|
On May 03 2013 03:54 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 03:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 03:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:39 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 03:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:34 Kimaker 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:
[quote]
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. I don't understand this at all. Certainly I don't think it's a good idea to say someone is a terrible person for any reason, but telling them that the way they live their life is unethical is certainly not a problem. Do you think, for instance, that the way the Westboro Baptist Church lives is a lifestyle entitled to equal respect as that of the average person? Do you think I'm being unfair to say that the Westboro Baptist Church is immoral in their treatment of pretty much everyone? Now, obviously the WBC is an incredibly extreme example, but how is thinking that someone's lifestyle is wrong a problem? As long as I don't try to pass laws that restrict people's freedom, I can definitely pass judgments on the way they choose to live. The Westboro church is perfectly fine having the beliefs they have. But since they spend a good deal of time attacking and forcing others to match their beliefs--that is when there is a problem. When you dominate another person, then you are in the wrong since everyone is entitled to their viewpoint. For example, imagine if the WBC never protested anything. They just met up, did their thing in church, and went home. Would they be a bother? No, and they wouldn't be on TV either. In fact, nothing all that bad would happen until they start enforcing their lifestyle on others. it's the same thing with misogyny. Women should be allowed to do what they want--but they are constantly policed about it. You don't think there are any moral problems with the WBC's beliefs? Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint. Not everyone's viewpoint is entitled to my respect. I'm not suggesting policing anyone. I'm suggesting that for me to think someone who lives in a certain way is doing something immoral is not misogyny, bigotry, or anything other than a consequence of a moral code. I'm saying that it's wrong to hate someone for having different beliefs than yourself. I might disagree with their beliefs--but I don't hate them. I do hate that they force their beliefs on others because that is attempting to dominate someone else's lifestyle and choices--which is not allowed. Is that really such a hard concept? The problem is that you're equivocating between "hating" people for having different beliefs and making it known that you believe they're wrong. I am not hating a drug addict to say that drug abuse is immoral.
I hate that drug addicts end up homeless and/or dead and will do what I can to stop that. Between socio-economics, drug dealers, etc... there is a lot to blame for drug addicts ending up where they do. But I won't berate someone because they feel better when drugs are in their system much like I won't berate someone if they dress differently than me. That doesn't mean I won't try to help them if they're about to jump off a building--the safety and the person is the most important thing. But trying to control how they act and live is a terrible way to see the world.
|
On May 03 2013 03:39 farvacola 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? As Deleuze said, no one here is of enough authority to make a substantive claim in regards to humanity's evolution, but it isn't exactly difficult to look at the genetic line of homo sapiens and see that warfare induced evolutionary responses are not very likely given the time frame and heterogeneity of humanity's spread.
that is bad logic to follow through. it's not warfare that induced an evolutionary response, it's the other way around. the warfare was the response to a evolutionary mechanism.
there is a lot of evidence that neanderthals (and not only) were killing and eating their own kind(human bones with human teeth on them, human bones with tool marks on them, tools that were used to crack open the bone to get to the marrow). the war was there before them and it's still here today.
|
On May 03 2013 03:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 03:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 03:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:39 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 03:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:34 Kimaker 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:
[quote]
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. I don't understand this at all. Certainly I don't think it's a good idea to say someone is a terrible person for any reason, but telling them that the way they live their life is unethical is certainly not a problem. Do you think, for instance, that the way the Westboro Baptist Church lives is a lifestyle entitled to equal respect as that of the average person? Do you think I'm being unfair to say that the Westboro Baptist Church is immoral in their treatment of pretty much everyone? Now, obviously the WBC is an incredibly extreme example, but how is thinking that someone's lifestyle is wrong a problem? As long as I don't try to pass laws that restrict people's freedom, I can definitely pass judgments on the way they choose to live. The Westboro church is perfectly fine having the beliefs they have. But since they spend a good deal of time attacking and forcing others to match their beliefs--that is when there is a problem. When you dominate another person, then you are in the wrong since everyone is entitled to their viewpoint. For example, imagine if the WBC never protested anything. They just met up, did their thing in church, and went home. Would they be a bother? No, and they wouldn't be on TV either. In fact, nothing all that bad would happen until they start enforcing their lifestyle on others. it's the same thing with misogyny. Women should be allowed to do what they want--but they are constantly policed about it. You don't think there are any moral problems with the WBC's beliefs? Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint. Not everyone's viewpoint is entitled to my respect. I'm not suggesting policing anyone. I'm suggesting that for me to think someone who lives in a certain way is doing something immoral is not misogyny, bigotry, or anything other than a consequence of a moral code. I'm saying that it's wrong to hate someone for having different beliefs than yourself. I might disagree with their beliefs--but I don't hate them. I do hate that they force their beliefs on others because that is attempting to dominate someone else's lifestyle and choices--which is not allowed. Is that really such a hard concept?
So, zero tolerance for intolerance, no conviction and no particularly strong emotions one way or another. It sounds very indifferent to me. That's the problem with the "playing the good guy side". If you're unwilling to hate any side for any reason, you're basically saying you don't give a shit, which is basically what the other person is saying. I think deep down, you both agree with one another.
