|
11589 Posts
On May 03 2013 03:11 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 02:56 yamato77 wrote:On May 03 2013 01:19 Kimaker wrote:On May 03 2013 01:02 yamato77 wrote:On May 03 2013 00:59 Kimaker wrote:On May 03 2013 00:51 yamato77 wrote:
The fact that this thread has devolved to the point that people are placing blame on the woman who "puts herself out there" is quite discouraging for my opinion on the intelligence of the average TL forum goer. It's not a question of her conforming to the norms that internet society has created, it is a question of those norms at their base. There is no denying that females are regularly objectified on the internet. This practice is wrong, and it should be stopped.
Why?
Let me explain it as a series of questions.
Do you think women enjoy video games? If not, you're out of touch with reality. This is obvious.
Why do you think women enjoy video games? Do you think it's for the same reasons as men? Again, obviously. Not only are video games entertainment, but they have developed into being community facilitators. People develop games not only technologically now, but socially. Denying this is to ignore the immense popularity of games that create interaction. Any multiplayer game is inherently social.
So why should video game culture be exclusive to men? If women enjoy video games, why are they excluded from being a part of the social communities we create, whether that be YouTube contributors, Twitch streamers, TL writers, or even professional players? If you don't think they are excluded, read her article. It's not an isolated incident. If she can be driven to the point of nearly giving up on attempting to be a part of this gaming community by the comments and messages she is sent, it's painfully obvious that many other women feel the same way, and either haven't said anything or are being ignored.
Do you know what keeps the professional players, the casters, and the content creators going in their pursuit of achieving in a career in gaming? It's the fans. It's all of us, who are a de facto support system for those pioneers of gaming culture who provide the content we enjoy. People like Sean Plott keep making content for StarCraft not because there's money in it, whether there is or not, they keep making it because of their passion for the game, and for us, the fans. Our positive feedback keeps them motivated.
If all you're ever receiving is negative or degrading feedback, such as the comments of those articles, you will quit. If you don't, you'll be driven insane. Understand the lengths to which this woman went to NOT get objectified by this community. And it didn't work. Do you feel like this is acceptable? We at TL pride ourselves for being better than the average gaming community, and for the large part, we are. But reading this thread has made me realize that there are some biases that we still hold, and sexism is obviously one of them.
You all rationalize the wrongs she experiences on a day-to-day basis with "That's just the internet, of course people are going to say those things! She should ignore them, or accept them, because that's how the internet is." Why? Why should the internet be sexist? These comments reveal an ugly truth, that sexism is still pervasive in our society, but it's taken a new form. Just as it was legislated against and not tolerated in the physical world, we must not tolerate it in this digital one.
So next time, instead of accepting this as the norm of internet society, reject that idea. You are just as much a part of the internet as that guy who said he'd cum on her forehead. And if you don't reject that behavior and accept females int gaming culture, and the internet as a whole, you might as well be that guy. Is that who you want to be? You are addressing the culture as a "thing" which can have intentions and be "good or bad". Only individuals can have those. The gaming culture of which you speak is simply an aggregate. As a player in this debate, it doesn't exist. This entire argument is the macro vs. mirco debate in economics. It's Keynesian's vs. Austrians. People are the culture. Without people, culture does not exist. Wrong. People are people. The culture is the sum of those people's actions. Target their actions, not an intangible cognitive simplification which is nothing more than a symptom of their shitty actions. I agree with your second statement. For clarification on where I stand on all this, crying sexism is laughable. Saying, "People are being dicks, I'd appreciate it if they'd stop." is legitimate. People who blast this as sexism are equally at fault by extrapolation of the fact that they're targeting the gender of the troll's target, as opposed to simply telling off a snot-nosed little shit, or (even more beneficial) simply complimenting the lady and actively discussing her opinions while starving the trolls. Crying sexism makes it an issue. Crying douchebag makes it solved. What, to you, makes someone a troll over just being a "douchebag"? They are literally the same offense. If someone is insulting or badgering a woman with the equivalent of the old 4chan "tits or gtfo", I define that as sexism, AND a troll. Just because he's doing it to be an asshole does not mean it isn't sexist, because it is. Also, defining them all as trolls ignores the blatant reality presented in the article that some of the comments show actual ignorance of what sexism is, just as you have displayed here. Any judgement made on a person that is precluded upon them being female, rather than being a person, is sexist, whether it is positive or negative. If your goal is to make someone mad online, then you're going to say whatever you can to get them there. If I were to call a black man the N- word in an attempt to make him angry it isn't a given that I hate black people. I don't really appreciate this dumbed down level of trolling which takes no skill and isn't even funny, but I don't think you can label an internet a sexist just because their remarks are used by sexists. Every troll doesn't actually believe women are inferior, belong in the kitched, tits or gtfo, but instead every troll does believe in trying to get a rise out of someone, so they will say whatever it takes. In the end it doesn't matter if you define them though as just a troll or a troll who is actually sexist, because in this given scenario the pure troll isn't good at what he is doing and the troll that is actually sexist is an ignorant fuck who also doesn't know what he is doing.
So, as I said, the distinction is largely meaningless. Since there's no possible way to know if they "meant it" or not, it's better to define ANY sexist remark as wrong and inexcusable than to try to make some sort of imaginary line where "trolls" exist, and are tolerated.
Become intolerant of sexism, whether you think someone is "trolling" or not.
|
On May 03 2013 01:54 Jojo131 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 01:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 01:30 Jormundr wrote:
So, since we're discussing larger issues of female identity, where does everyone stand on the virgin slut expectation?
I personally feel that we as a society need to let go of our puritanical ideas about sexuality. I personally think that our society goes too far trying to make sure that we don't ever see anybody naked. Then there is also the whole sex before marriage is bad crowd, which perpetuates the concept of the husband being in control of a woman's sexual identity. Then we have the popular portrayal of women, which showcases them as sexual objects, which is financially successful because real women are taught from a young age that showcasing your sexual identity is a bad thing. For instance, the prevalence of the words slut and whore as insults. Why should they be insults? Forgive me, because I apparently missed this part, but since when was having sex bad? Having sex is bad only in a misogynistic culture where where sex is an act of masculine domination. Its apparent from things such lingo "I got fucked over" or "I'll fuck you up" wherein we, as a society, when expressing great hatred towards something, describe it as an act of someone having sex with us without our consent. When we wish to show domination we switch the term and use it as phrase to state we will have sex with the "other" without their consent. It then extends to viewpoints. If we as a culture relate sexual domination as masculine--then female sexual domination is considered a taboo that goes against gender norms. Men fuck around, not women, because fucking around is a masculine trait, not a feminine one. This is because we as a society see the female as submissive--hence why we say "go back to the kitchen" or "make me a sandwich" where we equate the female with being a servant or slave. By controlling female sexuality we maintain the masculine sexual dominance of female ownership. There's a reason we say "rape and pillage" when we talk about war because we equate rape with the act of domination--specifically with masculine domination. In Ye Olden times, sexual taboo extended into basic biological reasoning: a guy can fuck 500 girls for all he cares and the only thing he really needs to worry about is contracting some sort of illness from doing so. Before contraceptives, women didn't have that freedom because they'd get pregnant and could only handle (in some extremes) a dozen or so kids in a lifetime. Therefor the stigma "women shouldn't sleep around because doing so will breed more children, which is a pain in both the process of delivery and nurturing till fully grown" Is this stigma still relevant in today's age? Well, consider 3rd world countries that dont have the same access to sex-ed and contraceptives.
Please don't make wildly inaccurate unsubstantiated claims about 'Ye Olden times' to support your own narrow world view.
