Vault101's guide to gender debates

[Vault101]

Rule 3 says nothing of the sort. It makes no mention of people being multifaceted or generalized. It speaks solely of people who claim that this philosophy is a threat to art, better representation is a destroying what we hold dear, etc. I never mentioned any of this, never mentioned anything of the sort. Perhaps your rules could do with some revisiting, no?

well rule 3 and 4 are closely related and cover varying degrees..you have created an "other" and labelled them Femenists

3.creating a fictional "other" or shall we say straw man
4.throwing the word feminism/feminist around without regard to its meaning or relevance

back to your original post

[quote/]We just want to write up an arbitrary set of rules that obviously favor us with no input from non-feminist or feminist-critical persons[/quote]
[I/]non-femensits think this way...femenists think that way...I have decided who thinks what, so I can neatly put people into boxes[/I]


[quote/]
The entire preface to rule four - hell, the bloody thing is named feminism.[/quote]
I didn't say you literally couldn't use the word [b/]under any circumstance[/b]...jeez

 

[Nieroshai]

My problem with this is that I feel it shuts down the central pillar of the entire debate, its heart and soul, the very reason we even have it: misrepresentation. Not just of each other, which is clear; the misrepresentation of language itself. What IS feminism? What IS an SJW? We're running off of derisive made-up definitions of both of those things and it harms debate when a true feminist and a female sexist become the same idea, or when any serious doubt about an opinion is chalked up to SJW-ism, or when any possible real-world outside interest such as profit, propaganda, and the Hype Machine CAN'T possibly exist, YOU CONSPIRACY THEORIST REPUBLICAN! You see, we're fighting a war mostly because we think we're speaking the same language. But we're not. And the accidental insults drag out into real ones.

 

[Vault101]

Your logic is circular.

You say you don't like people to use "feminist", but when they just say "people who do XYZ" you call it a strawman.

actually I'd prefer if they just said "people who do XYZ"

 

[Something Amyss]

I feel like that would be an even worse misuse of a label since the whole MRA thing seems rather specific and easyer to pin down

Ehhh...It can go either way.

The Men's Right's Movement dates back quite a ways, and doesn't necessarily just mean internet sociopaths who respond to any mention of women with "but men are X too!" Complaining about MRAs could easily be seen as the equivalent of complaining about feminists or "Tumblr feminists" or whatever, even if it seems like a more unified front (in fact, it scares me that when the "reasonable" MRAs talk about the "good" movements, they tend to be ones which have policies of inequity, like preventing marital rape laws...I'm not even kidding).

I've been guilty of this myself, and I'm trying to be mindful of it. The fact is, labeling them as MRAs just isn't necessary and is possibly even harmful. Remember the thread about a new name for harassers? The answer there is the same here: it's usually better to just call an asshole an asshole.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not exactly joining the Men's Rights Movement or anything like that, but....it's not conducive to a discussion.

 

[Saetha]

Rule 3 says nothing of the sort. It makes no mention of people being multifaceted or generalized. It speaks solely of people who claim that this philosophy is a threat to art, better representation is a destroying what we hold dear, etc. I never mentioned any of this, never mentioned anything of the sort. Perhaps your rules could do with some revisiting, no?

well rule 3 and 4 are closely related and cover varying degrees..you have created an "other" and labelled them Femenists

3.creating a fictional "other" or shall we say straw man
4.throwing the word feminism/feminist around without regard to its meaning or relevance

back to your original post

I fail to see how they're related at all, with the exception that they both dismantle talking points you don't like. Regardless, I did not engage in the behavior forbidden by rule 3, despite any similarity you prescribe it.

And for the record, I'd say I have a pretty good regard of the word's meaning and relevance, considering how I'm a former feminist. Former, partially because of stuff like this, but mostly because of stuff that's much worse.

Which means, ironically, you've yet again broken this newly introduced rule - you made a strawman out of me, assuming I have no knowledge of feminism's meaning or relevance, despite you having no knowledge of me, beyond what I've presented in this forum - which is to say, very little. Certainly not enough to go generalizing me.

[quote/]We just want to write up an arbitrary set of rules that obviously favor us with no input from non-feminist or feminist-critical persons

[I/]non-femensits think this way...femenists think that way...I have decided who thinks what, so I can neatly put people into boxes[/I] [/quote]

Did I make any mention of what I think non-feminists think? No, I simply said that including one to review your little write-up would've benefited.

[quote/]
The entire preface to rule four - hell, the bloody thing is named feminism.

