It is a bit long so let me summarize it for you: (actual quote) "Zerg = female, alongside Zerg = unknowable, evil beast yields a culture who regard female = unknowable, evil beast. This is obviously a problem. Women are human, men are human."
Ms. Kelly Alerenson, the author of this article, tries to argue that Zerg runs on a "female" economy, which relies on reproduction, and that Zerg buildings look convincingly gynic. She analyzed further that Zerg gameplay is like the development of an orgasm.
Now isn't that a bit too far? OH LOOK! Reproduction --> Gynic buildings --> Evil beasts --> WAHWAHWAH INEQUALITY!!
I'm all for gender equality, but these people piss me off. And relating this topic to Starcraft is just overkill, a blasphemy... downright moronic.
I got a good laugh out of the things she says though:
"Fight sexism. Fight gender stereotypes. Think of people as people, not as sexual objects, nor as the unknowable other."
(and while you're at it, fight the damned Protoss and Terrans for always oppressing Zergs.)
"A Nydus Canal is a large, vaginal opening, that if a Zerg unit enters, it may emerge at the other end, in a manner that "greatly puzzles most Terran scientists." (This quote is too much to not mock: What? Men cannot understand the vagina: the symbolic representation of women? I never would have guessed.)"
Btw, what scientists don't understand is instantaneous teleportation, not the fact that it looks like a vagina. Nice IQ.
God help you if you ever take some cultural anthro or women's studies classes. Entire academic departments are built on churning out articles like this and then the peer review session and the author have a good mutual cry together about how unfair the world is. My Medical Anthropology class was full of articles like this, where the author would find the most tenuous bullshit to get outraged about. One article was written about how the sperm/egg model was sexist because scientists described the egg as more or less sitting there and the sperm as active and swimming towards the egg.
Its why the term "sexism" doesn't have any meaning anymore. Its become a meaningless charge used so we're supposed to get all share in the author's outrage about absolutely nothing.
On May 17 2009 04:40 Scooge wrote: Don't really care what some retard on a small website has to say. Feel free to bring more attention to her obscure work.
The real problem is that shit like this infects liberal arts academia like a plague. The author almost certainly learned how to produce papers like this on demand in class.
Goliath "Checklist completed…. SoB." (Again, not only being a sexually derogatory statement, this implies that only males will be empowered; leading the force.)
Damn the Goliath is such a sexist.
This article seems like some female student wrote it looking for any type of ridiculous piece of evidence possible in order to make it longer.
Also, one of the Zerg's greatest strengths is a building known as a Nydus Canal. A Nydus Canal is a large, vaginal opening, that if a Zerg unit enters, it may emerge at the other end, in a manner that "greatly puzzles most Terran scientists." (This quote is too much to not mock: What? Men cannot understand the vagina: the symbolic representation of women? I never would have guessed.)
i really don't understand their argument... see because the nydus canal is a hole, therefore it is a vagina, and the nydus canal is a zerg building, and zerg are evil, so women are evil???
i get where they are coming from for the female unit responses kind of, but i really don't think blizzard is trying to make the game sexist...
Valkyrie- In an overly sexualized Russian accent. "Don't keep me waiting." "I have ways of blowing things…. Up." "You're being very naughty." "Who's your Mommy?" "(Stallion neighing)"
Valkyrie- In an overly sexualized Russian accent. "Don't keep me waiting." "I have ways of blowing things…. Up." "You're being very naughty." "Who's your Mommy?" "(Stallion neighing)"
i never knew that "achtung" is russian.
I hope you're being sarcastic because "achtung" is german. You wanted to point out her fault? Anyway just wanted to be sure.
On May 17 2009 04:36 vicviper wrote: Btw, what scientists don't understand is instantaneous teleportation, not the fact that it looks like a vagina. Nice IQ.
lol great find ^^ especially her section covering gameplay comparing it to male (t/p) and female (z) orgasm when she actually doesnt know how to play the races is ridiculous...
Valkyrie- In an overly sexualized Russian accent. "Don't keep me waiting." "I have ways of blowing things…. Up." "You're being very naughty." "Who's your Mommy?" "(Stallion neighing)"
i never knew that "achtung" is russian.