|
On May 03 2013 03:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 02:56 r.Evo wrote:On May 03 2013 02:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:35 Mothra wrote:On May 03 2013 02:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:16 Simberto wrote:On May 03 2013 02:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:03 Simberto wrote:On May 03 2013 01:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 01:45 discomatt wrote:
[quote]
"Rape and pillage" is a literal term. It's not uncommon for the civilian population to be tortured/slain/raped after being defeated. Yes... as I said... we equate rape with domination... we kill off the men and have our way with the civilians... ie, domination... There's a reason we call it rape and not really unfortunate sex accident. That is because that is the definition of rape. Rape is forcing sex onto someone. Not an accident. And domination is obviously a large part of that, because you need to be in a dominant position to do that. And the way our bodies work makes it a lot easier for a man to rape someone than for a woman. I am not quite sure what your point is. Because you didn't read what I wrote I will quote myself. we equate rape with the act of domination Discomatt then implied "rape and pillage" is a throwaway phrase only relevant in war. Which is why I said "equate" as in to compare to things and see them as similar. He was responding to my post wherein I was talking about the misogynistic tendencies of american culture to use the term fuck to mean domination--ie rape. As in an event either fucks us over or we fuck over something we dominate. Because we use that rape/fuck mindset in everyday affairs we also project that onto other people--ie rape culture. Where we dominate the feminine with the masculine. I read what you wrote. You are just not making a lot of obvious sense to me. I still don't quite get your point. We equate rape with domination. Yes. That is because domination is a large part of rape. What are you getting at with this? You are stating this like it is some kind of grand discovery. Is your point that fucking/raping something is used as an allegory for domination, which means...something? I'm saying misogyny is about domination--not about how much/little clothes a woman wears or how sexual she is. I'm saying things aren't sexist *because* people who stream are showing their boobs I'm saying it's sexist when women are told how to look and act and defined by how much they fit that standard. I'm saying that misogyny is the domination of the female identity. I'm saying rape, is the domination of the female. I'm saying that terms like "tits or gtfo" is about the domination of the female and phrases like "good job on not being slutty" is the domination of the female. When we set the parameters for how a person should or shouldn't act--we are being misogynists. So it is misogynist to tell people they shouldn't act misogynist. When you are telling a woman how she should behave/dress/act/be instead of letting her just be herself be it slutty or prudish--you're being misogynistic. Because you are dominating her ability to be her own person. If she wants to get on twitch, take off her top and ask guys to tell her how sexy she is--then it's her right to do it. If she wants to just stream herself playing mario games--then its her right to do it. People who try to shame a woman who loves having sex by calling her a slut is misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. People who try to shame a woman who likes playing videogames as being a prude for not showing her tits are being misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. Telling someone not be misogynistic has nothing to do with telling them how to be a person. It is telling them that they are intruding on someone's rights. When I tell them to stop being misogynistic they don't need to change their style of clothes, the way they present themselves, their sexual activity, their anything. It literally is telling them to stop attacking another human being. First of all I'm pretty sure you're, like most people, applying the word "misogynistic" wrong. If I say "xyz is a slut" it doesn't show a hate or dislike of women. If I call a person retarded, I am not hating on mankind. If I call a Jewish woman a slut I'm neither mysogynistic nor am I antisemetic. It needs the connection of " because she is a woman or Jewish she is xyz" to make a statement about those things. Saying "I think it's disgusting that a woman draws attention to her videogame stream by shoving her boobs into the camera on a regular basis" isn't a misogynistic statement. It surely shows certain values, it surely tries to influence an opinion and behaviours but inherently it's not worse than "I think it's disgusting when a lawyer wears orange ties just because his boss loves the color". What you refer to as "dominating her ability to be her own person" is completely natural in any kind of society. We as humans in general want others to fit in with our own personal world view. If the topic of God comes up and a Christian or Muslim have completely different viewpoints, when we discuss whether we think it's good or bad that beige is suddenly "in" is no different from saying that certain behaviours or the way someone dresses is a good or bad thing. If you really want to do something against discrimination and misogyny then you should focus your energy on statements like "All women are sluts", "women belong into the kitchen" or a "women shouldn't be allowed to work/vote". Those are misogynistic statements. None of your examples are. tl;dr: Just because someone has the right to do something doesn't make it a horrible thing for others to talk about it, especially when someone does it on public display. There's a difference between talking about a lifestyle, and attacking someone for their lifestyle. When we say a woman is a slut--we are equating women being sexually free as a negative. When we say a person is retarded--we are equating mental problems with being less human. When we say that a jewish woman is a slut--we are equating women being sexually free as a negative. Being able to make those associations is what makes it misogynistic. Being able to equate "sexually active female" as a derogatory term is being misogynistic because it literally is being able to equate a woman being able to do something for herself as a negative modifier. We don't get insulted by orange ties because we don't equate orange ties with derogatory remarks. We do equate the word slut as a derogatory remark. Because we equate a woman's freedom of sexuality as a derogatory remark.
I have a super hard time making those connections you're mentioning. Welp, it might just be that I don't see the derogatory connection as much because I rarely have people around me using it that way.
If I use it myself it's either directed towards my girlfriend (<3), myself or to both males/females as a compliment. If a girl (or guy) tells me they had sex with three different people in the same week I'm inclined to say something among the lines of "Wow, you slut! Well done. *high five*".
|
On May 03 2013 03:12 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 03:01 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 02:56 r.Evo wrote:On May 03 2013 02:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:35 Mothra wrote:On May 03 2013 02:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:16 Simberto wrote:On May 03 2013 02:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:03 Simberto wrote:On May 03 2013 01:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Yes... as I said... we equate rape with domination... we kill off the men and have our way with the civilians... ie, domination...
There's a reason we call it rape and not really unfortunate sex accident. That is because that is the definition of rape. Rape is forcing sex onto someone. Not an accident. And domination is obviously a large part of that, because you need to be in a dominant position to do that. And the way our bodies work makes it a lot easier for a man to rape someone than for a woman. I am not quite sure what your point is. Because you didn't read what I wrote I will quote myself. we equate rape with the act of domination Discomatt then implied "rape and pillage" is a throwaway phrase only relevant in war. Which is why I said "equate" as in to compare to things and see them as similar. He was responding to my post wherein I was talking about the misogynistic tendencies of american culture to use the term fuck to mean domination--ie rape. As in an event either fucks us over or we fuck over something we dominate. Because we use that rape/fuck mindset in everyday affairs we also project that onto other people--ie rape culture. Where we dominate the feminine with the masculine. I read what you wrote. You are just not making a lot of obvious sense to me. I still don't quite get your point. We equate rape with domination. Yes. That is because domination is a large part of rape. What are you getting at with this? You are stating this like it is some kind of grand discovery. Is your point that fucking/raping something is used as an allegory for domination, which means...something? I'm saying misogyny is about domination--not about how much/little clothes a woman wears or how sexual she is. I'm saying things aren't sexist *because* people who stream are showing their boobs I'm saying it's sexist when women are told how to look and act and defined by how much they fit that standard. I'm saying that misogyny is the domination of the female identity. I'm saying rape, is the domination of the female. I'm saying that terms like "tits or gtfo" is about the domination of the female and phrases like "good job on not being slutty" is the domination of the female. When we set the parameters for how a person should or shouldn't act--we are being misogynists. So it is misogynist to tell people they shouldn't act misogynist. When you are telling a woman how she should behave/dress/act/be instead of letting her just be herself be it slutty or prudish--you're being misogynistic. Because you are dominating her ability to be her own person. If she wants to get on twitch, take off her top and ask guys to tell her how sexy she is--then it's her right to do it. If she wants to just stream herself playing mario games--then its her right to do it. People who try to shame a woman who loves having sex by calling her a slut is misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. People who try to shame a woman who likes playing videogames as being a prude for not showing her tits are being misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. Telling someone not be misogynistic has nothing to do with telling them how to be a person. It is telling them that they are intruding on someone's rights. When I tell them to stop being misogynistic they don't need to change their style of clothes, the way they present themselves, their sexual activity, their anything. It literally is telling them to stop attacking another human being. First of all I'm pretty sure you're, like most people, applying the word "misogynistic" wrong. If I say "xyz is a slut" it doesn't show a hate or dislike of women. If I call a person retarded, I am not hating on mankind. If I call a Jewish woman a slut I'm neither mysogynistic nor am I antisemetic. Saying "I think it's disgusting that a woman draws attention to her videogame stream by shoving her boobs into the camera on a regular basis" isn't a misogynistic statement. It surely shows certain values, it surely tries to influence an opinion and behaviours but inherently it's not worse than "I think it's disgusting when a lawyer wears orange ties just because his boss loves the color". What you refer to as "dominating her ability to be her own person" is completely natural in any kind of society. We as humans in general want others to fit in with our own personal world view. If the topic of God comes up and a Christian or Muslim have completely different viewpoints, when we discuss whether we think it's good or bad that beige is suddenly "in" is no different from saying that certain behaviours or the way someone dresses is a good or bad thing. If you really want to do something against discrimination and misogyny then you should focus your energy on statements like "All women are sluts", "women belong into the kitchen" or a "women shouldn't be allowed to work/vote". Those are misogynistic statements. None of your examples are. tl;dr: Just because someone has the right to do something doesn't make it a horrible thing for others to talk about it, especially when someone does it on public display. Slut generally has a negative meaning and vilifying female sexuality is misogynistic. Shaming someone for not meeting your ideas of what a woman should be when those ideas are based on female sexual repression is misogynistic. Maybe it wouldn't be if female sexuality didn't have a long history of gender based repression involved on it but equally maybe nigger would be a perfectly reasonable way of identifying a black person if it hadn't been for racism. Either way, slut shaming is misogynistic. I completely agree with slut shaming. As for the word itself I don't think using it as a way of saying "he/she is, in my opinion, having way too much sexual intercourse" (which it essentially implies) is a bad thing. I'd still call it stupid, but we don't call someone saying "I think praying three times per day is stupid" a prayer-hater either. If the implication is "she (sic) is banging more guys than she, as a woman, should be allowed to for her own good" I'd also agree with it being misogynistic. I have to admit though that since I hear the word much more often in BDSM/poly related communities than from random people with the implied slut-shaming context that my view might be skewed towards that. It's extremely common in those communities to use it in a positive context.
I don't have any problems with sexual freedom being permitted, much in the same way that I don't have any issues with substance freedom or political freedom. That doesn't mean I don't think certain political behaviours, sexual habits, and/or substance use are immoral, though. And it certainly wouldn't make me a bigot to think that people who objectify others and treat sex as a handshake for that purpose are doing something unethical. I'm not requiring that anyone in this thread agree with my ethical positions, but I certainly don't think what I'm saying fits the definition of bigotry.
|
On May 03 2013 03:13 yamato77 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 03:11 Mothra wrote:On May 03 2013 02:56 yamato77 wrote:On May 03 2013 01:19 Kimaker wrote:On May 03 2013 01:02 yamato77 wrote:On May 03 2013 00:59 Kimaker wrote:On May 03 2013 00:51 yamato77 wrote:
The fact that this thread has devolved to the point that people are placing blame on the woman who "puts herself out there" is quite discouraging for my opinion on the intelligence of the average TL forum goer. It's not a question of her conforming to the norms that internet society has created, it is a question of those norms at their base. There is no denying that females are regularly objectified on the internet. This practice is wrong, and it should be stopped.
