively happier, but they all undoubtedly improve your life in some way.

Furthermore, your logic is fallacious in the sense that you claim absolute happiness is the highest motivator in human life, hence if it can be shown that happiness is lacking in one state of living compared to another, that state must be objectively better than the other. And if you're going to get all philosophical about the Kalahari Bushmen, I might remind you that you're currently posting on an internet forum, which means you have access to electricity, a computer, and income to pay for internet access. If you're going to continue to insist that happiness is the ultimate reason for doing anything, I'm sure someone else will happily unburden you of a luxury only 1 in 3 people in the world enjoy.

 

[Burst6]

I'm just chiming in to say that just throwing out statistics without applying them to context does not actually prove any point, and in this case the only context I can gleam is that 'feminism is supposed to make women happier', which is a gross oversimplification of what feminism is really about. 'Happiness' is an extremely arbitrary factor that is based on personal emotions and doesn't always objectively measure one's quality of life - the improvement of which feminism is trying to achieve.

To counter your example, I could post a link to a survey that ranked the inhabitants of Vanuatu the happiest in the world. Since by and large most people on Vanuatu live in tin shacks, eat tinned foods, fruits and root vegetables, have no electricity and have to boil their drinking water; by your fallacious logic it would be easy to conclude that all forms of development are more or less a waste of time.

What you don't seem to realize is that literally everything anyone has ever done or will ever do has its roots in attempting to achieve happiness in some way or another. If you don't believe that feminism is trying to give its followers and believers at least some level of greater happiness, I would say you're a fool, sir.
And you're on to something there. Tribes in Africa that are still hunter/gatherer are also much happier than the typical western adult, if I remember correctly. I wonder what that says about people? What exactly makes my logic fallacious?

It says that happiness, like a lot of our mental functions, is still primitive. Nature designed us to survive a special way (hunting/gathering) and we have happiness as incentive to live that life. Our brain gives us some nice chemical rewards every time we do something it thinks is right. Of course with our intelligence we have gone past the point of needing hunting/gathering and we're not getting rewarded as much for our actions because out body thinks we're doing something wrong.

The idea of advancement is that people think the current system is stupid, slow, and inefficient and that with enough knowledge and time they can do better.

In the end happiness is our goal, but we're looking for something better than the primal one we get from hunting/gathering. To tie this back to the feminism thing, cutting off more than half the population from helping achieve this goal is not a good idea.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

And I've already had this argument multiple times, I don't have time for it right now. I do have studies and sources for my claims, I just do not have the energy or the patience to look for them.

Why is it that in every feminism debate on this website the "I have evidence, I promise, I just don't have it with me" people are always on the anti-feminism side?

You obviously have not seen my debates.

More to the point, I haven't seen your alleged evidence.

I just wanted to say, I read all of your posts in the voice of Samuel L. as Jules. It makes them infinitely more awesome.

I also admit to doing this.