EDIT: As long as sexism, racism, and other isms exist, people will react to them differently when or if they encounter them. Not everyone has the same hands off approach to insults. For some people they mean fisticuffs, and for others they mean hurt feelings  , and for others, they mean nothing - water off a duck's back.
|
Northern Ireland23745 Posts
On May 03 2013 03:54 yamato77 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 03:46 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 03 2013 03:37 yamato77 wrote:On May 03 2013 03:34 Kimaker 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. 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. Not necessarily, if the content provider in question makes a big deal, or tries to create a niche for herself, based on being a female. You don't have to be a little shit and flame her either, but calling out such gimmickry isn't necessarily misogynist. I for one think women are capable of being good players, good commentators etc etc, but instead the women we get presented in the scene are all often just eye candy for pre-pubescents. Perhaps that is your perception, and perhaps that may be the case, but that is not due to the incapacity of women to be passionate about gaming, it is due to the sexist ideology that leads these types of women to be the only ones that get hired or become successful in this context. I don't believe that the woman who wrote the article was doing what you suggest. I think she obviously wanted to be accepted on a basis that wasn't her being female.
I'm not referring to the women in the article, but women who indulge in that kind of behaviour. She seems to simply be a professional enough content producer who raised an important issue of discussion.
|
11589 Posts
On May 03 2013 04:01 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 03:54 yamato77 wrote:On May 03 2013 03:46 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 03 2013 03:37 yamato77 wrote:On May 03 2013 03:34 Kimaker 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:
[quote]
Because you didn't read what I wrote I will quote myself.
[quote]
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. Not necessarily, if the content provider in question makes a big deal, or tries to create a niche for herself, based on being a female. You don't have to be a little shit and flame her either, but calling out such gimmickry isn't necessarily misogynist. I for one think women are capable of being good players, good commentators etc etc, but instead the women we get presented in the scene are all often just eye candy for pre-pubescents. Perhaps that is your perception, and perhaps that may be the case, but that is not due to the incapacity of women to be passionate about gaming, it is due to the sexist ideology that leads these types of women to be the only ones that get hired or become successful in this context. I don't believe that the woman who wrote the article was doing what you suggest. I think she obviously wanted to be accepted on a basis that wasn't her being female. I'm not referring to the women in the article, but women who indulge in that kind of behaviour. She seems to simply be a professional enough content producer who raised an important issue of discussion.
I'm glad we can agree, then.
|
On May 03 2013 03:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 03:54 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 03:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 03:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:39 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 03:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:34 Kimaker wrote:On May 03 2013 02:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:35 Mothra wrote:
[quote]
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. I don't understand this at all. Certainly I don't think it's a good idea to say someone is a terrible person for any reason, but telling them that the way they live their life is unethical is certainly not a problem. Do you think, for instance, that the way the Westboro Baptist Church lives is a lifestyle entitled to equal respect as that of the average person? Do you think I'm being unfair to say that the Westboro Baptist Church is immoral in their treatment of pretty much everyone? Now, obviously the WBC is an incredibly extreme example, but how is thinking that someone's lifestyle is wrong a problem? As long as I don't try to pass laws that restrict people's freedom, I can definitely pass judgments on the way they choose to live. The Westboro church is perfectly fine having the beliefs they have. But since they spend a good deal of time attacking and forcing others to match their beliefs--that is when there is a problem. When you dominate another person, then you are in the wrong since everyone is entitled to their viewpoint. For example, imagine if the WBC never protested anything. They just met up, did their thing in church, and went home. Would they be a bother? No, and they wouldn't be on TV either. In fact, nothing all that bad would happen until they start enforcing their lifestyle on others. it's the same thing with misogyny. Women should be allowed to do what they want--but they are constantly policed about it. You don't think there are any moral problems with the WBC's beliefs? Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint. Not everyone's viewpoint is entitled to my respect. I'm not suggesting policing anyone. I'm suggesting that for me to think someone who lives in a certain way is doing something immoral is not misogyny, bigotry, or anything other than a consequence of a moral code. I'm saying that it's wrong to hate someone for having different beliefs than yourself. I might disagree with their beliefs--but I don't hate them. I do hate that they force their beliefs on others because that is attempting to dominate someone else's lifestyle and choices--which is not allowed. Is that really such a hard concept? The problem is that you're equivocating between "hating" people for having different beliefs and making it known that you believe they're wrong. I am not hating a drug addict to say that drug abuse is immoral. I hate that drug addicts end up homeless and/or dead and will do what I can to stop that. Between socio-economics, drug dealers, etc... there is a lot to blame for drug addicts ending up where they do. But I won't berate someone because they feel better when drugs are in their system much like I won't berate someone if they dress differently than me. That doesn't mean I won't try to help them if they're about to jump off a building--the safety and the person is the most important thing. But trying to control how they act and live is a terrible way to see the world.