Why?
Let me explain it as a series of questions.
Do you think women enjoy video games? If not, you're out of touch with reality. This is obvious.
Why do you think women enjoy video games? Do you think it's for the same reasons as men? Again, obviously. Not only are video games entertainment, but they have developed into being community facilitators. People develop games not only technologically now, but socially. Denying this is to ignore the immense popularity of games that create interaction. Any multiplayer game is inherently social.
So why should video game culture be exclusive to men? If women enjoy video games, why are they excluded from being a part of the social communities we create, whether that be YouTube contributors, Twitch streamers, TL writers, or even professional players? If you don't think they are excluded, read her article. It's not an isolated incident. If she can be driven to the point of nearly giving up on attempting to be a part of this gaming community by the comments and messages she is sent, it's painfully obvious that many other women feel the same way, and either haven't said anything or are being ignored.
Do you know what keeps the professional players, the casters, and the content creators going in their pursuit of achieving in a career in gaming? It's the fans. It's all of us, who are a de facto support system for those pioneers of gaming culture who provide the content we enjoy. People like Sean Plott keep making content for StarCraft not because there's money in it, whether there is or not, they keep making it because of their passion for the game, and for us, the fans. Our positive feedback keeps them motivated.
If all you're ever receiving is negative or degrading feedback, such as the comments of those articles, you will quit. If you don't, you'll be driven insane. Understand the lengths to which this woman went to NOT get objectified by this community. And it didn't work. Do you feel like this is acceptable? We at TL pride ourselves for being better than the average gaming community, and for the large part, we are. But reading this thread has made me realize that there are some biases that we still hold, and sexism is obviously one of them.
You all rationalize the wrongs she experiences on a day-to-day basis with "That's just the internet, of course people are going to say those things! She should ignore them, or accept them, because that's how the internet is." Why? Why should the internet be sexist? These comments reveal an ugly truth, that sexism is still pervasive in our society, but it's taken a new form. Just as it was legislated against and not tolerated in the physical world, we must not tolerate it in this digital one.
So next time, instead of accepting this as the norm of internet society, reject that idea. You are just as much a part of the internet as that guy who said he'd cum on her forehead. And if you don't reject that behavior and accept females int gaming culture, and the internet as a whole, you might as well be that guy. Is that who you want to be? You are addressing the culture as a "thing" which can have intentions and be "good or bad". Only individuals can have those. The gaming culture of which you speak is simply an aggregate. As a player in this debate, it doesn't exist. This entire argument is the macro vs. mirco debate in economics. It's Keynesian's vs. Austrians. People are the culture. Without people, culture does not exist. Wrong. People are people. The culture is the sum of those people's actions. Target their actions, not an intangible cognitive simplification which is nothing more than a symptom of their shitty actions. I agree with your second statement. For clarification on where I stand on all this, crying sexism is laughable. Saying, "People are being dicks, I'd appreciate it if they'd stop." is legitimate. People who blast this as sexism are equally at fault by extrapolation of the fact that they're targeting the gender of the troll's target, as opposed to simply telling off a snot-nosed little shit, or (even more beneficial) simply complimenting the lady and actively discussing her opinions while starving the trolls. Crying sexism makes it an issue. Crying douchebag makes it solved. What, to you, makes someone a troll over just being a "douchebag"? They are literally the same offense. If someone is insulting or badgering a woman with the equivalent of the old 4chan "tits or gtfo", I define that as sexism, AND a troll. Just because he's doing it to be an asshole does not mean it isn't sexist, because it is. Also, defining them all as trolls ignores the blatant reality presented in the article that some of the comments show actual ignorance of what sexism is, just as you have displayed here. Any judgement made on a person that is precluded upon them being female, rather than being a person, is sexist, whether it is positive or negative. What does "judgement made on a person that is precluded upon them being female" mean? Preclude is "to make impossible" or "prevent". Perhaps some examples of what is an what is not sexism might be more helpful. I meant "based on them being female" So, when judging someone's work, and leaving a comment, you don't talk about her physical appearance necessarily, you talk about the content itself.
What if the person you're commenting on is a man, is it sexism? How about a race animal even, what if you comment on how cute it looks rather than it's athletic results?
|
11589 Posts
On May 03 2013 03:18 Mothra wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 03:13 yamato77 wrote:On May 03 2013 03:11 Mothra wrote:On May 03 2013 02:56 yamato77 wrote:On May 03 2013 01:19 Kimaker wrote:On May 03 2013 01:02 yamato77 wrote:On May 03 2013 00:59 Kimaker wrote:On May 03 2013 00:51 yamato77 wrote:
The fact that this thread has devolved to the point that people are placing blame on the woman who "puts herself out there" is quite discouraging for my opinion on the intelligence of the average TL forum goer. It's not a question of her conforming to the norms that internet society has created, it is a question of those norms at their base. There is no denying that females are regularly objectified on the internet. This practice is wrong, and it should be stopped.
Why?
Let me explain it as a series of questions.
Do you think women enjoy video games? If not, you're out of touch with reality. This is obvious.
Why do you think women enjoy video games? Do you think it's for the same reasons as men? Again, obviously. Not only are video games entertainment, but they have developed into being community facilitators. People develop games not only technologically now, but socially. Denying this is to ignore the immense popularity of games that create interaction. Any multiplayer game is inherently social.
So why should video game culture be exclusive to men? If women enjoy video games, why are they excluded from being a part of the social communities we create, whether that be YouTube contributors, Twitch streamers, TL writers, or even professional players? If you don't think they are excluded, read her article. It's not an isolated incident. If she can be driven to the point of nearly giving up on attempting to be a part of this gaming community by the comments and messages she is sent, it's painfully obvious that many other women feel the same way, and either haven't said anything or are being ignored.
Do you know what keeps the professional players, the casters, and the content creators going in their pursuit of achieving in a career in gaming? It's the fans. It's all of us, who are a de facto support system for those pioneers of gaming culture who provide the content we enjoy. People like Sean Plott keep making content for StarCraft not because there's money in it, whether there is or not, they keep making it because of their passion for the game, and for us, the fans. Our positive feedback keeps them motivated.
If all you're ever receiving is negative or degrading feedback, such as the comments of those articles, you will quit. If you don't, you'll be driven insane. Understand the lengths to which this woman went to NOT get objectified by this community. And it didn't work. Do you feel like this is acceptable? We at TL pride ourselves for being better than the average gaming community, and for the large part, we are. But reading this thread has made me realize that there are some biases that we still hold, and sexism is obviously one of them.
You all rationalize the wrongs she experiences on a day-to-day basis with "That's just the internet, of course people are going to say those things! She should ignore them, or accept them, because that's how the internet is." Why? Why should the internet be sexist? These comments reveal an ugly truth, that sexism is still pervasive in our society, but it's taken a new form. Just as it was legislated against and not tolerated in the physical world, we must not tolerate it in this digital one.
So next time, instead of accepting this as the norm of internet society, reject that idea. You are just as much a part of the internet as that guy who said he'd cum on her forehead. And if you don't reject that behavior and accept females int gaming culture, and the internet as a whole, you might as well be that guy. Is that who you want to be? You are addressing the culture as a "thing" which can have intentions and be "good or bad". Only individuals can have those. The gaming culture of which you speak is simply an aggregate. As a player in this debate, it doesn't exist. This entire argument is the macro vs. mirco debate in economics. It's Keynesian's vs. Austrians. People are the culture. Without people, culture does not exist. Wrong. People are people. The culture is the sum of those people's actions. Target their actions, not an intangible cognitive simplification which is nothing more than a symptom of their shitty actions. I agree with your second statement. For clarification on where I stand on all this, crying sexism is laughable. Saying, "People are being dicks, I'd appreciate it if they'd stop." is legitimate. People who blast this as sexism are equally at fault by extrapolation of the fact that they're targeting the gender of the troll's target, as opposed to simply telling off a snot-nosed little shit, or (even more beneficial) simply complimenting the lady and actively discussing her opinions while starving the trolls. Crying sexism makes it an issue. Crying douchebag makes it solved. What, to you, makes someone a troll over just being a "douchebag"? They are literally the same offense. If someone is insulting or badgering a woman with the equivalent of the old 4chan "tits or gtfo", I define that as sexism, AND a troll. Just because he's doing it to be an asshole does not mean it isn't sexist, because it is. Also, defining them all as trolls ignores the blatant reality presented in the article that some of the comments show actual ignorance of what sexism is, just as you have displayed here. Any judgement made on a person that is precluded upon them being female, rather than being a person, is sexist, whether it is positive or negative. What does "judgement made on a person that is precluded upon them being female" mean? Preclude is "to make impossible" or "prevent". Perhaps some examples of what is an what is not sexism might be more helpful. I meant "based on them being female" So, when judging someone's work, and leaving a comment, you don't talk about her physical appearance necessarily, you talk about the content itself. What if the person you're commenting on is a man, is it sexism? How about a race animal even, what if you comment on how cute it looks rather than it's athletic results.
The first example would be sexism, yes. The fact that you ask is depressing.
