And more generally, why does "treated equal" have to mean "treated like men treat each other"? Why does the way men interact have to be the norm to which women aspire?If having people fart in my face is equality then is there some other box I could check instead? Perhaps civilized? I don't tolerate that sort of behavior but thankfully I'm not a woman and don't have to suffer though it to be considered equal.Bruunwald's point is that would be equality, thus we have a "long way to go before people of this world reach an egalitarian society".If they were, men would be farting in their faces as they do other men ...I think we have a long way to go before women of this world achieve equality.
So I think we are on the same page, you agree with Bruunwald's point. That we should aspire to something greater rather than a perceived equality between labelled factions.
White men are privileged and feminists get a pass? I guess I'll "nope" my way out of this thread, too!
|
What it came down to was someone was asking for money to criticize things people love.
It would be like doing a kickstarter for a documentary on what a hypocrite Thomas Jefferson was, or a kickstarter to a documentary on what a prick Steve Jobs was.
People who love the things you are asking to be paid to criticize will get pissed you are asking them to pay to criticize them.
The fact that what you are saying is largely true is beside the point for them.
It wasn't the documentary. Those happen all the time. It was the kickstarter, which is conceptually asking people to fund you doing something.
If you love video games, and don't want them attacked, you would hate anyone attacking them.
Gender elevated the fight, because the lash got a counter backlash, and everyone on both sides got their backs up.
But at the end of the day, way to much has been read into this.
So I think we are on the same page, you agree with Bruunwald's point. That we should aspire to greater civility rather than a perceived equality.And more generally, why does "treated equal" have to mean "treated like men treat each other"? Why does the way men interact have to be the norm to which women aspire?If having people fart in my face is equality then is there some other box I could check instead? Perhaps civilized? I don't tolerate that sort of behavior but thankfully I'm not a woman and don't have to suffer though it to be considered equal.Bruunwald's point is that would be equality, thus we have a "long way to go before people of this world reach an egalitarian society".If they were, men would be farting in their faces as they do other men ...I think we have a long way to go before women of this world achieve equality."Civility"? That's what you think equality is about?
Yeah, lets just focus on being polite and let the actual inequality go on.
Or the betterment of mankind, rather than civility (so I'll edit). Poor choice of words. Yes, we need to isolate where there are problems and rectify them thus helping everyone.
So it's your contention that white men don't have privileges and feminists don't have any reason to complain? Maybe it would be best for you to leave . . .
It is my contention that white men are vilified by many feminists when they're not the enemy. White men might have different experiences than women, but that doesn't make them privileged. Some white men, namely rich ones, are doing particularly well, as you've stated, but so too are rich white women, rich black men, rich black women, rich asian men, rich asian women--you see where I'm going with this one?
I'm not saying that women have nothing to complain about. I'm certainly sympathetic to the plights of women, and yet, I draw a line. I'm not willing to buy into the concept that white men are to blame for all of the depleting ozone, dead baby seals, and oil spills.
Modern feminism ain't what it used to be. It's become hateful and bigoted, and in doing so has become counterproductive.
Edit: Some modern feminists have become hateful and bigoted. I don't want to paint all feminists with the same brush. It's the radicals I mean to suggest have corrupted the feminist movement.
@ Berik: I suppose you are right. The media does love to cover all the sensationalist bits. However, I think feminism can lead to a divisive worldview, whereas humanism almost certainly cannot. I hazard to call myself a feminist, whereas in practice I am one. I much prefer "humanist".
@ Guy Humual: Rich and powerful people aren't rich and powerful because of their gender. They're usually rich and powerful because they are "in the family", so to speak.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So it's your contention that white men don't have privileges and feminists don't have any reason to complain? Maybe it would be best for you to leave . . .It is my contention that white men are vilified by many feminists when they're not the enemy. White men might have different experiences than women, but that doesn't make them privileged. Some white men, namely rich ones, are doing particularly well, as you've stated, but so too are rich white women, rich black men, rich black women, rich asian men, rich asian women--you see where I'm going with this one?
