Posted by GrantHeaslip (1525 posts) -

I may not agree with some, or even most of what the "sexism in games" movement has become, but on a broader level, it's probably a good thing it exists insofar as it's making people think about this stuff more. That support is contingent on the movement becoming dramatically more mature, self-critical, and careful about throwing around judgements and calls to action before the facts of a situation are known, and as you might point out, that's a big "if".

All of that said, there's one thing about the movement that I can't tolerate: the tendency to broadly attribute thoughts, motives, and preferences to men. It's unfair, fallacious in countless ways, and basically forces men into a corner before a discussion has even begun. I can't claim to speak for a broad swaths of people, but I imagine a some (certainly not all!) of the criticism, anger, and general hostility toward the Anita Sarkeesians of the world (and those who support them) is derived from a reflexive dislike of having motives and labels (many of which basically imply most/all men are neanderthal idiots) attributed to oneself.

It’s become standard practice to claim that almost anyone who questions the unproven idea that contemporary gaming is inherently sexist (or really, even anyone who pokes holes in feminist gamer arguments) is a misogynist. Misogyny has become a label that people feel comfortable using in the same way one might use "idiot" or "asshole", but it's a far more specific and vilifying word, because it quite literally means that one hates (or at least strongly dislikes) women. Pointing out that many of Anita Sarkeesian's arguments are based on false, pre-established, inherently skewed premises does not mean that I hate women. Pointing out that forming angry internet mobs accusing people of "misogyny" based on something you read on Twitter is irresponsible and borderline libelous does not mean I hate women. Pointing out that this movement desperately needs to call out some of the laughably illogical and fallacious arguments its de facto spokespeople regularly trot out does not mean I hate women. Nor, for that matter, does any of that mean I'm sexist, which like misogyny has a meaning that many who use it are oblivious to.

In fact, for many of us, it's because of our belief that this is an important issue that we're so hostile toward those who are making it look juvenile, navel-gazing, and incapable of self-criticism because of the spectre of being thrown in the "misogynist" discard pile. It's not your right to tell us that we disagree with you because we hate women, just like it's not my right to tell Christians they hate women because their churches oppose abortion or women in the priesthood -- and really, that's a way more fair criticism because it's based on verifiable evidence and not blind accusations or circular reasoning.

Moreover, don't tell me I like certain games because they're a "male power fantasy", because they reinforce the idea of women as "property" to be fought over, or even because I like the idea of playing a buff, "masculine" hero (hint: I don't). A lot of these criticisms imply that men are incapable of self-reflection, are driven primarily by neanderthal, sex-fueled desires, and are essentially incapable of empathizing with and respecting the opposite sex. They imply that a plot about a man rescuing a women is effective because the men playing these games are neanderthals, not because the people (not just men!) playing these games have a human, non-psychopathic desire to help those in need -- especially when, as is so often the case, said "damsels in distress" often have broader importance to the fates of large groups of people, and often display admirable strength (both of character and body).

In so many cases, when given the choice between a reasonable neutral/positive interpretation and a grasping negative interpretation of a plot, character, or mechanic, the "sexism in games" crusaders insist on the interpretation that fits their preconceived notions of male psychology and allows them to blindly label men as psychopaths or women-haters. It's ironic, because the exact same feminists who insist on broadly labelling men are extremely (and usually fairly) opposed to labelling women. I'm not going to start listing examples stereotypical female labels because it pains me to write nonsense, but I'm sure you can fill them in yourself.

Who gave you the right to define my enjoyment and interpretations of games? Who gave you the right to reinforce the tiresome media trope of treating men like bumbling, oblivious neanderthals in the same breath with which you decry tropes that you think demean women? Who gave you the right to tell me I hate women? Who gave you the right to essentially accuse me of psychopathy? In short, who gave you the right to tell me what I think, and why I think it?

By all means, continue to criticise games based on whatever nebulous standards you want -- if you're careful about it (not holding my breath), feel free to criticise those who make them -- but stop claiming to know how people relate to them. It's a presumptuous, unfair, juvenile, hypocritical, and just plain shitty practice that needs to stop.