The second example has almost no analogous context for which me to apply the concept of prejudice.
|
On May 03 2013 03:16 yamato77 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 03:11 NoobSkills wrote:On May 03 2013 02:56 yamato77 wrote:On May 03 2013 01:19 Kimaker wrote:On May 03 2013 01:02 yamato77 wrote:On May 03 2013 00:59 Kimaker wrote:On May 03 2013 00:51 yamato77 wrote:
The fact that this thread has devolved to the point that people are placing blame on the woman who "puts herself out there" is quite discouraging for my opinion on the intelligence of the average TL forum goer. It's not a question of her conforming to the norms that internet society has created, it is a question of those norms at their base. There is no denying that females are regularly objectified on the internet. This practice is wrong, and it should be stopped.
Why?
Let me explain it as a series of questions.
Do you think women enjoy video games? If not, you're out of touch with reality. This is obvious.
Why do you think women enjoy video games? Do you think it's for the same reasons as men? Again, obviously. Not only are video games entertainment, but they have developed into being community facilitators. People develop games not only technologically now, but socially. Denying this is to ignore the immense popularity of games that create interaction. Any multiplayer game is inherently social.
So why should video game culture be exclusive to men? If women enjoy video games, why are they excluded from being a part of the social communities we create, whether that be YouTube contributors, Twitch streamers, TL writers, or even professional players? If you don't think they are excluded, read her article. It's not an isolated incident. If she can be driven to the point of nearly giving up on attempting to be a part of this gaming community by the comments and messages she is sent, it's painfully obvious that many other women feel the same way, and either haven't said anything or are being ignored.
Do you know what keeps the professional players, the casters, and the content creators going in their pursuit of achieving in a career in gaming? It's the fans. It's all of us, who are a de facto support system for those pioneers of gaming culture who provide the content we enjoy. People like Sean Plott keep making content for StarCraft not because there's money in it, whether there is or not, they keep making it because of their passion for the game, and for us, the fans. Our positive feedback keeps them motivated.
If all you're ever receiving is negative or degrading feedback, such as the comments of those articles, you will quit. If you don't, you'll be driven insane. Understand the lengths to which this woman went to NOT get objectified by this community. And it didn't work. Do you feel like this is acceptable? We at TL pride ourselves for being better than the average gaming community, and for the large part, we are. But reading this thread has made me realize that there are some biases that we still hold, and sexism is obviously one of them.
You all rationalize the wrongs she experiences on a day-to-day basis with "That's just the internet, of course people are going to say those things! She should ignore them, or accept them, because that's how the internet is." Why? Why should the internet be sexist? These comments reveal an ugly truth, that sexism is still pervasive in our society, but it's taken a new form. Just as it was legislated against and not tolerated in the physical world, we must not tolerate it in this digital one.
So next time, instead of accepting this as the norm of internet society, reject that idea. You are just as much a part of the internet as that guy who said he'd cum on her forehead. And if you don't reject that behavior and accept females int gaming culture, and the internet as a whole, you might as well be that guy. Is that who you want to be? You are addressing the culture as a "thing" which can have intentions and be "good or bad". Only individuals can have those. The gaming culture of which you speak is simply an aggregate. As a player in this debate, it doesn't exist. This entire argument is the macro vs. mirco debate in economics. It's Keynesian's vs. Austrians. People are the culture. Without people, culture does not exist. Wrong. People are people. The culture is the sum of those people's actions. Target their actions, not an intangible cognitive simplification which is nothing more than a symptom of their shitty actions. I agree with your second statement. For clarification on where I stand on all this, crying sexism is laughable. Saying, "People are being dicks, I'd appreciate it if they'd stop." is legitimate. People who blast this as sexism are equally at fault by extrapolation of the fact that they're targeting the gender of the troll's target, as opposed to simply telling off a snot-nosed little shit, or (even more beneficial) simply complimenting the lady and actively discussing her opinions while starving the trolls. Crying sexism makes it an issue. Crying douchebag makes it solved. What, to you, makes someone a troll over just being a "douchebag"? They are literally the same offense. If someone is insulting or badgering a woman with the equivalent of the old 4chan "tits or gtfo", I define that as sexism, AND a troll. Just because he's doing it to be an asshole does not mean it isn't sexist, because it is. Also, defining them all as trolls ignores the blatant reality presented in the article that some of the comments show actual ignorance of what sexism is, just as you have displayed here. Any judgement made on a person that is precluded upon them being female, rather than being a person, is sexist, whether it is positive or negative. If your goal is to make someone mad online, then you're going to say whatever you can to get them there. If I were to call a black man the N- word in an attempt to make him angry it isn't a given that I hate black people. I don't really appreciate this dumbed down level of trolling which takes no skill and isn't even funny, but I don't think you can label an internet a sexist just because their remarks are used by sexists. Every troll doesn't actually believe women are inferior, belong in the kitched, tits or gtfo, but instead every troll does believe in trying to get a rise out of someone, so they will say whatever it takes. In the end it doesn't matter if you define them though as just a troll or a troll who is actually sexist, because in this given scenario the pure troll isn't good at what he is doing and the troll that is actually sexist is an ignorant fuck who also doesn't know what he is doing. So, as I said, the distinction is largely meaningless. Since there's no possible way to know if they "meant it" or not, it's better to define ANY sexist remark as wrong and inexcusable than to try to make some sort of imaginary line where "trolls" exist, and are tolerated. Become intolerant of sexism, whether you think someone is "trolling" or not.
You are correct, but the distinction still leads me to the conclusion that being intolerant won't do a damn thing. The troll will feel like he succeeded and the actual sexist will still regard women in the same way. The solution for dealing with unwanted remarks on the anonymous internet has to be to have good chat moderators, someone who reviews comments on youtube channels, and thicker skin because in the end you're not going to change an individual on the internet because even if they don't mean what they say, they're still going to say it. They get joy out the tiniest bit of acknowledgement even if it is their account being banned.
|
On May 03 2013 03:09 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 03:07 helvete wrote:On May 03 2013 02:57 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 02:55 xM(Z wrote:On May 03 2013 02:49 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 02:38 xM(Z wrote:
about the rape following a win (in battle, match, or w/e) it's was not done as an act of dominance. the winers already dominated the losers, dominating the weaker sex too would not be at all fulfilling.
raping was just a way to spread the genes, the genes of the winers. it's what lions are still doing now.
it's a basic evolutionary mechanic shared by some species: come, conquer, kill infants, spread own genes, defend them as much as you can or until you are ousted. Humans aren't lions. humans aren't aliens either. the same evolutionary mechanics are share by different species just because. You're suggesting that an act that happens as part of warfare has some relation to evolution. Warfare is so recent it has no evolutionary impact. Furthermore the failure to provide for the women at all after rape, for example burning the town and taking the food, implies no reproductive motive.Again, humans aren't lions. Lions have evolved to be good at doing lion behaviour. Humans choose to do human behaviour independently of evolution. Those are the most absurd statements I've read all week! We were fighting other tribes, and impregnating their women, long before there was a word for it. And that is still not long for evolutionary pressures to manifest in meaningful ways.
Farva that just isn't true. Humans have been fighting each other since humanity has been a thing. What do you mean it isn't long enough?
|
On May 03 2013 03:17 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 03:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:56 r.Evo wrote:On May 03 2013 02:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:35 Mothra wrote:On May 03 2013 02:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:16 Simberto wrote:On May 03 2013 02:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:03 Simberto wrote:On May 03 2013 01:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Yes... as I said... we equate rape with domination... we kill off the men and have our way with the civilians... ie, domination...
