|
|
On September 18 2011 22:53 Myles wrote:
I really hate this argument. "When we do good things for only a certain group it's not discrimination. We're only making up for the past". Fuck that. You don't make things equal by unequally supporting different groups.
I didn't say it wasn't discrimination, I clearly said that it is.
I'm not sure by what other magic you think one makes unequal things equal. Well I suppose with a ratio of women/male progamers of practically zero it's almost impossible for things not to get more 'equal' by themselves 
|
On September 18 2011 22:50 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 22:46 Grumbels wrote:On September 18 2011 22:40 TMStarcraft wrote:Terrible article is terrible. That is all. On September 18 2011 00:12 Grumbels wrote:On September 18 2011 00:01 DerNebel wrote:
Saying the community overreacted out of sexism to the Gizmodo article about Jon Finkel is just plain dumb. He is the Jordan of MtG, beloved player and overall nice guy, and he was being humiliated by some girl who could not see past that he was good at some card-game. The community would have reacted the same if Jon Finkel was gay and the Gizmodo writer had been a dude.
The Day[9] quote is taken out of context, because he was actually mostly ridiculing his young self for being pissed off about this sort of thing. He might have said 'bitch' that time, but he has done that several times as obvious parody. One time he called his mother a bitch for crying out loud!
I'm not going to read the article in full, sue me. If the author gets paid per hit, which is likely, due to the sensationalist nature of the article, then I won't pay him off. Also, the two incidents quoted have obvious flaws insofar as they are used to argue for gamer sexism. A woman is allowed to find MtG off-putting in a man. She is also allowed to post about how off-putting she finds this on a blog, and while I agree the tone of her article was utterly obnoxious it is not a valid excuse for the hordes of "dumb bitch, how dare she dislike Jon Finkel" posts all on the internet. That's sexism in action and if you say anything like "well she deserved it" then you're just victim-blaming. What next, "well she deserved to be raped with that shirt and saying those mean things" ? I don't see why not. Yes she is allowed to do all those things, but the second she took that experience and posted it up onto a public forum, she opened herself up to that kind of criticism. The rest of the argument is just straw-manning. Don't you think you're missing a logical step? "She is allowed to do X, but then we can abuse her for it." , huh? Of fucking course. Not physically of course, but verbally. That has nothing to do with gender at all. If you come out and publish retarded offensive sensationalist posts, verbal abuse by the general public, esp the community you're denigrating is the fucking correct course of action, regardless of gender. What if a guy posted something like "I was dating a women, but then I found out she had a major in english lit". Would you be offended if we called him a dumb bitch as well?
I don't think I phrased it well, sorry. I meant the verbal sexist abuse she was given: if she's shallow, make fun of her shallowness and so on; don't attack her rights to be shallow by pointing out women don't have rights (which is what a lot of attacks implicitly were about).
|
United States5162 Posts
On September 18 2011 22:58 Bubble-T wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 22:53 Myles wrote:
I really hate this argument. "When we do good things for only a certain group it's not discrimination. We're only making up for the past". Fuck that. You don't make things equal by unequally supporting different groups. I didn't say it wasn't discrimination, I clearly said that it is. I'm not sure by what other magic you think one makes unequal things equal.
Perhaps by treating people equally? Instead of giving certain groups advantages, put them all on an equal playing field. A black kid with a 3.5 GPA shouldn't be more advantaged than a white or asian kid with a 3.5. A women in the workplace with similar skills to a man should be promoted and paid in a similar manner.