I didn't say you literally couldn't use the word [b/]under any circumstance[/b]...jeez[/quote]

No, you said you can only use it under relevant circumstances. Methinks that taking a potshot at people who disagree with you, implying that they just don't know what the word really means, that they need to go look it up, was not relevant or necessary to rule 4 - mentioning feminism as a word to steer clear of is obviously relevant and necessary, yes. But that wasn't the only mention.

 

[Something Amyss]

My problem with this is that I feel it shuts down the central pillar of the entire debate, its heart and soul, the very reason we even have it: misrepresentation. Not just of each other, which is clear; the misrepresentation of language itself. What IS feminism? What IS an SJW? We're running off of derisive made-up definitions of both of those things and it harms debate when a true feminist and a female sexist become the same idea, or when any serious doubt about an opinion is chalked up to SJW-ism, or when any possible real-world outside interest such as profit, propaganda, and the Hype Machine CAN'T possibly exist, YOU CONSPIRACY THEORIST REPUBLICAN! You see, we're fighting a war mostly because we think we're speaking the same language. But we're not. And the accidental insults drag out into real ones.

IF you can tell me what a "true feminist" is, I'd be interested. Because beyond the most basic idea that women deserve equal rights, I doubt there is one.

However, when we discuss these things, it is best to define our terms, and "feminist" and "SJW" are used rather ambiguously, and shift between definitions as is convenient. The issue, there, is that I'm not sure people want to define the terms, as they're more useful this way.

 

[Vault101]

I fail to see how they're related at all, with the exception that they both dismantle talking points you don't like. Regardless, I did not engage in the behavior forbidden by rule 3, despite any similarity you prescribe it.

you've labelled other people "feminist" inaccurately

[quote/]And for the record, I'd say I have a pretty good regard of the word's meaning and relevance, considering how I'm a former feminist. Former, partially because of stuff like this, but mostly because of stuff that's much worse.

Which means, ironically, you've yet again broken this newly introduced rule - you made a strawman out of me, assuming I have no knowledge of feminism's meaning or relevance, despite you having no knowledge of me, beyond what I've presented in this forum - which is to say, very little. Certainly not enough to go generalizing me.[/quote]
I never implied you didn't know the term Feminist or the ideas therein.....I just think you're using it as a blankest term unfairly

[quote/]
Did I make any mention of what I think non-feminists think? No, I simply said that including one to review your little write-up would've benefited.[/quote]
which to me seems to basically say that "non feminists" would automatically disagree with me, and that "feminists" would automatically agree with me

also assuming I'm a feminist

[quote/]
No, you said you can only use it under relevant circumstances. Methinks that taking a potshot at people who disagree with you, implying that they just don't know what the word really means, that they need to go look it up[/quote]
I stand by the sentiment that a lot of people really should and not just use it as a stand in for "those I disagree with" or assume anyone who holds a certain opinion is automatically a feminist

 

[Vault101]

I really, really couldn't care less about semantics. Whatever you want to call [b/]the people who complain about games because they have a white male protagonist, or see it as a flaw, or want to ban fanservice, or otherwise want to push a political agenda over just relaxing and having fun, or over creating content, whatever you want to call those people, i'll call them that.[/b]

So tell me, are you actually going to drop the circular semantic deflection and have a legitimate discussion, or did you just come here to troll people and waste everyone's time?

that doesn't make that bolded part any less of a straw-man

just 1 strike instead of 2

[sub/]although it was under the pretense of "this is what I think a feminist is"[/sub]

 

[Vault101]

But see that's your problem. Without a name for things, which you won't accept, you just call things a straw man. Even when i'm very narrowly identifying a set of ideologies i'm opposed to, you pretend that none of these ideologies exist.

So it's either use a regular term, and you say "that's a blanket statmenet"
Or use a specific term, and "that's a strawman"

You're basically claiming radical female sexists, and people that try to push political agendas, or people that want to ban fanservice don't exist.

oh I'm sure they exist

however

1.are they actually in any position to negatively affect videogames?
2.do they represent the majority of people who think videogames have some issues?

I'd answer no to both

 

[Saetha]

I fail to see how they're related at all, with the exception that they both dismantle talking points you don't like. Regardless, I did not engage in the behavior forbidden by rule 3, despite any similarity you prescribe it.

you've labelled other people "feminist" inaccurately

And again, we can debate the similarity of rules 3 and 4 until the cows come home (Though I imagine they're already asleep in the barn by now - at least where I am) It's irrelevant to that fact that I did not break it, mainly because there is no mention of inaccurate labeling in rule 3.