P.S. No, I'm not trying to write away any of the legitimately sexist, awful, and yes, occasionally legitimately misogynist stuff that people (not "gamers", but people) have absolutely been responsible for. If someone says something awful, you've got every right to hold that against them, but you don't have the right to hold that against every male who plays video games. My issue is not with pointed criticism, it's with the reinforcement of broad, unsupported stereotypes and a culture of shaming people for thought crimes.

#1 Posted by JasonR86 (9609 posts) -

I hear you. I never like people who analyze something and their followers announce it as fact or absolute reality. It really doesn't matter who's analyzing what. I would much rather prefer these things be put out there as interpretations for consideration. Nothing more nothing less.

That said, I don't think Anita is necessarily trying to announce to the world 'think as I do'. Her followers might be though (God it sounds like I'm describing a cult. You all know what I mean I hope).

#2 Edited by GrantHeaslip (1525 posts) -

@jasonr86 said:

That said, I don't think Anita is necessarily trying to announce to the world 'think as I do'. Her followers might be though (God it sounds like I'm describing a cult. You all know what I mean I hope).

It's been a while since I watched that video, but I recall it containing quite a few blanket statements about how males engage with games (and what the people who made them intended), which is exactly the kind of stuff I'm sick of. She's not necessarily telling the world to think as she does, but she is telling people what they're thinking.

#3 Posted by JasonR86 (9609 posts) -

@jasonr86 said:

That said, I don't think Anita is necessarily trying to announce to the world 'think as I do'. Her followers might be though (God it sounds like I'm describing a cult. You all know what I mean I hope).

It's been a while since I watched that video, but I recall it containing quite a few blanket statements about how males engage with games (and what the people who made them intended), which is exactly the kind of stuff I'm sick of. She's not necessarily telling the world to think as she does, but she is telling people what they're thinking.

It's been a while for me too. You could just ignore her too if you feel she is trying to tell you what to think. Because if you don't think that she is representing her appropriately then don't pay attention to the things she does and you won't have to feel misrepresented anymore.

#4 Posted by GrantHeaslip (1525 posts) -

@jasonr86 said:

It's been a while for me too. You could just ignore her too if you feel she is trying to tell you what to think. Because if you don't think that she is representing her appropriately then don't pay attention to the things she does and you won't have to feel misrepresented anymore.

The thing is that it's not just her. I focussed more on her stuff here because it's the most prominent, but her style of thinking is getting embraced pretty widely and isn't going to go away. More than anything, it's the movements continued inability to moderate itself that drove me to write this. I kind of hoped some of the more extreme and hyperbolic aspects would have been culled by now. As I said, I've got no problem with the discussion happening, but I want it to be done in a smarter, more logically sound, less divisive, and less inflammatory way. I don't think my writing a blog post is suddenly going to change that, but it's nice to get off my chest.

I wrote something similar to this (if a bit stronger worded) when this debate was hotter, and actually deleted it because I was hoping it would blow over and didn't want to stoke the flames.

#5 Edited by JasonR86 (9609 posts) -

@jasonr86 said:

It's been a while for me too. You could just ignore her too if you feel she is trying to tell you what to think. Because if you don't think that she is representing her appropriately then don't pay attention to the things she does and you won't have to feel misrepresented anymore.

The thing is that it's not just her. I focussed more on her stuff here because it's the most prominent, but her style of thinking is getting embraced pretty widely and isn't going to go away. More than anything, it's the movements continued inability to moderate itself that drove me to write this. I kind of hoped some of the more extreme and hyperbolic aspects would have been culled by now. As I said, I've got no problem with the discussion happening, but I want it to be done in a smarter, more logically sound, less divisive, and less inflammatory way. I don't think my writing a blog post is suddenly going to change that, but it's nice to get off my chest.

I wrote something similar to this (if a bit stronger worded) when this debate was hotter, and actually deleted it because I was hoping it would blow over and didn't want to stoke the flames.

