EPTStarCraft = Sexist? Some feminists just go too far - Page 18
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6638 Posts
| ||
|
Foucault
Sweden2826 Posts
On May 18 2009 15:51 FieryBalrog wrote: Why is man the norm? Man is the norm as a result of the dominance and position of power men yield. This goes back pretty much to old times when physical strength = survival. This socialized view of masculine and feminine qualities derived from physical strength is still very much in effect today. I'm not that into feminist theory so the last passage is my own theory, which probably is about right. On May 17 2009 23:34 FieryBalrog wrote: Didn't you say quite a few men irrationally hate women? So then you think men are retarded and hate women just because? That they're born like that? No, their hate derives from some mens hatred of weakness, a quality they see in women. Their own self-image of a "strong" man is of course internalized as a result of socialization. Maybe they had a dad with a skewed view of women, etc. On May 17 2009 23:34 FieryBalrog wrote: So all cultures across the world decided to construct male and female roles in similar positions of relative dominance? Yeah it's not really a conscious decision like going "ok men should be like this and women like this". It's a largely subconscious process of attributing and generalizing different kinds of behavior to men and women. This process carries on through the ages and always changes in subtle ways in a society and obviously this is hard to "measure" using conventional rigid scientific methods. Yet it's still very real, which is an example of short-comings with classic scientific methods. Try and calculate and measure someones consciousness btw. Just because you can't measure it, doesn't mean it's not real. On May 17 2009 23:34 FieryBalrog wrote: Why are humans exempt from evolutionary forces where are other creatures are not? Most mammals are sexually dimorphic with males dominant, a phenomenon which is relatively well understood as being due to the high burden of parental investment the mammalian reproduction model (K-selected, high obligatory investment of energy and time from the female in most cases). What do you think of that biological pattern? Why are humans randomly exempt from it despite displaying all the dynamics of a similar pattern? No, maybe I haven't made myself that clear. I do believe there are biological differens between the sexes, BUT I don't think they are that big (besides the obvious physical ones) and don't explain our behavior and way of thinking and feeling that much. I think that many traits and characteristics attributed to men and women are socially constructed. On May 17 2009 23:34 FieryBalrog wrote: Why are women "taught" to be less decisive and closer to their emotions in all or nearly all cultures across the world? What accounts for this species-wide cross cultural pattern? Like I mentioned earlier in this post, I think it boils down to a long time ago when physical strength was the most important thing in order to survive. Men are physically stronger than women and thus at a very basic level are attributed more dominant traits. These traits then become the norm through socialization. On May 17 2009 23:34 FieryBalrog wrote: You really like your loaded language, don't you? I think our language is extremely loaded and that language is used in many ways to keep the patriarchy going, with subtle hints of dominance. Language has a huge effect imo in many other ways, and is more than just words. It conveys ideas, ideals and cemented ways of thinking about different things. Like the word "handicap" compared to "disability" for example. On May 17 2009 23:34 FieryBalrog wrote: Let me throw around the not-very-subtle implications back at you: Have you ever actually read a single paper on evolutionary psychology.... in your life? Or did you just say what you just said because you're uncomfortable with your dogma being challenged? I have read papers on it. What exactly is the difference between evolutionary psychology and trait psychology? You're probably more well read on evolutionary psychology than me I guess. | ||
|
SoulMarine
United States586 Posts
"I have ways of blowing things…. Up." "You're being very naughty." "Who's your Mommy?" "(Stallion neighing)" true, The female units DO portray some sexism, but really the game is fucking old, and the nydus canal is a vagina? WTF? | ||
|
LaughingTulkas
United States1107 Posts
| ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32075 Posts
There's a lot better examples of loaded words | ||
|
stiga
United States377 Posts
On May 17 2009 04:44 Patriot.dlk wrote: HAHAHA what the fuck is that? who wrote this crap? I say we try to bring that crap website down through server overload | ||
|
Foucault
Sweden2826 Posts
On May 19 2009 04:46 Hawk wrote: Only the most anal of people are going to have an issue with using handicap over disability. There's a lot better examples of loaded words You're right. I couldn't think of any good examples when I wrote that actually. Feel free to name a better example | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
Foucault
Sweden2826 Posts
On May 19 2009 05:06 zulu_nation8 wrote: so Foucault what are some of the good points you think this article makes not sure about actual points because I didn't read it all but I think it's interesting to analyze anything (including SC) from a gender perspective, since everything in society is influenced by gender. however it's very hard to say what's what and I think the author jumps to some far-fetched conclusions. Sure, she might be on to something here and there but I dunno. Bare in mind that you could basically analyze every game ever made, not just SC so don't jump on some angry bandwagon just because its SC =) | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
tinman
United States287 Posts
| ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
| ||
|
Probe.
