Page 30 of 178 FirstFirst ... 2028293031324080130 ... LastLast
Results 581 to 600 of 3560
  1. #581
    Activated Node
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by internetonsetadd View Post
    You've mentioned this before. I think you're taking it too personally. As I've said, one of the things I dislike about Sarkeesian's past work is that the tone and some of her decisions have tended to create an atmosphere ripe for us vs. them debate, and it seems loosely hypocritical to be advocating for inclusion in an exclusive manner.

    However, I'm not aware of any instances where she's directly assigned blame to those who simply disagree with her. The implication might be there, but that's totally debatable. I'm pretty damn sure she's not presupposing blame, either. She's exploring a culturally entrenched issue and making a case. That you're taking it as a direct personal assault on your very identity might hint at how and why it's so entrenched.
    Well she is taking entertainment clearly aimed as men as fuel for her 'fight'. It is not surprising when many of the men who enjoy that entertainment feel attacked somehow. You can not remove her video from the context of the person that she is, a very vocal feminist. There is nothing wrong with a vocal feminist (more like the opposite), but that is her public personality.

    I doubt she has attacked any of these people directly, but she has kind of made them implicit in the 'crime' this way. The tropes are bad, so they are bad for enjoying it. That is the message she sends imo and it is a very wrong message. The message I imagine she wants to send is that the female perspective is under-represented, but she is not sending it, or at least not effectively. Also, I don't think this is a problem with the medium, but a problem of what people think of when they think of 'gamer'.

  2. #582
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Stockton-on-Tees, UK
    Posts
    2,372
    Quote Originally Posted by daikiraikimi View Post
    I haven't gone back to read everything that's going on here, but I figured that I would put this out there:

    Every single person who was raised in a sexist society unknowingly or unwittingly holds sexist ideologies by default. If you are surrounded by sexism, you will naturally soak it up. That is why it is important for people to be aware of the systems that formed them, to look critically at those systems, and to actively combat their effect on your psyche.

    That said, calling someone sexist/racist/etc. is immediately taken as a grave insult to their personal honor. To avoid this, I think that if a person notices that another person has done something sexist then they should concentrate on the words said or the action taken.

    Just because a person has done something which is sexist, or racist, that does not mean that they "are" a misogynist or a racist as a person. We need to judge actions rather than a person’s identity. If you say someone is racist/sexist then they have been put into a position where they must defend themselves—they are concentrating on this instead of looking critically at what they have done or said.

    On the other side, if someone points out that something you did or said is sexist, try not to take it personally. This is a judgment on your action and not who you are. Instead, look at what you have done/said and see if there is any bias which someone could have taken issue with.

    In my opinion, this helps communication go through on each side-- no one will automatically categorize someone as sexist and decide that they have nothing constructive to say and no one will feel that they are being pidgin-holed and spend all their time defending themselves instead of looking to improve. I believe that keeping an open line of communication is really important in discussions, and thus thinking about the other person by adhering to this kind of courtesy is necessary to that end.
    I'm Commander NathanH and this is my favourite post in the thread.
    Irrelevant on further examination of the rest of the thread.

  3. #583
    Activated Node
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Faldrath View Post
    Er... not even Anita Sarkeesian says that tropes are *the* problem, they are *a* problem, connected to "the" problem, which is sexism. And yes, Playboy is "a" problem as well, just like anything else that reduces women to objects.
    Then I guess we fundamentally disagree. If objectification was a problem, then the playgirl (regardless of its success or lack thereof) would also be a problem. Men like looking at naked women, of course a company caters to this. I truly can not fathom how anyone can find this a problem? Is the existence of porn a problem by extension? All commercials more or less? All advertising? Every single fashion magazine? etc. etc. You can't hold that position and not live in a horrible world of constant oppression and objectification.

    What if we change perspective? If, as a thought experiment, everything was reversed except the position of men in society. So playgirl was popular, porn was all about the men and focussed heavily on female sexuality, but the so called 'patriarchy' would still exist. would it be a problem?

    Also, the title is "Women-vs-Tropes-in-Video-Games", saying that the tropes are not called the problem is disingenuous imo.
    Last edited by kingmob; 14-03-2013 at 03:11 PM.

  4. #584
    Activated Node
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by daikiraikimi View Post
    Every single person who was raised in a sexist society unknowingly or unwittingly holds sexist ideologies by default. If you are surrounded by sexism, you will naturally soak it up.
    The problem with blanket statements like these is that they are always false (see what I did there ;)). As a bonus side-effect, by calling everything and everyone sexist so casually, the actually word gets inflated to a point where it is absolutely meaningless.