Yeah, I hear where you're coming from. I guess for me as much as I don't like people telling me who I am, what I think, or anything else about me that they can't know without just jumping to conclusions those accusations really have no barring on me on my daily life. I work with people who have told me all sorts of theories about why I am the way I am and how fucked up what I am is from their perspective. Which is fine because when I go home their perspective doesn't impact my life at home. It doesn't effect what I do when I interact with others. It just doesn't matter unless I make it matter.

As for the sexism message it seems to have staying power but it'll blow over soon. And then it'll come back. Then it'll blow over again. Because these things always seem to come in waves. Everything seems to come in waves. Which is in itself sort of a bummer for me because I think sexism is a big problem in all areas of our society and elsewhere. But you're blog isn't necessarily about that so just ignore that bit.

I don't know, I hear you but I also think that some of this comes to what you bring to all this too. In some ways the individual who is offended decides to what degree they are offended. But I just want you to know that I know what you mean.

#6 Posted by Humanity (8815 posts) -

@jasonr86: I think either Anita knows exactly what she's doing, which is basically riding the internet wave of notoriety which helps her get views and pay her bills - or she's incredibly ignorant and delusional.

#8 Posted by Tarsier (1057 posts) -
@humanity said:

@jasonr86: I think either Anita knows exactly what she's doing, which is basically riding the internet wave of notoriety which helps her get views and pay her bills - or she's incredibly ignorant and delusional.

but didnt you know theres a war between males and females and us females are going to rise up and take control of OUR world!!!!!!!!!

#9 Posted by Humanity (8815 posts) -

@tarsier: I've actually become aware that a lot of traditional feminists are starting to look at people like Anita with disdain and speak out how they're doing more harm than good by misrepresenting statistics and being overly aggressive in their approach.

#10 Posted by JasonR86 (9609 posts) -

@humanity said:

@jasonr86: I think either Anita knows exactly what she's doing, which is basically riding the internet wave of notoriety which helps her get views and pay her bills - or she's incredibly ignorant and delusional.

Cool.

#11 Posted by planetfunksquad (401 posts) -

@humanity: Who are these traditional feminists?

#12 Edited by JasonR86 (9609 posts) -

@planetfunksquad said:

@humanity: Who are these traditional feminists?

I can't believe there's a term 'traditional feminist'.

EDIT:

I guess I should explain. 'Traditional Feminist' sounds like an oxymoron to me but I can't really explain why. It just does. Maybe someone smarter then me can explain why it sounds weird to me.

#13 Posted by Jimbo (9774 posts) -

I think a lot of the bandwagon jumping and look-at-me-ness of what it has become is probably turning a lot of regular people off to it entirely tbh. When it's calm and considered it's quite effective. When it's journalists hysterically trying to out-unsexist each other: less effective and probably counterproductive.

Right now all you can hear are the extreme ends of the debate incessantly screeching at each other. Actually, one end is screeching, the other end is mostly just trolling them for a reaction and getting it in spades.

Online
#14 Edited by Tarsier (1057 posts) -

can we take this more seriously? i dont think its being taken seriously enough.

#15 Edited by Humanity (8815 posts) -
#16 Posted by YOU_DIED (702 posts) -
#17 Posted by YOU_DIED (702 posts) -

@grantheaslip: Does anyone actually believe the nonsense rhetoric coming from Anita? Her videos are full of nothing but generalizations based on her biased interpretations. She seems to understand remarkably little about artistic license for being what is essentially an art critic.

She sees a female in a situation she doesn't like, and without even exploring the context or trying to understand the motivations of the person who created it, she starts blowing the whistle. For example, that nonsense over the Cyberpunk 2077 trailer image:

To her, the woman in the picture is about to be killed because she is a woman. It has nothing to do with the pile of corpses surrounding her and what is obviously their blood on her clothes and hand-scythe-attachment-thingies. Mario saves a princess, so the creator must be trying to say that all women are weak and need to be saved by men.

#18 Posted by gogosox82 (424 posts) -

While a little hyperbolic I totally understand where your coming from. I would say, however, there is a distinct difference between the feminism Sarkeesian promotes and more traditional(not sure if that's the right word here. Maybe modern feminists is better?) feminists.