[quote/]And for the record, I'd say I have a pretty good regard of the word's meaning and relevance, considering how I'm a former feminist. Former, partially because of stuff like this, but mostly because of stuff that's much worse.

Which means, ironically, you've yet again broken this newly introduced rule - you made a strawman out of me, assuming I have no knowledge of feminism's meaning or relevance, despite you having no knowledge of me, beyond what I've presented in this forum - which is to say, very little. Certainly not enough to go generalizing me.

I never implied you didn't know the term Feminist or the ideas therein.....I just think you're using it as a blankest term unfairly [/quote]

"Without regard for it's meaning or relevance." Not to mention, again, the beginning of rule 4.

[quote/]
Did I make any mention of what I think non-feminists think? No, I simply said that including one to review your little write-up would've benefited.

which to me seems to basically say that "non feminists" would automatically disagree with me, and that "feminists" would automatically agree with me

also assuming I'm a feminist [/quote]

Sorry that it does. If you want me to clarify - I don't know if a non-feminist would disagree, or if a feminist would agree.

And I am not assuming anything. I've lurked on these forums for well over a year- you begin to remember the more prolific posters. Multiple times you have proclaimed yourself a feminist. As a matter of fact, I recall you doing so in that "Feminists should step off our hobby" thread. I'm drawing from direct knowledge.

Before you interpret this as creepy - I only know this because I read a lot of threads and comment in very few. I haven't paid any special attention to you, just that prolific posters such as Fappy or JoJo - or you - tend to pop up a lot.

[quote/]
No, you said you can only use it under relevant circumstances. Methinks that taking a potshot at people who disagree with you, implying that they just don't know what the word really means, that they need to go look it up

I stand by the sentiment that a lot of people really should and not just use it as a stand in for "those I disagree with" or assume anyone who holds a certain opinion is automatically a feminist[/quote]

And you're welcome to. However, the point stands. It's not relevant.

 

[Vault101]

And I am not assuming anything. I've lurked on these forums for well over a year- you begin to remember the more prolific posters. Multiple times you have proclaimed yourself a feminist. As a matter of fact, I recall you doing so in that "Feminists should step off our hobby" thread. I'm drawing from direct knowledge.

ok for this discussion I'm a feminist

so what do I believe? what do I like? what websites do I hang out on? what do I do in my spare time? what are my favourite movies? what are my political beliefs? what are my favourite games? do you know?

if a girl says she thinks GTA is kind of sexist is she a feminist? if she says she's rather see better character design with less emphasis on boobs is she a feminist? and if so does the entire weight of that label now apply to her?

that thread is pretty much everything wrong with gender debates, and pretty much follows all the "points" I made in my OP

its created two camps the "Feminist" and the "people who have no problem with the way things are", with us or against us, good and evil... I mean it even says [I/]you got last of us...its finished, pack it up were done[/I] <-surely the ridiculousness of that sentiment is apparent?

the only person we should be calling a feminist is Anita Sarskesian...because her whole shtick was a "feminist" look at games

 

[Saetha]

And I am not assuming anything. I've lurked on these forums for well over a year- you begin to remember the more prolific posters. Multiple times you have proclaimed yourself a feminist. As a matter of fact, I recall you doing so in that "Feminists should step off our hobby" thread. I'm drawing from direct knowledge.

ok for this discussion I'm a feminist

so what do I believe? what do I like? what websites do I hang out on? what do I do in my spare time? what are my favourite movies? what are my political beliefs? what are my favourite games? do you know?

How the hell would I? As I've said, I've paid you no special attention.

I'm not sure where this is coming from. You seem to be taking out your general frustration with these debates on me. And for the record - just because I mentioned that "Feminists get out of gaming!" debate doesn't mean I agree with it. I haven't even commented in it. I looked over the first few pages because, again, I read a lot of threads here. Frankly, I think it's a bit stupid because, if nothing else, the OP seems to think that enjoying video games and being a feminist are mutually exclusive states. That's obviously untrue, but I don't see any reason why I should bother pointing that out. Many others already had, and they would all probably argue the point with more passion than me.

So it's great that that thread's an embodiment of what's wrong with gender debates. Not sure how that relates to me, though...