It's not about trying to control them. It's about the notion that judging certain behaviours as wrong is not equivalent to hating the perpetrator or trying to force them to do something. People are perfectly free to behave immorally; lots of people do. But if you mean to say that I can't even express that what someone does is wrong because somehow that's "controlling" them, I don't know what kind of apathetic world you want to live in.
|
On May 03 2013 03:57 yamato77 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 03:50 Kimaker wrote:On May 03 2013 03:37 yamato77 wrote:On May 03 2013 03:34 Kimaker 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. 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. And I judge a soldier by a different standard than a civilian in a firefight. And a doctor by a different standard than a layman in surgery. And a professional orchestra by a different standard than a middle school orchestra. But hell, those examples all are about things you DO not who you are...so let's try this: ...and a child by a different standard than an adult. And my son by a different standard than a random child. And my parents by a different standard than my teachers. When are we finally going to do away with this religious mantra that gender is a social construct? Where does a social norm derive from? Could it be rooted natural developments? Does it really matter? The fact is that women tend to act a certain way, and men tend to react to those actions in a certain way. No one makes a fuss when we treat animals as animals, just because they're animals (some nut-jobs do, I'll grant you that). Imagine that. We're treating with reality on reality's terms. Mind blown. I judge her as a woman, because she is a woman. If that's prejudice, then I am proudly prejudiced. Reality doesn't care how you feel about it. If you don't believe that men and women are conditioned to act in the perceived different ways that you feel they tend to act, you obviously are delusional and there's no reason to continue this discussion. I know better.
And your evidence that women and men are "conditioned" into what makes them men and women is.. where? I remember a well explained study in the Norwegian "Brainwash" documentary (can find it easily on TL) during which they made tests with newborn children trying to figure out whether they're e.g. more attracted to "machinery" or faces. The choices the babies made were incredibly strongly related to their gender.
|
On May 03 2013 03:59 dUTtrOACh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 03:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 03:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:39 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 03:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:34 Kimaker 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:
[quote]
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. I don't understand this at all. Certainly I don't think it's a good idea to say someone is a terrible person for any reason, but telling them that the way they live their life is unethical is certainly not a problem. Do you think, for instance, that the way the Westboro Baptist Church lives is a lifestyle entitled to equal respect as that of the average person? Do you think I'm being unfair to say that the Westboro Baptist Church is immoral in their treatment of pretty much everyone? Now, obviously the WBC is an incredibly extreme example, but how is thinking that someone's lifestyle is wrong a problem? As long as I don't try to pass laws that restrict people's freedom, I can definitely pass judgments on the way they choose to live. The Westboro church is perfectly fine having the beliefs they have. But since they spend a good deal of time attacking and forcing others to match their beliefs--that is when there is a problem. When you dominate another person, then you are in the wrong since everyone is entitled to their viewpoint. For example, imagine if the WBC never protested anything. They just met up, did their thing in church, and went home. Would they be a bother? No, and they wouldn't be on TV either. In fact, nothing all that bad would happen until they start enforcing their lifestyle on others. it's the same thing with misogyny. Women should be allowed to do what they want--but they are constantly policed about it. You don't think there are any moral problems with the WBC's beliefs? Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint. Not everyone's viewpoint is entitled to my respect. I'm not suggesting policing anyone. I'm suggesting that for me to think someone who lives in a certain way is doing something immoral is not misogyny, bigotry, or anything other than a consequence of a moral code. I'm saying that it's wrong to hate someone for having different beliefs than yourself. I might disagree with their beliefs--but I don't hate them. I do hate that they force their beliefs on others because that is attempting to dominate someone else's lifestyle and choices--which is not allowed. Is that really such a hard concept? So, zero tolerance for intolerance, no conviction and no particularly strong emotions one way or another. It sounds very indifferent to me. That's the problem with the "playing the good guy side". If you're unwilling to hate any side for any reason, you're basically saying you don't give a shit, which is basically what the other person is saying. I think deep down, you both agree with one another. EDIT: As long as sexism, racism, and other isms exist, people will react to them differently when or if they encounter them. Not everyone has the same hands off approach to insults. For some people they mean fisticuffs, and for others they mean hurt feelings , and for others, they mean nothing - water off a duck's back.
Disagreeing with someone is not an excuse to police them. You can hate and dislike anything you want but it is not an excuse to actively attack them.
I don't like it when WBC attacks people--it's not their right.
I will not attack WBC--it's not my right.
If I was an athiest--that does not give me the right to attack a catholic.
