Politely Sharing Ideas About Social Justice Without Arguing

Yes:
- Non-preachy outline of your current views.
- Honest questions you feel unclear or conflicted about.
- Questions whose purpose is clarification, not argument.
- "I think/feel/believe..." statements.

Please, No:
- Specifics about the current drama.
- Arguing with an opinion you saw, but didn't like or disagreed with.
- Trying to directly convince people to agree with you.
- "You/they think/feel/believe..." statements.

I would like for us to walk next to each other, moving forward with a purpose. If I fail to follow my own suggestions, please forgive me. :)

Think Journey, not Nidhogg.

I'll start...

I would most likely identify as a feminist, because I believe in equality, as (hopefully) all of us do.

I believe that patriarchy exists in the USA and that it negatively impacts women. I believe that racism still exists in many forms and that it negatively impacts non-whites.

I understand people having problems with the word "feminist". I have problems with the word myself, primarily because I do not like the idea of racial issues being co-opted under the banner of "intersectional feminism". As a white man who teaches very poor black and Hispanic kids, reducing their racial struggle to a qualifier of "feminism" rings of a kind of white power dominance that makes me uncomfortable.

However, I much prefer the word "feminist" to "egalitarian", because "egalitarian" is not something I ever really hear anyone refer to themselves as outside of Twitter, message boards, and other online spaces. "Feminists", however, exist all around me in the inner-city school in which I teach.

If I had a magic wand, I would promote the notion of kyriarchy, as it does not privilege one aspect over another in its labelling and it acknowledges the reality of how different privileges intersect each other based on context.

I'll stop now, and I look forward to reading other thoughts about social issues.

Hey!

I have 2 questions:

Firstly when you say patriarchy do you mean as an entity or mearly that what is considered "normal" in society opresses?

What are your feelings on cultural appropriation? as this is one for me that has left me totally bewildered.

@carryboy said:

I find this tricky as well. It's not really clear to me when something becomes cultural appropriation rather than just an influence. The most common explanation i've heard is that it is a matter of respect for the origin of whatever thing or practice that is under consideration. Yoga, for example, has its origins in easterns philosphy and religion. Why isn't yoga cultural appropriation? Is the kind of yoga that Dan has been talking about on the bombcast (where they rename the stances using terms from football) more offensive than other types of yoga? Or are both ok, since they both serve the same purpose?

Although, it would be great to have a calm thread about social views, without the usual twisting of words, name-calling and trying to one up each, I'll still remain cautious before I weigh in too much, I'll probably wait around and see other responses.

Could you explain personally what you think Kyriarchy is? I'm still unsure exactly how is based, although I have a rough impression of it that is enough to make me interested in the notion.

I don't think there's going to be a hard line where one side is respectful admiration and the other is cultural appropriation. My advice to white people who are confused about this is to try to be respectful in the first place, and if someone criticizes you try not to be defensive. I think a tremendous amount of bad behavior comes from people being scared of being labelled as racist. People are allowed to be wrong, it doesn't make you a bad person. Think of it as though you call someone Mike and they say "I prefer Michael." You don't really need to know exactly why they feel that way. Just politely respect their opinion.

@kjebka: Hi, I just don't really understand the concept. Why did you say white people? Is it something that only applies to white people? (not trying to start an argument, genuine question)

I believe that women are just as independent and diverse in thought as anyone else and despise thinking of them as a "group" because I feel they shouldn't be pigeonholed like that.

I believe in sex-positivity and the idea that women don't need men to lift them up; they are strong and can make their own way without any man's help.

It's interesting to you bring up race because I feel like that's a whole other conversation that no one is having. While I welcome this new focus on feminism in games, I think it's still got a long, long way to go as far as racial issues. If you look at the current faces of feminism in games, they're almost all white women. The games industry, as a whole, is still blindingly white. It's one of the reasons I really appreciated Patrick's interview with Evan Narcisse earlier in the year as he's one of the very few black voices in games writing.

Modern Feminism seems too much like a new religion to me, that's why I don't engage with it.

That doesn't mean I don't respect women, and it doesn't mean that I think women are inferior. I think society needs both genders to sustain itself, and needs to appreciate the different things that men and women bring to the table.

As someone of indian descent and friend of the nature who dealt with loads of 9/11 related terrorist crap from people in the states and then you look at the recent fallout in Ferguson. you are actually extremely right,

its part of why i really appreciate the Assassins Creed series, as say what you will about gender, but they go out of their way and have a diverse race of protagonists. (the character Adewale, is from the country of Trinidad, he is LITERALLY, THE only videogame protagonist from that country)

I am very happy with how this is going! :)

@carryboy

1) I’ll try to strip down what I mean when I say “patriarchy”… societies have various power structures and everyone in that society is raised in various power structures. There are a million variables within all that.