I hope you're being sarcastic because "achtung" is german. You wanted to point out her fault? Anyway just wanted to be sure.
yeah its sarcasm
I sort of thought that everyone knows that "achtung" is german I think that its one of the most known words, after like scheisse and führer or something
lol entertaining read, its an interesting interpretation, but this point has been made before, aliens = women, humans = men, and so its not really new ground shaking bullshit.
Although i think she neglected to point out that the DTs run a matriarchy. And if she wanted to go out on a limb she can say DTs wear less cloths and work in the shadows and they are like muslim women because they wear veils.
On May 17 2009 04:44 FieryBalrog wrote: The real problem is that shit like this infects liberal arts academia like a plague. The author almost certainly learned how to produce papers like this on demand in class.
this is so goddamn true. I once read (well, skimmed) a paper where some woman tried to denounce the entire discipline of science itself as sexist. What the christ.
On May 17 2009 05:09 Railxp wrote: lol entertaining read, its an interesting interpretation, but this point has been made before, aliens = women, humans = men, and so its not really new ground shaking bullshit.
Although i think she neglected to point out that the DTs run a matriarchy. And if she wanted to go out on a limb she can say DTs wear less cloths and work in the shadows and they are like muslim women because they wear veils.
llololol
she also failed to mention how much evolution chamber looks like balls.
Did any of you actually read the article, or even its opening paragraphs? While the article quickly descends into the post-structuralist cultural studies style that I dislike immensely, the author points out that:
1) this isn't a problem with Starcraft - it's a problem with society and the structure of our social hierarchies 2) Starcraft is merely symptomatic of these problems, and is useful as an exemplar.
And she has a point. Starcraft fails the Bechdel test; it has few female characters (even the non-human characters are archetypally male). This doesn't mean that those who made Starcraft were sexist - it just goes to show that Starcraft is not above the (potentially negative) stereotypes and motifs that run through society.
On May 17 2009 05:14 The Raurosaur wrote: Did any of you actually read the article, or even its opening paragraphs? While the article quickly descends into the post-structuralist cultural studies style that I dislike immensely, the author points out that:
1) this isn't a problem with Starcraft - it's a problem with society and the structure of our social hierarchies 2) Starcraft is merely symptomatic of these problems, and is useful as an exemplar.
And she has a point. Starcraft fails the Bechdel test; it has few female characters (even the non-human characters are archetypally male). This doesn't mean that those who made Starcraft were sexist - it just goes to show that Starcraft is not above the (potentially negative) stereotypes and motifs that run through society.
think about the target market for sc when it was released
On May 17 2009 05:14 The Raurosaur wrote: Did any of you actually read the article, or even its opening paragraphs? While the article quickly descends into the post-structuralist cultural studies style that I dislike immensely, the author points out that:
1) this isn't a problem with Starcraft - it's a problem with society and the structure of our social hierarchies 2) Starcraft is merely symptomatic of these problems, and is useful as an exemplar.
And she has a point. Starcraft fails the Bechdel test; it has few female characters (even the non-human characters are archetypally male). This doesn't mean that those who made Starcraft were sexist - it just goes to show that Starcraft is not above the (potentially negative) stereotypes and motifs that run through society.
think about the target market for sc when it was released
But her point still stands. To use an extreme example, if someone comes along with a KKK booklet and says "this shit is racist", pointing out its target audience (KKK members) doesn't make it less racist.
On May 17 2009 05:14 The Raurosaur wrote: Did any of you actually read the article, or even its opening paragraphs? While the article quickly descends into the post-structuralist cultural studies style that I dislike immensely, the author points out that:
1) this isn't a problem with Starcraft - it's a problem with society and the structure of our social hierarchies 2) Starcraft is merely symptomatic of these problems, and is useful as an exemplar.
And she has a point. Starcraft fails the Bechdel test; it has few female characters (even the non-human characters are archetypally male). This doesn't mean that those who made Starcraft were sexist - it just goes to show that Starcraft is not above the (potentially negative) stereotypes and motifs that run through society.
think about the target market for sc when it was released
But her point still stands. To use an extreme example, if someone comes along with a KKK booklet and says "this shit is racist", pointing out its target audience (KKK members) doesn't make it less racist.