If I was a catholic--that does not give me the right to attack an athiest.
|
On May 03 2013 04:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 03:59 dUTtrOACh wrote:On May 03 2013 03:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 03:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:39 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 03:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:34 Kimaker wrote:On May 03 2013 02:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 02:35 Mothra wrote:
[quote]
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. I don't understand this at all. Certainly I don't think it's a good idea to say someone is a terrible person for any reason, but telling them that the way they live their life is unethical is certainly not a problem. Do you think, for instance, that the way the Westboro Baptist Church lives is a lifestyle entitled to equal respect as that of the average person? Do you think I'm being unfair to say that the Westboro Baptist Church is immoral in their treatment of pretty much everyone? Now, obviously the WBC is an incredibly extreme example, but how is thinking that someone's lifestyle is wrong a problem? As long as I don't try to pass laws that restrict people's freedom, I can definitely pass judgments on the way they choose to live. The Westboro church is perfectly fine having the beliefs they have. But since they spend a good deal of time attacking and forcing others to match their beliefs--that is when there is a problem. When you dominate another person, then you are in the wrong since everyone is entitled to their viewpoint. For example, imagine if the WBC never protested anything. They just met up, did their thing in church, and went home. Would they be a bother? No, and they wouldn't be on TV either. In fact, nothing all that bad would happen until they start enforcing their lifestyle on others. it's the same thing with misogyny. Women should be allowed to do what they want--but they are constantly policed about it. You don't think there are any moral problems with the WBC's beliefs? Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint. Not everyone's viewpoint is entitled to my respect. I'm not suggesting policing anyone. I'm suggesting that for me to think someone who lives in a certain way is doing something immoral is not misogyny, bigotry, or anything other than a consequence of a moral code. I'm saying that it's wrong to hate someone for having different beliefs than yourself. I might disagree with their beliefs--but I don't hate them. I do hate that they force their beliefs on others because that is attempting to dominate someone else's lifestyle and choices--which is not allowed. Is that really such a hard concept? So, zero tolerance for intolerance, no conviction and no particularly strong emotions one way or another. It sounds very indifferent to me. That's the problem with the "playing the good guy side". If you're unwilling to hate any side for any reason, you're basically saying you don't give a shit, which is basically what the other person is saying. I think deep down, you both agree with one another. EDIT: As long as sexism, racism, and other isms exist, people will react to them differently when or if they encounter them. Not everyone has the same hands off approach to insults. For some people they mean fisticuffs, and for others they mean hurt feelings , and for others, they mean nothing - water off a duck's back. Disagreeing with someone is not an excuse to police them. You can hate and dislike anything you want but it is not an excuse to actively attack them. I don't like it when WBC attacks people--it's not their right. I will not attack WBC--it's not my right. If I was an athiest--that does not give me the right to attack a catholic. If I was a catholic--that does not give me the right to attack an athiest.
So do you think I should be allowed to say that, irrespective of their actions, the beliefs held by the WBC are not conducive to moral behaviour? Can I further say that I detest their hateful credo? Even if the WBC didn't hurt anyone, I'd like to think that I could say their beliefs are nonsense just by reading one of their pamphlets.
|
I rarely post on TL anymore. I haven't read the full thread, because after the first few posts I had had enough:
On May 02 2013 19:03 ven wrote:
People on the internet being assholes is news to anyone? Give me a break.
This is diffrent... this kind of "assholeism" is called "sexism" and for some reason is seen as worse.
/yawn.[/QUOTE]
On May 02 2013 19:25 edlover420 wrote:
she should just ''deal with it''
it's true sexist comments are childish, but they aren't harmful and some of them are quite funny
it's not like the whole internet is gonna change because of her attention seeking blog all of the sudden.
There are a few points to go through. I won't list all of them here, and I'll list some things you can do to educate yourself afterwards.
First, let me mention that most of what I know about "feminism" -- I look at that term in the most pragmatic and reasonable way -- has been taken from conversations with women who were willing to share their experience with me, for which I am thankful.
If you are a heterosexual teenage guy, chances are you have no ability to empathize with the feelings of women in general, and perhaps more specifically, the journalist mentioned in the OP. I carefully choose the word empathize here, because even if you apply first order logic to deduce that this plight deserves sympathy (it does, cf: first order logic), you
have no idea what it's like to have to deal with this kind of shit every day.
The main difference is that you don't have to justify yourself to society. The social construct established so long ago that put men in power totally dominates our culture and requires women who seek positions of power to explain themselves every step of the way. If you don't see this, it's because you've never lived it and have never experienced it. Women who have entered highly competitive male-dominated workplaces recognize the difference in how they're treated based on whether they're wearing a skirt or a suit, whether they are pretty or not, whether they praise their bosses and smile charmingly or are simply exceedingly proficient at their jobs.
In almost every aspect of your life, you have to justify yourself in some way. Are you a women studying in math? If you do poorly on a test, goddamn, woman are bad at math. Get pissed off on the road? Damn woman on her period. Playing pool? Congrats! You play billiards "even though" you're a woman.
A ridiculous part of your thinking is required to deal with stupid and aggressive men. Walking home alone? Gotta watch the fuck out, because you might be "asking for it". Going dancing? That's code for "fair game to grope by ass and grind me without even making eye contact first," right?
You are never allowed to tell a female stranger you want to jizz on her face. You're not allowed to tell her she should be raped, shamed, humiliated, that she's a slut or anything else. To be safe, you should limit sexual comments to the woman/women you are sexually intimate with, because you have no idea what kind of lives the women around you have led and you don't know what experiences they have had. If your only arsenal of jokes is crazy sexist rape humor, be funnier. If your general banter relies on teasing women and exploiting sexual inequality, get wittier. If a woman is participating in a male-dominated activity, don't point it out unless you have a good reason to -- she's a human being doing the exact same shit you are.