There's a reason we call it rape and not really unfortunate sex accident. That is because that is the definition of rape. Rape is forcing sex onto someone. Not an accident. And domination is obviously a large part of that, because you need to be in a dominant position to do that. And the way our bodies work makes it a lot easier for a man to rape someone than for a woman. I am not quite sure what your point is. Because you didn't read what I wrote I will quote myself. we equate rape with the act of domination Discomatt then implied "rape and pillage" is a throwaway phrase only relevant in war. Which is why I said "equate" as in to compare to things and see them as similar. He was responding to my post wherein I was talking about the misogynistic tendencies of american culture to use the term fuck to mean domination--ie rape. As in an event either fucks us over or we fuck over something we dominate. Because we use that rape/fuck mindset in everyday affairs we also project that onto other people--ie rape culture. Where we dominate the feminine with the masculine. I read what you wrote. You are just not making a lot of obvious sense to me. I still don't quite get your point. We equate rape with domination. Yes. That is because domination is a large part of rape. What are you getting at with this? You are stating this like it is some kind of grand discovery. Is your point that fucking/raping something is used as an allegory for domination, which means...something? I'm saying misogyny is about domination--not about how much/little clothes a woman wears or how sexual she is. I'm saying things aren't sexist *because* people who stream are showing their boobs I'm saying it's sexist when women are told how to look and act and defined by how much they fit that standard. I'm saying that misogyny is the domination of the female identity. I'm saying rape, is the domination of the female. I'm saying that terms like "tits or gtfo" is about the domination of the female and phrases like "good job on not being slutty" is the domination of the female. When we set the parameters for how a person should or shouldn't act--we are being misogynists. So it is misogynist to tell people they shouldn't act misogynist. When you are telling a woman how she should behave/dress/act/be instead of letting her just be herself be it slutty or prudish--you're being misogynistic. Because you are dominating her ability to be her own person. If she wants to get on twitch, take off her top and ask guys to tell her how sexy she is--then it's her right to do it. If she wants to just stream herself playing mario games--then its her right to do it. People who try to shame a woman who loves having sex by calling her a slut is misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. People who try to shame a woman who likes playing videogames as being a prude for not showing her tits are being misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. Telling someone not be misogynistic has nothing to do with telling them how to be a person. It is telling them that they are intruding on someone's rights. When I tell them to stop being misogynistic they don't need to change their style of clothes, the way they present themselves, their sexual activity, their anything. It literally is telling them to stop attacking another human being. First of all I'm pretty sure you're, like most people, applying the word "misogynistic" wrong. If I say "xyz is a slut" it doesn't show a hate or dislike of women. If I call a person retarded, I am not hating on mankind. If I call a Jewish woman a slut I'm neither mysogynistic nor am I antisemetic. It needs the connection of " because she is a woman or Jewish she is xyz" to make a statement about those things. Saying "I think it's disgusting that a woman draws attention to her videogame stream by shoving her boobs into the camera on a regular basis" isn't a misogynistic statement. It surely shows certain values, it surely tries to influence an opinion and behaviours but inherently it's not worse than "I think it's disgusting when a lawyer wears orange ties just because his boss loves the color". What you refer to as "dominating her ability to be her own person" is completely natural in any kind of society. We as humans in general want others to fit in with our own personal world view. If the topic of God comes up and a Christian or Muslim have completely different viewpoints, when we discuss whether we think it's good or bad that beige is suddenly "in" is no different from saying that certain behaviours or the way someone dresses is a good or bad thing. If you really want to do something against discrimination and misogyny then you should focus your energy on statements like "All women are sluts", "women belong into the kitchen" or a "women shouldn't be allowed to work/vote". Those are misogynistic statements. None of your examples are. tl;dr: Just because someone has the right to do something doesn't make it a horrible thing for others to talk about it, especially when someone does it on public display. There's a difference between talking about a lifestyle, and attacking someone for their lifestyle. When we say a woman is a slut--we are equating women being sexually free as a negative. When we say a person is retarded--we are equating mental problems with being less human. When we say that a jewish woman is a slut--we are equating women being sexually free as a negative. Being able to make those associations is what makes it misogynistic. Being able to equate "sexually active female" as a derogatory term is being misogynistic because it literally is being able to equate a woman being able to do something for herself as a negative modifier. We don't get insulted by orange ties because we don't equate orange ties with derogatory remarks. We do equate the word slut as a derogatory remark. Because we equate a woman's freedom of sexuality as a derogatory remark. I have a super hard time making those connections you're mentioning. Welp, it might just be that I don't see the derogatory connection as much because I rarely have people around me using it that way. If I use it myself it's either directed towards my girlfriend (<3), myself or to both males/females as a compliment. If a girl (or guy) tells me they had sex with three different people in the same week I'm inclined to say something among the lines of "Wow, you slut! Well done. *high five*".
Communication between close friends always has some level of word play--because you're friends.
If I walked up to your mother and called her a slut--she'd slap me in the face or at least get upset. You don't normally hear it out in the open and in person because without anonymity people are scared to say it. Put it on the internet then it happens often.
|
On May 03 2013 02:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 02:55 xM(Z wrote:On May 03 2013 02:49 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 02:38 xM(Z wrote:
about the rape following a win (in battle, match, or w/e) it's was not done as an act of dominance. the winers already dominated the losers, dominating the weaker sex too would not be at all fulfilling.
raping was just a way to spread the genes, the genes of the winers. it's what lions are still doing now.
it's a basic evolutionary mechanic shared by some species: come, conquer, kill infants, spread own genes, defend them as much as you can or until you are ousted. Humans aren't lions. humans aren't aliens either. the same evolutionary mechanics are share by different species just because. You're suggesting that an act that happens as part of warfare has some relation to evolution. Warfare is so recent it has no evolutionary impact. Furthermore the failure to provide for the women at all after rape, for example burning the town and taking the food, implies no reproductive motive. Again, humans aren't lions. Lions have evolved to be good at doing lion behaviour. Humans choose to do human behaviour independently of evolution.
warfare was present since the beginning of men. cro-magnon/sapiens killed neanderthals into extinction and both of them used to kill different 'clans' of their own kind (and eating them after).
humans have what lions have but they modified the context in which the said mechanism is used. so the end result is what you're seeing now: the urge to do it and the fail to follow it through.
|
On May 03 2013 03:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 03:17 r.Evo wrote:On May 03 2013 03:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:56 r.Evo wrote:On May 03 2013 02:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:35 Mothra wrote:On May 03 2013 02:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:16 Simberto wrote:On May 03 2013 02:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:03 Simberto wrote:
[quote]
That is because that is the definition of rape. Rape is forcing sex onto someone. Not an accident. And domination is obviously a large part of that, because you need to be in a dominant position to do that. And the way our bodies work makes it a lot easier for a man to rape someone than for a woman.
I am not quite sure what your point is. Because you didn't read what I wrote I will quote myself. we equate rape with the act of domination Discomatt then implied "rape and pillage" is a throwaway phrase only relevant in war. Which is why I said "equate" as in to compare to things and see them as similar. He was responding to my post wherein I was talking about the misogynistic tendencies of american culture to use the term fuck to mean domination--ie rape. As in an event either fucks us over or we fuck over something we dominate. Because we use that rape/fuck mindset in everyday affairs we also project that onto other people--ie rape culture. Where we dominate the feminine with the masculine. I read what you wrote. You are just not making a lot of obvious sense to me. I still don't quite get your point. We equate rape with domination. Yes. That is because domination is a large part of rape. What are you getting at with this? You are stating this like it is some kind of grand discovery. Is your point that fucking/raping something is used as an allegory for domination, which means...something? I'm saying misogyny is about domination--not about how much/little clothes a woman wears or how sexual she is. I'm saying things aren't sexist *because* people who stream are showing their boobs I'm saying it's sexist when women are told how to look and act and defined by how much they fit that standard. I'm saying that misogyny is the domination of the female identity. I'm saying rape, is the domination of the female. I'm saying that terms like "tits or gtfo" is about the domination of the female and phrases like "good job on not being slutty" is the domination of the female. When we set the parameters for how a person should or shouldn't act--we are being misogynists. So it is misogynist to tell people they shouldn't act misogynist. When you are telling a woman how she should behave/dress/act/be instead of letting her just be herself be it slutty or prudish--you're being misogynistic. Because you are dominating her ability to be her own person. If she wants to get on twitch, take off her top and ask guys to tell her how sexy she is--then it's her right to do it. If she wants to just stream herself playing mario games--then its her right to do it. People who try to shame a woman who loves having sex by calling her a slut is misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. People who try to shame a woman who likes playing videogames as being a prude for not showing her tits are being misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. Telling someone not be misogynistic has nothing to do with telling them how to be a person. It is telling them that they are intruding on someone's rights. When I tell them to stop being misogynistic they don't need to change their style of clothes, the way they present themselves, their sexual activity, their anything. It literally is telling them to stop attacking another human being. First of all I'm pretty sure you're, like most people, applying the word "misogynistic" wrong. If I say "xyz is a slut" it doesn't show a hate or dislike of women. If I call a person retarded, I am not hating on mankind. If I call a Jewish woman a slut I'm neither mysogynistic nor am I antisemetic. It needs the connection of " because she is a woman or Jewish she is xyz" to make a statement about those things. Saying "I think it's disgusting that a woman draws attention to her videogame stream by shoving her boobs into the camera on a regular basis" isn't a misogynistic statement. It surely shows certain values, it surely tries to influence an opinion and behaviours but inherently it's not worse than "I think it's disgusting when a lawyer wears orange ties just because his boss loves the color". What you refer to as "dominating her ability to be her own person" is completely natural in any kind of society. We as humans in general want others to fit in with our own personal world view. If the topic of God comes up and a Christian or Muslim have completely different viewpoints, when we discuss whether we think it's good or bad that beige is suddenly "in" is no different from saying that certain behaviours or the way someone dresses is a good or bad thing. If you really want to do something against discrimination and misogyny then you should focus your energy on statements like "All women are sluts", "women belong into the kitchen" or a "women shouldn't be allowed to work/vote". Those are misogynistic statements. None of your examples are. tl;dr: Just because someone has the right to do something doesn't make it a horrible thing for others to talk about it, especially when someone does it on public display. There's a difference between talking about a lifestyle, and attacking someone for their lifestyle. When we say a woman is a slut--we are equating women being sexually free as a negative. When we say a person is retarded--we are equating mental problems with being less human. When we say that a jewish woman is a slut--we are equating women being sexually free as a negative. Being able to make those associations is what makes it misogynistic. Being able to equate "sexually active female" as a derogatory term is being misogynistic because it literally is being able to equate a woman being able to do something for herself as a negative modifier. We don't get insulted by orange ties because we don't equate orange ties with derogatory remarks. We do equate the word slut as a derogatory remark. Because we equate a woman's freedom of sexuality as a derogatory remark. I have a super hard time making those connections you're mentioning. Welp, it might just be that I don't see the derogatory connection as much because I rarely have people around me using it that way. If I use it myself it's either directed towards my girlfriend (<3), myself or to both males/females as a compliment. If a girl (or guy) tells me they had sex with three different people in the same week I'm inclined to say something among the lines of "Wow, you slut! Well done. *high five*". Communication between close friends always has some level of word play--because you're friends. If I walked up to your mother and called her a slut--she'd slap me in the face or at least get upset. You don't normally hear it out in the open and in person because without anonymity people are scared to say it. Put it on the internet then it happens often.
