The Big Picture: Tropes vs. MovieBob

[ReiverCorrupter]

snip

You seem to be alluding that because I thought he was speaking condescendingly about a woman because he was a man and thought himself superior, I dismissed his arguments. This was not the case. As you may or may not have read in the post where I dropped the term, I explained that what he was doing could be inferred as mansplaining, and then went on (for two paragraphs) to explain why his reasoning was flawed. Moreover, the fact that he was (in my feeling) constructing his entire objection based on this perceived superiority, compelled me to address it as my focus because it was the spring from which the waters of his objection flowed.

My argument was directed at the concept of "mansplaining" in general as a form of ad hominem that I based upon the definition that you provided. Given that your definition was slightly unclear I also alluded to the way you used the term in your specific argument against Machine Man. His claim seemed to be that there are other things that she could do with her money that would do more to help her cause.

Here's the argument you presented against the actual content of his claims:

There is a place in the world for commentary, negative and positive. Pointing out the negative aspects of a thing promotes a cultural conversation about it, and this is a conversation that we all should be having. It's a conversation people want to hear. She only asked for $6k to produce the series, and given what little I know about the costs involved in producing videos, it didn't seem entirely unreasonable. That she's had more than $150k donated is indicative of the fact that people want to hear what she has to say and it is not my place, or yours, to tell her what she should and should not do. That's up to her.

Now, if you're not using the concept of "mansplaining" as an ad hominem argument then it frankly seems irrelevant. In order to respond to his argument your focus should have been on proving that what she was doing is a positive move to accomplish her goals. The argument was going well right up until the emboldened part, where you reverted back to the assumption that he was telling this woman what to do (which he clearly wasn't). It was a non sequitur to tell him that he has no right to tell her what to do because that wasn't what he was doing.

In contrast, I think you were building up to a good point about how the fact that people are willing to pay to hear her videos meant that they do, in fact have value. I actually agree in that a thorough and intelligent analysis of where these tropes come from and their possible effects would result in a positive outcome. What I can't stand is people constantly complaining about these things without either giving an in-depth analysis of why they are bad or presenting a possible solution.

In regard to the concept on the whole, I am still skeptical. First of all, anyone can be condescending towards another person due to some bias, it certainly doesn't apply to men alone. There's nothing stopping a woman who holds herself superior to men from doing the same thing. I agree that our society is such that it is far more likely that men do this, but even so there is certainly no guarantee that all men do this. Given that this is the case it seems that the concept will rarely, if ever, be used legitimately in any argument that isn't directly centered around the psychological disposition of a man in the first place.

I think that in most of its applications the concept of "mansplaining" will likely turn out to be at best a rhetorical distraction, and in some cases an argument ad hominem. Sure, a man being condescending is poor decorum but it has little to do with his arguments. Accusing him of being condescending and operating under the delusion that he is superior before you actually examine his arguments isn't very conducive to promoting decorum either. It's basically a slap in the face. A cynical person could perhaps suggest that it is meant to divert the person's attention away from defending the initial argument they presented by forcing them to defend themselves.

I am, of course, speaking of the concept on the whole. Given the content of your posts I would say that your motives seem to be pure. I do try my best to react coolly and rationally, but I must admit that when presented with the initial idea my response went a bit overboard. The fact that I reacted so harshly in my initial post is perhaps a testament to the underhandedness of the concept. I do apologize if I offended you; it was behavior unfitting of a gentleman.

So you see, your accusation of ad hominem dismissal falls a little off the mark. I did not say he was not worth listening to purely because he was 'mansplaining', as though that were merely an accent and I thought that people from his neighborhood couldn't form coherent thoughts. It was, rather, a dismissal based on the fact that he was composing his objections based on that feeling of male primacy, and I also took the time to break down my objection in a more specific manner.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt considering it wasn't 100% obvious that you were using it as an ad hominem argument in your post (hence why I gave multiple interpretations and invited you to correct me). However, I should point out that 1) it would be fairly difficult to prove assertions about someone's psychological dispositions from a few paragraphs, and 2) even if you were able to prove that his reasoning was based upon a feeling of male primacy, that wouldn't conclusively prove that the proposition that he was putting forward is false. Instead, it would merely force him to provide a valid argument for his position. If he was unable to do this then you would have won the argument.

Also:

I agree that he was being overly offensive, but you certainly didn't respond to his criticism by ignoring him.

I don't have to respond to him. As far as I'm concerned he's welcome to say and do whatever he likes. There's nowhere that says I have to give him the time of my day if I feel he's not being respectful.

Oh, I understand completely. I wasn't suggesting that you had a duty to respond, just that you weren't accomplishing anything by ignoring him (except peace of mind). Given your response it seems clear that you did not believe his arguments to be disproved on account of his impoliteness, so I rescind the statement.

In summary: you're mistaken that I was dismissing him because of 'mansplaining'. I merely indicated that it was what he was doing; that it was perhaps the source of his opposition, and that said opposition did not stand up to scrutiny. I even made a point to indicate that it was very possible he did not consciously believe that he was superior and being condescending, but that it was the message that was coming across.