I'm not saying that women have nothing to complain about. I'm certainly sympathetic to the plights of women, and yet, I draw a line. I'm not willing to buy into the concept that white men are to blame for all of the depleting ozone, dead baby seals, and oil spills.
Modern feminism ain't what it used to be. It's become hateful and bigoted, and in doing so has become counterproductive.
Edit: Some modern feminists have become hateful and bigoted. I don't want to paint all feminists with the same brush. It's the radicals I mean to suggest have corrupted the feminist movement.
@ Irontruth: Being a humanist makes me manipulative and pro-slavery? What?
|
|
I don't think you understand what criticism is.Zack Braff got as much if not more criticism for trying get a movie funded on kickstarter because he was rich.As much if not more? Did you even see some of the disgusting treatment she got? Massive amounts of hateful material and talk about how she should be raped or killed for daring to what to talk about how women are treated in videogames?
And even if you take away the vitriol. Zach Braff was criticised because an already successful filmmaker was asking for $2,000,000 that people felt he could have gotten elsewhere. Anita Sarkeesian was criticised because a little heard-of online journalist was asking for $6,000 to look at tropes in video games affecting women. I don't personally agree with either criticism, but I think the first is at least closer to being valid.
Because you think one is valid and one isn't is not the point.
She wasn't asking to "look" at tropes, she was asking for money to criticize tropes.
The fact that she is right is as valid as saying that a documentary about Thomas Jefferson being a hypocrite would be "right".
The criticism, right or wrong, was about asking for "public" funding for something people disagreed with funding.
The vitriol came from both sides.
She is not wrong. She is absolutely right. I personally felt the same way about her and Zack Braff. I'm not giving you money, because I don't care if what you produce exists or doesn't exist enough to give you money.
But...as you pointed out she asked for 6000 and got how much?
Exactly.
So lets put away the victim card and give her props for the business card.
Far worse was said of Bill Gates, the Koch Brothers, etc...
|
|
What you are missing is no one particularly cared about her posting about video games being sexist. In the sense that you can find scores of those types of things on you tube, so her adding to the mix wouldn't cause much of a stir on either side of the debate.
It was that she asked to be publicly funded to do so, on kickstarter.
A small group of knuckledraggers would have put comments in her youtube if that was the issue, and it would never have been news or escalated on either side.
Instead, she got how much money from the "public" to do what is functionally a series of Youtube videos that she will get additional income from?
Exactly.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh boy. A thread about someone speaking out against objectification and bad treatment of women within the game medium - and is met with comments on her look on a gaming site.
Come on. I thought p'n'p RPG players where better than this. I'm honestly disappointed, I've defended the RPG community before in discussions about sexism in the game industry, and said it seems far better when it's off-line, attributing it to a higher average age, more social and direct gameplay, higher average education, and generally more maturity. Feels bad to be wrong.
I'm just going to go right out there and say this. I am a Humanist. I believe in treating all human beings equally. That means that I am an anti-feminist. Because feminism is by its very definition, divisive.
Oh, god. Saying "i'm a humanist, not a feminist" is like saying "I have a hat, I don't shave". Those aren't in any way exclusive epithets.
A humanist is someone who believes that humans, as members of the human species have specific rights and has concern for the wellbeing of humans (and in some cases it also means they reject religious belief).
A feminist is someone who believes that women are systematically disadvantaged in society and thinks this is a bad thing.
But over time, I have come to understand that modern, post-feminism is not our grandmothers' feminism. It is a divisive, anger-driven movement designed to further a notion of female exceptionalism and superiority under the GUISE of equality. Women do not want to be treated as equals.