You don't fix inequality by supporting more inequality.
edit: And about male/female progamers. Have you considered there's nothing to fix? That maybe the majority of females simply aren't interested in progaming in the way men are? I know it's not politically correct to say, but men and women don't think alike and are plain different. We generally don't the same things, don't act the same, don't feel the same. Our bodies develop differently and produce different amounts of hormones. If people really want men and women to be equal in everything we do then we need to start genetic modification.
|
On September 18 2011 23:05 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 22:58 Bubble-T wrote:On September 18 2011 22:53 Myles wrote:
I really hate this argument. "When we do good things for only a certain group it's not discrimination. We're only making up for the past". Fuck that. You don't make things equal by unequally supporting different groups. I didn't say it wasn't discrimination, I clearly said that it is. I'm not sure by what other magic you think one makes unequal things equal. Perhaps by treating people equally? Instead of giving certain groups advantages, put them all on an equal playing field. A black kid with a 3.5 GPA shouldn't be more advantaged than a white or asian kid with a 3.5. A women in the workplace with similar skills to a man should be promoted and paid in a similar manner. You don't fix inequality by supporting more inequality.
I said in the post you first responded to that context is really important and unsurprisingly you are ignoring it. Black kids are not given more advantages than white kids, they are given support to try and even outcomes in a society where white kids are in general given much greater advantages all the way from birth.
To bring it back to SC2, you are suggesting that by hiring one female SlayerS is supporting females unequally compared to males. That's laughable.
|
On September 18 2011 22:59 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 22:50 Half wrote:On September 18 2011 22:46 Grumbels wrote:On September 18 2011 22:40 TMStarcraft wrote:Terrible article is terrible. That is all. On September 18 2011 00:12 Grumbels wrote:On September 18 2011 00:01 DerNebel wrote:
Saying the community overreacted out of sexism to the Gizmodo article about Jon Finkel is just plain dumb. He is the Jordan of MtG, beloved player and overall nice guy, and he was being humiliated by some girl who could not see past that he was good at some card-game. The community would have reacted the same if Jon Finkel was gay and the Gizmodo writer had been a dude.
The Day[9] quote is taken out of context, because he was actually mostly ridiculing his young self for being pissed off about this sort of thing. He might have said 'bitch' that time, but he has done that several times as obvious parody. One time he called his mother a bitch for crying out loud!
I'm not going to read the article in full, sue me. If the author gets paid per hit, which is likely, due to the sensationalist nature of the article, then I won't pay him off. Also, the two incidents quoted have obvious flaws insofar as they are used to argue for gamer sexism. A woman is allowed to find MtG off-putting in a man. She is also allowed to post about how off-putting she finds this on a blog, and while I agree the tone of her article was utterly obnoxious it is not a valid excuse for the hordes of "dumb bitch, how dare she dislike Jon Finkel" posts all on the internet. That's sexism in action and if you say anything like "well she deserved it" then you're just victim-blaming. What next, "well she deserved to be raped with that shirt and saying those mean things" ? I don't see why not. Yes she is allowed to do all those things, but the second she took that experience and posted it up onto a public forum, she opened herself up to that kind of criticism. The rest of the argument is just straw-manning. Don't you think you're missing a logical step? "She is allowed to do X, but then we can abuse her for it." , huh? Of fucking course. Not physically of course, but verbally. That has nothing to do with gender at all. If you come out and publish retarded offensive sensationalist posts, verbal abuse by the general public, esp the community you're denigrating is the fucking correct course of action, regardless of gender. What if a guy posted something like "I was dating a women, but then I found out she had a major in english lit". Would you be offended if we called him a dumb bitch as well? I don't think I phrased it well, sorry. I meant the verbal sexist abuse she was given: if she's shallow, make fun of her shallowness and so on; don't attack her rights to be shallow by pointing out women don't have rights (which is what a lot of attacks implicitly were about).
I don't think you're phrasing this well either. Who pointed out women don't have rights?
|
United States5162 Posts
On September 18 2011 23:11 Bubble-T wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 23:05 Myles wrote:On September 18 2011 22:58 Bubble-T wrote:On September 18 2011 22:53 Myles wrote:
I really hate this argument. "When we do good things for only a certain group it's not discrimination. We're only making up for the past". Fuck that. You don't make things equal by unequally supporting different groups. I didn't say it wasn't discrimination, I clearly said that it is. I'm not sure by what other magic you think one makes unequal things equal. Perhaps by treating people equally? Instead of giving certain groups advantages, put them all on an equal playing field. A black kid with a 3.5 GPA shouldn't be more advantaged than a white or asian kid with a 3.5. A women in the workplace with similar skills to a man should be promoted and paid in a similar manner. You don't fix inequality by supporting more inequality. I said in the post you first responded to that context is really important and unsurprisingly you are ignoring it. Black kids are not given more advantages than white kids, they are given support to try and even outcomes in a society where white kids are in general given much greater advantages all the way from birth. To bring it back to SC2, you are suggesting that by hiring one female SlayerS is supporting females unequally compared to males. That's laughable.