For what it's worth, if you ever want to call me a slut by all means go ahead. I appreciate compliments, even though I might interpret it as jealousy. =P
|
On May 03 2013 02:57 AnomalySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 01:50 Grumbels wrote:On May 03 2013 01:36 Jojo131 wrote:
If you're a girl with a YouTube channel, you'll get shat on.
If you're a fat person with a YouTube channel, you'll get shat on.
If you're a black/asian/Pakistani/etc guy with a YouTube channel, you'll get shat on.
If you're a gay guy with a YouTube channel, you'll get shat on.
If you're just a regular guy with a YouTube channel, you'll STILL get shat on.
What I hate about this article is that it's suggesting that the world/internet needs to make some special exception for women because "sexism on the internet" is somehow worse or requires more action compared to all the other reasons someone could be shitting on you over the internet like racism, fat intolerance, homophobia etc.
Nobody gives a shit when people rip on Boogie2988 for being overweight, or for ZJemptv's sexual identity, so why do people care when it comes to people ripping on girl123 for being a girl?
The internet is literally the one place where "comments" made against you probably shouldn't be taken seriously. Most of the time people already know this, then other times... articles like this. " when the gender of an online username looks female, they are 25 times more likely to experience harassment" I'll take a guess at it. The internet is a nice escape for sexually frustrated men. Also, the easily and readily available porn that becomes increasingly more, hrmm how to put this, 'extreme?', both probably attribute to the hostility women receive online.
By the same vein, one could say the internet is also an escape for sexually frustrated or socially inexperienced women. Porn doesn't necessarily have anything to do with being a sexist, but men, with our lingering predatory instinct are often quick to detect weakness in a person. Take away the face-to-face contact and suddenly, even the most timid, awkward teenage boy can pluck up the balls to ask a grown woman to show him her tits. The anonymity factor can't be underestimated, and neither can the immaturity of users online.
It all comes back to why she's streaming in the first place. She's obviously doing it for all the wrong reasons, intentionally drumming up negative attention so that she can prove her point. It's so easy to moderate a channel that within a few days most of the unwanted / toxic chat participants can be gotten rid of. You can make this about sexually frustrated men if you want, but then you're also generalizing. IMO, this has a lot to do with what she's doing / not doing as a broadcaster. She can't change the internet, but she can uphold whatever standard she chooses for her channel. Megumixbear is a good example of a female broadcaster who has her shit on lockdown, for the most part, and tramples all those who would sully her stream chat. Her fans have nothing but respect for her.
I don't get how some people even have viewers, or what the fuck motivated them to start streaming to the whole world when they don't have the slightest understanding of how to take a punch so to speak. Comedians and athletes deal with hecklers (live hecklers - sitting right in front of them - not cowards hiding behind anonymity and distance); actors, writers and singers have to deal with critics (some of whom hate them and are out to ruin their career). Basically, if you put yourself out there, you have to be prepared for some "spotlight burn". There's always some asshole with some shit to say. If you truly belong in the spotlight you can handle anything that comes out of the dark unknown, otherwise, just walk away and don't complain about the workings of the world.
|
On May 03 2013 03:22 docvoc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 03:09 farvacola wrote:On May 03 2013 03:07 helvete wrote:On May 03 2013 02:57 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 02:55 xM(Z wrote:On May 03 2013 02:49 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 02:38 xM(Z wrote:
about the rape following a win (in battle, match, or w/e) it's was not done as an act of dominance. the winers already dominated the losers, dominating the weaker sex too would not be at all fulfilling.
raping was just a way to spread the genes, the genes of the winers. it's what lions are still doing now.
it's a basic evolutionary mechanic shared by some species: come, conquer, kill infants, spread own genes, defend them as much as you can or until you are ousted. Humans aren't lions. humans aren't aliens either. the same evolutionary mechanics are share by different species just because. You're suggesting that an act that happens as part of warfare has some relation to evolution. Warfare is so recent it has no evolutionary impact. Furthermore the failure to provide for the women at all after rape, for example burning the town and taking the food, implies no reproductive motive.Again, humans aren't lions. Lions have evolved to be good at doing lion behaviour. Humans choose to do human behaviour independently of evolution. Those are the most absurd statements I've read all week! We were fighting other tribes, and impregnating their women, long before there was a word for it. And that is still not long for evolutionary pressures to manifest in meaningful ways. Farva that just isn't true. Humans have been fighting each other since humanity has been a thing. What do you mean it isn't long enough?
I've not read a single post here made by anyone that appears to remotely qualified as an evolutionary biologist. I suggest this issue is left as moot until some such person shows up.
But more to the point, why should evolutionary history be used to justify modern behavior? Surely if we really are these slobbering sexual predators we should recognise the fact and overcome it.
I am barely even evolved enough to walk upright for christ's sake bu that doesn't stop me.
|
On May 03 2013 03:22 docvoc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 03:09 farvacola wrote:On May 03 2013 03:07 helvete wrote:On May 03 2013 02:57 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 02:55 xM(Z wrote:On May 03 2013 02:49 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 02:38 xM(Z wrote:
about the rape following a win (in battle, match, or w/e) it's was not done as an act of dominance. the winers already dominated the losers, dominating the weaker sex too would not be at all fulfilling.
raping was just a way to spread the genes, the genes of the winers. it's what lions are still doing now.
it's a basic evolutionary mechanic shared by some species: come, conquer, kill infants, spread own genes, defend them as much as you can or until you are ousted. Humans aren't lions. humans aren't aliens either. the same evolutionary mechanics are share by different species just because. You're suggesting that an act that happens as part of warfare has some relation to evolution. Warfare is so recent it has no evolutionary impact. Furthermore the failure to provide for the women at all after rape, for example burning the town and taking the food, implies no reproductive motive.Again, humans aren't lions. Lions have evolved to be good at doing lion behaviour. Humans choose to do human behaviour independently of evolution. Those are the most absurd statements I've read all week! We were fighting other tribes, and impregnating their women, long before there was a word for it. And that is still not long for evolutionary pressures to manifest in meaningful ways. Farva that just isn't true. Humans have been fighting each other since humanity has been a thing. What do you mean it isn't long enough?
If I stab someone--he will not evolve a breastplate.
If I stab everyone--they will not evolve a breastplate.
If I fuck everyone and then stab/starve/destroy their livelihood--they will not evolve.
Evolution comes from females breeding--whether by choice or otherwise.
War is an ephemeral thing that happens and leaves males dead--but doesn't translate to evolution.
Slavery would translate to evolution as women get kept and are fucked over and over again kept alive as long as possible. Unless their kids are also killed off so as to not have another mouth to feed. In which case--no evolution. So war *can* lead to evolution through slavery.
The fact that stuff "happens" does not mean evolution reacts to that. Evolution occurs from the breeding system available to the specie in question.
|
United States41937 Posts
On May 03 2013 03:07 helvete wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 02:57 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 02:55 xM(Z wrote:On May 03 2013 02:49 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 02:38 xM(Z wrote:
about the rape following a win (in battle, match, or w/e) it's was not done as an act of dominance. the winers already dominated the losers, dominating the weaker sex too would not be at all fulfilling.
raping was just a way to spread the genes, the genes of the winers. it's what lions are still doing now.
it's a basic evolutionary mechanic shared by some species: come, conquer, kill infants, spread own genes, defend them as much as you can or until you are ousted. Humans aren't lions. humans aren't aliens either. the same evolutionary mechanics are share by different species just because. You're suggesting that an act that happens as part of warfare has some relation to evolution. Warfare is so recent it has no evolutionary impact. Furthermore the failure to provide for the women at all after rape, for example burning the town and taking the food, implies no reproductive motive.Again, humans aren't lions. Lions have evolved to be good at doing lion behaviour. Humans choose to do human behaviour independently of evolution. Those are the most absurd statements I've read all week! We were fighting other tribes, and impregnating their women, long before there was a word for it.
Evolution hasn't just happened since there was a word for it. It's actually quite a long process.
|
11589 Posts
On May 03 2013 03:22 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 03:16 yamato77 wrote:On May 03 2013 03:11 NoobSkills wrote:On May 03 2013 02:56 yamato77 wrote:On May 03 2013 01:19 Kimaker wrote:On May 03 2013 01:02 yamato77 wrote:On May 03 2013 00:59 Kimaker wrote:On May 03 2013 00:51 yamato77 wrote:
The fact that this thread has devolved to the point that people are placing blame on the woman who "puts herself out there" is quite discouraging for my opinion on the intelligence of the average TL forum goer. It's not a question of her conforming to the norms that internet society has created, it is a question of those norms at their base. There is no denying that females are regularly objectified on the internet. This practice is wrong, and it should be stopped.
Why?
Let me explain it as a series of questions.
Do you think women enjoy video games? If not, you're out of touch with reality. This is obvious.
Why do you think women enjoy video games? Do you think it's for the same reasons as men? Again, obviously. Not only are video games entertainment, but they have developed into being community facilitators. People develop games not only technologically now, but socially. Denying this is to ignore the immense popularity of games that create interaction. Any multiplayer game is inherently social.
So why should video game culture be exclusive to men? If women enjoy video games, why are they excluded from being a part of the social communities we create, whether that be YouTube contributors, Twitch streamers, TL writers, or even professional players? If you don't think they are excluded, read her article. It's not an isolated incident. If she can be driven to the point of nearly giving up on attempting to be a part of this gaming community by the comments and messages she is sent, it's painfully obvious that many other women feel the same way, and either haven't said anything or are being ignored.