You need to internalize how much sexism pervades a woman's everyday life; it is omni-fucking-present. If your first thought is along the lines of "why can't they just ignore it? I do." -- punch yourself in the face, stupid, and re-read. Take a second to think about what makes you uncomfortable, think about your fears of inadequacy. [Judging from the dating thread in the general forum, many guys here have difficulty with women.] Now take that, and make that the central focus of your every-day life. Everything you do, say, excel or fail at somehow reflects that fear.
I'm sure whatever I wrote does not do the situation justice and is flawed. I apologize. This is a first-order approximation to what it might be. I suggest you start talking to women, and if you think you can ask it in the least offensive way possible, try and find out how they feel about their every-day lives and how they are treated by men.
|
Northern Ireland23745 Posts
What do you mean by 'attack'?
As an aside, I really think the misogyny of the gaming community, or at least SC2 is a bit overstated. One of the most beloved foreigners is a member of the LGBT community. Why is Scarlett so well-regarded? It's because she is really good at the game, focused on that and made an effort to interact with her fanbase.
Yeah she gets the occasional comment, but in general the community respect her for her abilities and contribution to the scene. The people who get the most 'misogyny' are people who, rightly or wrongly aren't felt to be 'true' gamers.
|
11589 Posts
On May 03 2013 04:02 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 03:57 yamato77 wrote:On May 03 2013 03:50 Kimaker wrote:On May 03 2013 03:37 yamato77 wrote:On May 03 2013 03:34 Kimaker 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:
[quote]
Because you didn't read what I wrote I will quote myself.
[quote]
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. And I judge a soldier by a different standard than a civilian in a firefight. And a doctor by a different standard than a layman in surgery. And a professional orchestra by a different standard than a middle school orchestra. But hell, those examples all are about things you DO not who you are...so let's try this: ...and a child by a different standard than an adult. And my son by a different standard than a random child. And my parents by a different standard than my teachers. When are we finally going to do away with this religious mantra that gender is a social construct? Where does a social norm derive from? Could it be rooted natural developments? Does it really matter? The fact is that women tend to act a certain way, and men tend to react to those actions in a certain way. No one makes a fuss when we treat animals as animals, just because they're animals (some nut-jobs do, I'll grant you that). Imagine that. We're treating with reality on reality's terms. Mind blown. I judge her as a woman, because she is a woman. If that's prejudice, then I am proudly prejudiced. Reality doesn't care how you feel about it. If you don't believe that men and women are conditioned to act in the perceived different ways that you feel they tend to act, you obviously are delusional and there's no reason to continue this discussion. I know better. And your evidence that women and men are "conditioned" into what makes them men and women is.. where? I remember a well explained study in the Norwegian "Brainwash" documentary (can find it easily on TL) during which they made tests with newborn children trying to figure out whether they're e.g. more attracted to "machinery" or faces. The choices the babies made were incredibly strongly related to their gender.
I know about multiple studies done on children in the U.S. that shows that children tend to develop those characteristics that are reinforced by their parents and teachers, and that these parents and teachers try to instill into children the "right way" to act as their gender from a very young age.
I don't think it's scientifically proven, nor may it ever be, but it is demonstrable enough to be taken as fact. People obviously are conditioned, and there's no reason to believe we aren't conditioned into gender roles as well. The fact that behavior exists that deviates from these normally expected ideas of how men and women should act is evidence enough that it is not biologically ingrained.
|
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.
This is really really wrong. Bonobos and chimps in the wild have "warring" tribes, and there is ample evidence that the arrows, spearheads and clubs that are found in prehistoric digs were not exclusively used to hunt, but also to attack, or defend, from competing tribes of humans.
Social groups compete for resources, whether that is food, living space or the right to reproduce.
Now I am not sure what this has to do with the topic at hand (probably nothing), but lets at least get the facts straight.
|
On May 03 2013 04:07 Wombat_NI wrote:
What do you mean by 'attack'?
As an aside, I really think the misogyny of the gaming community, or at least SC2 is a bit overstated. One of the most beloved foreigners is a member of the LGBT community. Why is Scarlett so well-regarded? It's because she is really good at the game, focused on that and made an effort to interact with her fanbase.
Yeah she gets the occasional comment, but in general the community respect her for her abilities and contribution to the scene. The people who get the most 'misogyny' are people who, rightly or wrongly aren't felt to be 'true' gamers.