Kyriarchy speaks to the multi-faceted nature of power in situations by context. This is useful to me because it speaks to the real-life experiences many of us face and provides a more complete framework than patriarchy, which speaks primarily to male/female issues.

Patriarchy is, to me, a system of male domination, perpetuated unconsciously by people within that society. Patriarchy is an aspect of the kyriarchy that we have in the USA. It sits alongside race, economics, etc…

I think both concepts are separate and useful on their own terms. I’m no expert, it’s just what these things mean to me.

2) I think cultural appropriation is a really tough nut to crack. If you look at the GB “2Human” video you can look at it a bunch of different ways. If you don’t know the guys, you see some white video game guys mocking a black subculture. If you know the guys, you know they genuinely love that stuff and they’re self-aware. Or maybe you do know them and you still think it’s kind of gross.

I really like what @kjebka has to say about just taking someone’s opinion and respecting it.

Not to speak for him, but cultural appropriation is only potentially damaging when the dominant culture does it. My feelings on it are actually really difficult to articulate based on where I work and with whom I work every day.

Really, it boils down largely to a very honest examination of intent and a willingness to defer to the marginalized voice.

@yinstarrunner

Could you expand on what you mean by “Modern Feminism”?

It is interesting to see “feminism” qualified (as I mentioned earlier with “intersectionality) and how that changes a person’s perception.

OK I'll bite.

Disclaimer:

I think everyone should have equal opportunity regardless of race, gender etc. However under no circumstances should equal distribution be a target for regulation or other government funded incentives. There are numerous equality issues that have merit like conscious gender based (mostly female) abortions, male custody, conscription.

Opinions follow

I think the labor market is a zero sum game and women should not expect to get a free pass due to gender.

Source: Article

There is plenty of evidence showing that the medium-skill well-paid jobs are rapidly disappearing and that low-educated men are increasingly employed in low-paid low-skill jobs. Furthermore, there are signs that male participation rates are declining across the whole OECD and that this decline is particularly strong for low-educated men.

What can be the cause of this? Education is a shortcut to a high wage job and that is a field increasingly dominated by women.

In an increasing number of industrialized countries, female educational attainment is now higher than male educational attainment. Women are in majority among secondary school graduates, among tertiary level students, and among tertiary level graduates. Judging from recent trends in international data, it seems likely that the female dominance in educational attainment will become stronger in the coming decades.

Men are in general taller and stronger than women and might be considered more productive. However they also spend more money on food so I think it is fair that they earn more.

In some careers women are preferred due to skills or personality like caregiving, detail assembly lines etc. Is there any special attempt to encourage men to be employed in these careers?

Other quotes:

Despite the fact that women are now in majority among students at the tertiary level, they still choose different major subjects than men. Here, it is difficult to draw any conclusions on international long-term trends since no long, internationally comparable time series are available. However, some studies on individual countries suggest that gender differences in choices of major subjects at the tertiary level may be diminishing.

I'd say the answer is if you're not part of the culture being "appropriated" its not really your fight to wage. You can speak up about the Redskins name, for example, because natives have made it known they do not at all care for that. But if you're harassing some white girl wearing a bindi because you presume this culture (you're not a part of) could be offended, that's unacceptable. If a culture is being silent about something you perceive to be offensive, maybe they don't care and maybe they're not offended. White people in particular seem to love to speak for other cultures, I don't know if its guilt or what, but its awful condescending to assume the culture can't speak for itself and needs your intervention.

I can see where people may be offended if they feel like others are co-opting or even worse lampooning their cultural contributions. But at some point we are all human and we all enjoy what other humans and other cultures have to offer. The way people in the west have adopted yoga has largely been with a sense of reverance. It's genuinely helps millions (maybe billions?) of people around the world. Who could have a problem with that? I feel like nothing connects us more than sharing in each other's cultures.

But I agree that the Red Skins still being the name of a major sports franchise in 2014 is pretty baffling.

I agree with feminism and equality. I disagree with the current tumblr culture of being offended/getting triggered by just existing in this world as well insulting anyone who doesn't believe in exactly what they believe.

I believe both sides of the argument have rotten people who are using the situation as an excuse to be venomous. It sucks because it stops all intelligent discussion dead in it's tracks.

That's all I really have to say.

SJW has just replaced the term white-knighting for trolls. It's just a dumb label used to dismiss the argument of someone you disagree with rather than getting into an actual discussion.

I do actually want to write something about this in detail, but I don't think now is the time for this conversation with all the 'drama' As much as I support social justice, I think the reputation of "social Justice Warriors " IS a little earned with how aggressive it can get. In most situations were folks have been insensitive, I've found it is more often that they are misinformed instead of downright hateful and immediately tweeting 'fuck you mouth breather' just makes them angry and they double down on their beliefs.