Do you know what keeps the professional players, the casters, and the content creators going in their pursuit of achieving in a career in gaming? It's the fans. It's all of us, who are a de facto support system for those pioneers of gaming culture who provide the content we enjoy. People like Sean Plott keep making content for StarCraft not because there's money in it, whether there is or not, they keep making it because of their passion for the game, and for us, the fans. Our positive feedback keeps them motivated.
If all you're ever receiving is negative or degrading feedback, such as the comments of those articles, you will quit. If you don't, you'll be driven insane. Understand the lengths to which this woman went to NOT get objectified by this community. And it didn't work. Do you feel like this is acceptable? We at TL pride ourselves for being better than the average gaming community, and for the large part, we are. But reading this thread has made me realize that there are some biases that we still hold, and sexism is obviously one of them.
You all rationalize the wrongs she experiences on a day-to-day basis with "That's just the internet, of course people are going to say those things! She should ignore them, or accept them, because that's how the internet is." Why? Why should the internet be sexist? These comments reveal an ugly truth, that sexism is still pervasive in our society, but it's taken a new form. Just as it was legislated against and not tolerated in the physical world, we must not tolerate it in this digital one.
So next time, instead of accepting this as the norm of internet society, reject that idea. You are just as much a part of the internet as that guy who said he'd cum on her forehead. And if you don't reject that behavior and accept females int gaming culture, and the internet as a whole, you might as well be that guy. Is that who you want to be? You are addressing the culture as a "thing" which can have intentions and be "good or bad". Only individuals can have those. The gaming culture of which you speak is simply an aggregate. As a player in this debate, it doesn't exist. This entire argument is the macro vs. mirco debate in economics. It's Keynesian's vs. Austrians. People are the culture. Without people, culture does not exist. Wrong. People are people. The culture is the sum of those people's actions. Target their actions, not an intangible cognitive simplification which is nothing more than a symptom of their shitty actions. I agree with your second statement. For clarification on where I stand on all this, crying sexism is laughable. Saying, "People are being dicks, I'd appreciate it if they'd stop." is legitimate. People who blast this as sexism are equally at fault by extrapolation of the fact that they're targeting the gender of the troll's target, as opposed to simply telling off a snot-nosed little shit, or (even more beneficial) simply complimenting the lady and actively discussing her opinions while starving the trolls. Crying sexism makes it an issue. Crying douchebag makes it solved. What, to you, makes someone a troll over just being a "douchebag"? They are literally the same offense. If someone is insulting or badgering a woman with the equivalent of the old 4chan "tits or gtfo", I define that as sexism, AND a troll. Just because he's doing it to be an asshole does not mean it isn't sexist, because it is. Also, defining them all as trolls ignores the blatant reality presented in the article that some of the comments show actual ignorance of what sexism is, just as you have displayed here. Any judgement made on a person that is precluded upon them being female, rather than being a person, is sexist, whether it is positive or negative. If your goal is to make someone mad online, then you're going to say whatever you can to get them there. If I were to call a black man the N- word in an attempt to make him angry it isn't a given that I hate black people. I don't really appreciate this dumbed down level of trolling which takes no skill and isn't even funny, but I don't think you can label an internet a sexist just because their remarks are used by sexists. Every troll doesn't actually believe women are inferior, belong in the kitched, tits or gtfo, but instead every troll does believe in trying to get a rise out of someone, so they will say whatever it takes. In the end it doesn't matter if you define them though as just a troll or a troll who is actually sexist, because in this given scenario the pure troll isn't good at what he is doing and the troll that is actually sexist is an ignorant fuck who also doesn't know what he is doing. So, as I said, the distinction is largely meaningless. Since there's no possible way to know if they "meant it" or not, it's better to define ANY sexist remark as wrong and inexcusable than to try to make some sort of imaginary line where "trolls" exist, and are tolerated. Become intolerant of sexism, whether you think someone is "trolling" or not. You are correct, but the distinction still leads me to the conclusion that being intolerant won't do a damn thing. The troll will feel like he succeeded and the actual sexist will still regard women in the same way. The solution for dealing with unwanted remarks on the anonymous internet has to be to have good chat moderators, someone who reviews comments on youtube channels, and thicker skin because in the end you're not going to change an individual on the internet because even if they don't mean what they say, they're still going to say it. They get joy out the tiniest bit of acknowledgement even if it is their account being banned.
Anonymity only works as a vehicle for these sorts of displays of stupidity because of the crowd they hide in. Ideological change about what is tolerated behavior will make a difference, because it thins out the numbers of people that feel like this is, in any way, an acceptable form of behavior.
There are obviously other forces at play here like childhood development, and some psychological need for attention. However, if we as a gaming culture make a concerted effort to be more accepting of the female gender, and ostracize those who aren't, it will make a large impact on this issue. As long as this behavior is excused away, or "ignored", it won't change. It has to be actively discouraged in every way possible.
|
On May 03 2013 02:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 02:35 Mothra wrote:On May 03 2013 02:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:16 Simberto wrote:On May 03 2013 02:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:03 Simberto wrote:On May 03 2013 01:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 01:45 discomatt wrote:On May 03 2013 01:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:
By controlling female sexuality we maintain the masculine sexual dominance of female ownership. There's a reason we say "rape and pillage" when we talk about war because we equate rape with the act of domination--specifically with masculine domination. "Rape and pillage" is a literal term. It's not uncommon for the civilian population to be tortured/slain/raped after being defeated. Yes... as I said... we equate rape with domination... we kill off the men and have our way with the civilians... ie, domination... There's a reason we call it rape and not really unfortunate sex accident. That is because that is the definition of rape. Rape is forcing sex onto someone. Not an accident. And domination is obviously a large part of that, because you need to be in a dominant position to do that. And the way our bodies work makes it a lot easier for a man to rape someone than for a woman. I am not quite sure what your point is. Because you didn't read what I wrote I will quote myself. we equate rape with the act of domination Discomatt then implied "rape and pillage" is a throwaway phrase only relevant in war. Which is why I said "equate" as in to compare to things and see them as similar. He was responding to my post wherein I was talking about the misogynistic tendencies of american culture to use the term fuck to mean domination--ie rape. As in an event either fucks us over or we fuck over something we dominate. Because we use that rape/fuck mindset in everyday affairs we also project that onto other people--ie rape culture. Where we dominate the feminine with the masculine. I read what you wrote. You are just not making a lot of obvious sense to me. I still don't quite get your point. We equate rape with domination. Yes. That is because domination is a large part of rape. What are you getting at with this? You are stating this like it is some kind of grand discovery. Is your point that fucking/raping something is used as an allegory for domination, which means...something? I'm saying misogyny is about domination--not about how much/little clothes a woman wears or how sexual she is. I'm saying things aren't sexist *because* people who stream are showing their boobs I'm saying it's sexist when women are told how to look and act and defined by how much they fit that standard. I'm saying that misogyny is the domination of the female identity. I'm saying rape, is the domination of the female. I'm saying that terms like "tits or gtfo" is about the domination of the female and phrases like "good job on not being slutty" is the domination of the female. When we set the parameters for how a person should or shouldn't act--we are being misogynists. So it is misogynist to tell people they shouldn't act misogynist. When you are telling a woman how she should behave/dress/act/be instead of letting her just be herself be it slutty or prudish--you're being misogynistic. Because you are dominating her ability to be her own person. If she wants to get on twitch, take off her top and ask guys to tell her how sexy she is--then it's her right to do it. If she wants to just stream herself playing mario games--then its her right to do it. People who try to shame a woman who loves having sex by calling her a slut is misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. People who try to shame a woman who likes playing videogames as being a prude for not showing her tits are being misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. Telling someone not be misogynistic has nothing to do with telling them how to be a person. It is telling them that they are intruding on someone's rights. When I tell them to stop being misogynistic they don't need to change their style of clothes, the way they present themselves, their sexual activity, their anything. It literally is telling them to stop attacking another human being.
Wrong.
It is her right to act like that. Certainly.
It is equally my right to tell her shes acting like shit if I think she's acting like shit. Sorry if that makes people "feel bad", but last time I checked informing people of your reaction to something they're putting out in a public space isn't "dominating their ability to be their own person", it was freedom of speech.
What you are proposing, that people cease not only expressing their judgments on things "put out there", but to cease having them, is nothing more than the creation of thought-crime. Language control IS thought control. You have no right not to be offended. You have no right to be happy. You DO have a right to walk away, or turn off your TV, etc. You DO have a right to pursue happiness, but no guarantees.
