|
On March 11 2015 08:36 Ovid wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 07:58 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2015 07:04 Falling wrote:On March 11 2015 06:04 Ovid wrote:On March 11 2015 06:00 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2015 05:51 Ovid wrote:
Perhaps it's just the difference in statistics and general social consensus between the UK and US? Why would that have any baring on the current discussion? Because it's the obvious difference we have and a possible explanation for our differing views. But this is my last post here, go tell a random women that you enjoy sticking up for her rights on a predominately male forum and see what reaction you get or post why you wouldn't want to do that. What happened to this?  He needed to tell us all that women would be mad at us fighting about their rights without them around. Because that's how feminism works. Didn't say or even imply they'd get mad, just would think the conversation would be awkward and patronising. I came back because nothing annoys me more than statistics that don't make logical and numerical sense. Logo can you just link because the Internet is a vast place and I'm unlikely to find the same study.
It would be patronizing. If they were around.
Doesn't really look like they are, so that's completely irrelevant.
|
Northern Ireland26667 Posts
To paraphrase what the fantastic football journalist Tim Vickety said during a discussion I listened to on the seeming increase in racist events in football (soccer) in recent years: 'You don't solve the issue of racism in football, you solve the issue of racism in society'
I don't (well I do actually) get why gaming culture is coming under flak for this. There is more horrific sexism and objectification in one woman's interest/gossip magazine than has ever been said over Battlenet in the entirety of its existence.
|
I find this thread tragically hilarious.
To ignore the fact that many of those who talk about this problem are actually antagonizing gamers is ridiculous.
That's just golden.
It's only better that it was preceded by:
And once again, that is not to say we shouldn't talk about it, but framing is important.
|
Canada11497 Posts
On March 11 2015 09:11 Wombat_NI wrote:
To paraphrase what the fantastic football journalist Tim Vickety said during a discussion I listened to on the seeming increase in racist events in football (soccer) in recent years: 'You don't solve the issue of racism in football, you solve the issue of racism in society'
I don't (well I do actually) get why gaming culture is coming under flak for this. There is more horrific sexism and objectification in one woman's interest/gossip magazine than has ever been said over Battlenet in the entirety of its existence.
That's not exactly an argument against. "It's worse elsewhere." And "don't start with gaming (or sports), start with society". What is society exactly except that it is made up each individual part of our daily interactions whether it is gaming, sports, work, etc, etc. Gaming and sports are a part of society. Sexism and harassment exists elsewhere, sure. And maybe people are dealing with it there too and maybe they aren't. But people within gaming are looking to clean it up a little more- either because they want in or else they are in and would like it to be a better place. If some people focus on gaming culture that doesn't suddenly make their efforts exclusive from working in society as a whole.
The "it's worse elsewhere' seems to argue for paralysis until we can tackle everything all at once. However, there's something to be said for shining a light on certain aspects of society. I doubt change occurs in one wave, but rather in bits and pieces and in starts and stops. Here we see some momentum forward, there we see some momentum forward. Eventually through total aggragation we might see a wholesale change. But you need to push somewhere. And if some people have decided to push on gaming for a bit, well why not?
|
First, I like that you insult my intelligence with the words "little something", very mature and sneaky, but nonetheless I'll say that I agree that women get harassed a lot more, although you're wrong when you say that "no one is saying that men aren't being sexually harassed". You'll find, if you read around, that pretty much every bottom of the barrel stupid ass argument is being made, and is supported by the masses, including the argument that "men NEVER get sexually harassed, women ALWAYS get sexually harassed". But my point stands, the instances of women being sexually harassed by young, stupid trolls are out there because women are rarer. But what's important to notice is, for many of those "gamers are sexists" movement, the endgame is to show that there's a sexist culture in gaming in general, that female gamers are unwelcome into games - which btw is likely as fuck to dissuade girls from even trying it. And every instance of harassment will be viewed as systemic harassment toward women, whereas the daily harassment I face as a male gamer is nothing.
When arguing about whether Obama is a good president or not, random idiots yell about him being a Muslim or not being an American citizen or having relative in ISIS or other shit like that. It doesn't mean they are taken seriously in any kind of intellectual discourse, and the same is said about any idiot that says, "Men are NEVER harassed online!".
Also, I (and many others) have already gone over why the sexual harassment that we (males) face online is nothing compared to the harassment women face. That's why it gets so much more attention.