#19 Edited by JZ (2125 posts) -

You think the limb system is great

#20 Posted by punkxblaze (2957 posts) -

@jz said:

You think the limb system is great

Boy DO I!

#21 Posted by TruthTellah (8549 posts) -

@jasonr86 said:

@planetfunksquad said:

@humanity: Who are these traditional feminists?

I can't believe there's a term 'traditional feminist'.

EDIT:

I guess I should explain. 'Traditional Feminist' sounds like an oxymoron to me but I can't really explain why. It just does. Maybe someone smarter then me can explain why it sounds weird to me.

I think "Traditional Feminist" may sound odd to you because Feminism has been widely considered a counter-cultural force against patriarchal tradition. So, "traditional" seems like the last thing you might attribute to a Feminist. Though, in the context of how the movement has changed and widened over time, "traditional" may simply refer to the long history of people specifically fighting to gain equality for all women in public life, in matters such as voting rights, healthcare, and wages.

#22 Posted by Slag (4016 posts) -

@grantheaslip:

Nobody likes being defined by somebody else. I'd say that's actually what this whole initial issue is about.

Some women being portrayed by some men in a way they don't like. It's question of control of your own identity That's what it boils down to really.

Shouldn't be done to you either, but does seem ironic that your complaint is basically the same thing that sparked the initial dialogue.

that being said I don't think you should be taking any of this so personally, I think you are smart enough to know most of those comments are just people venting or are zealots who think in absolutes. Unfortunately not everyone is very artful (or even accurate) about it. Upset people tend to lash out and use imperfect generalizing language. Humanity doesn't seem to me to be very good at dealing with If you're expecting something different, expect to be disappointed in topics like this on the internet.

Not really about you at all or me, or probably even most of us here.

I know what you are about duder, any reasonable and calm person who pays attention will.

don't let upset (and/or stupid) people get you down man. They aren't worth it.

#23 Edited by GrantHeaslip (1525 posts) -

@slag said:

@grantheaslip:

Nobody likes being defined by somebody else. I'd say that's actually what this whole initial issue is about.

Some women being portrayed by some men in a way they don't like. It's question of control of your own identity That's what it boils down to really.

Shouldn't be done to you either, but does seem ironic that your complaint is basically the same thing that sparked the initial dialogue.

I see the metaphor, but I don't think the existence of a one-dimensional, stereotypical female character is as much a personal slight as being accused of playing games to satisfy some juvenile "male power fantasy". Even if I were to agree, two wrongs don't make a right, and no adult conversation has ever been instigated by more-or-less accusing the "other" side of being childish. Yeah, I know, I sort of did that in the original post, but I didn't start it :).

I'm receptive to the idea that games need better, or at least more diverse, female characters. I kind of feel the same way about male characters, but I don't think the situation is as bad. Stuff like every female Mass Effect/Persona 4 character throwing themselves at Shepard/Hero bugs me, and I want this stuff to get better. I simply think attributing thoughts and motivations to men, rather than just directly addressing complaints at the game itself and leaving it at that, is a terrible way to go about it.

If it were just people with axes to grind in comment sections, I wouldn't be concerned, but the same broad, questionable accusations are being made by people in positions of (relative) influence, and they're (seemingly) not being held to account by others who have their ears, who should be pulling them aside and saying "look, I agree, but you need to cut some of this nonsense out".

I think there's an unfortunate tendency for groups to get less and less self-critical if they feel like they're under fire -- a sort of "we must be doing it right if we've pissed this many people off" mentality. I totally get it, and if I were getting hateful shit directed at me every day, I might go the same way, but if they don't start getting smart about this, they're going to keep fighting the same battles and poisoning the well of (to mix metaphors) of a discussion I think should be happening.

Also, thanks for the compliments! Same goes to you, and I do get what you're trying to express. This post was more catharsis than the venting of any serious, deep-seated anger :).