If I might summarize in return: I'm still thoroughly unconvinced that the concept of "mansplaining" is anything but a product of ressentiment (which was the thrust of my initial objection). While I have no doubt that there are some or even many men who engage in "mansplaining", I remain dubious about how people implement this concept in arguments. However, I do not mean to suggest that you personally were deliberately being misleading, and I apologize for any offense my initial comment may have caused.

 

[itsthesheppy]

Oh, yeah, while we're at it, her standards for what counts as a "good portrayal of women in gaming" appears to be totally non-existent. If there's a good example of a female character, she picks some random trait like "is violent" and uses that to condemn the character as being not good enough, even though being violent in bloody True Grit is not exactly a drawback.

Oh no she doesn't like the portrayal of women in videogames!!!!

WAAAAAHHH!

Look I don't particularly agree with her either but she has a right to say these things, - a right to make videos about it, and a right to start a kickstarter to fund those videos.

And people have a right to give to that kick starter and did in large numbers even before the sexism shit-storm.

All I've seen from you guys is a bunch attempts to invalidate those rights purely because you disagree with her. Either ignore her or actually engage with her on a mature level. If you can't do either of those things then you validate her point of view and make us gamer guys look worse.

there are times in our society where the continued allowance of free speech to just anyone and harm society and culture if not moderated, such as this woman's videos. She continues to talk of "bad character design or sexist character design" while mentioning nothing of why it is that way or that its by someone's RIGHT to FREE SPEECH to allow it to exist at all. She is condemning one form of free speech, in this case a man of group of males' right to create sexy female characters while promoting every female needs to be perfect and anything else is wrong because I don't see value in any character that doesn't meet my criteria.

You're giving her too much credit. She's not an important political figure, she makes youtube videos. She is just another opinionated person on the internet, really, she doesn't need to be silenced. Freedom of speech is really non-negotiable here.

150k does feel like an inordinate amount of pay-off for what is being produced, especially if you're like me and don't think there is much substance in anything she has done as of yet(not a big fan of the tone either, tbh...horses for courses)...I could see how that could rub someone the wrong way.

At the same time though...it's half of what Wayne Rooney makes in a frickin' week...it's a crazy world.

Off to see Prometheus, peace.

Also, let's never forget she only asked for $6k, and the other 97-98% of what she's made was freely donated by people who want to support her. Not like you can blame her for that. Even if there was something to blame her for, which there is not.

Urm, blameless might be strong. Has it not been established that certain sites were spammed with this in an attempt to gain attention and stir up some contraversy?

I don't think the reason a lot of people don't like her is because she gots paid, and I don't think that most of the men criticising her are just jumping on a feminist because they must be silenced. I really doubt that it's because she's a feminist, it seems likely to me that it's because she has a generally shitty disposition...which she does.

She really could explore whatever issues she needs to without the bile, and without the judgemental and superior attitude. She could also stand to acknowledge when she's making guesses as to reasons and motivations, because it seems that she feels she knows everything there is to know.

Point being. I reckon a different approach(or woman at the helm) would have garnered a very different reaction. Think more Louis Theroux, rather than Michael Moore.

While I won't accuse you of such things, I want to make it clear that one could take away from what you say above to mean "It's not that she's a feminist, it's that she's uppity and saying things I don't like." Notably in the section I bolded above. To you, perhaps that sounds like a perfectly objective stance to take. And perhaps it is that you just don't like her style very much. That's all fine.

Suggesting that there's an ounce of injustice at work because someone you do not personally enjoy is being funded an amount of money by her supporters is simply wrongheaded. There is no problem, there. People are free to spend their money as they please; she will put out work you are free and in fact welcome to ignore at your leisure, whereupon you will in all likelihood to totally unaffected. A butterfly flapping its wings in Argentina will probably have more direct effect on your life.

So the question begs: why involve yourself? Movies are produced all the time with budgets that stagger the imagination, covering topics I myself find repulsive, written, acted and directed by individuals I disagree with. So Iavoid them. There is nothing wrong with the fact that they want to produce stuff that I personally consider shlock, and if people want to spend money to watch it, that's their problem, not mine.

Concisely, where's the beef? Nobody is asking you to pay a dime. Nobody is asking you to watch anything. The existence or non-existence of this particular corner of the internet has only the affect on you that you choose it to have. So why are you here? Why are you involving yourself in this conversation? What stake do you have? Plant your flag and we'll have something substantial to talk about. Is it wrong that she got funded the money? Why? Is it wrong that she's voicing her criticism? Why?

It's not that she says things I don't like, I didn't say that...I said I'm not a fan of the way she says the things she says(and, ok...occasionally the things she says, which I have made it clear I think is her right to say). You see how that's different?

This is a public forum, I don't need your permission to involve myself in any conversation, nor do I need to meet your standards(seriously, what the hell?). You seem to be confused by my not picking a side and yelling...now that would be pointless, and not something we're short of. I've involve myself because I think I've said something that other people weren't saying. I'm offering other explainations as to why some people are finding this distasteful, something that I thought would be refreshing if anything. I do so because certain people are lobbing the term "women-hater" around too readily, as if it serves to do anything other than stunt conversation. I would sooner accuse them of misplacing their anger than of being willfully sexist.

She is singular, a woman, she is not representative or symbolic of women everywhere(luckily). A strike against her does not a bigot make.