Who is this foreigner you speak of? Or is Scarlett the one you're referring to?
|
On May 03 2013 04:06 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 04:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:59 dUTtrOACh wrote:On May 03 2013 03:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 03:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:39 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 03:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:34 Kimaker wrote:On May 03 2013 02:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
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. I don't understand this at all. Certainly I don't think it's a good idea to say someone is a terrible person for any reason, but telling them that the way they live their life is unethical is certainly not a problem. Do you think, for instance, that the way the Westboro Baptist Church lives is a lifestyle entitled to equal respect as that of the average person? Do you think I'm being unfair to say that the Westboro Baptist Church is immoral in their treatment of pretty much everyone? Now, obviously the WBC is an incredibly extreme example, but how is thinking that someone's lifestyle is wrong a problem? As long as I don't try to pass laws that restrict people's freedom, I can definitely pass judgments on the way they choose to live. The Westboro church is perfectly fine having the beliefs they have. But since they spend a good deal of time attacking and forcing others to match their beliefs--that is when there is a problem. When you dominate another person, then you are in the wrong since everyone is entitled to their viewpoint. For example, imagine if the WBC never protested anything. They just met up, did their thing in church, and went home. Would they be a bother? No, and they wouldn't be on TV either. In fact, nothing all that bad would happen until they start enforcing their lifestyle on others. it's the same thing with misogyny. Women should be allowed to do what they want--but they are constantly policed about it. You don't think there are any moral problems with the WBC's beliefs? Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint. Not everyone's viewpoint is entitled to my respect. I'm not suggesting policing anyone. I'm suggesting that for me to think someone who lives in a certain way is doing something immoral is not misogyny, bigotry, or anything other than a consequence of a moral code. I'm saying that it's wrong to hate someone for having different beliefs than yourself. I might disagree with their beliefs--but I don't hate them. I do hate that they force their beliefs on others because that is attempting to dominate someone else's lifestyle and choices--which is not allowed. Is that really such a hard concept? So, zero tolerance for intolerance, no conviction and no particularly strong emotions one way or another. It sounds very indifferent to me. That's the problem with the "playing the good guy side". If you're unwilling to hate any side for any reason, you're basically saying you don't give a shit, which is basically what the other person is saying. I think deep down, you both agree with one another. EDIT: As long as sexism, racism, and other isms exist, people will react to them differently when or if they encounter them. Not everyone has the same hands off approach to insults. For some people they mean fisticuffs, and for others they mean hurt feelings , and for others, they mean nothing - water off a duck's back. Disagreeing with someone is not an excuse to police them. You can hate and dislike anything you want but it is not an excuse to actively attack them. I don't like it when WBC attacks people--it's not their right. I will not attack WBC--it's not my right. If I was an athiest--that does not give me the right to attack a catholic. If I was a catholic--that does not give me the right to attack an athiest. So do you think I should be allowed to say that, irrespective of their actions, the beliefs held by the WBC are not conducive to moral behaviour? Can I further say that I detest their hateful credo? Even if the WBC didn't hurt anyone, I'd like to think that I could say their beliefs are nonsense just by reading one of their pamphlets.
You could definitely hate everything they do.
But you would not be in the right to walk up to one of them and start yelling and screaming at them saying that their lifestyle is wrong for much the same reason that they are not in the right to walk up to you and yell at you about how your lifestyle is wrong.
But you personally hating and disagreeing with a viewpoint is natural and human. Its not an excuse to be dicks about it. The WBC are being dicks about it going around yelling and protesting against lifestyles they disagree with--do you really want to be like them and do the same?
|
All those so called gaming "journalists" (be it male or female) who just spew forth whatever bullshit they think gets them the most views, blatantly lie or make up stuff about games in reviews, have absolutely no clue about art, music, game design and literature, and lack any kind of objectivity, should be purged from the face of the earth anyway.
Every big gaming journalism site there is turned into (or is about to turn into) a piece of trash populated by philistines, and only consists of sensationalism, bought reviews, and a firework of buzzwords whose every single use just proves how utterly clueless those "journalists" are in every regard.
They lie their asses of on a daily base just for money. Yes, they deserve to get flamed.
|
On May 03 2013 04:10 yamato77 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 04:02 r.Evo wrote:On May 03 2013 03:57 yamato77 wrote:On May 03 2013 03:50 Kimaker wrote:On May 03 2013 03:37 yamato77 wrote:On May 03 2013 03:34 Kimaker 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:
[quote]
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. And I judge a soldier by a different standard than a civilian in a firefight. And a doctor by a different standard than a layman in surgery. And a professional orchestra by a different standard than a middle school orchestra. But hell, those examples all are about things you DO not who you are...so let's try this: ...and a child by a different standard than an adult. And my son by a different standard than a random child. And my parents by a different standard than my teachers. When are we finally going to do away with this religious mantra that gender is a social construct? Where does a social norm derive from? Could it be rooted natural developments? Does it really matter? The fact is that women tend to act a certain way, and men tend to react to those actions in a certain way. No one makes a fuss when we treat animals as animals, just because they're animals (some nut-jobs do, I'll grant you that). Imagine that. We're treating with reality on reality's terms. Mind blown. I judge her as a woman, because she is a woman. If that's prejudice, then I am proudly prejudiced. Reality doesn't care how you feel about it. If you don't believe that men and women are conditioned to act in the perceived different ways that you feel they tend to act, you obviously are delusional and there's no reason to continue this discussion. I know better. And your evidence that women and men are "conditioned" into what makes them men and women is.. where? I remember a well explained study in the Norwegian "Brainwash" documentary (can find it easily on TL) during which they made tests with newborn children trying to figure out whether they're e.g. more attracted to "machinery" or faces. The choices the babies made were incredibly strongly related to their gender. I know about multiple studies done on children in the U.S. that shows that children tend to develop those characteristics that are reinforced by their parents and teachers, and that these parents and teachers try to instill into children the "right way" to act as their gender from a very young age. I don't think it's scientifically proven, nor may it ever be, but it is demonstrable enough to be taken as fact. People obviously are conditioned, and there's no reason to believe we aren't conditioned into gender roles as well. The fact that behavior exists that deviates from these normally expected ideas of how men and women should act is evidence enough that it is not biologically ingrained.