#24 Edited by TruthTellah (8549 posts) -

@grantheaslip said:

I think there's an unfortunate tendency for groups to get less and less self-critical if they feel like they're under fire -- a sort of "we must be doing it right if we've pissed this many people off" mentality. I totally get it, and if I were getting hateful shit directed at me every day, I might go the same way, but if they don't start getting smart about this, they're going to keep fighting the same battles and poisoning the well of (to mix metaphors) of a discussion I think should be happening.

And that's a big part of what fuels all of this. People speaking up on the portrayal of women in games and the treatment of women in gaming communities, followed by angry men being less and less self-critical because they feel like they're under fire. And then things get out of hand and defensiveness becomes outright aggression. Your post is directly in reference to feeling under fire. The idea that someone is imposing views on you. When we get defensive, we do often recoil into our trenches and ignore the more reasonable points buried under the vocal extremes. I'm not saying that's what you're doing, but that frustration and defensiveness you're feeling is a big part of the ongoing argument.

Now, as much as I dislike when people take things too far(such as an ideologue like Anita Sarkeesian), I think most of the discussion and arguments over the last year have been great, and I hope it continues. I hope it does frustrate many of us. I don't want it to go away, because it's far from truly addressed. People often think that a short spurt of interest is enough to solve everything, and that's rarely the case. People feel like if -they- get it, then it's something that shouldn't be brought up again. Despite how it may be messy or uncomfortable, this should continue to be a major topic. It's very healthy for developers and gamers to be more self-critical, whether they feel under fire or not. Even if every effort isn't perfect, I'm glad people are making an effort to keep it in the public eye.

#25 Posted by Milkman (16531 posts) -

@jasonr86 said:

@planetfunksquad said:

@humanity: Who are these traditional feminists?

I can't believe there's a term 'traditional feminist'.

EDIT:

I guess I should explain. 'Traditional Feminist' sounds like an oxymoron to me but I can't really explain why. It just does. Maybe someone smarter then me can explain why it sounds weird to me.

I think "Traditional Feminist" may sound odd to you because Feminism has been widely considered a counter-cultural force against patriarchal tradition. So, "traditional" seems like the last thing you might attribute to a Feminist. Though, in the context of how the movement has changed and widened over time, "traditional" may simply refer to the long history of people specifically fighting to gain equality for all women in public life, in matters such as voting rights, healthcare, and wages.

I think "traditional feminists" just like to relax at home with a good book or something and "radical feminists" are really good at skateboarding and stuff.

#26 Posted by casper_ (901 posts) -

i can see where coming from op. i dont know man, i'm all for being more inclusive/responsible about women in games but anita just comes off kinda hyperbolic, half baked and not incredibly articulate to me and i kind of felt patrick jumped on that hyperbolic bandwagon without really considering it due to his own enthusiasm for the subject being brought up at all. it doesn't seem like a constructive way to approach the argument although it has gotten a lot of people talking about an important issue.

#27 Posted by joshthebear (2700 posts) -

This picture is getting quite a workout.

#28 Edited by Oldirtybearon (4600 posts) -

@grantheaslip: Great read that explains the other side of the fence quite eloquently. Keep up the good work.

Online
#29 Edited by TruthTellah (8549 posts) -

@milkman said:

@truthtellah said:

@jasonr86 said:

@planetfunksquad said:

@humanity: Who are these traditional feminists?

I can't believe there's a term 'traditional feminist'.

EDIT:

I guess I should explain. 'Traditional Feminist' sounds like an oxymoron to me but I can't really explain why. It just does. Maybe someone smarter then me can explain why it sounds weird to me.

I think "Traditional Feminist" may sound odd to you because Feminism has been widely considered a counter-cultural force against patriarchal tradition. So, "traditional" seems like the last thing you might attribute to a Feminist. Though, in the context of how the movement has changed and widened over time, "traditional" may simply refer to the long history of people specifically fighting to gain equality for all women in public life, in matters such as voting rights, healthcare, and wages.

I think "traditional feminists" just like to relax at home with a good book or something and "radical feminists" are really good at skateboarding and stuff.

heh. Sure... That's it.

Radical Feminists to the max, dude!