You are right in assuming I don't have much of an emotional stake in this, but that disqualifies me how? How is that bad at all? Out of interest, what's your stake in this? Why are you so involved? I think I'm 3 posts deep in this thread, you've posted way more.

Prometheus was good.

My stake is pretty simple. Whenever I see people ragging against feminists in a way I believe is unfair, or betrays a sexist bias, I push back, because someone has to. I'm a gamer; this is my community as much as it is anyone else's, and I refuse to tolerate misogyny... something our community has a serious problem with.

 

[zirro]

Bob,

There's a lot of research out there about the impact of attractiveness on hiring, much of it conflicting, but little that fits your assertion that the hiring bias only affects women, or that it affects women substantially more than men. Attractive men and women both reap an advantage over less attractive peers, regardless of sex. Example:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071206124838.htm

Several studies have shown that being too attractive can actually hurt a female's chances of getting a job (but not a male's).

http://www.workopolis.com/content/advice/article/353-can-you-be-too-attractive-to-get-hired

Another study concluded, after statistically correcting for everything they could think of, that the "too beautiful" effect was due to HR departments being mostly staffed by women, who (it is speculated) subconsciously punish women they think are more attractive than themselves.

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/03/photos_of_attractive_female_jo.html

So your "why it's bad" argument about the societal cost of sexist games, or sexism in general, is wrong; though I'm not trying to legitimize either one. I think the real shame is that the (somewhat well founded) stereotype that all games are sexist, and the (less well founded) one that all gamers are pimply, overweight, bile-spewing, misogynist goons living in mom's basement keeps a lot of women away from video games who might otherwise really enjoy them. I know several women that own library-worthy personal collections of fantasy and sci-fi books and films, but refuse to try or outright disapprove of games like Skyrim, Mass Effect, or even Portal, with it's non-violent gameplay and female lead character. It's frustrating that I can't share the enjoyment I get from my favorite games with these people who should, by all rights, enjoy them.

 

[itsthesheppy]

snip

You seem to be alluding that because I thought he was speaking condescendingly about a woman because he was a man and thought himself superior, I dismissed his arguments. This was not the case. As you may or may not have read in the post where I dropped the term, I explained that what he was doing could be inferred as mansplaining, and then went on (for two paragraphs) to explain why his reasoning was flawed. Moreover, the fact that he was (in my feeling) constructing his entire objection based on this perceived superiority, compelled me to address it as my focus because it was the spring from which the waters of his objection flowed.

My argument was directed at the concept of "mansplaining" in general as a form of ad hominem that I based upon the definition that you provided. Given that your definition was slightly unclear I also alluded to the way you used the term in your specific argument against Machine Man. His claim seemed to be that there are other things that she could do with her money that would do more to help her cause.

Here's the argument you presented against the actual content of his claims:

There is a place in the world for commentary, negative and positive. Pointing out the negative aspects of a thing promotes a cultural conversation about it, and this is a conversation that we all should be having. It's a conversation people want to hear. She only asked for $6k to produce the series, and given what little I know about the costs involved in producing videos, it didn't seem entirely unreasonable. That she's had more than $150k donated is indicative of the fact that people want to hear what she has to say and it is not my place, or yours, to tell her what she should and should not do. That's up to her.

Now, if you're not using the concept of "mansplaining" as an ad hominem argument then it frankly seems irrelevant. In order to respond to his argument your focus should have been on proving that what she was doing is a positive move to accomplish her goals. The argument was going well right up until the emboldened part, where you reverted back to the assumption that he was telling this woman what to do (which he clearly wasn't). It was a non sequitur to tell him that he has no right to tell her what to do because that wasn't what he was doing.

In contrast, I think you were building up to a good point about how the fact that people are willing to pay to hear her videos meant that they do, in fact have value. I actually agree in that a thorough and intelligent analysis of where these tropes come from and their possible effects would result in a positive outcome. What I can't stand is people constantly complaining about these things without either giving an in-depth analysis of why they are bad or presenting a possible solution.

In regard to the concept on the whole, I am still skeptical. First of all, anyone can be condescending towards another person due to some bias, it certainly doesn't apply to men alone. There's nothing stopping a woman who holds herself superior to men from doing the same thing. I agree that our society is such that it is far more likely that men do this, but even so there is certainly no guarantee that all men do this. Given that this is the case it seems that the concept will rarely, if ever, be used legitimately in any argument that isn't directly centered around the psychological disposition of a man in the first place.

I think that in most of its applications the concept of "mansplaining" will likely turn out to be at best a rhetorical distraction, and in some cases an argument ad hominem. Sure, a man being condescending is poor decorum but it has little to do with his arguments. Accusing him of being condescending and operating under the delusion that he is superior before you actually examine his arguments isn't very conducive to promoting decorum either. It's basically a slap in the face. A cynical person could perhaps suggest that it is meant to divert the person's attention away from defending the initial argument they presented by forcing them to defend themselves.

I am, of course, speaking of the concept on the whole. Given the content of your posts I would say that your motives seem to be pure. I do try my best to react coolly and rationally, but I must admit that when presented with the initial idea my response went a bit overboard. The fact that I reacted so harshly in my initial post is perhaps a testament to the underhandedness of the concept. I do apologize if I offended you; it was behavior unfitting of a gentleman.