Oh, because THAT hasn't been said about feminists _all throughout history_. Like, since feminist movements first started forming men have claimed women just want some female superiority. And as a movement by the oppressed, of course it's partly anger driven. Anger is a perfectly healthy feeling and can lead to a lot of progress. It has always had a lot of anger, and honestly, it's far less violent now than it has been (see the suffragettes burned down churches and similar, nowadays people make informative videos).
If they were, men would be farting in their faces as they do other men, and women would have to face the same poor, bullying - and innuendo and vulgarity-laced - treatment that men inflict upon one-another every single day.
Honestly, do men fart each other in their faces? If something, shouldn't that be an argument for female superiority being a good thing? Or, men stop acting like s~!% towards other med too.
Anything less than sainthood results in cries of discrimination and harassment, quickly followed up with a brainless meme on Facebook and an article on Jezebel encouraging the castration of all male babies at birth.
Oh, yeah, because the "Castrate male babies at birth" memes on facebook clearly has more likes than the "tape her and rape her" misogynistic jokes have. Clearly. Oh how oppressed you are.
My own post-modern feminist friends are so concerned with women's-rights ONLY and with the catchphrase of the week ("Rape Culture" comes to mind; a phrase wholly analogous to "Abortion Industry" in its ability to strip real human victims and real human beings in bad situations of all of their individuality and humanity),
What? That doesn't even make sense. Rape culture is the cultural trends that down-play the horridness of rape as a crime, saying "rape is bad" but whenever someone rapes someone there's a thousand exceptions and explanations. Rape culture is women who speak out immediately meeting threats of rape - and this being excused as "jokes" and "trolling".
that they themselves seem to care very little about individual women who have actually suffered harm,
Oh, yeah, because no feminist ever has been involved in running women's centers for victims of rape or domestic violence. I assume you do, however, since I assume you don't "care very little about women who have suffered harm".
It's not like when women's centers are run by feminists, the anti-feminists declare THAT a problem. Oh wait they do.
Umm, she's not fun to look at at all...But she's more fun to look at for 25 minutes. And interesting even when I disagree with her.Oh yeah, I forgot:
I read an intro to critical analysis for teenagers called How to Analyze the Works of Suzanne Collins that had a better gender analysis of the Hunger Games than Anita "I hate love triangles--Little Women sucks!!" Sarkeesian.
*shrug* Your mileage may, of course, vary. Particularly in aesthetics like that. :) The Goblin and I had had a previous conversation in which we both indicated we found her kinda hot. If it makes you feel better I love Eastern European women. ;)
What you are missing is no one particularly cared about her posting about video games being sexist. In the sense that you can find scores of those types of things on you tube, so her adding to the mix wouldn't cause much of a stir on either side of the debate.
It was that she asked to be publicly funded to do so, on kickstarter.
A small group of knuckledraggers would have put comments in her youtube if that was the issue, and it would never have been news or escalated on either side.
Instead, she got how much money from the "public" to do what is functionally a series of Youtube videos that she will get additional income from?
Exactly.
How is this different from like, any other kickstarter project? Can you imagine thousands of attacks, including rape and death threats, posting of her private adress online, games about beating her up etc on some computer game developer for posting a kickstarter project to make some cRPG, because "you can find scores of those types of things" already?
Anita Sarkeesian was quite well-known already before the tropes vs women project, both in feminist circles and (judging by the number of hate mail and misogynistic comments she got already back then) among MRA's.
And I had ESPECIALLY assumed better from you, Doodlebug - with the materialistic and structural analysis I assumed you would have, being a self-proclaimed socialist, you should've been able to grasp these things. Come on, now! You make me sad.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good summary of why I don't like her here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6gLmcS3-NI
Also shes just missed her major submission dates (And Im not sure where those extra 140,000 went.).
You don't like her because some douche makes a load of ad hominem arguments to undermine her? Well that makes sense.
And I'm not sure what the Paizo employees do with their cash either, that doesn't take away from pathfinder.
And I had ESPECIALLY assumed better from you, Doodlebug - with the materialistic and structural analysis I assumed you would have, being a self-proclaimed socialist, you should've been able to grasp these things. Come on, now! You make me sad.