What the does context have to do with it? If someone needs support, regardless of race, give them support. I find it ridiculous that a poor white kid is seen as better off then a poor black kid. If they're both equally poor, treat them equally.
|
On September 18 2011 23:13 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 22:59 Grumbels wrote:On September 18 2011 22:50 Half wrote:On September 18 2011 22:46 Grumbels wrote:On September 18 2011 22:40 TMStarcraft wrote:Terrible article is terrible. That is all. On September 18 2011 00:12 Grumbels wrote:On September 18 2011 00:01 DerNebel wrote:
Saying the community overreacted out of sexism to the Gizmodo article about Jon Finkel is just plain dumb. He is the Jordan of MtG, beloved player and overall nice guy, and he was being humiliated by some girl who could not see past that he was good at some card-game. The community would have reacted the same if Jon Finkel was gay and the Gizmodo writer had been a dude.
The Day[9] quote is taken out of context, because he was actually mostly ridiculing his young self for being pissed off about this sort of thing. He might have said 'bitch' that time, but he has done that several times as obvious parody. One time he called his mother a bitch for crying out loud!
I'm not going to read the article in full, sue me. If the author gets paid per hit, which is likely, due to the sensationalist nature of the article, then I won't pay him off. Also, the two incidents quoted have obvious flaws insofar as they are used to argue for gamer sexism. A woman is allowed to find MtG off-putting in a man. She is also allowed to post about how off-putting she finds this on a blog, and while I agree the tone of her article was utterly obnoxious it is not a valid excuse for the hordes of "dumb bitch, how dare she dislike Jon Finkel" posts all on the internet. That's sexism in action and if you say anything like "well she deserved it" then you're just victim-blaming. What next, "well she deserved to be raped with that shirt and saying those mean things" ? I don't see why not. Yes she is allowed to do all those things, but the second she took that experience and posted it up onto a public forum, she opened herself up to that kind of criticism. The rest of the argument is just straw-manning. Don't you think you're missing a logical step? "She is allowed to do X, but then we can abuse her for it." , huh? Of fucking course. Not physically of course, but verbally. That has nothing to do with gender at all. If you come out and publish retarded offensive sensationalist posts, verbal abuse by the general public, esp the community you're denigrating is the fucking correct course of action, regardless of gender. What if a guy posted something like "I was dating a women, but then I found out she had a major in english lit". Would you be offended if we called him a dumb bitch as well? I don't think I phrased it well, sorry. I meant the verbal sexist abuse she was given: if she's shallow, make fun of her shallowness and so on; don't attack her rights to be shallow by pointing out women don't have rights (which is what a lot of attacks implicitly were about). I don't think you're phrasing this well either. Who pointed out women don't have rights?
Did you read the comments to her article? Lots of men thinking that being rich or nice you're entitled to have women like you, all expressed with words such as "bitch".
|
On September 18 2011 23:20 Myles wrote:
What the does context have to do with it? If someone needs support, regardless of race, give them support. I find it ridiculous that a poor white kid is seen as better off then a poor black kid. If they're both equally poor, treat them equally.
The context of the program, not individual cases. There are programs to do what you're asking too, please stop showing your ignorance in some quixotic quest.
Besides which a white kid and a black kid or equal poverty are still unequal, institutionalised racism doesn't affect just incomes and wealth. Being the wrong race or sex or what have you throws up millions of small barriers that are usually invisible to those of privilege, which I think is generally why they think that if you just 'treat everyone equally' then it'll all be ok.
|
Males treat females differently, yes, thats hormones and its compounded by the scarcity of girls that like starcraft. So yeah they get more attention, it is sexist, but I don't think its an issue. Girls in bikinis get more attention at the beach, I don't see anyone complaining.