But that argument brings us nowhere, so SC is reflective of a culture and societal issues, then what? If her point was to suggest that such persecution is abundant, then sure, that's fine, but that post-structuralist analysis didn't add anything to it. Overall, it is hard to read that as anything else but a farce. She might have had the right aim, but the supporting evidence for the most part doesn't do much to prove the point.
On May 17 2009 05:14 The Raurosaur wrote: Did any of you actually read the article, or even its opening paragraphs? While the article quickly descends into the post-structuralist cultural studies style that I dislike immensely, the author points out that:
1) this isn't a problem with Starcraft - it's a problem with society and the structure of our social hierarchies 2) Starcraft is merely symptomatic of these problems, and is useful as an exemplar.
And she has a point. Starcraft fails the Bechdel test; it has few female characters (even the non-human characters are archetypally male). This doesn't mean that those who made Starcraft were sexist - it just goes to show that Starcraft is not above the (potentially negative) stereotypes and motifs that run through society.
Oh no a computer game doesn't aim to fix flaws in society, let's all make a big fuss.
On May 17 2009 05:14 The Raurosaur wrote: Did any of you actually read the article, or even its opening paragraphs? While the article quickly descends into the post-structuralist cultural studies style that I dislike immensely, the author points out that:
1) this isn't a problem with Starcraft - it's a problem with society and the structure of our social hierarchies 2) Starcraft is merely symptomatic of these problems, and is useful as an exemplar.
And she has a point. Starcraft fails the Bechdel test; it has few female characters (even the non-human characters are archetypally male). This doesn't mean that those who made Starcraft were sexist - it just goes to show that Starcraft is not above the (potentially negative) stereotypes and motifs that run through society.
And if there were more women, they would complain that women are represented as ruthless killing machines, which is totally insulting to women. There would always be something to complain about.
On May 17 2009 05:14 The Raurosaur wrote: And she has a point. Starcraft fails the Bechdel test; it has few female characters (even the non-human characters are archetypally male). This doesn't mean that those who made Starcraft were sexist - it just goes to show that Starcraft is not above the (potentially negative) stereotypes and motifs that run through society.
lol?
Realistically, almost all combatants in a war are male. Why expect anything different from StarCraft?
On May 17 2009 05:14 The Raurosaur wrote: Did any of you actually read the article, or even its opening paragraphs? While the article quickly descends into the post-structuralist cultural studies style that I dislike immensely, the author points out that:
1) this isn't a problem with Starcraft - it's a problem with society and the structure of our social hierarchies 2) Starcraft is merely symptomatic of these problems, and is useful as an exemplar.
And she has a point. Starcraft fails the Bechdel test; it has few female characters (even the non-human characters are archetypally male). This doesn't mean that those who made Starcraft were sexist - it just goes to show that Starcraft is not above the (potentially negative) stereotypes and motifs that run through society.
Oh no a computer game doesn't aim to fix flaws in society, let's all make a big fuss.
But how are flaws in society to be fixed, if not in part through small movements from the mass media?
You're right in that making a big fuss is pointless and fairly infantile. I don't really agree with the article, but there was an interesting point that a lot of people on here didn't seem to grasp so I thought I'd bring it up.
On May 17 2009 05:14 The Raurosaur wrote: Did any of you actually read the article, or even its opening paragraphs? While the article quickly descends into the post-structuralist cultural studies style that I dislike immensely, the author points out that:
1) this isn't a problem with Starcraft - it's a problem with society and the structure of our social hierarchies 2) Starcraft is merely symptomatic of these problems, and is useful as an exemplar.
And she has a point. Starcraft fails the Bechdel test; it has few female characters (even the non-human characters are archetypally male). This doesn't mean that those who made Starcraft were sexist - it just goes to show that Starcraft is not above the (potentially negative) stereotypes and motifs that run through society.
She is right, but is it a big deal? Armies consist mainly of men. This is a game of war.
Also zerg and protoss shouldn't matter in this case because they aren't human. They are aliens. Basically zerg is just a load of insects.