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1eu9sz61e1r278dio1_400.gif

#30 Posted by prapin (32 posts) -

The main problem is that feminism is fragmented into two categories:

The "old" feminism which has its roots in european enlightment and fought for women's rights. It gave women the right to vote firstly and in the second wave brought many other privileges and rights to women. This kind of feminism recognises the equality between men and women and supports the idea that there are still problems which women go through as well as misogynistic phenomena but it also recognises that men have to deal with misandrism and unequal treatment too. This feminism doesn't consider the elite 1% of men to be representative of the average male. It doesn't believe that women are second class citizens (in 1st world countries) and MAINLY it doesn't believe that people are born bisexual and are then scalpted to what we consider "males" or "females" in society. In short, it doesn't believe that gender roles are 100% social constructs.

It believes that equality has been achieved in our society but many problems still exist.

Having a strong base in logic and the truth, this "old" feminism doesn't believe in the "patriarchy" and that women are just victims.

Then there's modern feminism or "gender feminism". This feminism has its roots in marxist and communism ideology. Its main belief is that people are born like a blank sheet of paper and society molds their behavior and plants its biased views and discrimination in them. It believes that every area in society (entertainment, law, the media etc) is controlled by the "patriarchy" which is basically the influence evil men have over everyone else. Its belief is that women are brought up by society to be victims of men. This victimhood is its main fuel. It neglects and willingly doesn't mention what the "old" feminism has achieved for women while at the same time fails to recognise that misandrism exists and that the average male suffers from discrimination in the law system and pretty much in every area women face discrimination too. This kind of feminism is no longer just about equality of men and women in the law but also in every part of society which is affected by the "patriarchy".

Feminists of this latter feminism has labeled feminists of the aforementioned as "antiwomen, gender traitors, brainwashed by the patriarchy" because the "old" feminism does not think of women as victims.

However, this feminism has evolved in the past years. In its need to find victimhood, it's no longer just about "gender" and has proclaimed itself the protector of race, ethnicity, age, class etc.

The "villain" is still the patriarchy but this time, it's not just consisted of elite males. It's consisted of elite, white, straight males. The life achievements of these males aren't really achievements, they are what they like to call "priviledges"; that is, power that is given and offered to them by their discriminatory, bigoted ancestors.

Young ideologists who are still in search of "romance" and justice as any innocent youth is, meet this evolved feminism in the academic space.

In many cases, immediately they are consumed by it and their world view is filtered. By falsehood, myth, lies and fake or skewed statistics they transform from "young ideologists" to victims and grievances collectors.

Really recently organised teams who aspise this feminism have chosen to block free speech and silence the opposition. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWgslugtDow, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQzQBTkQZWU for some examples. Also watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvYyGTmcP80).

You can argue many points in post are cruel, are possibly biased and in many cases they jump to conclusions, however what I can safely say in 100% certainty is that this kind of feminism is and will never be about "equality", rather the exact opposite. It has destructive effects in our society and if you don't believe me because you think I'm a sexist, misogynist white straight male then you should at least try listenting to these two females who have contributed DRASTICALLY to "old" feminism ideology and have aided women immensely.

Dr Janice Fiamengo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5I6aYl4XDpA

Dr Christina Hoff Sommers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgpbDpXrEr4

#31 Posted by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

@gogosox82 said:

While a little hyperbolic I totally understand where your coming from. I would say, however, there is a distinct difference between the feminism Sarkeesian promotes and more traditional(not sure if that's the right word here. Maybe modern feminists is better?) feminists.

I dunno, feminists usually seem pretty batty to me. It's a little tiresome that every time some self proclaimed feminist comes along, she expects every male to be a beer commercial dumb ass. I've never actually met a man that fucking stupid. Boys? Sure. Men? Not so much.

Also the whole "rape culture" thing shows that hyperbolic is maybe not the right word. There are a lot of people out there throwing out stupid and way overblown bullshit, so I think the OP is pretty accurate. Rather than just standing up for their rights, they insist on either playing the victim or making it all out to be a bunch of assholes holding them back. In reality, it's a few pricks that they allow to hold them back. Most people think women deserve the same rights and treatment as men. So when some feminist brat comes along to scream about how men all want to rape the entire female population of the earth and how a women AVOIDING sexual abuse (See: Tomb Raider) is somehow men playing out a fantasy. Yeah, I've had that one before. A good failed rape really gets me going.