So you see, your accusation of ad hominem dismissal falls a little off the mark. I did not say he was not worth listening to purely because he was 'mansplaining', as though that were merely an accent and I thought that people from his neighborhood couldn't form coherent thoughts. It was, rather, a dismissal based on the fact that he was composing his objections based on that feeling of male primacy, and I also took the time to break down my objection in a more specific manner.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt considering it wasn't 100% obvious that you were using it as an ad hominem argument in your post (hence why I gave multiple interpretations and invited you to correct me). However, I should point out that 1) it would be fairly difficult to prove assertions about someone's psychological dispositions from a few paragraphs, and 2) even if you were able to prove that his reasoning was based upon a feeling of male primacy, that wouldn't conclusively prove that the proposition that he was putting forward is false. Instead, it would merely force him to provide a valid argument for his position. If he was unable to do this then you would have won the argument.

Also:

I agree that he was being overly offensive, but you certainly didn't respond to his criticism by ignoring him.

I don't have to respond to him. As far as I'm concerned he's welcome to say and do whatever he likes. There's nowhere that says I have to give him the time of my day if I feel he's not being respectful.

Oh, I understand completely. I wasn't suggesting that you had a duty to respond, just that you weren't accomplishing anything by ignoring him (except peace of mind). Given your response it seems clear that you did not believe his arguments to be disproved on account of his impoliteness, so I rescind the statement.

In summary: you're mistaken that I was dismissing him because of 'mansplaining'. I merely indicated that it was what he was doing; that it was perhaps the source of his opposition, and that said opposition did not stand up to scrutiny. I even made a point to indicate that it was very possible he did not consciously believe that he was superior and being condescending, but that it was the message that was coming across.

If I might summarize in return: I'm still thoroughly unconvinced that the concept of "mansplaining" is anything but a product of ressentiment (which was the thrust of my initial objection). While I have no doubt that there are some or even many men who engage in "mansplaining", I remain dubious about how people implement this concept in arguments. However, I do not mean to suggest that you personally were deliberately being misleading, and I apologize for any offense my initial comment may have caused.

I'm happy that we can have a more civil conversation about this. At first when you started throwing Nietzsche and Plato at me, I was of the mind that you were trolling in some advanced sophisticated manner. It would have been a nice troll, but this is much nicer.

I think you may be a little too hung up on the 'mansplaining' thing. Perhaps if you immersed yourself in the feminist culture, and saw what they usually have to put up with, you'd be more familiar with the term; I get the impression that to you it's like having a corn kernel stuck in your teeth. You just can't help worrying it with your tongue. I think you're giving it a great deal more weight than it's worth. I used the term to give a word to what is, in essence, a complicated concept that would otherwise require a sentence to explain.

Unless I am mistaken, you are suggesting that the term is too convenient in skewing the 'advantage' of debate to the feminist side of things; that any man who has a difference of opinion, and speaking that opinion, sets himself up for having the label attached to him and de-legitimized as a result. This is not the case. It certainly could be used that way, improperly, but it does in fact have a specific purpose. I felt it was applicable in the situation that sparked this debate. The person in question was stating, with authority, that what she was going to do with the money was the wrong way of doing it, and that he instead knew the right way. This wrung as mansplaining for a couple reasons:

1) The implication that she wouldn't know what to do with the money. There was no confidence from him (and I haven't seen much confidence from many others) that she would use the funds properly. The common thread seems to be "all she does is sit in front of a camera". Given the tone and the universality of this objection, it seems to me that they don't think she has the capacity to handle the money, or intent to use it 'properly'.

2) They he had a better solution. His immediate reaction si to place himself above her. She doesn't know what she's doing, she's doing it all wrong, she's wasting time; HE, however, knows the best way.

3) His (and everyone else's) alternative solution involves options whereby she doesn't speak out. He'd rather she didn't produce the videos at all... no suggestions to, perhaps, increase the production values. No, the alternatives were to go and make a game, or give the money to developers.

All of it smacked of condescension and contempt. Not only do they automatically think she is wrong (based on no evidence, only conjecture), but they think they're right, and the alternatives they provide involve her shutting up. And the cool, reasoned, sounds-ingratiating-but-is-in-fact-insultingly-condescending nature of the delivery fits 'mansplaining' to a T. Don't worry your pretty head about it, little lady. I'm a dude, and I got this shit figured out.

Now, this feeling of primacy is the source of such objections; such was my feeling, and it was this that I addressed. An easy in was to point at the method by which the delivery was made. I was pointing out the intent and the action. Male Primacy was the intent, mansplaining was the action. But I was not dismissing what he said purely because he was delivering it in a condescending way. It was the condescension itself I was attacking.

 

[A Weary Exile]

Finally, this issue affects all. To apply that men "don't care" (because we're all like megabros who want Megan Fox to be every female protagonist in everything) and women "do" (because they have the inherent ability to look past the superficial and only love "personalities") is utter cock, and frankly outs you as an individual with some seriously misguided views on genders (and arguably a sexist in your own right).

Thisthisthisthisthis.