But... like I said, I don't NOW is the time to bring this up. Hopefully all our heads will be cooler soon.

It's quite literally 4am. I should really not be writing anything that requires brain power. But fuck, I can't deal with this anymore. I've lurked, read and absorbed the thoughts and feelings of so many posters for such a long time now. I have to let out something, a fart in the wind. This is what my tired self thinks at this very moment, in the middle of the night, jaded by depression and disillusionment through years of being proven right in every way I don't want to. I wish one day to look back on my feelings now as a young adult, smiling and thinking of how crazy that little guy Tobb was so long ago, thinking he knew how the world worked when it was all sunshine all along! Either way, tallyhoo, here we go.

I'd like to not be preached to or looked down upon for my gender. I also don't want to be made out as a villain because I don't see the point in screaming at a bunch of assholes doing asshole things.First of all, it'd be nice if talking to assholes actually did any good to begin with, and secondly it'd be nice if a new roach didn't just crawl out after you stomped the first.

I'm fine with leading by example, and promoting good behavior when I come across it. Treating humans as humans should be common sense. Many of the people I greatly respect are women, my personal role-model is a woman. I come from a line of schooling predominant with male student and most of my friends are male and I have always been surrounded by male perspective. Perhaps that's why the female perspectives I've been subjected to have hit so deep? Either way, from my personal experience I have met men with a range of personalities that I have liked, respected, hated or reviled. And the same is true for the women I have met. A woman isn't above scorn or under respect. If you treat me as a person, you can expect the same treatment back. And in the same way, if you treat me as a lesser being while demanding help, I'm just as unlikely to take your side as I am to take the side of a neanderthal sending horrible messages over the internet. At that point averting my eyes and focusing on my own problems is a whole lot more attractive.

What happened to treating each other the way you want to be treated? Why can't people just get along? I wish I knew the answer to this, but for now all I know is that it isn't true. We apparently can't all get along or see eye to eye. Majority decides, and in this case the majority wants this toxic back and forth to end. Honestly I don't see what can be done to help those who need it. How can an industry so set in it's customs and ingrained relations start adapting for change? Should it be forceful? Should it be eased into? Should interested minorities start from the sides with private companies and work their way in through proof of work and creating contacts until eventually there is enough to be natural? Or should minorities be hired through a quota until it evens out and everyone gets used to the thought and it turns into a natural process that way? How does anyone handle the vitriol and hate in anonymous communication? Do you ignore it? Do you moderate it? Is it the receiver's responsibility to act? Is it the government? Is it the company that enables the messaging?

There are so many questions, none of them have correct answers. As a powerless little human without a voice that anyone cares about, without an opinion that matters to the forces that clash. What can I do?

This is all very frustrating, and no matter where I look someone is gonna lose. Maybe the ones who have been hurt the most should have their turn now, maybe the scale just has uneven weights. If we can't expect true equality, then perhaps we can drop enough rocks on the lighter side to at least even it out enough to go "good enough". Which side becomes slightly heavier in the aftermath might be irrelevant until it starts skewing again.

Fuck I'm gonna regret reading this tomorrow, but it might help me sleep a bit better. Would have been nice if I could have just been my usual blunt self, but this isn't a topic where I can get away with anything but confused rambling.... Hopefully some day I can write something along these lines with a tone that isn't wannabe philosophical teen confusion.

@tobbrobb:

If you treat me as a person, you can expect the same treatment back. And in the same way, if you treat me as a lesser being while demanding help, I'm just as unlikely to take your side as I am to take the side of a neanderthal sending horrible messages over the internet. At that averting my eyes and focusing on my own problems is a whole lot more attractive.

This part was fucking awesome.

It's so hard for any discussion these days to not fall back onto the you-know-what debacle.

Having said that, I think the majority of people agree in human rights and human decency. This should be starting block - regardless of colour, race, creed, gender - we are all human and deserve the most basic of human rights

You mentioned men being generally taller/stronger and therefore spend more on food and should be paid more. Should modern societies base wages on estimated living costs of the employee rather than take a generalized slice? What about those men who are smaller than women? Women need to spend more on sanitary products so should that be considered as well? What about vegetarians? I'm not trying to be incendiary, I genuinely like to follow this train of thought to find fair solutions.

The other big issue here I think is all the labeling and associations. It's human nature to want to identify and belong, which is fine. But when you feel your identity is under attack sometimes you lash back. I feel that as individuals we can have strong convictions and stick to them but hold blinding faiths against a label or a name is a dangerous thing to do. Personally I strongly believe in equality and fairness, if some group announce that they represent those ideals but use tactics/methods I disagree with - I wouldn't associate myself with that group.