This whole issue is a bunch of hot air.
|
On September 18 2011 23:41 Disquiet wrote:
Males treat females differently, yes, thats hormones and its compounded by the scarcity of girls that like starcraft. So yeah they get more attention, it is sexist, but I don't think its an issue. Girls in bikinis get more attention at the beach, I don't see anyone complaining.
This whole issue is a bunch of hot air.
You don't think the second might have something to do with the first happening?
|
On September 18 2011 23:41 Disquiet wrote:
Males treat females differently, yes, thats hormones and its compounded by the scarcity of girls that like starcraft. So yeah they get more attention, it is sexist, but I don't think its an issue. Girls in bikinis get more attention at the beach, I don't see anyone complaining.
This whole issue is a bunch of hot air.
You're messing up the causality. Women act differently because they are treated differently, not the other way around. Behaviour can cause changes in hormones, so hormones are a moot point. How we treat women is not "hot air", it defines how the next generation of women are living. Let's take some responsibility.
|
On September 18 2011 23:51 Xaddy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 23:41 Disquiet wrote:
Males treat females differently, yes, thats hormones and its compounded by the scarcity of girls that like starcraft. So yeah they get more attention, it is sexist, but I don't think its an issue. Girls in bikinis get more attention at the beach, I don't see anyone complaining.
This whole issue is a bunch of hot air. You're messing up the causality. Women act differently because they are treated differently, not the other way around. Behaviour can cause changes in hormones, so hormones are a moot point. How we treat women is not "hot air", it defines how the next generation of women are living. Let's take some responsibility.
ye.
We're off to a good start with this thread.
|
While this whole affair has been a train wreck from the start, but there are some important issues in here, so I feel compelled to say a few things.
1) The original article was wordy, poorly written, missed the point at a few places, but as this thread shows, still hit the nail on the head at the main issue, that the self-awareness of the gaming community is pretty abysmal.
2) The ganging up on lorkac, without any attempt at having an intellectually honest discussion, was very disheartening. Though he didn't help but going of tangents all the time.
3) On the issue itself. It is naive to believe that people wont treat one another based on factors such as race, looks, gender, etc. But, it should be obvious to everyone that this is a sliding scale. While you cannot help treating people differently, you can certainly limit how different.
It depends on the context. And when making calls on this, it must be made by the person on the receiving end. Like a previous poster already said, just because you didn't mean your words to be hurtful does not mean they didn't hurt. And to the people basically saying the have to toughen up, or get out. Really? Is that really the way you want this community to be?
And wanting to act a certain way, but realising it is dumb, and trying no to is not hypocritical. Rather, it is a part of growing up. Just like thinking before typing, something sadly lacking in these forums.
|
I don't take any offense to terms like, "bitch" and what not, despite being a FEMALE (oh nooooooo!) ... I *call* people those derogatory names, not caring whether it is female or male oriented. I use the word for what the slang means, not because I want to be sexist. Like, really. Should somebody make a move in a game, and I say, "OH YOU LITTLE BITCH", I'm not trying to make them feel like a little girl getting raped in a dark alley, okay. And I think that any chick or dude, of any race or color, should not take impersonal things like that, personally. It's all fun and games (In this context, anyways)...
And true to the post above, I know waaaay to many girls who are the next Barbie toy to be released on the shelves of Target or WalMart, because of how they think they are viewed, and how they think they are supposed to act and look like, to be accepted. It's quite sad. It's also unfortunate that some girls just don't have enough self-confidence to be who they really are, and be happy with that. Responsibility on the men's part, but also responsibility on the women's part is necessary.
Sexism is such a difficult and touchy subject. >.<;
Oh, and the article was a bunch of folly ludicrous.
|
On September 18 2011 14:18 hummingbird23 wrote:
One can say sexist things without being sexist. Just throwing it out there. The same reason one can reinforce homophobia without actually hating on LGBT people by casually using "gay" as an insult.