There was an article here on the Escapist that rang something to the tune of "How to make games for women". One of the suggestions was to have "Deep and relatable characters and story." The implication being that men do not enjoy such things. I wanted to throw my monitor.

Characterization and a well-developed story are awesome things that I would love to see in every video game and I'm sure that can be said for the majority of people who identify as gamers, not just women you sexist fubswnlminmb.

Anyway, that's why I love things like A Song of Ice and Fire because there's (Besides the awesome fantasy stuff ) A) Little to zero gender pandering. There's sex (More in the TV show than the books, but I digress) but it's a relevant part of the plot and not just LOOK BOOBIES/MUSCLEY MEN BUY BOOK NAO PLS! B) Fantastic characterization of characters of all genders/personalities/ages/looks/what have you. Cersei Lannister, Arya Stark, Sansa Stark, Brienne of Tarth, Catelyn Stark, Lysa Arryn, Ygritte, Melisandre, Olenna Redwyne, Arianne Martell, Maergery Tyrell; I could go on. They live in a world that has stupid, abitrary gender roles and they are acknowledged, but that doesn't stop any of them from being awesome characters.

*snip*

Yes. Because she's assuming that we're all the former, when a lot of us are the latter.

As for the liquor ad: members of the same gender are often as responsible for reinforcing these gender rules we have set up. Women do it as well. I go back to Twilight as an example: a "romance" written by a woman that condones a lot of things (Stalker-y boyfriends, being submissive and completely emotionally dependent on your spouse, having kids is your #1 goal, etc.) that would be considered anti-feminist.

Since you snipped out my response, I have no idea to which of my responses you are responding. And for the record, Stephanie Meyer is Mormon, her religion informed her idea of a "perfect romance" and I disliked Twilight intensely. So did just about everyone I know who read it, the rest of them just didn't care for it. I got icked out by a man breaking into a woman's house to watch her sleep. To use an internetism. so much DO NOT WANT.

My point is: I'm not saying it's the of the female gender that Twilight is so popular and awful, nor is it the fault of the male gender that Dead or Alive: Extreme Beach Volleyball is so popular. It's the fault of the idiots within those genders who buy those products and the people who make a living pandering to them.

My problem with the "Why men should hate Twilight" thing is her making a broad generalization about our entire gender being dudebros and that we need to have why Twilight is bad explained to us. Anyone who knows the general plot/message of the thing should be able to figure that out. I don't think the guy who says he hates Twilight because "Edward is so gay and sensitive and junk." wil learn anything from such a video anyway.

 

[CaptOfSerenity]

These aren't documentaries that require $3000 cameras and editing equipment, and yes that shit will run you up in the bank. I know, I took film classes, and the costs are staggering. Bob and Yahztee get paid to talk into a microphone using a script they write once a week. She is making something completely different that people are paying for, meaning they already own it if it gets funded.

You should watch the promo video again and take note of her equipment. Note this is equipment she already has and that is going to be my focus not the actual money or saying that she doesn't need the money.

1. Soundproofed room(see the padding)
2. Two whitelight stands with reflectors
3. HD camcorder all in one set with built-in microphone
4. Dedicated studio for recording
5. Video editing software that enables picture in picture
6. Separate microphone setup(I highly doubt given the high quality of the audio that she is using the camcorders microphone)

If anything what people should honestly be expecting if they demand transparency is where is she going and who exactly she is hiring and what resources are being purchased. Cause in terms of video equipment she doesn't the only logical thing I can see being replaced is the camcorder but for all we know she decides to leave her videos at 720P quality simply due to the fact at how much less time is required to upload those compared to 1080P videos.

EDIT: Honestly if anyone had that level of equipment and actual space as their starting point you would certainly see a lot more people producing videos. I know when I tried making videos for a gaming podcast one of the biggest problems I had with my friends was always the recording location and video quality. I had NONE of that stuff aside from the video editing software and even then I couldn't do Picture in picture with mine. Recording videos from home or at a library or in public was just out of the question. I had the script and am good at public speaking but the presentation and quality were just so poor. I can tell you that none of the money needs to go to the equipment.

Think of what Kickstarter is:

people pay for what you make. People are going to pay a certain amount of money for the documentary. So they're essentially paying for a copy of the doc, and any other shit she's going to make and sell. Why is this a problem? It's not free to film. She probably needs to pay all that off, too. So, yes, money is necessary.

 

[CaptOfSerenity]

Think of what Kickstarter is:

people pay for what you make. People are going to pay a certain amount of money for the documentary. So they're essentially paying for a copy of the doc, and any other shit she's going to make and sell. Why is this a problem? It's not free to film. She probably needs to pay all that off, too. So, yes, money is necessary.

Umm you really didn't watch her promo video did you? We aren't talking about the money here we are talking about how you suggesting that she needs the money for equipment was quite incorrect. The reason I listed all that stuff is that all that equipment and space she already OWNS as in there is no money necessary in terms of video/audio equipment or physical space.

Yeah, she spent a lot of money on that shit. It could be that she needs to get it back. Could be she used loan money from a bank or a friend or something.

Also, my other reasons still apply

 

[Machine Man 1992]

Can I ask everyone in this thread something:

Is there something inherently wrong with objectification? As long as its, umm... done in private or it doesn't cause you to treat the person you are objectifing as a lesser human being.