...are you guild-tripping Doodlebug? That hardly seems fair, even against commies. :p
And I had ESPECIALLY assumed better from you, Doodlebug - with the materialistic and structural analysis I assumed you would have, being a self-proclaimed socialist, you should've been able to grasp these things. Come on, now! You make me sad....are you guild-tripping Doodlebug? That hardly seems fair, even against commies. :p
I have no problem with guilt-tripping (if you want to call it that) people who are guilty of acting badly. Especially since they should be conscious that they are. I thought quite high of Doodlebug, ze's posted comments that show of an intelligent analyses of conflicts in relation to power structures before.
|
|
What you are missing is no one particularly cared about her posting about video games being sexist. In the sense that you can find scores of those types of things on you tube, so her adding to the mix wouldn't cause much of a stir on either side of the debate.
It was that she asked to be publicly funded to do so, on kickstarter.
A small group of knuckledraggers would have put comments in her youtube if that was the issue, and it would never have been news or escalated on either side.
Instead, she got how much money from the "public" to do what is functionally a series of Youtube videos that she will get additional income from?
Exactly.
How is this different from like, any other kickstarter project? Can you imagine thousands of attacks, including rape and death threats, posting of her private adress online, games about beating her up etc on some computer game developer for posting a kickstarter project to make some cRPG, because "you can find scores of those types of things" already?
Anita Sarkeesian was quite well-known already before the tropes vs women project, both in feminist circles and (judging by the number of hate mail and misogynistic comments she got already back then) among MRA's.
Yes. Zach Braff got huge blowback for asking to make a movie when he already had the money.
If I posted asking for money on an Anti-Tea party documentary, you are damn right I would expect to get death threats, etc...
And as I said, I've read worse written about people like Bill Gates, the Koch Brothers, Barack Obama, etc...
Anita Sarkeesian was kinda of known in some circles. Now she is well known. Good for her in getting the attention (and funding) she was seeking.
But victim? Nope.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. Zach Braff got huge blowback for asking to make a movie when he already had the money.
I tried to find anything but "zach braff" +"rape threats" and similar gave nothing...
If I posted asking for money on an Anti-Tea party documentary, you are damn right I would expect to get death threats, etc...
Because those tea party people are a+++*&&s.
And as I said, I've read worse written about people like Bill Gates, the Koch Brothers, Barack Obama, etc...
Those are PRESIDENTS and OWNERS OF MAJOR COMPANIES. I'm not sure what you've read because I have a hard time imagining worse things than some of those that Anita got, but regardless, they're famous in a whole different sense.
But victim? Nope.
Oh, now we know. Being threatened with rape and murder by thousands of people doesn't make you a victim. Nice play with definitions there.
And at the same time, MRA's whine over some obscure tumblr saying a genereic-undirected "men are pigs" calling that misandrist oppression.
And I had ESPECIALLY assumed better from you, Doodlebug - with the materialistic and structural analysis I assumed you would have, being a self-proclaimed socialist, you should've been able to grasp these things. Come on, now! You make me sad.
I have no idea what you're talking about yet, Comrade Ilja, but, given the subject matter, you should consider posting under the Stringburka avatar.
(I still think Anita Sarkeesian is hawt.)
|
|
Yes. Zach Braff got huge blowback for asking to make a movie when he already had the money.I tried to find anything but "zach braff" +"rape threats" and similar gave nothing...
If I posted asking for money on an Anti-Tea party documentary, you are damn right I would expect to get death threats, etc...Because those tea party people are a**~+#~s.
And as I said, I've read worse written about people like Bill Gates, the Koch Brothers, Barack Obama, etc...Those are PRESIDENTS and OWNERS OF MAJOR COMPANIES. I'm not sure what you've read because I have a hard time imagining worse things than some of those that Anita got, but regardless, they're famous in a whole different sense.