  5. #585
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus sonson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,321
    Quote Originally Posted by kingmob View Post
    Then I guess we fundamentally disagree. If objectification was a problem, then the playgirl (regardless of its success or lack thereof) would also be a problem. Men like looking at naked women, of course a company caters to this. I truly can not fathom how anyone can find this a problem? Is the existence of porn a problem by extension? All commercials more or less? All advertising? Every single fashion magazine? etc. etc. You can't hold that position and not live in a horrible world of constant oppression and objectification.

    What if we change perspective? If, as a thought experiment, everything was reversed except the position of men in society. So playgirl was popular, porn was all about the men and focussed heavily on female sexuality, but the so called 'patriarchy' would still exist. would it be a problem?

    Also, the title is "Women-vs-Tropes-in-Video-Games", saying that the tropes are not called the problem is disingenuous imo.
    Why do you think Porn and the sex trade exists? Why do you think they are overwhelmingly orientated towards catering for men?


    There is nothing natural about said trades in their existing form at all.

  6. #586
    Activated Node
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by sonson View Post
    Why do you think Porn and the sex trade exists? Why do you think they are overwhelmingly orientated towards catering for men?


    There is nothing natural about said trades in their existing form at all.
    That is obvious, because men like such things in an overwhelming majority. Explain your use of the word 'natural'.

    Also, similar types of entertainment for women is lacking (although the acceptability of vibrators for women, but the taboo on such devices for men is an interesting subversion), but that doesn't make the opposite bad in any way. Actually, my experience with girlfriends indicates that there is quite the market to be explored...

  7. #587
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus sonson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,321
    Quote Originally Posted by kingmob View Post
    That is obvious, because men like such things in an overwhelming majority. Explain your use of the word 'natural'.

    Also, similar types of entertainment for women is lacking (although the acceptability of vibrators for women, but the taboo on such devices for men is an interesting subversion), but that doesn't make the opposite bad in any way. Actually, my experience with girlfriends indicates that there is quite the market to be explored...
    I suppose what I was trying to get at was that there is not an equivalent which requires that males sell their body and dignity for entertainment on such a scale, and that isn’t because women don’t want it.

    I’m not sure if it’s fair to suggest that men collectively want the same thing to a greater degree than women do. I certainly don’t think that just because men might collectively want something means that it is excusable or permissible.

    The vast majority of women in the world are societally objectified and treated as commodities and property, their freedoms readily sacrificed for the advance of an assumed greater cultural good . In the West we may be more liberal in regards to how we treat females and their role in society, but there’s no coincidence that women and commodities are still pretty much inseparable from one another on a scale which is grossly unequal in terms of gender.

  8. #588
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    205
    Quote Originally Posted by daikiraikimi View Post
    Food for thought;

    Study debunks notion that men and women are psychologically distinct.
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/0...ally-distinct/
    Headline: Study debunks notion that men and women are psychologically distinct

    Scientists:
    “Although gender differences on average are not under dispute, the idea of consistently and inflexibly gender-typed individuals is,” Bobbi J. Carothers of Washington University in St. Louis and Harry T. Reis of the University of Rochester explained in their study. “That is, there are not two distinct genders, but instead there are linear gradations of variables associated with sex, such as masculinity or intimacy, all of which are continuous.”

    Research + political agenda: not a good mix.

  9. #589
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    975
    Quote Originally Posted by kingmob View Post
    Then I guess we fundamentally disagree. If objectification was a problem, then the playgirl (regardless of its success or lack thereof) would also be a problem. Men like looking at naked women, of course a company caters to this. I truly can not fathom how anyone can find this a problem? Is the existence of porn a problem by extension? All commercials more or less? All advertising? Every single fashion magazine? etc. etc. You can't hold that position and not live in a horrible world of constant oppression and objectification.

    What if we change perspective? If, as a thought experiment, everything was reversed except the position of men in society. So playgirl was popular, porn was all about the men and focussed heavily on female sexuality, but the so called 'patriarchy' would still exist. would it be a problem?

    Also, the title is "Women-vs-Tropes-in-Video-Games", saying that the tropes are not called the problem is disingenuous imo.
    Its the pervasiveness that is the problem. THIS IS NOT THAT HARD. Its the amount of interactions with or actions directed towards women that revolve around their bodies that is the problem. Its the % of women with body image issues and eating disorders and other psychological and physiological consequences.

    Do you think that calling a white person a cracker is part of a larger pattern of institutional racism against white people? That is the proper comparison to the point you are making.

    God 101 conversations are annoying. Playgirl? Jesus.

  10. #590
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    975
    Quote Originally Posted by kingmob View Post
    The problem with blanket statements like these is that they are always false (see what I did there ;)). As a bonus side-effect, by calling everything and everyone sexist so casually, the actually word gets inflated to a point where it is absolutely meaningless.
    1 in a million straight white men does not soak up sexism. See? No longer a blanket statement. You are not one of those 1 in a million people. Neither am I. Neither was daikiramaikimi.