Sounds like a dumb question, but let's just say I don't do a lot of sexual objectification, so I don't know what exactly the concept entails.

You know, you might be on to something....

Objectification doesn't have to be evil. As far as I see it, as long as you are a decent human being IRL, what you do during your, um, "private time" is your business. It's not like sexism is a one-way, male on female thing. Objectification happens to everybody; man-on-man, woman-on-woman, woman-on-man, etc.

It's just that western society has been male dominated for so long, there's going to be some growing pains as women get acclimatized to the notion that it's okay for them to look at eye candy now.

captcha: I like people. Why are my hands cramping up?

 

[Weaver]

Well, we'll always have the broodmother in DOTA.

 

[Emergent System]

MovieBob takes yet another stab at once again dogmatically reiterating how in a society where men live shoter lives, suffer more from all self-destructive attitudes, ranging from alcoholism, to addiction, to simply suicide, and how even though men, as a group, make more money, women, as a group, possess more purchasing power, men still have it better. Because if you look only at the highest echelon, they are mostly men, so there.

And, clearly, women generally labouring under greater expectations to look good than men do is far worse than men labouring under greater expectations to sacrifice themselves to protect women (a theme that saturates all of western media, including video games), because clearly women feeling bad is worse than men dying.

The presentation of female characters in popular media is juvenile at best, but being expected to look pretty is a much lower level of expectation than being expected to be competent and self-sacrificing, the effects of which saturate our entire society and leave obvious marks - marks that people prefer to ignore, because implying that men, as a group, are in a position of weakness, is bad for ideologues on both sides. The female chauvinists can never support anything that doesn't further the narrative that women are weak and oppressed (thus men can't be), and the male chauvinists can never support anything that doesn't further the narrative that men are strong and independent (thus they can't need help; or if they do then they are not 'true men').

But carry on scratching the surface as you please... I'm an anoyomous person on the internet, not a cop.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

merciful snip

I'm happy that we can have a more civil conversation about this. At first when you started throwing Nietzsche and Plato at me, I was of the mind that you were trolling in some advanced sophisticated manner. It would have been a nice troll, but this is much nicer.

Lol, it's hard NOT to seem like a troll when quoting Nietzsche. He was the original and most hilarious of all trolls.

I think you may be a little too hung up on the 'mansplaining' thing. Perhaps if you immersed yourself in the feminist culture, and saw what they usually have to put up with, you'd be more familiar with the term; I get the impression that to you it's like having a corn kernel stuck in your teeth. You just can't help worrying it with your tongue. I think you're giving it a great deal more weight than it's worth. I used the term to give a word to what is, in essence, a complicated concept that would otherwise require a sentence to explain.

Well, recall that my objection was about the idea of "mansplaining," not about your specific argument with Machine Man. But fair enough. Philosophers use plenty of terms that would instantly rub people the wrong way. Lord knows if I start talking about Kant's doctrine of transcendental idealism most people will likely think to themselves "oh, wonderful, here comes some bs New Age hippie nonsense," when in fact the doctrine is fairly dry and technical (it revolves around our representations of space and time being the a priori form of how we perceive objects because we cannot acquire these representations empirically... etc.).

Unless I am mistaken, you are suggesting that the term is too convenient in skewing the 'advantage' of debate to the feminist side of things; that any man who has a difference of opinion, and speaking that opinion, sets himself up for having the label attached to him and de-legitimized as a result. This is not the case. It certainly could be used that way, improperly, but it does in fact have a specific purpose.

Even more broadly speaking, I don't see how it can really be used legitimately in an argument to prove or disprove the point at hand. I'm not really concerned with the social or psychological dimensions of why people use the concept so much as with how the concept can be used in a debate. You can suggest that it seems like someone is "mansplaining" and ask them to provide better reasons and prove you wrong, but that's not really an argument against their position itself so much as a rhetorical device used to move the conversation on the whole in a different direction. Though you can certainly mention it after you finish arguing the main point, in the hopes that you might open his mind or make him self-reflect or what-have-you.

However, it is generally best to avoid dragging a person's psychological states into an argument unless they are displaying such qualities as to force the question upon you. (E.g., if they start speaking in word-salad you might want to ask them if they're feeling alright.) If a person is being so aggressive or hostile that it might lead you to question their mental state, then it's probably time to discontinue the argument altogether.

I felt it was applicable in the situation that sparked this debate. The person in question was stating, with authority, that what she was going to do with the money was the wrong way of doing it, and that he instead knew the right way. This wrung as mansplaining for a couple reasons:

...snip...​

Now, this feeling of primacy is the source of such objections; such was my feeling, and it was this that I addressed. An easy in was to point at the method by which the delivery was made. I was pointing out the intent and the action. Male Primacy was the intent, mansplaining was the action. But I was not dismissing what he said purely because he was delivering it in a condescending way. It was the condescension itself I was attacking.

Meh. I'm not going to try to defend other people's positions. You can certainly attack people's condescension if you like, just as long as you don't take it to be a successful objection to their argument as a whole.

 

[Calibanbutcher]

Complaining that videogames cater to men is like complaining that the Oxygen channel caters to women; there's going to be pandering and NO ONE SHOULD CARE

Except there are other channels to turn to. Games have less options.