 

[Vault101]

How the hell would I? As I've said, I've paid you no special attention.

rhetorical question

you don't and you also can't assume what those things would be for those whom you call "Femenists"

[quote/]I think it's a bit stupid because, if nothing else, the OP seems to think that enjoying video games and being a feminist are mutually exclusive states. That's obviously untrue, but I don't see any reason why I should bother pointing that out. Many others already had, and they would all probably argue the point with more passion than me.

So it's great that that thread's an embodiment of what's wrong with gender debates. Not sure how that relates to me, though...[/quote]
because you were doing something similar

lumping everyone else under the label "Femenist" weather they identify as that or not

and when you bring that into it, it becomes political, it becomes [I/]scary[/I] it becomes a debate on the merits of the Movement [footnote/]a whoooooooole other debate best reserved for people who know what they're talking about..ie: NOT most people caught up in gaming forums[/footnote] rather than a debate on the games themselves

 

[Padwolf]

Omg Vault, this is the most one-sided argument I've ever heard. It's like you've not done any reading whatsoever, so all your arguments are invalid. I can't believe this! How do you sleep at night with your feminist man hating ways? HOW VAULT HOW?!

I'm sorry, I'm late to the party...

This whole thread has made me laugh quite a lot. It's a good guide and one I wish all people would follow. Especially the part where people actually should know what feminism means. Not enough people around do and it really puts a dampener on every single discussion there is on the subject. It makes me sad and makes me run away from the discussions.

 

[the December King]

the well known classic "Snake"?

your argument is void

...

I'm still surprised that my opinions got dismissed, because I'm a snake.

...

This is blatant specism!

 

[Saetha]

How the hell would I? As I've said, I've paid you no special attention.

rhetorical question

you don't and you also can't assume what those things would be for those whom you call "Femenists"

Certainly, I can't deduce the favorite movie or foods of someone simply because they identify as a feminist. Saying I can't deduce anything about them at all is silly, and smacks of the word "feminism" being a useless descriptor.

Meaning - if calling yourself a feminist presents nothing about who you are or what you think, then the word would've never been invented. "Feminism" is a philosophy, and thus, saying you subscribe to it means you hold certain beliefs. It's literally why the word exists in the first place - I mean, imagine if I said "I'm a car mechanic." You could then ask me what I like about fixing cars. And I could then get irrationally angry, tell them that I actually scoop ice cream, I just call myself a car mechanic, and then invent rules saying that no one can comment on what car mechanics do or do not do, because I'm tired of people assuming I work on cars.

It's absurd. You can't say that the word feminist doesn't denote anything about what a person thinks, just as I can't say that car mechanic doesn't denote anything about what a person does. These words exist for that very reason.

[quote/]I think it's a bit stupid because, if nothing else, the OP seems to think that enjoying video games and being a feminist are mutually exclusive states. That's obviously untrue, but I don't see any reason why I should bother pointing that out. Many others already had, and they would all probably argue the point with more passion than me.

So it's great that that thread's an embodiment of what's wrong with gender debates. Not sure how that relates to me, though...

because you were doing something similar

lumping everyone else under the label "Femenist" weather they identify as that or not

and when you bring that into it, it becomes political, it becomes [I/]scary[/I] it becomes a debate on the merits of the Movement [footnote/]a whoooooooole other debate best reserved for people who know what they're talking about..ie: NOT most people caught up in gaming forums[/footnote] rather than a debate on the games themselves[/quote]

I was doing something similar? Where? Because I denoted non-feminists and feminist critical persons as separate from feminists? And as I said about that, I don't know if they'd agree with you one way or the other. I never grouped people under the label whether they agree or not. Quite the contrary, I specifically said "feminist," meaning only those who see themselves as feminists would be subject to it. I never pointed at someone and went "YOU, sir or madam, are a FEMINIST! I now IRRATIONALLY HATE YOU for being a FEMINIST." I never engaged with anyone in this thread but you, much less told them they believed in a philosophy without any knowledge of whether or not they do.

And that's great that bringing up feminism shifts the debate off the games themselves - but we're not debating games here. Going off the last few pages, we're making up rules and then snarking at people who dare to criticize them. Thus, bringing up the merits of feminism does nothing to shift the discussion off of games, since there was no such discussion in the first place.

 

[QuietlyListening]

The point is that there's no value in calling someone a feminist or trying to set up a feminist boogeyman that wants to do XYZ horrible things.

As Vault said, statements like "feminists want..." don't actually address the issue but shift the argument over to the definition of an ideology.

More productive would be to say something like, "I don't support the idea that all white men should be removed from games, and that only women and minorities should be the protagonists."