  11. #591
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Faldrath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    São Paulo
    Posts
    1,177
    Quote Originally Posted by kingmob View Post
    Then I guess we fundamentally disagree. If objectification was a problem, then the playgirl (regardless of its success or lack thereof) would also be a problem. Men like looking at naked women, of course a company caters to this. I truly can not fathom how anyone can find this a problem? Is the existence of porn a problem by extension? All commercials more or less? All advertising? Every single fashion magazine? etc. etc. You can't hold that position and not live in a horrible world of constant oppression and objectification.

    What if we change perspective? If, as a thought experiment, everything was reversed except the position of men in society. So playgirl was popular, porn was all about the men and focussed heavily on female sexuality, but the so called 'patriarchy' would still exist. would it be a problem?

    Also, the title is "Women-vs-Tropes-in-Video-Games", saying that the tropes are not called the problem is disingenuous imo.
    Of course playgirl is a problem. *Anything* that reifies people is a problem. Whenever you look at another human being and, instead of seeing a human being, you see only breasts, a penis, black skin, a religion, a job description, a social class - you're objectifying that person, you are not engaging that person as a fellow human being with equal rights.

    So your "thought experiment" is useless, because it simply inverts the signals, but not the underlying problem (a matriarchal society where women objectify men would be just as bad as the actual patriarchal one where men objectify women). And objetification, in all its forms, is *the* problem for progressive, critical thinkers. Because we *do* live in a "horrible world of constant oppression and objectification". We often forget that the world is only "good" for a very tiny percentage of privileged people.

  12. #592
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus sonson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,321
    Quote Originally Posted by Faldrath View Post

    A matriarchal society where women objectify men would be just as bad as the actual patriarchal one where men objectify women.
    A billion times this! Campaigning for feminism is campaigning for equality for women whose rights need be supported or advocated on the basis of them having been ignored and abused for recorded history in pretty much every society. It is not an argument for female superiority or dominance in abstract sense. It's basically just trying to right millenia of wrong and reset things to be fair and equal is all. A matriarchal society would be just as wrong, because exactly the same ills are being perpetrated.

  13. #593
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,066
    Context again. Context context. You've examined Playboy in a black box. It objectifies! You've examined Playgirl in a black box. It objectifies too! Therefore they're both equivalent. No.

    Playboy exists in a culture in which women are consistently and repeatedly objectified, to an extent which is so pervasive that it is seen as so normal that most people can't see it for what it is. Men are simply not portrayed in the same way, with such consistency and such pervasiveness. Context makes all the difference.

  14. #594
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    975
    Quote Originally Posted by arathain View Post
    Context again. Context context. You've examined Playboy in a black box. It objectifies! You've examined Playgirl in a black box. It objectifies too! Therefore they're both equivalent. No.

    Playboy exists in a culture in which women are consistently and repeatedly objectified, to an extent which is so pervasive that it is seen as so normal that most people can't see it for what it is. Men are simply not portrayed in the same way, with such consistency and such pervasiveness. Context makes all the difference.
    People who bring up things like Playgirl are simply looking for an excuse to avoid accepting uncomfortable truths. Its not that they don't get it. Its that they don't want to get it.

  15. #595
    Moderator QuantaCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Vienna, Austria
    Posts
    6,365
    note to everyone: be a tad more excellent.


    Note to people saying that its not natural: porn, sex trade, prostitution: I think for every one of those: if there is no consent, its wrong, no matter what it is. Porn is a tricky one, because it says it consents, but the background sometimes/mostly (depending on the region where it comes from, Russia for example is very low on consent and the US has problems in that direction too) is very consent-less.

    Prostitution is, again, very high on the consentless indicator. Much higher than porn. And so on.

    Whenever you see someone talk about rape culture and that it's being perpetuated, this means:
    it is a structure of not needing consent to do whatever. (usually sexual) This does not mean you're all sex crazy, humping everything that moves. This means that the general consensus, even if you do not subscribe to it (or have it imprinted into your subconscious) is that consent is not necessary.

    This has been going on for thousands of years, and it's been improving, slowly, but it takes thought to see through all this crap, and thought I will spend on it.
    - Tom De Roeck.

    verse publications

    "Quantacat's name is still recognised even if he watches on with detached eyes like Peter Molyneux over a cube in 3D space, staring at it with tears in his eyes, softly whispering... Someday they'll get it."

    "It's frankly embarrassing. The mods on here are woeful."

    "I wrinkled my nose at QC being a mod."

    "At least he has some personality."