But victim? Nope.Oh, now we know. Being threatened with rape and murder by thousands of people doesn't make you a victim. Nice play with definitions there.
And at the same time, MRA's whine over some obscure tumblr saying a genereic-undirected "men are pigs" calling that misandrist oppression.
And she is a "journalist", specifically asking for attention and funding on a topic that she knows is controversial.
Who made 140,000 dollars.
Let me say that again.
140,000 dollars.
I can get death threats on 4Chan and making the same comments without getting 140000 dollars. Am I a victim too?
It is incredibly patronizing to paint her as a victim. She is a person seeking attention (got it) and money (got it).
Good for her. I'm not criticizing her doing it. But put down the martyr stick.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
She should use that extra cash to make a video apologizing to Suzanne Collins...I do agree with her that books two & three weren't as good as book one, book three was a big disappointment in my mind but I did like book two. And I liked her points on the book vs the movie, but I really hated the argument about the love triangle, everyone always tries to suggest that there was a love triangle, but Katniss isn't even sure that boys have any feelings for her at all prior to the hunger games, and events after that conspire to force her hand. She doesn't really get to choose based on love or attraction, there's not much wooing, and there really isn't much competition for her hand so to speak. Well I suppose technically it is a love triangle, two boys are in love with her, it's nothing like that vampire one and I thought that even the brief comparison was kind of cheap.
Yeah. In general, I didn't find many of her observations re: The Hunger Games terribly deep, but the "love triangle perpetuates the trope that girls are only interested in romance" thing drove me crazy. In Catching Fire there's so much you could say about how The Capitol keeps forcing Katniss to assume feminine roles against her will, and all Anita can come up with is "Ew...love triangles!"
|
|
And as I said, I've read worse written about people like Bill Gates, the Koch Brothers, Barack Obama, etc...Those are PRESIDENTS and OWNERS OF MAJOR COMPANIES. I'm not sure what you've read because I have a hard time imagining worse things than some of those that Anita got, but regardless, they're famous in a whole different sense.
But victim? Nope.Oh, now we know. Being threatened with rape and murder by thousands of people doesn't make you a victim. Nice play with definitions there.
And mind you, that's being threatened with rape and murder by thousands while not already having your own personal bodyguards, security force and gated estates, etc.
A slight difference from the other people mentioned.
Might be a little more worrying.Bill Gates has staff to read those posts and worry for him.
With the 140k, she can hire staff.
She got how much money to make Youtube videos? Not counting current upswing in publishing and speaking fees.
My issues isn't with anything she has said or done. It is with the BS victim status.
Is Glenn Beck a victim? He gets tons of death threats? Rush Limbaugh? Anne Coulter?
She is in the same buisness.
I have no belief of victimhood for the above, it is only consistent to have no belief of victimhood for her either, even if her politics are closer to mine.
She is a provocateur being provocative. Being shocked, SHOCKED at the outcome is either her being painfully naive or lying.
I will respect her enough to go with the later.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting segment, I appreciated this installment. Even having been gaming since I was a child, I find it incredible just how many games do use this "must rescue/avenge girlfriend/daughter" as a plotline. God, how boring. Her deadpan delivery of the repeated incidents in different games highlighted just how tired these tropes are getting. I also agree with her criticism of the "euthanized damsel"; I recall playing a game--can't remember what it was, but it was one where the rescued girlfriend turns into a monster and you have to kill her, and I was just so annoyed I shut the game off. More just because it's so tired and old than feeling outraged by the idea, to be honest.
The conclusions she draws at the end of the segment are especially salient: that the continued and dramatic overuse of these tropes does not just serve to support the idea that women are trophies to be attained, it also and I think personally moreover undercuts the development of male characters. Repeated use of these tropes bring about the suggestion that a male hero can only want to do good in the name of someone with whom he has a sexual relationship (or less often, a female relative). It also suggests the only way male heroic character development can move forward is if you take his sexual partner away from him (women in refrigerators). And finally, as she noted, it suggests that the only way men can and should react to trauma is with extreme violence and hatred.