Phrased like that, you'd probably be met with something like, "I agree. I don't support that either. Now do you think that women and minorities are underrepresented as characters in games?"

And hey! We have a debate about the creative direction of an artform as opposed to a mud slinging contest where we try to put each others in a box so we can shit on them.

 

[carnex]

I feel like that would be an even worse misuse of a label since the whole MRA thing seems rather specific and easyer to pin down

Ehhh...It can go either way.

The Men's Right's Movement dates back quite a ways, and doesn't necessarily just mean internet sociopaths who respond to any mention of women with "but men are X too!" Complaining about MRAs could easily be seen as the equivalent of complaining about feminists or "Tumblr feminists" or whatever, even if it seems like a more unified front (in fact, it scares me that when the "reasonable" MRAs talk about the "good" movements, they tend to be ones which have policies of inequity, like preventing marital rape laws...I'm not even kidding).

I've been guilty of this myself, and I'm trying to be mindful of it. The fact is, labeling them as MRAs just isn't necessary and is possibly even harmful. Remember the thread about a new name for harassers? The answer there is the same here: it's usually better to just call an asshole an asshole.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not exactly joining the Men's Rights Movement or anything like that, but....it's not conducive to a discussion.

MRA movement has one advantage, it somewhat graded itself.
- First there are people that refuse to classify themselves within MRA movement, usually least extreme. It's Karen Straughan and similar people.
- Purple pillers are both MRAs and non-MRAs that observe red pillers and soak in message but still engage in traditional relationships. Almost never publicly present ans such. A bit more extreme
- Red pillers - now theese are fill force MRAs that observe women with intense distrust. Mostly avoid relationship. Even more extreme
- Men Going Their Own Way - huge overlap with red-pillers but people within have other motives too. Kicked out Pick Up Artists and don't want to associate with them. Never engage in long term relationships and more than weekend is long term relationship for them.
- True Forced Lonlyness - people who feel that they are forcibly ostracized by female gender. Well, don't even want to comment.

- Herbivore men and Hikikomori - these don't have any interest in women or MRA's. Don lump them in with those above.
- Pick Up Artists - also do not mix with MRAs. They are womanizing bachelors and most of them support feminist movements as it helps them pick up women.

That's just a useful guide.

 

[Vault101]

]
Certainly, I can't deduce the favorite movie or foods of someone simply because they identify as a feminist. Saying I can't deduce anything about them at all is silly, and smacks of the word "feminism" being a useless descriptor.

so at what point would YOU call someone a Femenist?

let me ask you again if someone criticises a game for being sexist are they a feminist?

[quote/] I mean, imagine if I said "I'm a car mechanic." You could then ask me what I like about fixing cars. And I could then get irrationally angry, tell them that I actually scoop ice cream, I just call myself a car mechanic, and then invent rules saying that no one can comment on what car mechanics do or do not do, because I'm tired of people assuming I work on cars.[/quote]

this depends...if you took it upson yourself to deicde tham Femenist meant "I want to destroy all the games" as some people honest to god have (just scroll back a few pages and see the outrageous stuff people have come up with) I'm sure people would be pissed




[quote/]I specifically said "feminist," meaning only those who see themselves as feminists would be subject to it. I never pointed at someone and went "YOU, sir or madam, are a FEMINIST! I now IRRATIONALLY HATE YOU for being a FEMINIST." I never engaged with anyone in this thread but you, much less told them they believed in a philosophy without any knowledge of whether or not they do.[/quote]
in your very first post the way you used "feminist" described a homogenous group of people who all thought the same thing and were the only ones criticising games

[quote/] but we're not debating games here. Going off the last few pages, we're making up rules and then snarking at people who dare to criticize them. Thus, bringing up the merits of feminism does nothing to shift the discussion off of games, since there was no such discussion in the first place.[/quote]
obviously no...this thread is purely meta...

but it happens in the general discussion, I mean for fuck sake we have an entire thread titled "should femenists step off our hobby" implying no one ever had a problem or obsevered games that way until the Femenist army moved in

 

[JimB]

I think the point being made (as you well know) is that a woman can have an abortion without the father's consent, just as she can have a child without the father's consent and sue for money to support it. This is an imbalance, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.

Okay, so let's reverse the situation. Let's say a woman can't get an abortion without a man's consent. This means a man can force her to carry to term a child she doesn't want, and presumably can dictate many behaviors related to her health in order to ensure that the child is born. The woman has lost control over her own body and autonomy, and she has gained no reciprocal control over the man's body and autonomy. Would you consider that an imbalance?