Oxygen came from women demanding it, and viacom realizing it had an untapped audience to sell advertising to. Games could have the larger market, too, if they just listen.

Then make them listen! Tell developers you want more games with strong female protagonists! Tell them you want shirtless hunks to oogle! You have more power than you realize; if publishers realize they have an untapped market, they'll clamber over each other to tap that (see what I did there?).

Video series like the one there is so much resistance to are very much in line with what you are suggesting 'they' do. Raise their voices about the inequality.

Well, if negative reinforcement doesn't work, how about positive reinforcement? Surely there are plenty of female game designers and producers out there, maybe instead of complaining, Anita could say, use the loads of money she has to finance a game? Just a thought.

You, like many others, are falling into the trap of suggesting that you have better ideas for this woman about how she could be spending her time. That perhaps she should be working directly with game developers rather than being all uppity and making noise you would rather not have to hear. You may or may not be aware that you're doing it, but it's known in the feminist parlance as 'mansplaining'.

Mansplaining is when a guy tells a woman (or anyone else, I suppose) that he has a better idea about what she is trying to do, or say. Putting himself in the automatic position of authority and talking down to that individual, educating them about the err of their ways or the superior way of going about something. Even if the intent is altruistic (I have no reason to believe you have anything but the best intentions in mind), it is condescending.

There is a place in the world for commentary, negative and positive. Pointing out the negative aspects of a thing promotes a cultural conversation about it, and this is a conversation that we all should be having. It's a conversation people want to hear. She only asked for $6k to produce the series, and given what little I know about the costs involved in producing videos, it didn't seem entirely unreasonable. That she's had more than $150k donated is indicative of the fact that people want to hear what she has to say and it is not my place, or yours, to tell her what she should and should not do. That's up to her.

If you feel your idea is vastly superior to hers, and if you care enough about it, back up your own rhetoric and start a fund of your own, and then you can do whatever you like with it.

Oh, so just because I have dick that automatically makes my suggestions invalid? The woman makes roughly 400% more money than she needs to make her little video series, I'm offering a means for which the extra 144K can be used to fix the problems she sees. I mean god forbid she displays some agency besides bitching about on the internet and waiting for someone else to fix these problems.

See, what you're doing is exactly what detractors of the feminists use to strawperson the movement: someone who happens to be a man makes a suggestion on how they could accomplish their goal, and people like you jump down their throats for "mansplaining".

Don't post shit on the internet and expect people to refrain from criticizing it.

I went ahead and bolded for you the parts where you're doing that thing I said you were doing that you claim you're not doing.

There's a few critical points where you're not really getting it. First of all is the supposition that your suggestions are necessary or even wanted. Why exactly do you think you have a better idea than she does? Not that you respect her at all, of course, or her "little" video series, which you are so far above and wiser than, of course. She has nothing to teach you, no. Nothing she could want to say would be of any interested to you because, haha, silly girl, you get it already. You're thinking two, three steps ahead!

See, you're not a bad guy. You're just helping her. She needs your help; and not just yours, everyone's! $150k+ is a lot of money and we certainly expect that she will know what to do with it! So of course you and so many others jump in with your helpful solutions; utterly unsolicited, completely spontaneous, dripping with condescension.

Nobody said your dick makes you opinions invalid. What I'm saying is that because you are male, society has been telling us, largely through the bullhorn of pop culture but through other sources as well, that we are more capable. We are smarter, bigger, stronger, faster, more capable, more reliable, more emotionally secure. Better leaders, better critical thinkers, more solid decision-makers... than women. This has been hammered home throughout childhood, adolescence, and adulthood, bombarded from every angle. And the end result is, a woman asks for $6k to make a video series about a subject she is passionate for, recieves a lot more than that amount from her supporters and fans, and the legions of men all across the internet, among whom you are a card-carrying member, rise up in resistance because of course she can't be trusted with all that money, she's going to screw it all up and waste everyone's time!

And the best part is you are so fully indoctrinated to the idea of male primacy, as it is the very soup you and I both swim in, that at the very moment you are reading these words, they sound like absolute madness to you. And that's why we need videos like the one she's going to be producing. Lot's more. Because the "men are superior" message is still out there, in force, and it's deafening. Whatever noise can challenge it is sorely needed.

Ahem:
You imbecile:

Just want to let you know I stopped reading right there. Sorry you went through all the effort to type that out but I'm not in the business of giving my time over to people who preface what they're saying with an insult. If you can't respect me enough to have a civil conversation, I shudder to think about how you treat the women you clearly have considerably less respect for.

Have a good one.

You sure love to play the victim card, don't you?
The "insult" had nothing to do with you being a woman, which I don't know for a fact, but with you slurring a gender.
And how DARE you accuse me of being misogynist, when all I did was confront YOU.
YOU are not the end all of womanhood, and I did not attack you as a woman, but the stuff you presented in this very thread.
Not everyone who disagrees with you is a misogynist and wants to oppress women, and instantly assuming this to be the truth is simply wrong.
You are not a victim in this case.

So, since you couldn't be bothered to read what I wrote earlier, because there was a terrible INSULT at the beginning, have this:


He never told her WHAT to do, he merely suggested, that, since she made a lot more money than she said she needed, that maybe she could use that money to further the cause she claims to support.