Essentially. Around the age of 2-3 children will 'choose' a gender/sex, which is why when children are 5+ they are boys and girls are distinctly different in terms of toys and games. This is known as sex-role identity development, but there are several theories on how this is actually done.
|
^(a few posts back, I lost the post and it took me a while to write this, so ignore this carrot I guess)
Though I agree with the approach we've been having as society, trying to get to the point where everyone is treated fairly, it's pretty naive to think we can get there by assuming everyone has the same blank slate.
Everyone has different life experiences, different opinions, opportunities, and genetics. Face the facts, genetics do play a huge role in who you turn out to be, so we should embrace the differences, not pretend they don't exist. Men and women are fundamentally different, but I believe we can only get to a level of "fairness" by accepting these differences. Same with different races, etc.
Diversity isn't about everyone being the same, it's literally about everyone being accepted for their differences and that we can all learn at least one thing from everyone else.
Now, specifically for the internet, when you grant anonymity you are taking away these differences. In a way, as long as you don't present any facet of information about yourself, you are equal to everyone else. This is why anonymity is so revered in places like 4chan, nobody is better or worse than anyone else. Yes, this does produce quite a number of trolls and such, but at the same time, when people think they aren't accountable for their words, it can actually be a good thing.
How?
Recently I read something about how internet arguments are making us more intelligent. I know most people at first won't agree with that, but think about it. Last time you were pissed off and passionate about an argument, do you remember looking everything up and fact checking the crap out of the other guy? Exactly. We've developed this tendency to fact check because that's the only way to win an internet argument. You can't be taller, have better posture, or a louder voice. You can only be right (or you can still be a smooth talker/writer, but that's yet another thing I've learned to filter out in internet arguments).
Now, when you take away a person's history (ie their username and how much respect they hold, past arguments won via their post history, etc), the only thing you can do is present better facts, which will be fact checked. This is a far cry from what used to be a one-way street with these things. It used to be that what you heard on the news was true. You couldn't just look things up on your phone, after all.
So with this new age, we've gotten past that huge barrier. The media outlets had all the facts (or lies, we didn't know), and you learned what you were told. And it's harder for people to argue when their rep is at stake, because some people just don't like being wrong. But when you grant anonymity and the need to fact check, that's when people start going "huh, I guess I was wrong," when they look up the history of the chair on Wikipedia and your comment about how rosewood was far superior to cherry.
So what am I saying? Well, honestly, the trolls are just part of internet culture. When in Rome, you do as the Romans do. It's part of everyone's internet career, or learning curve, to learn that trolls always win when you react at all, to bring it back to the OP. It's not something we can get rid of, but it's something we can completely ignore. But this brings me to another point:
Nobody likes being told what to do. If you really analyze things, many individual problems have to do with people being told what to do. If you let them come to the same exact conclusion on their own, however, they'll accept it. For example, there was a recent study about how if you tell conservatives and liberals that a lightbulb is energy efficient and the economics of it, they'll pay more for it, but if you just stick a green label on the package, conservatives will just buy a cheaper light bulb. Personally, I know a lot of my own problems in life came from being raised Korean but wanting to grow up American. As such, I had a habit of rejecting others ideas (read: my mom) simply because others tried to impose them on me instead of explaining them.
The point I'm trying to get at is the internet facilitates this kind of coming to your own conclusions through anonymity. When you argue anonymously and fact check everything, you don't need to defend your name out of pride or anything, you can just stop arguing and nobody will call you out, because they don't know who you are. So in a way, we're providing a "safe haven" for flawed arguments that lead to understanding.
If this woman wants to encourage less sexism in the world, just telling people in their face isn't going to work.
But I leave you with this, TL. Just look at all the threads. Politics, music, weed, sexism, just look at them. All full of arguing. Arguing with facts and people calling out bullshit. We're willing to look everything up because it's available to us, at our fingertips. But look at those few posters, you know who I'm talking about (no specific people in my mind, just a type of person). They don't accept anyone's ideas even when they're wrong on all levels. I theorize this is because their namesake is on the line, and many people aggressively disprove them. What I'm saying is that just by the virtue of this thread, we've proven that the internet works as a means of intelligent discussion.