Protoss are random scifihumanoids. are there even any info whether women exist in protoss world?
agh this is such a stupid debate. them feminists can make anything sound sexist and bad -__-
Also, one could say that its the other way around.
Starcraft is very feministic! The message it sends is that, why is most of the armies men? MAybe its because of the flaw in the society that only men have to go to the army in so many countries. But there are a few women, who all are very pwoerful or they have a really important role in the army! its an encouragement to join the army for women!
On May 17 2009 05:14 The Raurosaur wrote: Did any of you actually read the article, or even its opening paragraphs? While the article quickly descends into the post-structuralist cultural studies style that I dislike immensely, the author points out that:
1) this isn't a problem with Starcraft - it's a problem with society and the structure of our social hierarchies 2) Starcraft is merely symptomatic of these problems, and is useful as an exemplar.
And she has a point. Starcraft fails the Bechdel test; it has few female characters (even the non-human characters are archetypally male). This doesn't mean that those who made Starcraft were sexist - it just goes to show that Starcraft is not above the (potentially negative) stereotypes and motifs that run through society.
And if there were more women, they would complain that women are represented as ruthless killing machines, which is totally insulting to women. There would always be something to complain about.
Stereotype #53: Women complain a lot. Are Raynor or Tassadar portrayed as ruthless killing machines? You're making a strawman.
except for most of those stereotypes and motifs are not only based on truths of our society, but on truths of our behavior as individuals of our species.
feminism for equal social, political, individual rights is great. feminism for equal everything when the sexes aren't equal in the first place is ridiculous.
beyond that, mahnini made the most obvious point I can think of. the game is for guys, not for girls. why wouldn't they make it what guys want?
I couldn't even stand reading this article much more than halfway, because it gets so ridiculous.
If you see vaginas in computergame buildings you do have a serious problem. Also stating that young men wants to be protoss. Uhm she is just guessing wildly there.
On May 17 2009 05:14 The Raurosaur wrote: Did any of you actually read the article, or even its opening paragraphs? While the article quickly descends into the post-structuralist cultural studies style that I dislike immensely, the author points out that:
1) this isn't a problem with Starcraft - it's a problem with society and the structure of our social hierarchies 2) Starcraft is merely symptomatic of these problems, and is useful as an exemplar.
And she has a point. Starcraft fails the Bechdel test; it has few female characters (even the non-human characters are archetypally male). This doesn't mean that those who made Starcraft were sexist - it just goes to show that Starcraft is not above the (potentially negative) stereotypes and motifs that run through society.
Oh no a computer game doesn't aim to fix flaws in society, let's all make a big fuss.
But how are flaws in society to be fixed, if not in part through small movements from the mass media?
You're right in that making a big fuss is pointless and fairly infantile. I don't really agree with the article, but there was an interesting point that a lot of people on here didn't seem to grasp so I thought I'd bring it up.
The point is only as good as what you are basing it off. If the article was just that, then it would be a lot more convincing. Toss in enough of the nonsensical drivel and message itself becomes marginalized, this should be argued against even if the person has a good message, like how you cut off the rest of the "analysis". Even then it is pretty tainted already.
On May 17 2009 05:14 The Raurosaur wrote: Did any of you actually read the article, or even its opening paragraphs? While the article quickly descends into the post-structuralist cultural studies style that I dislike immensely, the author points out that:
1) this isn't a problem with Starcraft - it's a problem with society and the structure of our social hierarchies 2) Starcraft is merely symptomatic of these problems, and is useful as an exemplar.
And she has a point. Starcraft fails the Bechdel test; it has few female characters (even the non-human characters are archetypally male). This doesn't mean that those who made Starcraft were sexist - it just goes to show that Starcraft is not above the (potentially negative) stereotypes and motifs that run through society.
And if there were more women, they would complain that women are represented as ruthless killing machines, which is totally insulting to women. There would always be something to complain about.
Stereotype #53: Women complain a lot. Are Raynor or Tassadar portrayed as ruthless killing machines? You're making a strawman.
Are the zerg portrayed as women and the protoss and terran as men? Who's making a strawman?