So whatever issue you want to talk about - talk about them - voice your opinions, that's the beauty of the internet. If you don't agree with something voice your concerns, if they don't engage in meaningful discourse - leave. Same goes with sites, if you feel a site's agenda doesn't fit with your convictions by all means go to another site. There are so many choices and options on the internet there shouldn't ever be a need to turn violent. Issues should be talked about openly, calmly and fairly. I think we've become so desensitized that every debate turns into a shouting match and we feel the need to be louder and more vitriolic to get the point across. That shouldn't be the case. You don't need to go to extremes to be heard.

Thank you for reading my thoughts, looking forward to more input from the community.

I would generally not comment on a thread such as this, or most threads. I find it very easy to get myself worked up at times about many social issues. That being said, I am enjoying the atmosphere of this thread. I hope I live to see times where equality is the norm across races, genders, religions and sexual orientation. My general thought is, if your beliefs or actions do not negatively affect others, what is the problem? I understand that people have strong convictions about many different issues. The thing that I feel grounds me the most and keeps me somewhat humble is to keep things in perspective. To think about the position I am in and how, for me, it is not so bad. Pretty good when you look at the rest of the world. Looking at the universe, forget it. That is an extreme example. I think this perspective is important for me when thinking about what issues I really want to be passionate about. I get very upset when I see one group of people being so hateful and disrespectful to another for no good reason that I can discern. I truly believe that this country I live in, the USA, can and should do so much more to promote positive social progress. I won't pretend to have good answers and this is mostly me rambling. Happy to share my thoughts and thanks to the rest who are willing to share.

Thank you so much to everyone for being cool so far. I think this conversation is something many of us have been starving to have.

I know what @andyle2k means, but I actually think most of us are sick-to-death of the current drama and that our own personal feelings belong to us and not to the screaming Twitter war. It's a good chance to just be an individual person and speak only for yourself instead of as a soldier in a war we didn't start. Anyway...

@tobbrobb

Thank you.

I see something in your writing that I am seeing a lot of lately, specifically this, that I really want to talk about in a way that keeps in the spirit of the thread, which is to address my own experience with this as a younger man (I am in my mid-30s now) and how/why it no longer impacts me.

I'd like to not be preached to or looked down upon for my gender.

I'm going to talk briefly about my own experience I grew up poor, and got into a very good university and worked my way through that university. As is predictable, my first exposure to the language of feminism and the attitudes of feminism came from feminist students at my university.

It's 100% natural to feel defensive when attacked. And I felt under attack to some extent, because I was. The young women I was around were feeling the full fire of conversion and found feminism to be empowering. I am someone who listens, so I was a sounding board for them as they got their feminist legs under them and developed the ability to speak to men. At my most defensive, I couldn't see that they, themselves, were unfinished products and that their own accusatory tone was borne of their own freshness to the concept and my own inability to distinguish the subtle difference between "men oppress women" and "you, as a person, oppress women". We were both learning and growing into this new way of looking at the world and we were both very uncomfortable with it.

I looked at these young women, whose lives were quite privileged, act like they were the center of the injusticeverse. I had just been in high school with them and now they're blaming me for the ills of our nation? I'm lesser to you because I was born male?

What I realized over time is that I had control over my defensiveness and that they had no weapons that could hurt me unless I chose to let them hurt me. Again, I'm not talking about villains or bad guys, just dumbass college kids like me who think they know everything... just like I did. It wasn't even until I was out of college that I realized that even the most radically angry feminist couldn't hurt me and that I had no reason to restrict my view of social justice through their lens (either as someone who agreed or disagreed with them).

Starting to work with inner city kids blew it all wide open, though.

@groverat: You are right of course, as long as I stick to what I believe and stay open to change those beliefs, I won't let someone else hurt me for them. And honestly at some point, as we leave the spur of the moment, I'm not actually mad at being "talked down to" by a person that is as irrelevant to my life as I am to theirs. But there still is that moment where I just get frustrated that even the ones that should be right, the ones I want to side with, can't just talk like civilized people. I want discussion, I want to see issues resolve. I don't want people to just stubbornly stick to their guns and piss each other off. It's frustrating to read or hear about this stuff, and it's definitely frustrating to get lumped in with the side that is the least reasonable or relatable by the side that SHOULD be the most reasonable and relatable. But hey, it doesn't really matter. I'm already out of the conversation, and honestly, I wasn't in it to begin with.

So, intersectionality and cultural appropriation are bewildering, partly because most of the people that talk about them, the cracked.coms and gawkers of the world with their "Halloween costumes you can't wear" articles do so while trying to put U.S.-centric view of race with a distinct lack of understanding of the cultures that are being "appropriated." These are the same kind of people that think the word "problematic" can constitute an entire argument. Some people also seem to think that any kind of mixing of cultures is somehow negative despite "culture" being something that has changed via interactions between different groups for the entirety of human existence.

