EPTOn May 19 2009 05:46 tinman wrote:
you would think a guy named foucault could make a smart post
you would think a guy named foucault could make a smart post
Did you post just to say that? Why don't you actually write something interesting
StarCraft = Sexist? Some feminists just go too far - Page 19
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Foucault
Sweden2826 Posts
Did you post just to say that? Why don't you actually write something interesting | ||
|
Foucault
Sweden2826 Posts
On May 20 2009 02:58 maleorderbride wrote: Obviously her understanding of strategy and gameplay is terrible, thus those 2 paragraphs really need to just be stricken. 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? Agreed, she has points although the article is a bit too far-fetched but I don't get either why people get so mad. Since TL is mostly boys, especially of a younger age, they are probably projecting their awkwardsness around women at this feminist article. Also we live in a society where women usually don't get to dictate the norm, and that is why some responses here are almost hateful and very upset. Notice the huge bandwagon too, there's like 90% of the people replying going "lol what a moron, how can you read this shit", and the people who can actually discuss this from a more open perspective are probably some years older and have some education. But I find it scary how people automatically dismiss theories like this, without even thinking about them for one fraction of a second. I wonder what the thread would be like if some people with relative status around here, mods etc would go first and call this article "interesting". Probably a majority of the posters would agree to a certain extent. This is basic psychology and i've read many a research papers on this matter; people are very sheepish in general but don't realize it. How's that for an analysis? Btw, it's not "gay" or unmanly to think women should have equal rights. | ||
|
KingPants
United States54 Posts
Her theory was that "Starcraft, along with nearly all modern computer games, alongside it's addictively entertaining gameplay, and beautiful plotline, reinforces negative gender stereotypes by quantifying the women as sexual objects, and simultaneously as unknowable beasts.", her other mini theory was that the developers intentionally made the Zerg to be women. Do you really think either of these theories warrant more discussion? On the other hand I come to the internet for entertainment and the article is very entertaining. BTW nice job on calling the people who don't want a serious discussion of the sexually oppressive nature of Starcraft immature and uneducated. | ||
|
Foucault
Sweden2826 Posts
On May 21 2009 02:02 KingPants wrote: The issue for me is that every time somebody calls something sexist that isn't actually sexist it very slightly redefines the word and makes it harder for people to solve real problems. This women is damaging the feminist movement and I think it is more productive to denounce her than to try to find legitimacy in her deranged ramblings. Ok I actually stopped reading here. Too many judgements made already, you are hugely biased based on....what? In your first sentence you conclude that it's not sexist. I agree it's not made on purpose and therefore not sexist, but then again it is influenced by gender obviously. And when you talk about "real" problems, I would like to mention that attitudes towards gender is a very real problem. | ||
|
PriitM
Algeria181 Posts
| ||
|
KingPants
United States54 Posts
This disconnect you seem to be making is that you are equating the claim of Starcraft not being a necessarily negative force in gender attitudes with the claim that gender attitudes in entertainment are not a problem. The second claim is a claim that nobody is making. | ||
|
Foucault
Sweden2826 Posts
I view her analysis of Starcraft more as an fun analysis, but I really don't believe in it too much. I think there are too many conclusions that just are extremely hard to make, since it's nearly impossible to say how much gender has influenced the game. Nevertheless it's interesting if you take it for what it is. And yes, I have to agree some feminists take their analysis a bit too far but I don't laugh at it, and try to look for interesting stuff. Too many people get defensive when feminism is brought up and I'll be the first to say the the word "feminism" isn't all that good, and there should be a better word that aims to describe equality between the sexes because "feminism" is too loaded with connotations. Also guys tend to view feminist theory as a personal attack against their manhood, and need to realize that men aren't usually attacked per se, but rather the idea of what "man" and "woman" is that society holds. And about the game/entertainment industry I also think games influence people alot nowadays, since video games have really blown up. We are re-defining culture all the time, and it's important to remember this when looking at the content in games/TV/entertainment of today. People should really examine their own beliefs and attitudes more, because unfortunately we take too many ideas/thoughts for granted. | ||
|
Probe.
United States877 Posts
![[image loading]](http://imagehoster.eu/images/grids5x4slgliesxd3z8.jpg) | ||
|
gumbum8
United States721 Posts
| ||
|
tinman
United States287 Posts
On May 20 2009 15:22 Foucault wrote: Did you post just to say that? Why don't you actually write something interesting you first | ||
|
NrG.Bamboo
United States2756 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + They must pay in blood for their ignorance | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On May 22 2009 06:47 Valentine wrote: ¬¬ This isn't funny. Any kind of racism is bad. It's very obvious and simple to understand this, anyone with an IQ a little over a female's can understand it.Why do women have their periods? + Show Spoiler + They must pay in blood for their ignorance | ||
|
Raiju
Australia235 Posts
| ||
|
LorDo
Sweden485 Posts
| ||
|
FieryBalrog
United States1381 Posts
On May 19 2009 04:27 Foucault wrote: 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. Your own theory which you just came up with is probably about right, eh? I don't know about that. In any case, you basically just said male dominance (i.e. male being the norm) is a result of male dominance. Which you then linked to physical power. Which, however, explains nothing of the differences in behavior and sexual strategies which we see repeated across the world in various cultures. On May 19 2009 04:27 Foucault wrote: 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. Didn't you just mock someone for speculating like this about female hatred of men? Apply this critical analysis to your own just-so stories. On May 19 2009 04:27 Foucault wrote: 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. Unfortunately that doesn't explain why disparate societies would produce similar subconscious processes, i.e. it is a proximate explanation that ignores the underlying pattern. When organisms across wide geographies display similar patterns of behavior, then it requires an explanation that is species-wide, i.e. biological. Feminist theory lies in denying the reality of this because it conflicts with dogma; is much easier to criticize male power structures when you feel that they are unfairly perpetrated by evil male ruling powers. In fact a great deal of energy goes into trying to find female-dominated societies and the "golden age of society" that hypothetically existed before the "patriarchal age". Why? Because it would be a tremendous source of legitimacy for feminism. On May 19 2009 04:27 Foucault wrote: 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. For sure, many are. What fashion trend is in vogue at the moment is clearly socially constructed. Association of masculinity with sports cars; duh, the same. The underlying patterns that keep repeating themselves across societies and which draw so much ire form feminist critique; not so much. Anyway, behavior is subject to evolutionary forces just as bodies are. People have this misconception that evolution is just mammoths getting hairier when it gets cold. Its a lot more complex than that. As a general rule of human biology, men prefer multiple, young, fertile partners regardless of social status, and women prefer single partners of equal or higher age, with a high social status or projected high income. Why do you think that is? | ||
|
Xenixx
United States538 Posts
On May 22 2009 06:49 VIB wrote: ¬¬ This isn't funny. Any kind of racism is bad. It's very obvious and simple to understand this, anyone with an IQ a little over a female's can understand it. Wait what racism? Hows that? Don't think you jumped to conclusions a bit? | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On May 22 2009 09:06 Xenixx wrote: Damn this getting hard. Now I don't know if it's YOU being romanian for posting that or ME being romanian for posting this O.OWait what racism? Hows that? Don't think you jumped to conclusions a bit? | ||
|
snorlax
United States755 Posts
| ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On May 22 2009 10:15 VIB wrote: Damn this getting hard. Now I don't know if it's YOU being romanian for posting that or ME being romanian for posting this O.O Good one. I almost missed that one. | ||
|
R3condite
Korea (South)1541 Posts
| ||
| ||