It's not because she is a weak and brittle women with a gaping vagina that hinders her from thinking, it's because she came in a shitload of money and using at least some of that money to finance female game developpers would not only make for good PR, but also make her seem legit.
And do her "cause" some FUCKING GOOD
BUT he suggested that she do that IN ADDITION to her videos.

Personally, I want this video to be made, if only, because it will be interesting to see, if she manages to come up with new material that has not been seen before, which, based on the videos I have seen of her, I am not counting on. Not because she is a woman or because she has a vagina, but because experience tells me, that she rarely provides new insight and sometimes sees problems where there are none, and her Bayonetta review seemed to indicate that she doesn't really know a whole lot about video games, however, this does not mean that I do not believe that donating some of that money would be a good idea, since it would be good PR and give her more legitimacy.

But I guess that this is ALL just fucking mansplaining.

He wasn't patronizing, he didn't insist that doing what he suggested was the only correct thing she could do, he merely said that it was in fact something she should consider.
And he is right about that.

And you are, in fact, saying, that HIS suggestion is not wanted nor needed and that he shouldn't even be allowed to voice it, simply because he has a PENIS, which is exactly what you accuse HIM of doing (you accused him as dismissing HER on the grounds of her having a vagina and an XX-configuration).
Hypocrisy much?

Also, it appears you are incredibly sexist. You dismiss others on the grounds that they are born with a y-chromosome, and nothing else. You did not counter his argument, or his suggestion but rather went straight for the balls.
And then you went on to generalize all men in existance, accusing them of being to weak, too strong, too insecure etc.

You attribute a certain gender in general with certain characteristics.
So, based on nothing but their sex, you see it fit to dismiss them all, call them weak, insecure and evil.
Kind of a text-book example of sexism, right?

Now I would like a rebuttal, based on what I have written and not based on how you weasel your way out of writing a decent response.



Since someone pointed it out:
With her "cause" I refer to her cause of improving how women are depicted in video games, which is why she is making this video series (I think), and which is why using some of the money she made to support female game developpers would be a legitimate use of it.

 

[jmarquiso]

f) I learned that Ivy is apparently a noble in Soul Calibur, why exactly does she have those clothes when she can fight as well in some nice noble clothes.

Soul Calibur 1 features nice noble clothes as her default. While sexy - they aren't the ridiculous dominatrix revealing outfit she's had since - that was the alt costume. Was my favorite costume of hers. My favorite fighting move set, too. Now I just don't like her costume and rarely play her. Superficial on my part, I know, since I really like her moves.

 

[jmarquiso]

Anita, I now expect your videos to be TWICE AS GOOD as Eraserhead.

You know, I hear this argument a lot, but you know, the budget and money and what she does with it is not our business unless we donated. Those that donated read the Kickstarter, saw what she was doing and voluntarily contributed.

If it interests you she actually goes over what some in Kickstarter calls "Stretch Goals". If something gets overfunded, they do more. Now she only accounted for about 25k of that so far, and is trying to figure out what to do with the rest. I recommended to a graduate game designer on this very board to get in touch.

Crowdfunding sources are new, but they have this very problem. You can't control being overfunded, and you're not guaranteed to get a return on investment. In some cases the project promises some product in return (at expense to them) listed on the sidebar - usually in the form of merchandise or personal favors.

I personally can't understand why someone gives Transformers so much money (actually I do, but I don't agree with it), when there's much more deserving product out there. But they do, and it's none of my business. I just don't see the movie.

Edit: To add - in certain cases I will respond to content I don't like. I will react and produce content to counter it. That is within my power.

 

[PiCroft]

No offense Bob but this video pleasantly surprised me. Well done on highlighting this facet of the argument!

 

[psyks]

ITT

Why does she need all that money? It's not just women who are stereotyped, so like, why doesn't she do something else with her time? I mean, she's probably a slut anyway.

The joke is, she no longer gives a fuck. You know what the benefit of crowd sourcing your funding is? You're not beholden to people who don't like the things you make. I don't watch her videos. I didn't donate. But, this thread reeks of self entitlement. Instead of abstractly telling her what she should be doing, why not go fucking make something yourself?

 

[Riobux]

As in the film? It doesn't piss me off more than other examples in general sociology, but it just reminds me of how annoying it is to be involved in something so contradictory.

Less subtle than the car company from Fight Club. More just Twisted Metal and Carmageddon in how obvious and shamelessly they do it.

Have you ever talked to a feminist? You are aware that there are non-asshole feminists, right? I know this because I've met them. They're not a mysterious, forgotten tribe in the Congo. They walk among you.

I have, and I am aware there are non-arsehole feminists. That there is a very vocal minority. However, the fact that the minority is taken seriously is something that, at the very least, boggles my mind.

 

[Gamer_152]

Great episode Bob. The debates over how women are treated in games often seem to bring out a lot of bad arguments and a sort of desperation to try and deflect the idea that there might be slightest problem that needs fixing in games. The whole "it happens to men" argument is one of those that seems to reflect the ignorance in a sad amount of people who come to the debate looking to invalidate the arguments of people who say there's nothing wrong with the way games treat women.