I read a tumblr post by a black guy that was mad about protesters in Hong Kong being photographed with their hands up in what the guy determined was the "hands up don't shoot" pose because they were appropriating "the black experience", which almost goes against the binary white/nonwhite separation people seem to want to create with using the term 'People of Color" because a commonly cited argument is that these "people of color" are unable to culturally appropriate or be racist....somehow. Nothing says tolerance, diversity, and understanding like lumping large portions of the world together into one faceless monolith based on the color of their skin.

The cultural appropriation thing has always chaffed me quite a bit because when I was in college, people were getting all hot and bothered about Mexican-American, Mexican, and Mestizo culture and how white people did this and that and people would go on and on about "real" ancient Mexican culture and all of that La Raza/La Raza Unida stuff (while trying desperately to pretend that afro-mexicnas don't exist). The thing is, there isn't a real unified "ancient Mexican" culture. What exists now is a mishmash of different indigenous, spanish, african, and chinese cultures all mixed together.

I'll save everybody from the rant about La Raza Cosmica and Diaz's attempts to create a Mexican identity because it all gets really silly and up it's own butt. Also some people these days argue Mexico exists as a pigmentocracy.

One last thing: saying that women that aren't 100% on board with modern variations of feminism should feel bad or are bad people because women in in the 1800s did not have any of the rights women have today has to be one of the most intellectually dishonest things I've ever heard. I've seen that kind of statement pop up from time to time and I'm always impressed at how condescending and counter-productive it is. It's like saying "people think women are too dumb think for themselves and if women don't agree, it's because they are too dumb to think for themselves."

I'm really glad to hear what you think about the subject of cultural appropriation. It seems clear that it's a subject that you're familiar with, and I agree with a lot of the ideas you're expressing. At the same time though, I think that the way you're phrasing them is a little more aggressive than the tone this thread has been looking to establish. I want to be clear that I don't think you've been in any way rude or inappropriate. I just think that sarcasm and hyperbole can be very volatile things, and can dramatically increase the odds of rubbing someone the wrong way and provoking them to escalate their own rhetoric to match.

I've been very impressed with this thread so far, and I find myself caring a lot that it remains welcoming and encouraging. I'm very much looking forward to hearing more about how people feel and what they think.

I feel there's a lot of over-generalization going on these days. Sure we all have our own personal opinions and ideals but a lot of times (myself included of course) we tend to think for others.

Take this feminism debate for instance. Here I am, a man, with ideas of what is best for women. I'd like to think that my ideas are best that doesn't necessarily mean that they are best or suits everyone at every time. The big difference between some I feel is whether we are willing to accept the fact that we might be wrong or not. For example, over the other thread there was a lot of hate from users (both men and women) thrown at Brianna Wu (@spacekatgal) for speaking about her experiences. While I don't agree with a lot of her conclusions nor her methods, I don't think it's fair for others to judge her feelings/emotions.

People perceive things differently, I think we need to accept that instead of always being hell bent on forcing them to see our way. I know the paradoxal delimma of asking people to be open minded is in itself is trying to force a view on others. Here's the ultimate thing though, if you don't like somebody's preaching - don't listen to them and move on. You have a choice to either engage in debate, which hopefully you will do so in a civil manner or you can ignore those points and continue on. The best thing I've ever read in conflict management is "if you get angry at a person's argument it's not the fault of the other person".

It's definitely extremely encouraging to see such civil and level-minded comments in this thread and I hope it stays that way.

The problem with how people see being "open minded" is the idea that every argument's counterpoint should receive valid time. The Daily Show's done a few good bits on this. Climate change denial, for one example, doesn't deserve equal time as climate change facts. These are not proportionate ideas, but if someone doesn't provide equal time, people could erroneously suggest the panel is being "close minded" or biased. Well, no. Sometimes the jury is in. Sometimes its no longer a question up for debate, its a fact that certain people are simply unwilling to accept. And there's nothing rational or open minded about giving that person denying an unassailable truth equal say at the table.

But who's to say your truth is unassailable? Experts. That's simple. Who decides a scientific truth? Scientists? Who decides why you're sick? Doctors. Who decides if something is offensive to women? Women. Who decides if something is offensive to Indians? Indians. If you give that person time at the table then go "oh you're wrong about that" you don't get it. You don't get to decide how something effects other people or how they're "supposed" to react to it. Your intention is not on equal grounds with their perception. You don't get to say as a man that women should be okay with ______ if, when asked, they generally aren't. If women by and large tell you they're not okay with _____ your response is "ok" not "let me explain my POV again cus you clearly dont get it".