United States877 Posts
| ||
|
The Raurosaur
198 Posts
?? I'm not even a feminist, I disagree with most of the article, think it's terribly written and her understanding of Starcraft as a game is sub-standard... And yet I'm some kind of fanatical post-structuralist with "dogmas"? On May 17 2009 05:57 mahnini wrote: you just equated being a guy with being a member of the KKK. Do you not understand how analogies work? If I say that pigeons are the rats of the bird world, I'm not equating pigeons with actually being rats. I did mention it was an extreme example. I was pointing out the flaw in your reasoning. On May 17 2009 05:58 Ecael wrote: Isn't that an issue in itself then? Unlike a hard field like mathematics, the context of this is a social movement. The ability for people to accept the message is just as important as the validity of the individual criticisms. A marginalized and valid criticism is no more useful than something completely false. Like what FA said already, people writing things this way is the reason why there is so much backlash to it. We have seen plenty of examples where social movements take form of correcting what is perceived as wrong, why not adapt a similar policy and create a much more stable position rather than that of a laughingstock? You're right, it is an issue in itself. I'm not here to defend either post-structuralism or feminism, and I feel that these fields have been marginalised in the eyes of the public for precisely these reasons. On May 17 2009 06:00 FieryBalrog wrote: So most chick flicks are sexist then, since the men are all shallow 2-D characters used by the women as emotional props and outlets to fulfill their dreams. Never mind that its a fantasy for a female audience, its sexist and misandrist! Most chick flicks are sexist, like many frat boy movies. A lot of feminists dislike these movies too. (Some, on the other hand, would argue that they simply perpetuate the status quo of female stereotypes and reinforce negative gender roles.) On May 17 2009 06:02 travis wrote: (turns out there wasnt much arguing) Looks like we agree on most things, hooray  On May 17 2009 06:05 lololol wrote: Considering what is called evidence in the article, I have evidence to prove anything you want. If you were discussing this with the writer of the article, sure, you could call her out on the shoddiness of her evidence... But I didn't write the article, and as such the burden of proof lies on you. The carrier is definitely female, since he has to nurture his interceptors and he is worthless without them. Now tell me it isn't female despite this evidence! Modern aircraft carriers are given female names, coincidence? The titanic is obviously reffering to a male phallus and guess what, it god hit by an iceberg, most of which in under the water, while only a small part on top shows, which is obviously a female representation! And now you're using the same argumentation as the original article, which I think we'll both agree is pretty shoddy On May 17 2009 06:20 Hawk wrote: That's why she tagged that line about Focault--our language and culture is loaded, whether we realize we're doing it or not (huge, huge paraphrase) Regardless of whether you believe this stuff or not, I agree, you could construct a decent argument with bw. But she's horrible at writing, doesn't know the most basic stuff about the game and constructs crappy arguments. This. On May 17 2009 23:52 cz wrote: Personal observation and opinion. It's not a claim I'm really going to defend or stand by too much. The difference is that I admit that. Two points: 1) Gender studies and "cultural studies" and all that stuff is generally regarded as being in the Humanities. They have no pretentions to being scientific - indeed, some of them dismiss science as "just another philosophy" (and to an extent they're right). The Social Sciences are things like sociology, psychology, and so on. These are scientific to varying degrees. 2) Admitting to a flaw in your methodology or reasoning doesn't mean the flaw isn't still there. (Thus, you and the unscientific social sciences are both guilty of the same thing. That makes you a hypocrite (albeit a self-acknowledging one) and makes the unscientific social sciences just plain ignorant.) Right, I've had enough of all of this, I'm gonna play some iccup. | ||
|
HooHa!
United States688 Posts
I think only protoss players could bring themselves to these kinds of discussions. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32075 Posts
| ||
|
maleorderbride
United States2916 Posts
However, she has valid points with the unit quotes. SC was obviously made to appeal to teenage boys. That is not really a surprise in my book. An entertaining enough read. Are people actually mad about this? | ||
|
decafchicken
United States20034 Posts
-some comedian i just saw on com central :p | ||
|
Rotodyne
United States2263 Posts
EDIT: As seen in decafchickens post. | ||
|
KingPants
United States54 Posts
Evidence: McCarthyism . Roads are typically built by men. The T in The Road is really a phallus lying sideways on top of another phallus(btw they are both rigid and firm) | ||
| ||