I'm not saying there aren't reasonable feminists out there. I know some myself, and they are out there, lots of em. But there are those in the world that insist on just causing more damage than anything else. They are like the gun nuts that blame the democrats using "shady" techniques to "lure pro-gun folks" into a false sense of security so they can sneakily get what they want. When, in reality, all that happened is the pro-gun side had a small victory. Nothing more, nothing less.

You can't get your side anywhere if you just spew bullshit and point fingers. You aren't going to get anywhere by playing the victim. That just keeps you down. If you have a problem with something, do something about it, don't just whine about how it's everyone else's fault that it hasn't been fixed yet.

#32 Posted by TruthTellah (8549 posts) -

@mordeaniischaos: I'd consider myself a feminist, but I happen to only be about 15% bat. :)

#33 Edited by 9cupsoftea (652 posts) -

If I understand correctly you're saying you don't like people making assumptions about you based on your gender, especially negative ones. That's exactly what a lot of feminists are saying too. There's no confrontation there.

#34 Edited by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

@truthtellah said:

@mordeaniischaos: I'd consider myself a feminist, but I happen to only be about 15% bat. :)

Are you Batwoman/man? You have to tell me if you're Batwoman/man.

If I understand correctly you're saying you don't like people making assumptions about you based on your gender, especially negative ones. That's exactly what a lot of feminists are saying too. There's no confrontation there.

That's like saying it's okay to call a white guy a cracker because he called you the N-word. This whole statement is pretty pointless. Feminists shouldn't be throwing stupid shit around at people who don't deserve it any more than the few who do deserve it should be doing things to deserve to be perceived that way. And there's the issue that if a feminist hasn't got a clue what the actual problem is at the heart of sexism, how the hell are they supposed to change things?

#35 Edited by gogosox82 (424 posts) -

@gogosox82 said:

While a little hyperbolic I totally understand where your coming from. I would say, however, there is a distinct difference between the feminism Sarkeesian promotes and more traditional(not sure if that's the right word here. Maybe modern feminists is better?) feminists.

I dunno, feminists usually seem pretty batty to me. It's a little tiresome that every time some self proclaimed feminist comes along, she expects every male to be a beer commercial dumb ass. I've never actually met a man that fucking stupid. Boys? Sure. Men? Not so much.

Also the whole "rape culture" thing shows that hyperbolic is maybe not the right word. There are a lot of people out there throwing out stupid and way overblown bullshit, so I think the OP is pretty accurate. Rather than just standing up for their rights, they insist on either playing the victim or making it all out to be a bunch of assholes holding them back. In reality, it's a few pricks that they allow to hold them back. Most people think women deserve the same rights and treatment as men. So when some feminist brat comes along to scream about how men all want to rape the entire female population of the earth and how a women AVOIDING sexual abuse (See: Tomb Raider) is somehow men playing out a fantasy. Yeah, I've had that one before. A good failed rape really gets me going.

I'm not saying there aren't reasonable feminists out there. I know some myself, and they are out there, lots of em. But there are those in the world that insist on just causing more damage than anything else. They are like the gun nuts that blame the democrats using "shady" techniques to "lure pro-gun folks" into a false sense of security so they can sneakily get what they want. When, in reality, all that happened is the pro-gun side had a small victory. Nothing more, nothing less.

You can't get your side anywhere if you just spew bullshit and point fingers. You aren't going to get anywhere by playing the victim. That just keeps you down. If you have a problem with something, do something about it, don't just whine about how it's everyone else's fault that it hasn't been fixed yet.

I would say its a matter of perspective and they probably don't see it as whining or complaining. You should read or listen to some radical feminist thought/discussions to understand where they are coming from ( I had to do this for my undergrad). A lot of radical feminism is steeped in early 19th century communist/marxist thought. So when they are critiquing, its usually coming from a perspective that a powerful entity (usually white men) has control over them. And this control can be described in a number of ways. I don't wanna get into more detail because I don't wanna turn this into a history lesson but let's just say that their feminism is usually steeped in political culture/identidy that is very much anti establishment and they see men as the establishment. Not saying I agree with it ( I usually don't but they do make decent points from time to time) but I think its good to understand where someone like Saarkensian is coming from.