And with that, I say the internet has won, and the trolls have lost (because we know to just ignore them).
|
On May 03 2013 04:15 Morken wrote:
All those so called gaming "journalists" (be it male or female) who just spew forth whatever bullshit they think gets them the most views, blatantly lie or make up stuff about games in reviews, have absolutely no clue about art, music, game design and literature, and lack any kind of objectivity, should be purged from the face of the earth anyway.
Every big gaming journalism site there is turned into (or is about to turn into) a piece of trash populated by philistines, and only consists of sensationalism, bought reviews, and a firework of buzzwords whose every single use just proves how utterly clueless those "journalists" are in every regard.
They lie their asses of on a daily base just for money. Yes, they deserve to get flamed.
And if the flames the OP got was "your writing sucks" instead of "Show us tits!" then you'd have a case. But the attacks are rarely on the content but are instead on their gender.
|
On May 03 2013 04:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 04:06 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 04:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:59 dUTtrOACh wrote:On May 03 2013 03:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 03:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:39 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 03:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:34 Kimaker wrote:
[quote]
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. I don't understand this at all. Certainly I don't think it's a good idea to say someone is a terrible person for any reason, but telling them that the way they live their life is unethical is certainly not a problem. Do you think, for instance, that the way the Westboro Baptist Church lives is a lifestyle entitled to equal respect as that of the average person? Do you think I'm being unfair to say that the Westboro Baptist Church is immoral in their treatment of pretty much everyone? Now, obviously the WBC is an incredibly extreme example, but how is thinking that someone's lifestyle is wrong a problem? As long as I don't try to pass laws that restrict people's freedom, I can definitely pass judgments on the way they choose to live. The Westboro church is perfectly fine having the beliefs they have. But since they spend a good deal of time attacking and forcing others to match their beliefs--that is when there is a problem. When you dominate another person, then you are in the wrong since everyone is entitled to their viewpoint. For example, imagine if the WBC never protested anything. They just met up, did their thing in church, and went home. Would they be a bother? No, and they wouldn't be on TV either. In fact, nothing all that bad would happen until they start enforcing their lifestyle on others. it's the same thing with misogyny. Women should be allowed to do what they want--but they are constantly policed about it. You don't think there are any moral problems with the WBC's beliefs? Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint. Not everyone's viewpoint is entitled to my respect. I'm not suggesting policing anyone. I'm suggesting that for me to think someone who lives in a certain way is doing something immoral is not misogyny, bigotry, or anything other than a consequence of a moral code. I'm saying that it's wrong to hate someone for having different beliefs than yourself. I might disagree with their beliefs--but I don't hate them. I do hate that they force their beliefs on others because that is attempting to dominate someone else's lifestyle and choices--which is not allowed. Is that really such a hard concept? So, zero tolerance for intolerance, no conviction and no particularly strong emotions one way or another. It sounds very indifferent to me. That's the problem with the "playing the good guy side". If you're unwilling to hate any side for any reason, you're basically saying you don't give a shit, which is basically what the other person is saying. I think deep down, you both agree with one another. EDIT: As long as sexism, racism, and other isms exist, people will react to them differently when or if they encounter them. Not everyone has the same hands off approach to insults. For some people they mean fisticuffs, and for others they mean hurt feelings , and for others, they mean nothing - water off a duck's back. Disagreeing with someone is not an excuse to police them. You can hate and dislike anything you want but it is not an excuse to actively attack them. I don't like it when WBC attacks people--it's not their right. I will not attack WBC--it's not my right. If I was an athiest--that does not give me the right to attack a catholic. If I was a catholic--that does not give me the right to attack an athiest. So do you think I should be allowed to say that, irrespective of their actions, the beliefs held by the WBC are not conducive to moral behaviour? Can I further say that I detest their hateful credo? Even if the WBC didn't hurt anyone, I'd like to think that I could say their beliefs are nonsense just by reading one of their pamphlets. You could definitely hate everything they do. But you would not be in the right to walk up to one of them and start yelling and screaming at them saying that their lifestyle is wrong for much the same reason that they are not in the right to walk up to you and yell at you about how your lifestyle is wrong. But you personally hating and disagreeing with a viewpoint is natural and human. Its not an excuse to be dicks about it. The WBC are being dicks about it going around yelling and protesting against lifestyles they disagree with--do you really want to be like them and do the same?
I don't go up to random women and inquire about their sexual history, but if one voluntarily tells me about it I have absolutely no qualms saying that I think they may have behaved in a way that objectifies sexuality and is hence immoral. Similarly, if a woman does something in a public forum with a sexual motive, I'm well within my rights to voice my opinion on the matter on that public forum. Now, there's no need to be a dick about it, and generally speaking I try to be as polite as possible, but there's really no reason to be a dick ever toward anyone.
For example, if a streamer becomes popular by knowingly dressing provocatively, showing her boobs, and flirting with her viewers with the obvious aim of marketing these things I can definitely say, if ever there is a public discussion about said streamer, that I find her behaviour repulsive because of the way it portrays female sexuality (i.e. as something that is an object to be sold without respect for the person behind it). Now, let me make it clear that I'm not basing this example on any actual streamer mentioned in this thread or on TL or anything like that. It's just an example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