Social pressure is a powerful thing, just look at how "gay" as an insult was diminished from a generally accepted epithet into a socially dangerous insult (socially dangerous for the user, I mean).
The better reaction to being told that, "That's a sexist thing to say." should be to think about it from a social perspective, not a personal "BUT I'M NOT SEXIST!" Is it true that by saying that, I'm reinforcing a norm that I don't agree with? How much do I care about social norms and their current state, is it enough for me to bother changing my habits, speaking or otherwise?
IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU. You may have the best of intentions, but do keep in mind that it's not what you intend, its what effect you have that ultimately matters. If you care enough, take the small effort to align your intentions with the effects that your actions have.
HereticSaint, the correct question to ask about vocalizing your attraction is, "Does it make women uncomfortable?" Not, "Am I predisposed to like women and to show it?" There are ways to compliment and show your interest without being creepy and it's a win-win if the gaming community understands this.
The article might fairly or unfairly single out the gaming community. I don't want to get embroiled in a fight over something that's ultimately inconsequential. What it does highlight, however is that the gaming community can reinforce sexist stereotypes (this is very different from calling gamers sexist). The point is, if we, as a community want to be the way forward, to mainstream the hobbies that we care so much about, we need to address these things that make many women uncomfortable. This isn't about Alyssa, her preferences and personality are inconsequential to the argument.
TLDR: Don't kneejerk a "I'm not sexist." or "That's not how I/he intended it.". Listen to what people are saying, if they say it makes them uncomfortable, BELIEVE THEM. Without a doubt, they are a better judge of what makes them uncomfortable than you are.
Quite frankly, I don't give a shit how people (Whether they are male or female) interpret what I say. I care what I mean when I say things and I care what other people mean when they say things. Intent is everything and if someone chooses to get offended by something I say when I don't mean it in a hateful or derogatory way then that is their issue, not mine. I want you to read that again so you don't misinterpret it, I'm not talking about if I say something hateful intentionally towards someone and then go, "LOLJAYKAY". Just to clarify as well, no, I don't feel at all bad for feeling this way, if you took every single person in the World into consideration with how they may interpret every last little thing you say you wouldn't be speaking a whole lot, or all, so once again, their issue.
People are equating real sexism to saying the word, "bitch", if you don't think that's stupid then I don't think very highly of you, I'll leave it at that. This is no different than if someone made a, "racist" joke once in their life, they aren't all of a sudden racist, if some small minority of the population (whether it's people who want to perpetuate racism or the race themselves) take it to heart, then that is their issue. If I all of a sudden said I got offended and felt uncomfortable because people wore red hats, people shouldn't stop wearing red hats and if you think that's ridiculous then realize that both this and getting offended by words themselves and not the intent behind them are both taught behaviors. It would serve the people well who actually want to stop the blatant and damaging sexism to target the people doing the blatant and damaging sexism, you aren't going to make things better by saying someone can't say the word, "bitch" and you aren't going to do it by ranting at a 14 year old over CoD who said, "cunt" and telling them to read a sensationalist article. Don't be fooled, that's exactly what that article is, it's blowing things out of proportion, it's no different then PETA grabbing a bunch of buckets of animal blood and chucking them on people for eating a Big Mac. That isn't how the real World works.
Also, it's not a matter of if the article fairly or unfairly targets the gaming community, it does unfairly target the gaming community, it perpetuates this stupid stereotype that gamers are fat, slobby, uneducated people who therefore don't have a girlfriend and therefore jizz their pants the second they hear a female on the other end of Vent, Skype, Xbox live, etc. Now that is the articles -intent- or is it? Well, I believe that's the articles intent but let's shove that under the rug right now. Let's say that isn't the articles intent, well he chose words that made it seem that way and under the your exact ideology of, "Your intent doesn't matter, how people interpret it for themselves should dictate how you say things" (Again, that boggles my mind still, but I digress) and in this case it very much feels like to me and all my friends who have read the article (four at this point) that this article is attacking gamers and seems to be incredibly biased as well by someone preaching utopian ideals upon other people.