This differs from modern or liberal feminism which doesn't necessarily what to fundamentally change the system. They want to work within the established system to make things better for women. This creates a significant amount of tension between them and for the most part, they do not get along very well. And this is only two feminism's I mentioned b/c I think these are the ones that I think most people are familiar with. There's actually like 6 or 7 different factions/ideals within feminism that I can think off the top of my head. This kind of fractioning within feminism leads to people get the impression that if one person ( in this case, Saarkensian) begins to get some attention that this suddenly means that this is what feminism is so I was just reminding people that this isn't the case. I also said he sounded hyperbolic because he basically sounded like the group of people he was trying to criticize. I totally understood where he was coming from but he still sounded like a radical feminist who might lump all men into one group, call them pigs, and demand they be thrown on the rack just for being men. Pretty sure that's not the tone or impression he wanted.

#36 Posted by 9cupsoftea (652 posts) -

@9cupsoftea said:

If I understand correctly you're saying you don't like people making assumptions about you based on your gender, especially negative ones. That's exactly what a lot of feminists are saying too. There's no confrontation there.

That's like saying it's okay to call a white guy a cracker because he called you the N-word. This whole statement is pretty pointless. Feminists shouldn't be throwing stupid shit around at people who don't deserve it any more than the few who do deserve it should be doing things to deserve to be perceived that way. And there's the issue that if a feminist hasn't got a clue what the actual problem is at the heart of sexism, how the hell are they supposed to change things?

No, it's nothing like saying that, the opposite in fact.

You don't want feminists attacking you, you don't want them pointing fingers, and you want them to do something about sexism apart from whine, yet you seem to be doing all of that yourself. I could do a find>replace on your posts, replacing 'feminist' with 'sexist' and you could argue with yourself all day. I agree Sarkeesian is incompetant, irresponsible, opportunistic and has set a really bad confrontational tone for talking about sexism, but the worst thing to do is take the other extreme and butt heads over and over because it gets nobody anywhere.

#37 Posted by Dagbiker (6939 posts) -

How about a movement where people just treat people nice

#38 Posted by Kiro_LeMark (64 posts) -

I wrote a similar sentiment on Reddit. Not exactly, as I go off on a few tangents of my own, but the idea that anyone who isn't disgusted with the industry is a troglodyte was popping up everywhere, and the RPS article finally irked me enough to write something.

The reason I bring it up isn't as much because of the post, but the 2000+ comment discussion that got going because of it. There are a lot of people that feel enough is enough with this, and a lot of great counter-arguments. Give it a poke if you are interested. I am not trying to advertise, as the thread is too big to comment on and all the voting has pretty much evened out right down the middle.

The "birth" of gaming feminism: The struggle of the privileged to convince the industry to censor itself into artistic suicide

#39 Posted by TruthTellah (8549 posts) -

I wrote a similar sentiment on Reddit. Not exactly, as I go off on a few tangents of my own, but the idea that anyone who isn't disgusted with the industry is a troglodyte was popping up everywhere, and the RPS article finally irked me enough to write something.

The reason I bring it up isn't as much because of the post, but the 2000+ comment discussion that got going because of it. There are a lot of people that feel enough is enough with this, and a lot of great counter-arguments. Give it a poke if you are interested. I am not trying to advertise, as the thread is too big to comment on and all the voting has pretty much evened out right down the middle.

The "birth" of gaming feminism: The struggle of the privileged to convince the industry to censor itself into artistic suicide

I much prefer how Grant has handled this. The title and tone you chose in your post goes beyond simply being defensive or expressing frustration into being outright aggressive, insulting, and dismissive. Grant's point appears to just be frustration with people mischaracterizing men, but there's still an acknowledgement of the need for having good discussions around the real issues involved.

#40 Posted by TruthTellah (8549 posts) -