Second, you need a special "something" to not realize that the "most fringe" feminists as you put it are slowly creeping into the mainstream, at least on the internet. Do you think Anita Sarkeesian and the likes don't antagonize men? She has a PR face, she can be reasonable, but she can be extremely harsh and some of her statements are incredibly generalizing regarding men and their contribution to the systemic problem that she tries to expose. And yet she has a massive audience. Absolutely massive.
First, show me some of her incredibly antagonizing or blatantly extreme/insulting statements (I am half-skeptical, half-serious because I am not a devoted follower of her writing/message).
Second, if it's anything less than "All men are terrible" and is more akin to "All men contribute to the sexist culture and if you don't do anything about it you're part of the problem", well, too fucking bad. That's how the world works, and tacit consent is a thing. Why do you think most Germans (that were alive at least) shared a collective guilt for the Holocaust, despite the fact that it was perpetrated by a few? Why do you think that most white people shared a collective guilt during slavery, despite the fact that plenty of white people didn't own slaves? It's because inaction is tacit support due to the fact that you are letting it happen. Not everyone has to be an activist, but if you don't call out people you know for sexist/racist language, or if you sit on the internet somehow trying to defend the blatantly sexist/racist gaming culture we have, all you're doing is supporting the culture and defending it from change, and therefore you are part of the problem. We're all guilty of this in some context (supporting big companies by buying certain products even if they do unethical things in the production of those products?). You can either accept your role in it or do something to change, but complaining when you're called out on the fact that your actions support a negative institution or culture can't really be taken seriously.
Third, the fact that people try to capitalize off of this is not trivial. It is what this is. The entire conversation stems from a marketable crisis. You don't "treat" inequality as a social "disease" by pointing out one of its fucking symptoms, the lowest common denominators which is constituted of a bunch of prepubescent fuckwits.
It's not trivial, but it's not a quality statement when trying to have an intellectual discussion about the topic. I've said this several times already, but people profiting off of serious societal concerns (or "playing the race card", or falsely accusing men of rape, or any other similar issue) are a very small minority, and by mentioning it, you aren't being intellectual or profound or more nuanced. All you're doing is attempting to derail and trivialize the very serious matter that is being discussed.
That kind of comment ("X are profiteering from Y", "They're just playing the race card for an advantage", "They're just claiming rape because it's an easy way to hurt some guy") is only relevant in this context if you're actually offering something constructive ("I'm trying to help fix X, but we also need to be wary of Y"), but you're not. The effect of your comment is simply to defend sexism in gaming, and thus, at best, it can't be taken seriously, and, at worst, it can be taken as an insidious attempt to undermine attempts to fix sexism in gaming.
And as to your "antagonizing gamers" comment, like I've said, the vast majority of "antagonizing" is simply white men taking offense when they shouldn't. If you take offense to most of the comments criticizing gaming culture, then you are actually identifying with the negative parts of the culture more than you realize and you aren't defending yourself, you're defending the problem.
|
The problem with sentences like "All men contribute to the sexist culture and if you don't do anything about it you're part of the problem" is that they are dumb. It's very insightful when you think about the fact that Sarkisian and the likes comes from sociological background. They have quick theories without understanding. Men are also dominated by the "sexist culture" which is the masculine domination.
The obligation to "perform" (term very important in the feminist theory) is also an obligation for men, and most men are also victims of the masculine domination too, because the "man" as it is define in culture stereotypes is not the "man" most of us are. On the contrary, women reproduce the masculine domination when asking for specific behaviors from men. So saying men "contribute", just because they are men, is stupid. We all contribute in our daily activity, we are socialized that way and I'm not sure constantly pointing out a "culprit" is the good way to go. Why not adressing, like many have said in this thread, the system, the institutions, that promote and perpetuate domination - not just masculine domination - in our societies, instead of pointing out those nerdy guys that are more than often coming from modest background ? It's exactly like people specifically pointing out at racism in football (soccer) and US football, it's true, but at the same time it's class ethnocentrism and blatant pharisaism. It's actually quite funny that all those gamer girls are always white girl with rather favored background.
|
On March 11 2015 08:51 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 08:36 Ovid wrote:On March 11 2015 07:58 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2015 07:04 Falling wrote:On March 11 2015 06:04 Ovid wrote:On March 11 2015 06:00 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2015 05:51 Ovid wrote:
Perhaps it's just the difference in statistics and general social consensus between the UK and US? Why would that have any baring on the current discussion? Because it's the obvious difference we have and a possible explanation for our differing views. But this is my last post here, go tell a random women that you enjoy sticking up for her rights on a predominately male forum and see what reaction you get or post why you wouldn't want to do that. What happened to this? He needed to tell us all that women would be mad at us fighting about their rights without them around. Because that's how feminism works. Didn't say or even imply they'd get mad, just would think the conversation would be awkward and patronising. I came back because nothing annoys me more than statistics that don't make logical and numerical sense. Logo can you just link because the Internet is a vast place and I'm unlikely to find the same study. It would be patronizing. If they were around. Doesn't really look like they are, so that's completely irrelevant.
There was actually a woman around. Her experiences in the gaming community got mostly ignored by people who were busy postulating that all women know that women face much more much viler harassment online, and men could not possibly understand their plight.
I quote:
On March 09 2015 12:05 ninazerg wrote:
Documentaries like this are always just ass-backwards. Nearly every girl who has played video games that I've known gets special treatment and is welcomed with open arms into communities as long as they aren't completely batshit insane or a psycho. Then again, if they have the looks, then being psycho is acceptable. Additionally, girl gamers with very poor skills in their respective games will get way more viewers than men if they have a webcam on.
I see men getting harassed all the time. "You suck", "Faggot", "Get cancer", "Commit suicide", "I hope you die", and so on, are examples of the awful stuff that male gamers will hear on a regular basis if they gravitate toward the wrong communities within gaming. This tells me that there is a bigger issue here, but it always seems like special interests groups want to hijack the conversation and make it about them.
|
I've had this conversation too many times and it's a waste of my time. But you asked for antagonizing statements from Anita Sarkeesian, look, I don't keep a log, but if you just google "Anita Sarkeesian quotes", you get some of the more crazy generalized shit. I picked literally the first one I found, and it's pretty mild in comparison to some others. She's constantly dropping these bombs. This one is about anime, others are against people more directly, and the consumers of some media, etc.
+ Show Spoiler +
It's not trivial, but it's not a quality statement when trying to have an intellectual discussion about the topic. I've said this several times already, but people profiting off of serious societal concerns (or "playing the race card", or falsely accusing men of rape, or any other similar issue) are a very small minority, and by mentioning it, you aren't being intellectual or profound or more nuanced. All you're doing is attempting to derail and trivialize the very serious matter that is being discussed.
Ridiculous. At WORST it's part of the topic. But I think it's a bigger picture argument. This microcosm of the battle for equality is derailing the real argument.
That's not to say there's no place for an actual intellectual discussion about this particular part of the problem, but if you think this forum is where you can have a legit intellectual discussion, I think you're wrong. This platform is great but I think before we can start discussing this properly we'd need to sift through the bullshit and tbh I think that at this point too many people have been suckered into these bullshit ideas that wouldn't even stand to the scrutiny of proper social sciences.
|
On March 11 2015 10:57 Djzapz wrote:I've had this conversation too many times and it's a waste of my time. But you asked for antagonizing statements from Anita Sarkeesian, look, I don't keep a log, but if you just google "Anita Sarkeesian quotes", you get some of the more crazy generalized shit. I picked literally the first one I found, and it's pretty mild in comparison to some others. + Show Spoiler +Show nested quote +It's not trivial, but it's not a quality statement when trying to have an intellectual discussion about the topic. I've said this several times already, but people profiting off of serious societal concerns (or "playing the race card", or falsely accusing men of rape, or any other similar issue) are a very small minority, and by mentioning it, you aren't being intellectual or profound or more nuanced. All you're doing is attempting to derail and trivialize the very serious matter that is being discussed. Ridiculous. At WORST it's part of the topic. But I think it's a bigger picture argument. This microcosm of the battle for equality is derailing the real argument.
Edit: I'm fairly certain it's a fake tweet, but I'm not entirely sure.
|
On March 11 2015 11:01 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 10:57 Djzapz wrote:I've had this conversation too many times and it's a waste of my time. But you asked for antagonizing statements from Anita Sarkeesian, look, I don't keep a log, but if you just google "Anita Sarkeesian quotes", you get some of the more crazy generalized shit. I picked literally the first one I found, and it's pretty mild in comparison to some others. + Show Spoiler +It's not trivial, but it's not a quality statement when trying to have an intellectual discussion about the topic. I've said this several times already, but people profiting off of serious societal concerns (or "playing the race card", or falsely accusing men of rape, or any other similar issue) are a very small minority, and by mentioning it, you aren't being intellectual or profound or more nuanced. All you're doing is attempting to derail and trivialize the very serious matter that is being discussed. Ridiculous. At WORST it's part of the topic. But I think it's a bigger picture argument. This microcosm of the battle for equality is derailing the real argument. Edit: I'm fairly certain it's a fake tweet, but I'm not entirely sure.
Here's another one. Took me 15 seconds. But she makes those kinds of statements fairly often.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On March 11 2015 11:06 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 11:01 Darkwhite wrote:On March 11 2015 10:57 Djzapz wrote:I've had this conversation too many times and it's a waste of my time. But you asked for antagonizing statements from Anita Sarkeesian, look, I don't keep a log, but if you just google "Anita Sarkeesian quotes", you get some of the more crazy generalized shit. I picked literally the first one I found, and it's pretty mild in comparison to some others. + Show Spoiler +It's not trivial, but it's not a quality statement when trying to have an intellectual discussion about the topic. I've said this several times already, but people profiting off of serious societal concerns (or "playing the race card", or falsely accusing men of rape, or any other similar issue) are a very small minority, and by mentioning it, you aren't being intellectual or profound or more nuanced. All you're doing is attempting to derail and trivialize the very serious matter that is being discussed. Ridiculous. At WORST it's part of the topic. But I think it's a bigger picture argument. This microcosm of the battle for equality is derailing the real argument. Edit: I'm fairly certain it's a fake tweet, but I'm not entirely sure. Here's another one + Show Spoiler +
Like all "men" are part of the same social group with common interests and position in the social structure...
|
On March 11 2015 11:06 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 11:01 Darkwhite wrote:On March 11 2015 10:57 Djzapz wrote:I've had this conversation too many times and it's a waste of my time. But you asked for antagonizing statements from Anita Sarkeesian, look, I don't keep a log, but if you just google "Anita Sarkeesian quotes", you get some of the more crazy generalized shit. I picked literally the first one I found, and it's pretty mild in comparison to some others. + Show Spoiler +It's not trivial, but it's not a quality statement when trying to have an intellectual discussion about the topic. I've said this several times already, but people profiting off of serious societal concerns (or "playing the race card", or falsely accusing men of rape, or any other similar issue) are a very small minority, and by mentioning it, you aren't being intellectual or profound or more nuanced. All you're doing is attempting to derail and trivialize the very serious matter that is being discussed. Ridiculous. At WORST it's part of the topic. But I think it's a bigger picture argument. This microcosm of the battle for equality is derailing the real argument. Edit: I'm fairly certain it's a fake tweet, but I'm not entirely sure. Here's another one. Took me 15 seconds. But she makes those kinds of statements fairly often. + Show Spoiler +
Yes, that is vile, but well-known and widely applauded feminist propaganda, unfortunately.
|
On March 11 2015 11:06 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 11:01 Darkwhite wrote:On March 11 2015 10:57 Djzapz wrote:I've had this conversation too many times and it's a waste of my time. But you asked for antagonizing statements from Anita Sarkeesian, look, I don't keep a log, but if you just google "Anita Sarkeesian quotes", you get some of the more crazy generalized shit. I picked literally the first one I found, and it's pretty mild in comparison to some others. + Show Spoiler +It's not trivial, but it's not a quality statement when trying to have an intellectual discussion about the topic. I've said this several times already, but people profiting off of serious societal concerns (or "playing the race card", or falsely accusing men of rape, or any other similar issue) are a very small minority, and by mentioning it, you aren't being intellectual or profound or more nuanced. All you're doing is attempting to derail and trivialize the very serious matter that is being discussed. Ridiculous. At WORST it's part of the topic. But I think it's a bigger picture argument. This microcosm of the battle for equality is derailing the real argument. Edit: I'm fairly certain it's a fake tweet, but I'm not entirely sure. Here's another one. Took me 15 seconds. But she makes those kinds of statements fairly often. + Show Spoiler +
Wait do people think that tweet is saying men can't be sexually harassed or abused or whatever? Because if you do you're wrong.
If tweets like that specifically make you mad, you really shouldn't be.
On March 11 2015 11:09 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 11:06 Djzapz wrote:On March 11 2015 11:01 Darkwhite wrote:On March 11 2015 10:57 Djzapz wrote:I've had this conversation too many times and it's a waste of my time. But you asked for antagonizing statements from Anita Sarkeesian, look, I don't keep a log, but if you just google "Anita Sarkeesian quotes", you get some of the more crazy generalized shit. I picked literally the first one I found, and it's pretty mild in comparison to some others. + Show Spoiler +It's not trivial, but it's not a quality statement when trying to have an intellectual discussion about the topic. I've said this several times already, but people profiting off of serious societal concerns (or "playing the race card", or falsely accusing men of rape, or any other similar issue) are a very small minority, and by mentioning it, you aren't being intellectual or profound or more nuanced. All you're doing is attempting to derail and trivialize the very serious matter that is being discussed. Ridiculous. At WORST it's part of the topic. But I think it's a bigger picture argument. This microcosm of the battle for equality is derailing the real argument. Edit: I'm fairly certain it's a fake tweet, but I'm not entirely sure. Here's another one. Took me 15 seconds. But she makes those kinds of statements fairly often. + Show Spoiler + Yes, that is vile, but well-known and widely applauded feminist propaganda, unfortunately.
rofl I would explain if I thought you had any interest in understanding...?
|
On March 11 2015 11:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 11:06 Djzapz wrote:On March 11 2015 11:01 Darkwhite wrote:On March 11 2015 10:57 Djzapz wrote:I've had this conversation too many times and it's a waste of my time. But you asked for antagonizing statements from Anita Sarkeesian, look, I don't keep a log, but if you just google "Anita Sarkeesian quotes", you get some of the more crazy generalized shit. I picked literally the first one I found, and it's pretty mild in comparison to some others. + Show Spoiler +It's not trivial, but it's not a quality statement when trying to have an intellectual discussion about the topic. I've said this several times already, but people profiting off of serious societal concerns (or "playing the race card", or falsely accusing men of rape, or any other similar issue) are a very small minority, and by mentioning it, you aren't being intellectual or profound or more nuanced. All you're doing is attempting to derail and trivialize the very serious matter that is being discussed. Ridiculous. At WORST it's part of the topic. But I think it's a bigger picture argument. This microcosm of the battle for equality is derailing the real argument. Edit: I'm fairly certain it's a fake tweet, but I'm not entirely sure. Here's another one. Took me 15 seconds. But she makes those kinds of statements fairly often. + Show Spoiler + Wait do people think that tweet is saying men can't be sexually harassed or abused or whatever? Because if you do you're wrong.
No one thinks that. It's just a broad statement that's not true. She's essentially saying it's impossible to be sexist against men because sexism requires power and prejudice. As if women couldn't ever have power and prejudice toward a certain man under certain circumstances. But it has nothing to do with sexual harassment or abuse, I don't know how in hell you came to those terms.
If tweets like that specifically make you mad, you really shouldn't be.
Mad? See how we can't win with people like you? First you distort the thing, then you try to bring my personal feelings into this. What does how I feel have anything to do with any of this? Not only am I not mad, I'm posting because the guy I was talking to asked for this kind of stuff (granted, seeing how you guys behave, it's probably not good enough).
And since it's trendy to actually say something that makes no sense, then "clearly my post makes you mad". What the hell.
|
On March 11 2015 11:11 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 11:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:06 Djzapz wrote:On March 11 2015 11:01 Darkwhite wrote:On March 11 2015 10:57 Djzapz wrote:I've had this conversation too many times and it's a waste of my time. But you asked for antagonizing statements from Anita Sarkeesian, look, I don't keep a log, but if you just google "Anita Sarkeesian quotes", you get some of the more crazy generalized shit. I picked literally the first one I found, and it's pretty mild in comparison to some others. + Show Spoiler +It's not trivial, but it's not a quality statement when trying to have an intellectual discussion about the topic. I've said this several times already, but people profiting off of serious societal concerns (or "playing the race card", or falsely accusing men of rape, or any other similar issue) are a very small minority, and by mentioning it, you aren't being intellectual or profound or more nuanced. All you're doing is attempting to derail and trivialize the very serious matter that is being discussed. Ridiculous. At WORST it's part of the topic. But I think it's a bigger picture argument. This microcosm of the battle for equality is derailing the real argument. Edit: I'm fairly certain it's a fake tweet, but I'm not entirely sure. Here's another one. Took me 15 seconds. But she makes those kinds of statements fairly often. + Show Spoiler + Wait do people think that tweet is saying men can't be sexually harassed or abused or whatever? Because if you do you're wrong. No one thinks that. It's just a broad statement that's not true. She's essentially saying it's impossible to be sexist against men because sexism requires power and prejudice. As if women couldn't ever have power and prejudice toward a certain man under certain circumstances. But it has nothing to do with sexual harassment or abuse, I don't know how in hell you came to those terms.
Ok, I once was like you. This message can get confused pretty easily but at the core it's really a simple concept that we should all agree on.
|
On March 11 2015 11:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 11:11 Djzapz wrote:On March 11 2015 11:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:06 Djzapz wrote:On March 11 2015 11:01 Darkwhite wrote:On March 11 2015 10:57 Djzapz wrote:I've had this conversation too many times and it's a waste of my time. But you asked for antagonizing statements from Anita Sarkeesian, look, I don't keep a log, but if you just google "Anita Sarkeesian quotes", you get some of the more crazy generalized shit. I picked literally the first one I found, and it's pretty mild in comparison to some others. + Show Spoiler +It's not trivial, but it's not a quality statement when trying to have an intellectual discussion about the topic. I've said this several times already, but people profiting off of serious societal concerns (or "playing the race card", or falsely accusing men of rape, or any other similar issue) are a very small minority, and by mentioning it, you aren't being intellectual or profound or more nuanced. All you're doing is attempting to derail and trivialize the very serious matter that is being discussed. Ridiculous. At WORST it's part of the topic. But I think it's a bigger picture argument. This microcosm of the battle for equality is derailing the real argument. Edit: I'm fairly certain it's a fake tweet, but I'm not entirely sure. Here's another one. Took me 15 seconds. But she makes those kinds of statements fairly often. + Show Spoiler + Wait do people think that tweet is saying men can't be sexually harassed or abused or whatever? Because if you do you're wrong. No one thinks that. It's just a broad statement that's not true. She's essentially saying it's impossible to be sexist against men because sexism requires power and prejudice. As if women couldn't ever have power and prejudice toward a certain man under certain circumstances. But it has nothing to do with sexual harassment or abuse, I don't know how in hell you came to those terms. Ok, I once was like you. This message can get confused pretty easily but at the core it's really a simple concept that we should all agree on.
No we should not ? It's a dumb vision. Angela Merkel have more power than me. Heck Sarkisian have more power than me.
|
On March 11 2015 11:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 11:11 Djzapz wrote:On March 11 2015 11:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:06 Djzapz wrote:On March 11 2015 11:01 Darkwhite wrote:On March 11 2015 10:57 Djzapz wrote:I've had this conversation too many times and it's a waste of my time. But you asked for antagonizing statements from Anita Sarkeesian, look, I don't keep a log, but if you just google "Anita Sarkeesian quotes", you get some of the more crazy generalized shit. I picked literally the first one I found, and it's pretty mild in comparison to some others. + Show Spoiler +It's not trivial, but it's not a quality statement when trying to have an intellectual discussion about the topic. I've said this several times already, but people profiting off of serious societal concerns (or "playing the race card", or falsely accusing men of rape, or any other similar issue) are a very small minority, and by mentioning it, you aren't being intellectual or profound or more nuanced. All you're doing is attempting to derail and trivialize the very serious matter that is being discussed. Ridiculous. At WORST it's part of the topic. But I think it's a bigger picture argument. This microcosm of the battle for equality is derailing the real argument. Edit: I'm fairly certain it's a fake tweet, but I'm not entirely sure. Here's another one. Took me 15 seconds. But she makes those kinds of statements fairly often. + Show Spoiler + Wait do people think that tweet is saying men can't be sexually harassed or abused or whatever? Because if you do you're wrong. No one thinks that. It's just a broad statement that's not true. She's essentially saying it's impossible to be sexist against men because sexism requires power and prejudice. As if women couldn't ever have power and prejudice toward a certain man under certain circumstances. But it has nothing to do with sexual harassment or abuse, I don't know how in hell you came to those terms. Ok, I once was like you. This message can get confused pretty easily but at the core it's really a simple concept that we should all agree on.
The quote is: "There’s no such thing as sexism against men. That's because sexism is prejudice + power. Men are the dominant gender with power in society."
Now if you don't understand why this is not a given, I probably can't help you (with this, or with anything else, really). But let me explain.
She makes an argument that has these 3 parts
1- Premise: Sexism = Prejudice + Power
2- Men have all the power (women have none)
3- Therefore, sexism against men is impossible because women cannot have power
There are at least two problems
1- The premise does not refer to EVERY definition of sexism, in fact I don't know that any widely agreed upon definitions of sexism which necessarily require power (nor do they define what power is, but from my poli sci background (and just common sense really), power goes beyond "domination", which is my next point)
2- If we agree with the premise, then we have to consider that there are many forms of power. Power is not only complete domination - power can exist in the workspace, for instance (obviously). If a woman runs a business, she can exert her power (in that arena) and her prejudice, thus making her sexist against men. It may not be systemic sexism to the extent that the one women face, but it's sexism nonetheless.
So no I don't agree that the notion of sexism, or racism, should always be from the majority to a minority. That's just a weird way to try to gain points in an argument, by preventing others from turning it back against them, by preventing nuances from being brought up. And God knows the people of the Internet don't deal in nuances. Nuances are too hard to some of these people.
My point is, in the end, if we were to settle for a definition of the word "sexism" which only applied in the way which is suggested here, we'd definitely need a more neutral word to replace it, because "sexism" would've been hijacked by the proponents of a certain ideology, and would become tainted for any use by intellectuals.
|
On March 11 2015 11:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 11:11 Djzapz wrote:On March 11 2015 11:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:06 Djzapz wrote:On March 11 2015 11:01 Darkwhite wrote:On March 11 2015 10:57 Djzapz wrote:I've had this conversation too many times and it's a waste of my time. But you asked for antagonizing statements from Anita Sarkeesian, look, I don't keep a log, but if you just google "Anita Sarkeesian quotes", you get some of the more crazy generalized shit. I picked literally the first one I found, and it's pretty mild in comparison to some others. + Show Spoiler +It's not trivial, but it's not a quality statement when trying to have an intellectual discussion about the topic. I've said this several times already, but people profiting off of serious societal concerns (or "playing the race card", or falsely accusing men of rape, or any other similar issue) are a very small minority, and by mentioning it, you aren't being intellectual or profound or more nuanced. All you're doing is attempting to derail and trivialize the very serious matter that is being discussed. Ridiculous. At WORST it's part of the topic. But I think it's a bigger picture argument. This microcosm of the battle for equality is derailing the real argument. Edit: I'm fairly certain it's a fake tweet, but I'm not entirely sure. Here's another one. Took me 15 seconds. But she makes those kinds of statements fairly often. + Show Spoiler + Wait do people think that tweet is saying men can't be sexually harassed or abused or whatever? Because if you do you're wrong. No one thinks that. It's just a broad statement that's not true. She's essentially saying it's impossible to be sexist against men because sexism requires power and prejudice. As if women couldn't ever have power and prejudice toward a certain man under certain circumstances. But it has nothing to do with sexual harassment or abuse, I don't know how in hell you came to those terms. Ok, I once was like you. This message can get confused pretty easily but at the core it's really a simple concept that we should all agree on.
Sometimes when the "message" can get confused pretty easily, that is a sign that the issuer of said message sucks at communicating, and sometimes it just means there is no real message there, but only noise.
|
On March 11 2015 11:14 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 11:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:11 Djzapz wrote:On March 11 2015 11:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:06 Djzapz wrote:On March 11 2015 11:01 Darkwhite wrote:On March 11 2015 10:57 Djzapz wrote:I've had this conversation too many times and it's a waste of my time. But you asked for antagonizing statements from Anita Sarkeesian, look, I don't keep a log, but if you just google "Anita Sarkeesian quotes", you get some of the more crazy generalized shit. I picked literally the first one I found, and it's pretty mild in comparison to some others. + Show Spoiler +It's not trivial, but it's not a quality statement when trying to have an intellectual discussion about the topic. I've said this several times already, but people profiting off of serious societal concerns (or "playing the race card", or falsely accusing men of rape, or any other similar issue) are a very small minority, and by mentioning it, you aren't being intellectual or profound or more nuanced. All you're doing is attempting to derail and trivialize the very serious matter that is being discussed. Ridiculous. At WORST it's part of the topic. But I think it's a bigger picture argument. This microcosm of the battle for equality is derailing the real argument. Edit: I'm fairly certain it's a fake tweet, but I'm not entirely sure. Here's another one. Took me 15 seconds. But she makes those kinds of statements fairly often. + Show Spoiler + Wait do people think that tweet is saying men can't be sexually harassed or abused or whatever? Because if you do you're wrong. No one thinks that. It's just a broad statement that's not true. She's essentially saying it's impossible to be sexist against men because sexism requires power and prejudice. As if women couldn't ever have power and prejudice toward a certain man under certain circumstances. But it has nothing to do with sexual harassment or abuse, I don't know how in hell you came to those terms. Ok, I once was like you. This message can get confused pretty easily but at the core it's really a simple concept that we should all agree on. No we should not ? It's a dumb vision. Angela Merkel have more power than me. Heck Sarkisian have more power than me.
This is missing the entire point.
I'll just try to get to the nitty gritty because as I said I had all the same objections you guys are thinking because the way it's said and spread isn't attached with a freakout kit.
First the new definitions of racism and sexism within the academic community are not universally agreed upon.
The point though, is that we need more nuanced language to distinguish the differences between hanging innocent black people in public with the not so silent nod of approval from local authorities and some black guy using a racial epithet toward a white guy on the bus.
With the old definition they are both "racist" but one is a hell of a lot different than the other. It's not that one is "okay" and one isn't it's just that difference needs language.
The whole "They can't be ___ist" is an (accidental) campaign to get people like you guys to learn that language.
That being said some people might not understand what they are saying around this stuff regarding the new language, but the point of it isn't to try to make it seem that the group in power can't suffer the same types of direct abuse.
I'm sure someone can explain it better or more thoroughly or people could do their own research but my optimism is measured lol.
|
On March 11 2015 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 11:14 WhiteDog wrote:On March 11 2015 11:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:11 Djzapz wrote:On March 11 2015 11:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:06 Djzapz wrote:On March 11 2015 11:01 Darkwhite wrote:On March 11 2015 10:57 Djzapz wrote:I've had this conversation too many times and it's a waste of my time. But you asked for antagonizing statements from Anita Sarkeesian, look, I don't keep a log, but if you just google "Anita Sarkeesian quotes", you get some of the more crazy generalized shit. I picked literally the first one I found, and it's pretty mild in comparison to some others. + Show Spoiler +It's not trivial, but it's not a quality statement when trying to have an intellectual discussion about the topic. I've said this several times already, but people profiting off of serious societal concerns (or "playing the race card", or falsely accusing men of rape, or any other similar issue) are a very small minority, and by mentioning it, you aren't being intellectual or profound or more nuanced. All you're doing is attempting to derail and trivialize the very serious matter that is being discussed. Ridiculous. At WORST it's part of the topic. But I think it's a bigger picture argument. This microcosm of the battle for equality is derailing the real argument. Edit: I'm fairly certain it's a fake tweet, but I'm not entirely sure. Here's another one. Took me 15 seconds. But she makes those kinds of statements fairly often. + Show Spoiler + Wait do people think that tweet is saying men can't be sexually harassed or abused or whatever? Because if you do you're wrong. No one thinks that. It's just a broad statement that's not true. She's essentially saying it's impossible to be sexist against men because sexism requires power and prejudice. As if women couldn't ever have power and prejudice toward a certain man under certain circumstances. But it has nothing to do with sexual harassment or abuse, I don't know how in hell you came to those terms. Ok, I once was like you. This message can get confused pretty easily but at the core it's really a simple concept that we should all agree on. No we should not ? It's a dumb vision. Angela Merkel have more power than me. Heck Sarkisian have more power than me. This is missing the entire point. I'll just try to get to the nitty gritty because as I said I had all the same objections you guys are thinking because the way it's said and spread isn't attached with a freakout kit. First the new definitions of racism and sexism within the academic community are not universally agreed upon. The point though, is that we need more nuanced language to distinguish the differences between hanging innocent black people in public with the not so silent nod of approval from local authorities and some black guy using a racial epithet toward a white guy on the bus. With the old definition they are both "racist" but one is a hell of a lot different than the other. It's not that one is "okay" and one isn't it's just that difference needs language. The whole "They can't be ___ist" is an (accidental) campaign to get people like you guys to learn that language. That being said some people might not understand what they are saying around this stuff regarding the new language, but the point of it isn't to try to make it seem that the group in power can't suffer the same types of direct abuse. I'm sure someone can explain it better or more thoroughly or people could do their own research but my optimism is measured lol.
It seems either stupid or dishonest to use terms that the general populace will almost certainly not understand to mean what you are trying to say.
Either she's really bad at getting her message across, or she is actively trying to obfuscate things.
Or I guess its possible that none of your argument is true as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://manboobz.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/jbfakesarkqu.png)