@bargainben: But doesn't that basically nullify discourse itself? If I'm wearing a Bayonetta t-shirt and a woman approaches me and says "your shirt offends me and it is contributing to the oppression of women", am I to take it off and burn it since her experience trumps mine as a man? Is every person the final arbiter of how others may feel and act inside their own sphere of offense?

I would never tell anyone that their personal reaction to anything is invalid, obviously, but where do we get to have a discussion about these things? And where is the line between reaction... and action?

(I really didn't mean to make a post with nothing but questions, it just happened that way.) :)

I used to self identify as a feminist, but over time the predominant message seemed to go from "Women can do anything!" to "Women are oppressed!"

The former is a sentiment I'm entirely on board with. Women can do and should be able to do anything they want to. It's a productive idea that leads to more women in more positions that they previously might not have been accepted or commonly in.

The latter - truth or otherwise - just seems like a whinge. It's not a productive offshoot for discussion or positive change. It's a suggestion that women can't do anything they want to because outside forces are somehow preventing them.

@bargainben: I agree! There should always be a distinction between facts and opinions. Facts are proven. If somebody who has an opinion that contradicts facts, they are still within their rights to hold those opinions right? I'm not talking about equal time, I'm talking about as an individual they're allowed to have opinions.

Fact: GB hired two new white guys.

Opinion: GB is a sexist organization.

With this specific scenario I think it is up to you to decide the right course of action. I don't know of an over-arching "women" committee that decides what is and isn't offensive. Emotional reaction is on a personal/individual level. Since we cannot possibly live by how others perceive us, if a person says you are offending them - up to you how you want to handle the situation. However you react is entirely your right up to the point of crossing a law.

Have you considered that women are suggesting they can't do anything they want to because outside forces are somehow preventing them because they have experienced not being able to do what they want because outside forces somehow prevented them from doing so?

I believe that regardless of gender or any other qualifiers, you should have the liberty to choose what is best for you, and the freedom to do it. I might not agree with people, but they have the right to say/do whatever. Just respect people because they are human beings.

@groverat: My issue with the term feminism is that it is too general (like most box we put people is are). It's like saying, "I'm a Christian." It means different things to different people.

I didn't say that this wasn't the case, I just said that over the course of my life and my time with it, feminism's predominant message seemed to go from "Girl power!!" to "Patriarchy!!" and I much prefer the former can-do, positive attitude to the victim mentality of the latter.

I feel like feminism used to be about overcoming adversity and more and more it's becoming about complaining about the adversity.

@sinusoidal said:

I feel like this line of thinking can really get one stuck in an endless feedback loop. Women are spending 100% of their time now trying to convince folks that there is in place a societal structure that invalidates a woman's experience and that is what's being construed as a "victim" mentality. When that decision is arrived at, it pretty much nullifies anything that women are trying to shed light on in the first place ("Oh, she's just playing the victim card").

It's not like this is new. "Girl power" feminism was always cognizant of the power structure that necessitates "girl power" in the first place, anyway. It's kind of

I believe the in criticisms that have been levied against the video game industry. I believe these are something that should always be discussed regardless of your field (it's also a huge problem in academia).

What I don't believe in is the solutions that have been proposed for fixing the aforementioned criticisms. One solution that I do agree with is that there should be a greater influx of new faces. However, this is not something that is fixed overnight. It is something that will take years to fix (as not every company can just snap their fingers and hire a new employee).

In conclusion, the recent events should give something for everyone to think about. Something should be done but it will take some time before the issue is truly resolved. I agree with the issues that have been brought up but not with the solutions proposed.

I'm not a feminist, in fact I oppose a lot of what feminists argue for, because I believe that either it's actively harmful to men or harmful to women, or just plain factually wrong.

I do believe in equality though, and I don't think feminism represents equality between genders anymore. It's adopted an attitude in which resolving women's problems and issues is a far higher priority than resolving men's issues, even if they're more serious. Furthermore it's increasingly adopted a hostile, anti-male rhetoric, which not only targets those who oppose their ideals, but those who agree with them not as vocally or strongly (I remember reading an article, I unfortunately can't find it now, about a male feminist academic in the 70s who was feted by the feminist movement; attractive speaking and book tours, professorships, etc, and then later as women's issues began to be addressed, he turned to the issues that men faced, and in turn was ostracised and abandoned; because he dared to advocate for men). In many circles, and even the mass media, anything perceived as 'anti-feminist' is either smothered or ridiculed, no matter its validity.

The reality is that men and women are substantially and in many ways fundamentally different from one another. Take the 'Patriarchy' for example. Male power in society is not necessarily derived from denying women power (although I don't deny that does happen, and it should be stopped), rather because men excel within the social structures we've created. Men are simply better than women at taking and/or creating wealth, power, and prestige. How do I know this? Name me a non-patriarchal society of substance. Not one that was ruled by a woman once or twice, not a matrilineal one, nor a small tribal group in the Amazon. If patriarchy was just a social construct that can be broken, then there would be matriarchies somewhere. But there aren't, in fact Encyclopaedia Britannica lists 'Matriarchy' as a 'hypothetical' power structure, because no true matriarchy has ever existed. Men have always been the dominant gender. That's not 'social' influence, that's biology influencing society.