Anyone can reinforce sexist stereotypes, don't single out the gaming community for it, especially for things like saying, "bitch", or for backlash at someone for being shallow. Or are we not allowed to interpret what she said to mean what we want it to be (Let's disregard for a minute that she definitely meant exactly what she said), we seem to only be allowed to interpret what I say and only for the sake of argument, sorry I don't role that way and if you keep contradicting yourself I'm not going to keep conversing with you about this.
Let's take a look at another word you used in your post source is going to be wikipedia but I doubt that their dates are wildly off or anything,
["Gay is a word that commonly refers to a male or female whose sexual orientation is attraction to persons of the same sex. It was originally used to refer to feelings of being "carefree", "happy", or "bright and showy"; it had also come to acquire some connotations of "immorality" as early as 1637.
The term's use as a reference to homosexuality may date as early as the late 19th century, but its use gradually increased in the 20th century. In modern English, gay has come to be used as an adjective, and occasionally as a noun, referring to the people, especially to men, and the practices and cultures associated with homosexuality. By the end of the 20th century, the word gay was recommended by major style guides to describe people attracted to members of the same sex. At about the same time, a new, pejorative use became prevalent in some parts of the world. In the Anglosphere, this connotation, among younger speakers, has a derisive meaning equivalent to rubbish or stupid (as in "That's so gay."). In this use, the word does not mean "homosexual", so it can be used, for example, to refer to an inanimate object or abstract concept of which one disapproves. This usage can also refer to weakness or unmanliness. When used in this way, the extent to which it still retains connotations of homosexuality has been debated.
The word "gay" arrived in English during the 12th century from Old French gai, most likely deriving ultimately from a Germanic source. For most of its life in English, the word's primary meaning was "joyful", "carefree", "bright and showy", and the word was very commonly used with this meaning in speech and literature. For example, the optimistic 1890s are still often referred to as the Gay Nineties. The title of the 1938 French ballet Gaîté Parisienne ("Parisian Gaiety"), which became the 1941 Warner Brothers movie, The Gay Parisian, also illustrates this connotation. It was apparently not until the 20th century that the word began to be used to mean specifically "homosexual", although it had earlier acquired sexual connotations."]
So look at that, it appears a long, long, long time before gay was a, "bad word to say when not saying it in this exact way that I dictate" (Keep in mind it reached that point because of the intent behind the people using the word) that it had quite a few other meanings. Here's the kicker: When I say the word, "gay" about something negative happening I am not taking a shot at homosexuals anymore than I am saying how happy I am that something negative just happened. If someone gets offended that is their own damn problem. I'll just close with for this having nothing to do with me you seem to be holding me to standards that you aren't holding the person who wrote the article to who equates gaming to dressing up like a clown and chucking beer bottles at peoples head, nor are you holding the shallow female who hates gamers to.
This debate is going to go in circles and you'd be much better off attacking real sexism, like the fact that there are female only leagues, that they are trying to make the work place have a 50/50 split of female/male executives even if the female executives happen to be less qualified than the male executives, notice I bring up real issues and real sexism, not complain about some random generic swear word that means nothing sexist at all unless the person intends it to. (Again, words change in definition and if they don't, well then gay doesn't even mean homosexual) But yeah, I don't see this going anywhere, not that debates like this generally do but I don't see a point for myself to participate in it any longer.
Edit: One last edit to just say, if lorkac actually wanted people to debate him he wouldn't of been blatantly shoving words into other peoples mouths, the end. It doesn't matter what he intended to debate the moment he told people what hey were thinking and what they meant, there's a reason people "ganged up" on him and not other people who shared his views.
|
On September 19 2011 00:11 HereticSaint wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 14:18 hummingbird23 wrote:
One can say sexist things without being sexist. Just throwing it out there. The same reason one can reinforce homophobia without actually hating on LGBT people by casually using "gay" as an insult.
Social pressure is a powerful thing, just look at how "gay" as an insult was diminished from a generally accepted epithet into a socially dangerous insult (socially dangerous for the user, I mean).
The better reaction to being told that, "That's a sexist thing to say." should be to think about it from a social perspective, not a personal "BUT I'M NOT SEXIST!" Is it true that by saying that, I'm reinforcing a norm that I don't agree with? How much do I care about social norms and their current state, is it enough for me to bother changing my habits, speaking or otherwise?
IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU. You may have the best of intentions, but do keep in mind that it's not what you intend, its what effect you have that ultimately matters. If you care enough, take the small effort to align your intentions with the effects that your actions have.
HereticSaint, the correct question to ask about vocalizing your attraction is, "Does it make women uncomfortable?" Not, "Am I predisposed to like women and to show it?" There are ways to compliment and show your interest without being creepy and it's a win-win if the gaming community understands this.
The article might fairly or unfairly single out the gaming community. I don't want to get embroiled in a fight over something that's ultimately inconsequential. What it does highlight, however is that the gaming community can reinforce sexist stereotypes (this is very different from calling gamers sexist). The point is, if we, as a community want to be the way forward, to mainstream the hobbies that we care so much about, we need to address these things that make many women uncomfortable. This isn't about Alyssa, her preferences and personality are inconsequential to the argument.
TLDR: Don't kneejerk a "I'm not sexist." or "That's not how I/he intended it.". Listen to what people are saying, if they say it makes them uncomfortable, BELIEVE THEM. Without a doubt, they are a better judge of what makes them uncomfortable than you are. If I all of a sudden said I got offended and felt uncomfortable because people wore red hats, people shouldn't stop wearing red hats and if you think that's ridiculous then realize that both this and getting offended by words themselves and not the intent behind them are both taught behaviors.
Opposition to use of gender-biased or race-biased words etc. is rooted in their reflection of and use in systematic discrimination and oppression, which has never fucking happened on the basis of whether you wear a red hat or not, which is why we don't treat being offended by that as a serious issue.
I don't want to single you out here, it's clear that this is widely misunderstood. Having said that there is a lot of good literature on the topic (and related issues like why it's different when black people call each other "nigger"), maybe if you're dedicated enough to write as many words as you did you would like to consider reading some of it?
VVV or maybe you're just an arrogant idiot, whatever works.
|
On September 19 2011 00:27 Bubble-T wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 00:11 HereticSaint wrote:On September 18 2011 14:18 hummingbird23 wrote:
One can say sexist things without being sexist. Just throwing it out there. The same reason one can reinforce homophobia without actually hating on LGBT people by casually using "gay" as an insult.
Social pressure is a powerful thing, just look at how "gay" as an insult was diminished from a generally accepted epithet into a socially dangerous insult (socially dangerous for the user, I mean).
The better reaction to being told that, "That's a sexist thing to say." should be to think about it from a social perspective, not a personal "BUT I'M NOT SEXIST!" Is it true that by saying that, I'm reinforcing a norm that I don't agree with? How much do I care about social norms and their current state, is it enough for me to bother changing my habits, speaking or otherwise?
IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU. You may have the best of intentions, but do keep in mind that it's not what you intend, its what effect you have that ultimately matters. If you care enough, take the small effort to align your intentions with the effects that your actions have.
HereticSaint, the correct question to ask about vocalizing your attraction is, "Does it make women uncomfortable?" Not, "Am I predisposed to like women and to show it?" There are ways to compliment and show your interest without being creepy and it's a win-win if the gaming community understands this.
The article might fairly or unfairly single out the gaming community. I don't want to get embroiled in a fight over something that's ultimately inconsequential. What it does highlight, however is that the gaming community can reinforce sexist stereotypes (this is very different from calling gamers sexist). The point is, if we, as a community want to be the way forward, to mainstream the hobbies that we care so much about, we need to address these things that make many women uncomfortable. This isn't about Alyssa, her preferences and personality are inconsequential to the argument.
