EPTFeminism gets to be veeeery dumb...but this article takes it on to a whole 'nother level.
StarCraft = Sexist? Some feminists just go too far - Page 6
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
Feminism gets to be veeeery dumb...but this article takes it on to a whole 'nother level. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32159 Posts
On May 17 2009 06:05 Jibba wrote: Aversive sexism is definitely present in Starcraft, but I can pretty much guarantee the nearly all-male development team had no understanding of the female orgasm when they mapped out Zerg unit development. 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. | ||
|
29 fps
United States5725 Posts
| ||
|
DeathSpank
United States1029 Posts
| ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
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. I got the Foucault reference, but in order for that to work they'd actually have to know or have heard how the female orgasm works in some subtle way. I don't think it's presented in language and culture at all. If anything, it's completely ignored in society and they probably just got it out of sheer luck. On May 17 2009 06:20 29 fps wrote: it sounds like that woman just had an argument in mind and found anything that could have possibly supported her "claim". Everyone should take note, because a lot of people do this when writing papers, myself included. It's probably unavoidable to some extent, but everyone should keep this in mind so they don't go overboard like she did. | ||
|
CongoJack
Canada417 Posts
| ||
|
Retsukage
United States1002 Posts
edit oh fuck 666th post | ||
|
Apex
United States7227 Posts
This is a classic example of "Finding something just because you want it to be there." It's basically some idiot trying to look for sexism in whatever random topic that person (in this case, she) pointed their finger on. Any person with a brain can "find" racism, sexism, or whatever in anything if they really tried hard enough. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32159 Posts
On May 17 2009 06:26 Jibba wrote: I got the Foucault reference, but in order for that to work they'd actually have to know or have heard how the female orgasm works in some subtle way. I don't think it's presented in language and culture at all. If anything, it's completely ignored in society and they probably just got it out of sheer luck. Everyone should take note, because a lot of people do this when writing papers, myself included. It's probably unavoidable to some extent, but everyone should keep this in mind so they don't go overboard like she did. I know they're programmers, I think anyone who has had sex once at least has a basic understand through that, if not through sex ed class or something. I think that would be subtle enough to validate it for Focault, if you ignore the other worthless crap in the argument, no? Like they don't have to be gynocologists in terms of their knowledge of it. At least that's kinda what I got from reading it. This is probably the one instance where Focault matters in my life besides the classroom =o | ||
|
Gliche
United States811 Posts
| ||
Rekrul
Korea (South)17174 Posts
GO IN A REAL STARCRAFT GAME AND LOOK AT THE SCV UNIT PORTRAIT TOTAL BLACK | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
On May 17 2009 05:36 FrozenArbiter wrote: I meant the site specifically but yes I think the whole movement has become completely ridiculous and I'm sure the people who originally initiated it would be ashamed of what it has become. Btw, it's amazing how she bends facts to fit her argument, even something as basic as the order in which you are introduced to the races - she claims Terran/Toss/Zerg while it's Terran/Zerg/Toss followed by Toss/Terran/Zerg. And Protoss are not asexual. In fact, the DTs are a matriarchy as has been pointed out. Further, protoss buildings are described as phallic.. The closest thing to "phallic" in the game is the god damned zerg spire but of course that wouldn't work very well for her retarded argument. The evidence section makes me want to smash my head into the monitor. Dude, I will teach you a secret. In these kind of course, every building is phallic. Especially if its any way military. | ||
|
shimmy
Poland997 Posts
Btw. I remember Sarah Kerrigan being included in a list of best female characters in video games (that break the stereotype of showing women just as sex objects in video games etc.) on some female gaming site, she was like in the top 3 or something. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32159 Posts
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/18/opinion/18YOCA.html | ||
|
FieryBalrog
United States1381 Posts
On May 17 2009 06:15 Jibba wrote: The issue of physical strength is very real, especially since women are unable to fight when heavily pregnant, but the idea is that modern societies should be able to go past the physical requirements that helped create them, just as we expect them to in areas of ethics, etc. The probl.em is behavior has strong roots in biology just as physiology does. For sure environmental factors and culture affect physiology, but would anyone try to claim physiology is not severely impacted by genetics and therefore by Darwinian evolution? Most feminists have no problem with the idea that animal (using it to mean non-human) behavior is governed by Darwinian evolution. The problem comes when the erect a picket fence around the human brain and consequently the mind. Even while professing to believe in the power of evolution, most feminist (and in general, modern philosophy) is rooted in the dogma that the human brain is basically completely malleable and wasn't really created by evolutionary forces, but is magically independent of them in a manner that primates and other animals are not. An example which applies to your statement would be that in modern societies, there's really no need to live near trees or greenery. Many can and do live without contact with anything like that. But this has very negative consequences for people's minds. It has strong links to depression, anomie, stress and other negative consequences. Why are people still strongly affected by access to open greenery, trees and plants and wildlife? Because behavior is modular and we evolved in such an environment. Even though in modern society we don't need it per se, the brain does not simply adjust and say "OK, I don't need greenery. I'll be fine in this concrete and plastic environment." Behavior is atavistic. Same thing with the strength argument. Even if we create a military where physical strength isn't an issue- very much not the case today, but for argument's sake- that doesn't mean that women will make up 50% or more of armed forces around the world. Because behavior is atavistic. Yet according to post-modern dogma this is a product of structural forces in society and not biology. On May 17 2009 06:15 Jibba wrote: There is still something to be said for the nurture argument, at least in regards to gender roles, which is the basic feminist critique. I think the real problem with her piece is that she probably decided her thesis before actually thinking about it. That is, she could have done an interesting gender studies critique on the game and come to differing conclusions about different aspects of the game, but instead she pre-determined that the game was anti-feminist and made no effort to adjust her thesis when the evidence failed to present itself. Classic problem of selection bias in paper writing. This happens all the time in university lib arts classes. You think half the students actually put any effort into it? They just parrot what the professor says and then produce a paper on it. Given a class like women's studies, would it be exciting at all to report that "Starcraft isn't significantly sexist after all" on her paper in videogames? You always start with the assumption that whatever subject you are investigating is "infected" with the structural forces that govern society according to your dogma, and then you conveniently find the symptoms of infection. That is de rigeur and not surprising to me at all. | ||
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
Fantastic. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
| ||
|
pyrogenetix
China5098 Posts
| ||
|
lololol
5198 Posts
On May 17 2009 06:37 Rekrul wrote: THOSE SCVS IN THE VIDEO ARE OBVIOUSLY WHITE BUT THOSE VIDEOS ARE MEANINGLESS GO IN A REAL STARCRAFT GAME AND LOOK AT THE SCV UNIT PORTRAIT TOTAL BLACK NO. P.S. Only 13 more scvs are black till you have 12345 posts. | ||
|
Archaic
United States4024 Posts
| ||
| ||