Stop turning common courtesy into something bigger than it is.
|
On May 03 2013 03:34 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 02:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:35 Mothra wrote:On May 03 2013 02:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:16 Simberto wrote:On May 03 2013 02:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:03 Simberto wrote:On May 03 2013 01:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 01:45 discomatt wrote:On May 03 2013 01:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:
By controlling female sexuality we maintain the masculine sexual dominance of female ownership. There's a reason we say "rape and pillage" when we talk about war because we equate rape with the act of domination--specifically with masculine domination. "Rape and pillage" is a literal term. It's not uncommon for the civilian population to be tortured/slain/raped after being defeated. Yes... as I said... we equate rape with domination... we kill off the men and have our way with the civilians... ie, domination... There's a reason we call it rape and not really unfortunate sex accident. That is because that is the definition of rape. Rape is forcing sex onto someone. Not an accident. And domination is obviously a large part of that, because you need to be in a dominant position to do that. And the way our bodies work makes it a lot easier for a man to rape someone than for a woman. I am not quite sure what your point is. Because you didn't read what I wrote I will quote myself. we equate rape with the act of domination Discomatt then implied "rape and pillage" is a throwaway phrase only relevant in war. Which is why I said "equate" as in to compare to things and see them as similar. He was responding to my post wherein I was talking about the misogynistic tendencies of american culture to use the term fuck to mean domination--ie rape. As in an event either fucks us over or we fuck over something we dominate. Because we use that rape/fuck mindset in everyday affairs we also project that onto other people--ie rape culture. Where we dominate the feminine with the masculine. I read what you wrote. You are just not making a lot of obvious sense to me. I still don't quite get your point. We equate rape with domination. Yes. That is because domination is a large part of rape. What are you getting at with this? You are stating this like it is some kind of grand discovery. Is your point that fucking/raping something is used as an allegory for domination, which means...something? I'm saying misogyny is about domination--not about how much/little clothes a woman wears or how sexual she is. I'm saying things aren't sexist *because* people who stream are showing their boobs I'm saying it's sexist when women are told how to look and act and defined by how much they fit that standard. I'm saying that misogyny is the domination of the female identity. I'm saying rape, is the domination of the female. I'm saying that terms like "tits or gtfo" is about the domination of the female and phrases like "good job on not being slutty" is the domination of the female. When we set the parameters for how a person should or shouldn't act--we are being misogynists. So it is misogynist to tell people they shouldn't act misogynist. When you are telling a woman how she should behave/dress/act/be instead of letting her just be herself be it slutty or prudish--you're being misogynistic. Because you are dominating her ability to be her own person. If she wants to get on twitch, take off her top and ask guys to tell her how sexy she is--then it's her right to do it. If she wants to just stream herself playing mario games--then its her right to do it. People who try to shame a woman who loves having sex by calling her a slut is misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. People who try to shame a woman who likes playing videogames as being a prude for not showing her tits are being misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. Telling someone not be misogynistic has nothing to do with telling them how to be a person. It is telling them that they are intruding on someone's rights. When I tell them to stop being misogynistic they don't need to change their style of clothes, the way they present themselves, their sexual activity, their anything. It literally is telling them to stop attacking another human being. Wrong. It is her right to act like that. Certainly. It is equally my right to tell her shes acting like shit if I think she's acting like shit. Sorry if that makes people "feel bad", but last time I checked informing people of your reaction to something they're putting out in a public space isn't "dominating their ability to be their own person", it was freedom of speech. What you are proposing, that people cease not only expressing their judgments on things "put out there", but to cease having them, is nothing more than the creation of thought-crime. Language control IS thought control. You have no right not to be offended. You have no right to be happy. You DO have a right to walk away, or turn off your TV, etc. You DO have a right to pursue happiness, but no guarantees. Stop turning common courtesy into something bigger than it is.
Talking to them about your lifestyle preferences is different from telling them that their lifestyle preferences are wrong.
|
11589 Posts
On May 03 2013 03:34 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 02:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:35 Mothra wrote:On May 03 2013 02:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:16 Simberto wrote:On May 03 2013 02:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:03 Simberto wrote:On May 03 2013 01:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 01:45 discomatt wrote:On May 03 2013 01:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:
By controlling female sexuality we maintain the masculine sexual dominance of female ownership. There's a reason we say "rape and pillage" when we talk about war because we equate rape with the act of domination--specifically with masculine domination. "Rape and pillage" is a literal term. It's not uncommon for the civilian population to be tortured/slain/raped after being defeated. Yes... as I said... we equate rape with domination... we kill off the men and have our way with the civilians... ie, domination... There's a reason we call it rape and not really unfortunate sex accident. That is because that is the definition of rape. Rape is forcing sex onto someone. Not an accident. And domination is obviously a large part of that, because you need to be in a dominant position to do that. And the way our bodies work makes it a lot easier for a man to rape someone than for a woman. I am not quite sure what your point is. Because you didn't read what I wrote I will quote myself. we equate rape with the act of domination Discomatt then implied "rape and pillage" is a throwaway phrase only relevant in war. Which is why I said "equate" as in to compare to things and see them as similar. He was responding to my post wherein I was talking about the misogynistic tendencies of american culture to use the term fuck to mean domination--ie rape. As in an event either fucks us over or we fuck over something we dominate. Because we use that rape/fuck mindset in everyday affairs we also project that onto other people--ie rape culture. Where we dominate the feminine with the masculine. I read what you wrote. You are just not making a lot of obvious sense to me. I still don't quite get your point. We equate rape with domination. Yes. That is because domination is a large part of rape. What are you getting at with this? You are stating this like it is some kind of grand discovery. Is your point that fucking/raping something is used as an allegory for domination, which means...something? I'm saying misogyny is about domination--not about how much/little clothes a woman wears or how sexual she is. I'm saying things aren't sexist *because* people who stream are showing their boobs I'm saying it's sexist when women are told how to look and act and defined by how much they fit that standard. I'm saying that misogyny is the domination of the female identity. I'm saying rape, is the domination of the female. I'm saying that terms like "tits or gtfo" is about the domination of the female and phrases like "good job on not being slutty" is the domination of the female. When we set the parameters for how a person should or shouldn't act--we are being misogynists. So it is misogynist to tell people they shouldn't act misogynist. When you are telling a woman how she should behave/dress/act/be instead of letting her just be herself be it slutty or prudish--you're being misogynistic. Because you are dominating her ability to be her own person. If she wants to get on twitch, take off her top and ask guys to tell her how sexy she is--then it's her right to do it. If she wants to just stream herself playing mario games--then its her right to do it. People who try to shame a woman who loves having sex by calling her a slut is misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. People who try to shame a woman who likes playing videogames as being a prude for not showing her tits are being misogynistic because they are dictating how that person should act. Telling someone not be misogynistic has nothing to do with telling them how to be a person. It is telling them that they are intruding on someone's rights. When I tell them to stop being misogynistic they don't need to change their style of clothes, the way they present themselves, their sexual activity, their anything. It literally is telling them to stop attacking another human being. Wrong. It is her right to act like that. Certainly. It is equally my right to tell her shes acting like shit if I think she's acting like shit. Sorry if that makes people "feel bad", but last time I checked informing people of your reaction to something they're putting out in a public space isn't "dominating their ability to be their own person", it was freedom of speech. What you are proposing, that people cease not only expressing their judgments on things "put out there", but to cease having them, is nothing more than the creation of thought-crime. Language control IS thought control. You have no right not to be offended. You have no right to be happy. You DO have a right to walk away, or turn off your TV, etc. You DO have a right to pursue happiness, but no guarantees. Stop turning common courtesy into something bigger than it is.
The problem is that you're judging her behavior in a special way because she's female. That's prejudice.
|
On May 03 2013 03:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 03:22 docvoc wrote:On May 03 2013 03:09 farvacola wrote:On May 03 2013 03:07 helvete wrote:On May 03 2013 02:57 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 02:55 xM(Z wrote:On May 03 2013 02:49 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 02:38 xM(Z wrote:
about the rape following a win (in battle, match, or w/e) it's was not done as an act of dominance. the winers already dominated the losers, dominating the weaker sex too would not be at all fulfilling.
raping was just a way to spread the genes, the genes of the winers. it's what lions are still doing now.
it's a basic evolutionary mechanic shared by some species: come, conquer, kill infants, spread own genes, defend them as much as you can or until you are ousted. Humans aren't lions. humans aren't aliens either. the same evolutionary mechanics are share by different species just because. You're suggesting that an act that happens as part of warfare has some relation to evolution. Warfare is so recent it has no evolutionary impact. Furthermore the failure to provide for the women at all after rape, for example burning the town and taking the food, implies no reproductive motive.Again, humans aren't lions. Lions have evolved to be good at doing lion behaviour. Humans choose to do human behaviour independently of evolution. Those are the most absurd statements I've read all week! We were fighting other tribes, and impregnating their women, long before there was a word for it. And that is still not long for evolutionary pressures to manifest in meaningful ways. Farva that just isn't true. Humans have been fighting each other since humanity has been a thing. What do you mean it isn't long enough? If I stab someone--he will not evolve a breastplate. If I stab everyone--they will not evolve a breastplate. If I fuck everyone and then stab/starve/destroy their livelihood--they will not evolve. Evolution comes from females breeding--whether by choice or otherwise. War is an ephemeral thing that happens and leaves males dead--but doesn't translate to evolution. Slavery would translate to evolution as women get kept and are fucked over and over again kept alive as long as possible. Unless their kids are also killed off so as to not have another mouth to feed. In which case--no evolution. So war *can* lead to evolution through slavery. The fact that stuff "happens" does not mean evolution reacts to that. Evolution occurs from the breeding system available to the specie in question.
In fact behavior is evolutionary. So the behavior to create a breastplate will evolve.
The occurrence of masters boinking slaves throughout history is certainly high but it's not exactly like it was being done enough to alter the gene pool in any significant way. Most cultures that had slavery also had a social taboo against married men boinking their slaves instead of or along with their wife. Slave-boinking is for unmarried sons.
But again, behavior evolves. Memes and all that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