  16. #596
    Activated Node
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by sonson View Post
    I suppose what I was trying to get at was that there is not an equivalent which requires that males sell their body and dignity for entertainment on such a scale, and that isn’t because women don’t want it.

    I’m not sure if it’s fair to suggest that men collectively want the same thing to a greater degree than women do. I certainly don’t think that just because men might collectively want something means that it is excusable or permissible.

    The vast majority of women in the world are societally objectified and treated as commodities and property, their freedoms readily sacrificed for the advance of an assumed greater cultural good . In the West we may be more liberal in regards to how we treat females and their role in society, but there’s no coincidence that women and commodities are still pretty much inseparable from one another on a scale which is grossly unequal in terms of gender.
    I didn't imply they want it more (although I do think that), but just that the vast majority of men want porn.

    There are absolutely no freedoms sacrificed for women in the name of porn or similar things, I'm not sure why you seem to explicit state that as a self evident truth?

  17. #597
    Activated Node
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Faldrath View Post
    Of course playgirl is a problem. *Anything* that reifies people is a problem. Whenever you look at another human being and, instead of seeing a human being, you see only breasts, a penis, black skin, a religion, a job description, a social class - you're objectifying that person, you are not engaging that person as a fellow human being with equal rights.

    So your "thought experiment" is useless, because it simply inverts the signals, but not the underlying problem (a matriarchal society where women objectify men would be just as bad as the actual patriarchal one where men objectify women). And objetification, in all its forms, is *the* problem for progressive, critical thinkers. Because we *do* live in a "horrible world of constant oppression and objectification". We often forget that the world is only "good" for a very tiny percentage of privileged people.
    You seem to mistakenly believe that your morals are universal. There is absolutely nothing wrong with sexualizing a person (especially not a depiction of them). Sexism comes in the form of actions, not thoughts. Sexism is literally discrimination based on sex.
    This sincerely scares the crap out of me, you are explicitly stating that male sexuality (especially of adolescents) is bad. Not just something to be ashamed about, no outright morally wrong. The cure is much worse than the disease in this case, such viewpoints can only lead to more sexism, not less. Not just that, you state it with a clear sense of moral superiority.

    For there to be a crime, there HAS to be a victim. A fictitious person or an image can not be a victim, neither can a concept (in this case women). Not agreeing with someones sexuality does in fact not make you a victim.

  18. #598
    Activated Node
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by MoLAoS View Post
    People who bring up things like Playgirl are simply looking for an excuse to avoid accepting uncomfortable truths. Its not that they don't get it. Its that they don't want to get it.
    Just read your reply extremely carefully and think about what you dismiss so casually. Also, make sure you feel guilty when you masturbate.

  19. #599
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Nalano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    NY f'n C
    Posts
    9,917
    Quote Originally Posted by daikiraikimi View Post
    To avoid this, I think that if a person notices that another person has done something sexist then they should concentrate on the words said or the action taken.

    Just because a person has done something which is sexist, or racist, that does not mean that they "are" a misogynist or a racist as a person. We need to judge actions rather than a person’s identity.
    The irony of this is that you are then giving them more respect than they are giving you. If a person is sexist, they are by definition making judgments by someone's identity rather than their actions. This is why it is not only fantastically unfair, but borderline masochistic to address them on that level.

    Quote Originally Posted by MoLAoS View Post
    Honestly I was surprised to see that you and Nalano were as aware as you were. Probably just my bias since I've had conflict with you two in the past on video game topics.
    Games don't matter so much as politics do. In games, you're entitled to your opinion. In politics you better watch your shit.
    Nalano H. Wildmoon
    Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
    Attorney at Lawl
    "His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

  20. #600
    Activated Node
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by arathain View Post
    Context again. Context context. You've examined Playboy in a black box. It objectifies! You've examined Playgirl in a black box. It objectifies too! Therefore they're both equivalent. No.

    Playboy exists in a culture in which women are consistently and repeatedly objectified, to an extent which is so pervasive that it is seen as so normal that most people can't see it for what it is. Men are simply not portrayed in the same way, with such consistency and such pervasiveness. Context makes all the difference.
    You abuse the concept of context to hide from an uncomfortable truth. The discussion was that objectification is a problem in itself, this can only be true if you can state that it is in such a black box. A simple change of perspective clearly proves it is not. People are being disingenuous to ignore the fact that I do not for a second state that there is no imbalance. I actually explicitly state it several times.

    Again, people simply enjoy fighting windmills more than actually following an argument they themselves start. This is actually important because the only logical conclusion to defining objectification as a problem is censorship. Also, were it sexist the solution must be gender neutral, otherwise you just exchange sexism.
    Last edited by kingmob; 15-03-2013 at 12:50 PM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •