EPT'GTFO', New Documentary about Female Gamers - Page 58
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Hryul
Austria2609 Posts
Edit: another thing to consider: patriarchy wasn't "men>women", but the whole extended family was ruled by one man. the other men also didn't have any power. furthermore the patriarch wasn't really free but he had to follow the expectations of the family because if he fucked up the whole family was going down. | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On March 19 2015 00:11 Hryul wrote: no, but it's quite pointless to say "ehrmagod, wymyn so oppressed!!!!1111" when 99% of the population was oppressed. Is it though? Is it really? If women were oppressed more than men in comparable positions across the board, isn't it meaningful to call their position "oppressed"? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 19 2015 00:11 Hryul wrote: no, but it's quite pointless to say "ehrmagod, wymyn so oppressed!!!!1111" when 99% of the population was oppressed. As someone who studied history and was trained to teach it to others: No. That argument is piss poor and there is OVERWHELMING evidence that the oppression of women was not only cultural, but also legally authorized through out history. There were numerous laws and institutions created for the sole purpose of oppressing women through most of human history. To argue otherwise borderlines on delusional. | ||
|
Hryul
Austria2609 Posts
| ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
| ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10873 Posts
If its sexist to take into account that your dealing with a person of a certain gender and are therefore using diffrent vocabulary, well then you might also argue against the use of "she or he" and just use a genderless form for everything (well, there are feminists out there that actually want this, but as far as i know basically no one outside of their own microcosm takes them seriously). | ||
|
Dagobert
Netherlands1858 Posts
On March 19 2015 00:18 Plansix wrote: As someone who studied history and was trained to teach it to others: No. That argument is piss poor and there is OVERWHELMING evidence that the oppression of women was not only cultural, but also legally authorized through out history. There were numerous laws and institutions created for the sole purpose of oppressing women through most of human history. To argue otherwise borderlines on delusional. Let's see. I've divided your text into sections: Appeal to authority and appeal to authority: Opinion. Opinion and nominalization of not only one UNSUBSTANTIATED claim, but two. Numerous more unsubstantiated claims. Insult. Exactly where did you refute his point? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 19 2015 00:29 Velr wrote: No disagreement there... But how exactly does that make "dumb bitch" worse than "dumb asshole" and a sexist insult? If its sexist to take into account that your dealing with a person of a certain gender and are therefore using diffrent vocabulary, well then you might also argue against the use of "she or he" and just use a genderless form for everything (well, there are feminists out there that actually want this, but as far as i know basically no one outside of their own microcosm takes them seriously). That type of insult isn't the harassment they are talking about. Trash talking in games is sort of expected. The harassment they receive is beyond that, like during live events just because they are a women at a live event. Or if someone finds out they are a women during a game and just starts harassing them because of that(which is not a huge deal). There was an article recently for the game Uno, which uses the Xbox camera. Someone did a study where they would play the game with the camera and have a woman play. On average, it took about 14 minutes of game time before someone flashed their penis at the camera if the woman was playing. It did not seem to happen if a man was playing. http://www.polygon.com/a/the-second-generation-of-xbox-live/page-5 In this case, there are almost no reporting features to address the issue. The main suggestion was to remove the camera feature, rather than penalize the people for exposing themselves. Its part of an ongoing narrative of more people, including women, using these services and there being no effort root out or punish people who misuse them. Its not just women, but this article focuses on the issues they face like stalking, sustained harassment and harassment at events. MtG has the same issue right now and is getting the same push back. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
On March 19 2015 00:13 Yoav wrote: Is it though? Is it really? If women were oppressed more than men in comparable positions across the board, isn't it meaningful to call their position "oppressed"? The whole point is that they were not relatively disadvantaged/oppressed across the board. They were disadvantaged in some respects, and advantaged in others. That is the nature of gender roles. We are now at a point in time where we consider gender roles optional, but at that time it was considered a natural state of affairs for all involved. Note again: for all involved. Women were satisfied with their position in society, attributing it to natural order. Oppression implies that one group is forced into a certain situation against their will. When feminists came on the scene, they were not very popular with women. When it reached the point that the majority of women thought they should have a say in traditional male spheres such as politics, changes began to happen. In response to the fact that it was mostly the opinions of women that slowed the equality agenda, academic feminism has created the term 'internalised misogyny'. Apparently they hated themselves/their gender because they believed in gender roles. Here's what Queen Victoria thought: “I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of ‘Women’s Rights,’ with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and propriety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were woman to ‘unsex’ themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection.” Gender roles restrict the individual liberties of all genders. For men this meant shouldering the financial burden of their families (and going to prison if they failed to do so, effectively forcing men into hard labour) and fighting in wars. Feminism argues that gender roles disproportionately harmed women, and that is why people in this thread are arguing that women should be treated as though they have historically been an oppressed group. This is far from obvious, though, as the cost of gender roles on men seems to have been equally heavy. On March 18 2015 23:40 ComaDose wrote: oh common you cant deny women being treated as second class citizens outside the first world or over 200 years ago As opposed to men, given sole dominion over the luxury of dying in trenches and suffocating on coal dust. If that's first class...? Look, rich men had more opportunities in business or politics than rich women did, but poor women had less expected of them than poor men. The majority of people, it's worth noting, were not rich, so it may be reasonable to suggest that men, on average, got the worse end of the bargain? Again, enforced gender roles provided different benefits to different sexes in different scenarios. The problem arises when you present these gender roles as one group forcefully subduing the other for their own benefit, and conclude from this that that 'subdued' group now deserves preferential treatment in all things. So when, in an equal environment, a woman complains about behaviour in a game, her opinion is taken seriously, while when a man says he prefers to deal with the occasional troll rather than restrict people's behaviour, he is ignored. This, despite the fact that: a) the game caters to a predominantly male audience, b) the game has features that allow one to mute/avoid abusive individuals. The existence of gender roles is organic, and the most healthy traditional societies have a balanced division of duty. On March 18 2015 23:55 Plansix wrote: You heard it here folks, because life was pretty shitty for everyone back then, women were never repressed. My degree in history is worthless apparently. The car crash continues to burn. Your history degree is worthless, because you have not learnt that just saying 'THIS IS THE WAY IT WAS' does not bring anything to the table but your opinion. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On March 19 2015 00:13 Yoav wrote: Is it though? Is it really? If women were oppressed more than men in comparable positions across the board, isn't it meaningful to call their position "oppressed"? I disagree with bardtown in the sense that I agree that women were more oppressed than men in comparable position across the board ("everything equal"). But some women had higher position than some men, this was not the case for black people who always combined discrimination and specific dominated socioeconomical position. You cannot really compare the two : the experience of a black individual in the US or in Europe was pretty unified during the entire XIXth - XXth, that's not the case for women, who never formed a unified group - you really have to stretch the metaphore a lot to find something in common between rich woman and her cleaning woman. | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
On March 18 2015 23:55 Plansix wrote: You heard it here folks, because life was pretty shitty for everyone back then, women were never repressed. My degree in history is worthless apparently. The car crash continues to burn. considering student debt, and huge # of unemployed history majors. you're not too far off. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On March 19 2015 01:28 wei2coolman wrote: considering student debt, and huge # of unemployed history majors. you're not too far off. Actually, history and philosophy degrees are some of the most sought-after and successful degrees going into law and certain parts of business. The stereotypical "unemployed philosophy/history major" simply stems from the fact that the majority of people that do these degrees don't want to go into the limited amount of professional fields that they set you up for (including myself, as I have a degree in philosophy and absolutely despise law). If you want to talk about a useless degree, look at English degrees  But yea, this narrative of, "Women didn't have to work in terrible jobs/die in war, so they had it better than men throughout history!" is revisionist BS. They didn't have to because they weren't allowed to. When you have freedom, you also have responsibility. Men had the freedom to take the jobs that they wanted (relatively speaking) and be the dominant gender in society, so they got the responsibility of working the shitty jobs and fighting. | ||
|
RuiBarbO
United States1340 Posts
On March 19 2015 01:20 WhiteDog wrote: I disagree with bardtown in the sense that I agree that women were more oppressed than men in comparable position across the board ("everything equal"). But some women had higher position than some men, this was not the case for black people who always combined discrimination and specific dominated socioeconomical position. You cannot really compare the two : the experience of a black individual in the US or in Europe was pretty unified during the entire XIXth - XXth, that's not the case for women, who never formed a unified group - you really have to stretch the metaphore a lot to find something in common between rich woman and her cleaning woman. I might hazard a guess (which you more or less point out yourself) that the reason the experience for black people was more unified is because in the 19th and early 20th centuries, race and class ("socioeconomical position") were very, very closely tied together. If you knew someone's racial background, you could pretty reliably predict their class. On the other hand, gender and class were not so closely tied together. When you talk about oppression and gender, you have to be careful not to make the mistake of assuming that "powerful woman" implies "powerful because woman." More likely, as you say, the determinant of power was class background, not gender. If you were to draw a boundary around one "class," it seems likely that you'd see more signs of gender inequality as far as empowerment is concerned. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On March 19 2015 01:39 RuiBarbO wrote: I might hazard a guess (which you more or less point out yourself) that the reason the experience for black people was more unified is because in the 19th and early 20th centuries, race and class ("socioeconomical position") were very, very closely tied together. If you knew someone's racial background, you could pretty reliably predict their class. On the other hand, gender and class were not so closely tied together. When you talk about oppression and gender, you have to be careful not to make the mistake of assuming that "powerful woman" implies "powerful because woman." More likely, as you say, the determinant of power was class background, not gender. If you were to draw a boundary around one "class," it seems likely that you'd see more signs of gender inequality as far as empowerment is concerned. Yeah it's exactly that. Today, the relationship between class and race is less strict, and some sociologue argue that the race is less significative to understand domination (The Declining Signifiance of Race by William Julius Wilson for exemple). Of course it's not "powerful because woman", it just show that "women" do not form a unified group - a "class". Being a man goes with some kind of power in specific fields, that's a fact, but it doesn't mean that being a woman necessarily mean you are dominated in every fields. I really dislike all those simplifications that equalize everything, like all dominations are similar in a way. There is a strict difference between gender / race and class, and constantly mixing all those things together is an over simplification I'm not ready to accept. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
On March 19 2015 01:39 RuiBarbO wrote: I might hazard a guess (which you more or less point out yourself) that the reason the experience for black people was more unified is because in the 19th and early 20th centuries, race and class ("socioeconomical position") were very, very closely tied together. If you knew someone's racial background, you could pretty reliably predict their class. On the other hand, gender and class were not so closely tied together. When you talk about oppression and gender, you have to be careful not to make the mistake of assuming that "powerful woman" implies "powerful because woman." More likely, as you say, the determinant of power was class background, not gender. If you were to draw a boundary around one "class," it seems likely that you'd see more signs of gender inequality as far as empowerment is concerned. It's probably not a coincidence that the feminist movement originated, and remains popular, in the middle classes, while in the working classes, where men suffer most, it is background noise. Or openly ridiculed - working class women preferring 'real men' capable of doing working class jobs and surviving in a working class neighbourhood? | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On March 19 2015 01:58 bardtown wrote: It's probably not a coincidence that the feminist movement originated, and remains popular, in the middle classes, while in the working classes, where men suffer most, it is background noise. Or openly ridiculed - working class women preferring 'real men' capable of doing working class jobs and surviving in a working class neighbourhood? That's untrue. You are only watching at a specific part of feminism (mainly american feminism), and putting aside the other - glorious - part of feminism, with the likes of Louise Michel for exemple. I always distinguish Olympe de gouges' feminism (or Simone de Beauvoir, the bourgeoise who slept with her student - talk about domination) and Louise Michel's feminism. The main difference is that the working class feminists labbeled theirselves as anarchists or communists before feminists. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
On March 19 2015 02:00 WhiteDog wrote: That's untrue. You are only watching at a specific part of feminism (mainly american feminism), and putting aside the other - glorious - part of feminist, with the like of Louise Michel. The main difference is that the working class feminists labbeled theirselves as anarchists or communists before feminists. There's only so many times I can answer the 'not all feminists' point, but you should note that communism is a middle class movement that targets the working class, and this is doubly true for anarchism. The brand of feminism which came out of these movements is the 'smash the patriarchy' type, where hate for the privileged bourgeois was basically transferred onto the privileged male. This kind of feminist: Also, saying that feminism is more prevalent in the middle classes is far from controversial, and if you've ever lived in a working class environment you will know that tendency towards traditional gender roles is significantly more prevalent. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23844 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 19 2015 02:32 GreenHorizons wrote: I wish everyone's moms, sisters, daughters, and wives could read what people are posting here and respond themselves. I'm pretty sure there would be some interesting responses. There is nothing quite as amusing a a group of men talking about women's issues and feminism. It really never gets old. | ||
| ||