What does that mean? It means that even on a level playing field with no discrimination, men will beat women into positions of power, because men are simply better at taking power within our societies and the values that we hold as 'power', wherein lies the rub. Why do women want power? Why do they want to be CEOs or Presidents? Isn't feminism just pushing traditional male values and goals onto women? Some, many even, no doubt do; but it seems not most (Source). Here's another disturbing little fact. Women over the last 50 years have gained power, prestige, and wealth compared to their predecessors. So they should be happier right? Because that's how feminism defines female happiness; more power and money = more happiness. But sadly they're not. Women in the US are unhappier than they were 30-40 years ago (Source US, Source UK). And that's not because everyone is unhappier, men are actually happier now. You could argue that feminism isn't to blame, that some other factor is influencing women, but if we assume that, then following a feminist narrative shouldn't the cause of women's unhappiness also affect men? And if it was significant enough to not only cause women's decline in happiness but also overcome the theorised increase in happiness from women gaining power, wouldn't we notice it?

Men are sicker, both physically and mentally, than women; have poorer education; dominate the dull; dirty, and dangerous jobs; suffer from a justice systems strongly bias against them both in criminal and civil courts; and their gender identity is increasingly under attack or ridiculed in the media. The one advantage they have is in the wage gap, which increasingly analyses of shows that the gap isn't down to discrimination; men simply work harder. If feminism is for 'equality'...then where is the equality?

And don't even get me started on feminism and race!

@groverat:

Thanks for the reply!

So if im not misunderstanding you (please correct me if Im wrong) but the patriarchy simple describes how our society works and in working that way benefits Men over Women?

Much in the same way that I may argue that the way the economy works benefits those with the most money to begin with?

Hi Ben, Whilst im not waging any fight I do think I and anyone should speak out about any issue they see fit. If the world worked with only those speaking for what specifically affects you we would live in one of the most selfish societies imaginable. I am also not waging any war as a disagree with the principles of cultural appropriation, sharing cultures is amazing and imitation is the greatest form of flattery.

Finally I can assure you I have no guilt for being White and am rather perplexed as to why I would.

Duders, if you’re feeling like fighting someone, take it to PMs. I’m proud of you boys.

Remember: Journey, not Nidhogg.

@tobbrobb

I still get frustrated, too. It’s a natural thing and no reason to beat yourself up for having a genuine emotional response.

Feeling as if I’m the one under attack in a situation that doesn’t involve me is a problem I’ve had forever and I’ll always have. I’ve embraced that it’s a part of me and that it’s a thing I have to check myself for.

@joshwent

Working with inner city kids, I have been called racist a dozen times. At first I fought back and have joined in when black colleagues have fought back on my behalf.

What has given me peace and made that situation better overall is to genuinely entertain the question, “OK, what about my behavior created the appearance of racism?”

It’s back to the defensiveness that a lot of us feel. It is my tremendous luxury as a white male that an accusation of racism really won’t hurt me as long as I am honest and caring throughout the process.

I hope that you see how that parallels with your Bayonetta-shirt analogy. lol

@carryboy

The “white guilt” thing is another really emotional sticking point for a lot of us.

The way I see it is not “you should feel guilty for having white skin”, but “you should understand that you have an inborn privilege that manifests in different ways and exists because your forbears abused others.”

And even this is hard, because my people were poor as shit all the way through. Despite being Southern all the way back to landing from England, my people never owned slaves, because we were always broke dumbasses.

What helps me through that is looking at it through the lens of kyriarchy. All of society is a mass of intersecting relationships. Let me try to highlight that through some real-world situations I find myself in

- I am in a meeting with female colleagues. Administrators (male or female, black or white) more readily listen to me over non-white, non-male colleagues. This is built into our genetics. I am tall, large, and my voice is deep. I project authority more easily than my black or Hispanic female colleagues, even to other blacks and Hispanics. I have seen this phenomenon over and over and over again. I will just go with the flow and end up leading meetings. Merits are only a small part of it.

- For 2 years we had a STUNNINGLY BEAUTIFUL, tall black woman working in the school. If she and I were at a meeting, she naturally dominated. Her beauty carried our attention, despite whatever “merits” might exist. We wanted her to talk. We wanted her to hold court so we could look at her and listen to her. (Dude, seriously… oh my god.)

- If I am calling on a student in class, I am going to bias towards a more attractive voice or face. This is, again, an unconscious genetic impulse.