All of these things tremendously underserve men and mischaracterize or overemphasize only one aspect of their role in society. And if men ARE the presumed primary demographic of video games, continued overuse of these tropes are an insult to the intelligence and depth of emotional capability of the games' purported audience.
I hope in her future installments she continues to highlight how misusing and overusing these tropes are a disservice to both women AND men.
In general, as one of those radical, hateful, bigots who thinks that women should be treated like people, I am glad she is continuing to do this project--and hopefully other Feminist Frequency series in future. I don't agree with every single things she says, and I think sometimes she does go out of her way to read something into something that wasn't there (less in her video game videos however), BUT I can appreciate her viewpoint and perspective without having to say I think every single thing she says is gold--after all, it would be a boring world if we all just shared the same point of view. As she seems intelligent and capable and confident, I don't think she'd be offended to hear that. And as I was once upon a time a graduate student focusing on feminist literary criticism (that is to say, readings of literature with a focus on treatment of and character relationships with women), I appreciate that she argues from the perspective of feminist scholarship. I am especially glad she continues to speak up in spite of the horrifying threats made against her. I am proud to have backed the project and to see my screenname go by on the credits.
As to the idea of her being attacked because she is criticizing something many people love... who doesn't criticize what they love? I'm a huge Doctor Who fan, have been for over 25 years, but you'll still hear me rant about what I thought the recent season finale got wrong. I love Pathfinder, but I point out all the time the flaws I think I see in their products, you can easily see that in my posting history. If we want to get serious and away from fandom, I'd like to think most of us are lucky enough that we love our families, and yet if criticism doesn't exist amongst family members... yeesh. The things we love and enjoy, we hold to ever high standards. We want to see the things and people we love succeed and be the best they can be. And that means sometimes we are all too ready to point out where they went wrong, because we want to see their potential flourish. In my opinion, if you're not willing to criticize it or take criticism of it from someone else, you don't love it enough.
I don't think you or she understands literary criticism either. Because she's not engaging in literary criticism. She's applying a critical theory (feminist critical theory to be precise) to cherry picked examples of a medium, many of which are wholly inappropriate for literary analysis or critical theory interpretation.
Literary criticism and analysis involve examining the work as a whole, including it's medium, audience, cultural underpinnings, author's intent , etc. This is why Donkey Kong's narrative defies critical analysis. It doesn't have a narrative.
Critical theory on the other hand involve taking a work of art, stripping away everything external to it that true literary analysis considers, and then coming up with an interpretation that supports the central...
I'm not sure about all of this, but this is pretty much how I felt about the small parts of Sarkeesian that I watched where I was actually familiar with the material she was discussing (I don't play many video games).
On the one hand, there's tons of sexism and misogyny out there, so there's plenty for her to pick from, but on the other hand, any time she took a step away from pointing out the obvious her observations, I felt, were shallow. (The checklist applied to Mattie from True Grit was embarrassing, I thought, and, the inclusion of Clementine from Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind in a montage of Manic Pixie Dream Girls suggests that she didn't understand the movie, like, at all.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never saw her as proclaiming herself shocked or victimized by the vitriol aimed at her. What I did see was that the nature of the backlash was symptomatic of the reason for what she perceived as the need for analysis of the industry.
The only people who have any dog in the fight regarding how much money she got are the people that donated. I don't hear them complaining.
She does at time stretch to reach her conclusions. She does seem to gloss over the fact that the reason revenge is a trope is that it's been a trope since the advent of storytelling, and that the reason it began as a trope is because it hits an emotional space that resonates, and has reflected at least early historical realities.
However, it's always a good idea to critically and open mindedly listen to viewpoints you disagree with from time to time. I personally think she makes some valid points.
(And per agreement with the Goblin, she's hawt, not least because intelligence is hawt.)