TLDR: Don't kneejerk a "I'm not sexist." or "That's not how I/he intended it.". Listen to what people are saying, if they say it makes them uncomfortable, BELIEVE THEM. Without a doubt, they are a better judge of what makes them uncomfortable than you are. If I all of a sudden said I got offended and felt uncomfortable because people wore red hats, people shouldn't stop wearing red hats and if you think that's ridiculous then realize that both this and getting offended by words themselves and not the intent behind them are both taught behaviors. Opposition to use of gender-biased or race-biased words etc. is rooted in their reflection of and use in systematic discrimination and oppression, which has never fucking happened on the basis of whether you wear a red hat or not, which is why we don't treat being offended by that as a serious issue. I don't want to single you out here, it's clear that this is widely misunderstood.
What a thoughtful response. The color pink.
|
Day9 never said anything like that, ive watched almost all of his Dailies and bout half his casted games from Dreamhack/GSPA/AHGL/MLG. I watched #260 recently, and there is no sexism to be found.
|
On September 19 2011 00:52 zlgrube wrote:
Day9 never said anything like that, ive watched almost all of his Dailies and bout half his casted games from Dreamhack/GSPA/AHGL/MLG. I watched #260 recently, and there is no sexism to be found.
He actually did. Whether or not people should be offended is another issue.
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On September 19 2011 00:28 HereticSaint wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 00:27 Bubble-T wrote:On September 19 2011 00:11 HereticSaint wrote:On September 18 2011 14:18 hummingbird23 wrote:
One can say sexist things without being sexist. Just throwing it out there. The same reason one can reinforce homophobia without actually hating on LGBT people by casually using "gay" as an insult.
Social pressure is a powerful thing, just look at how "gay" as an insult was diminished from a generally accepted epithet into a socially dangerous insult (socially dangerous for the user, I mean).
The better reaction to being told that, "That's a sexist thing to say." should be to think about it from a social perspective, not a personal "BUT I'M NOT SEXIST!" Is it true that by saying that, I'm reinforcing a norm that I don't agree with? How much do I care about social norms and their current state, is it enough for me to bother changing my habits, speaking or otherwise?
IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU. You may have the best of intentions, but do keep in mind that it's not what you intend, its what effect you have that ultimately matters. If you care enough, take the small effort to align your intentions with the effects that your actions have.
HereticSaint, the correct question to ask about vocalizing your attraction is, "Does it make women uncomfortable?" Not, "Am I predisposed to like women and to show it?" There are ways to compliment and show your interest without being creepy and it's a win-win if the gaming community understands this.
The article might fairly or unfairly single out the gaming community. I don't want to get embroiled in a fight over something that's ultimately inconsequential. What it does highlight, however is that the gaming community can reinforce sexist stereotypes (this is very different from calling gamers sexist). The point is, if we, as a community want to be the way forward, to mainstream the hobbies that we care so much about, we need to address these things that make many women uncomfortable. This isn't about Alyssa, her preferences and personality are inconsequential to the argument.
TLDR: Don't kneejerk a "I'm not sexist." or "That's not how I/he intended it.". Listen to what people are saying, if they say it makes them uncomfortable, BELIEVE THEM. Without a doubt, they are a better judge of what makes them uncomfortable than you are. If I all of a sudden said I got offended and felt uncomfortable because people wore red hats, people shouldn't stop wearing red hats and if you think that's ridiculous then realize that both this and getting offended by words themselves and not the intent behind them are both taught behaviors. Opposition to use of gender-biased or race-biased words etc. is rooted in their reflection of and use in systematic discrimination and oppression, which has never fucking happened on the basis of whether you wear a red hat or not, which is why we don't treat being offended by that as a serious issue. I don't want to single you out here, it's clear that this is widely misunderstood. What a thoughtful response. The color pink.
Don't be a troll just because you don't have a valid response.
On September 19 2011 00:52 zlgrube wrote:
Day9 never said anything like that, ive watched almost all of his Dailies and bout half his casted games from Dreamhack/GSPA/AHGL/MLG. I watched #260 recently, and there is no sexism to be found.
He does, check the video linked in the top of the thread @ around the 20 minute mark.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