- There was an argument about a rap lyric. Me vs. a black male colleague. Everyone believed him, even though I was right and I’m a bigger fan of rap music.

When we reduce our conversation to “patriarchy” and “white privilege”, we ignore a million different factors, and I think many of us smart, nerdy white guys tend to get angry about it. “BUT THERE ARE A MILLION VARIABLES YOU ARE IGNORING!”

I find it liberating, really, to try and figure out all the complexities and embrace my own role in it.

It is awesome being privileged. No reason to fight it.

@groverat: Great post.

Again I still dont think anyone should feel guilt for what their ancestors did, do we still hold people in Germany now accountable for world war 2? I don't. If we go down this way of thinking were never going to get along with anybody ever.

The idea of privilege is interesting and how you have presented it here certainly is the best worded ive seen, I think my problem is some people ive seen use it as an insult, and as the be all and end all of all argument and conversation.

i do have issues with modern feminism and just make this clear i am Egalitarian and believe in equality above all.

People have to remember as society we have progressed massively since 1900 the idea that we need to change employee ratio between women and men overnight is madness it takes time and normally generation of younger employees to change this.often get feminist trying force these short term plans when should be focused on long term.

when you compare games to film and tv see alot of comparisons

game industry now is similar to the film industry in 60's big change is happening but it take 10 or so years before see real equality but it will happen.i have been working in vfx industry for few years now and ratio between men and women tends to be around 35% to 45% women employees this massive increase when compare 90's ratio of 15 to 20% women. i believe we will see similar changes in video games but will happen naturally and through encouraging female students to study game development.

hoping whole hate and tribalism will die down so get back to debating like modern society should.

Hi there! I'm here to talk about cultural appropriation, since there seems to be some call for it and I have a nice, succinct example for y'all.

This is pretty much my go-to, and for good reason. While I have no doubt that Katy Perry isn't 100% responsible for all of the choices made for this performance, she's the focal point here. She gets the backlash, fair or not.

Anyway, one of the best ways to roll this out is what I found in the beginning of this Cosmopolitan article:

"Katy Perry opened the American Music Awards with an Asian-themed spectacle that seemed mightily confused about which nationality it meant to culturally reappropriate. Her Japanese-inspired kimono-esque robe came with a Chinese-inspired collar. Her dancers also carried fans typical of a Chinese fan dance while her microphone was decorated with cherry blossoms."

It doesn't take a keen eye to see what kind of aesthetic Perry (or, again, it might be more appropriate to blame the people behind the scenes for this one) was going for. We've all seen the generic 'Geisha' Halloween costume, and that's basically what we're looking at here. The instruments and the dancing at the beginning all go for the 'Japanese' tone, yet different themes of Asian culture were also incorporated without rhyme or reason. That's an awfully easy way to emphasize the ugly belief that there's an inherent 'sameness' when it comes to Asian culture as a whole.

And this isn't even mentioning the fact that western countries constantly trumpet their lack of understanding by insinuating that 'geisha' is synonymous with 'prostitute' and the cultural implication of genetic submissiveness in Asian women with a song called 'Unconditionally'. Even if that's a coincidence in this case, it's still a little... 'eugh', in hindsight.

But, of course, all lot of the points about Katy Perry are way more open to interpretation, and this isn't the only time she's done something like this. I'm white, so I'm not going to scrutinize what is and isn't offensive to that degree. The appropriation in this case is definitely the implications of turning real people into a costume that Katy, as a white woman, was free to take off at the end of the day.

This is a pretty direct and literal example, but I hope it helped anyone that might have been curious!

@carryboy

I totally understand what you are thinking re: guilt. I've been there many times and I still land there sometimes.

What I would respond with, what has helped me work through that sticking point, is to ask, "Is anyone really telling me I should feel personally guilty? If so, are they worth listening to right now?"

Got someone yelling at you in an unhelpful way? Brush that dirt off ya shoulder.

A hater, as it were, doesn't define how we engage with the world. My view of social issues, of kyriarchy, or empathy, is not impacted by other people's negativity. I mean, it is sometimes, but that's my battle to fight.

So fuck all the haters. :)

@vocalcannibal - That's a cool example, thanks. :)

Social Justice, better known as "I'm allowed to bully you because I perceive myself to be morally superior based on personal beliefs."

I guess I don't understand the mindset of "I'm not a feminist, I believe in equality for everyone".

Like, the mission statement of feminism is women being treated equally to men. If you believe in equality for everyone, being a feminist would be a component by default. That's like saying "I'm not anti-fracking, I just believe in a green energy future" If you believe in green energy, you would have to also be anti-fracking. idk

I have been banned on this site for bringing up the term Social Justice before. Be careful in this thread because the Mods have a zero tolerance if you use that term as a pejorative.