On May 17 2009 05:14 The Raurosaur wrote: Did any of you actually read the article, or even its opening paragraphs? While the article quickly descends into the post-structuralist cultural studies style that I dislike immensely, the author points out that:
1) this isn't a problem with Starcraft - it's a problem with society and the structure of our social hierarchies 2) Starcraft is merely symptomatic of these problems, and is useful as an exemplar.
And she has a point. Starcraft fails the Bechdel test; it has few female characters (even the non-human characters are archetypally male). This doesn't mean that those who made Starcraft were sexist - it just goes to show that Starcraft is not above the (potentially negative) stereotypes and motifs that run through society.
And if there were more women, they would complain that women are represented as ruthless killing machines, which is totally insulting to women. There would always be something to complain about.
Stereotype #53: Women Feminists complain a lot. Are Raynor or Tassadar portrayed as ruthless killing machines? You're making a strawman.
Now, don't get me wrong, there's nothing that I love more than curling up with my computer, a Starcraft CD, and Josie and the Pussycats in the stereo, but the other day I came to a few realizations.
Well you can't hate her too much. Just a college student taking feminist studies looking for patterns that don't exist. Really though... You'd think she'd take a second to analyse how sexist Josie and the Pussycats itself is.
The actual argument is trash... There's a lot of reasons to say women aren't fairly represented in StarCraft, but saying the Zerg represent women is a premise most people are going to reject... It's totally far fetched. However, if you take the view that each of the female characters in the Terran units is generally seductive, it is falling into some pretty demeaning stereotypes... Unlike the male units which range from scrawny to bulky and have all different personalities.
If you look at the Protoss though, their female units (Razzengal or whatever) are actually quite varied and seem less seductive and sterotyped in their roles. If you take this to mean that the Protoss, a more advanced civilization, have advanced far enough that women have equal and varied roles, it's more like Blizzard is saying progress will bring equality, the future isn't dominated by one sex.
It should be obvious to note, however, that this looks like a joke. Maybe half serious at times, but I'm sure the writer knows they're going overboard. I just wish I knew when it was written.
On May 17 2009 05:24 FrozenArbiter wrote: Why have I looked through 3 pages of this thread and not seen a single "lol you retards, it's a joke" post?
I mean, reading the description I was SURE it had to be a joke.
Not a joke? Really? Fuck me.
But feminist writings really all read like this :p
EDIT - If you mean that the whole movement in itself is a joke though I am tempted to agree!
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.
On May 17 2009 05:28 MuR)Ernu wrote: Also zerg and protoss shouldn't matter in this case because they aren't human. They are aliens. Basically zerg is just a load of insects.
But they are represented as male. They have male voices and possess archetypally male traits.
On May 17 2009 05:29 travis wrote: except for most of those stereotypes and motifs are not only based on truths of our society, but on truths of our behavior as individuals of our species.
That's a totally unfounded statement. Firstly, we don't understand the interactions between nature and nurture with regards to human behaviour, especially considering the conditioning effect of society. Secondly, what about all the different cultures around the world that have different power structures and different stereotypes and tropes?
On May 17 2009 05:29 travis wrote: feminism for equal social, political, individual rights is great. feminism for equal everything when the sexes aren't equal in the first place is ridiculous.
I agree.
On May 17 2009 05:29 travis wrote: beyond that, mahnini made the most obvious point I can think of. the game is for guys, not for girls. why wouldn't they make it what guys want?
I have to challenge both of your premises here. 1) Starcraft was made for guys. Really? I'll agree that the market audience was mainly young males, but I doubt the design team at Blizzard sat down and said "right, let's make a good old strategy game for the lads". It wasn't marketed as a particularly "boyish" game. 2) So they made it with what guys want. Do guys actively want games with empty female characters in them? Most of the response in this thread suggests that people don't care.
On May 17 2009 05:29 travis wrote: I couldn't even stand reading this article much more than halfway, because it gets so ridiculous.
On May 17 2009 05:14 The Raurosaur wrote: Did any of you actually read the article, or even its opening paragraphs? While the article quickly descends into the post-structuralist cultural studies style that I dislike immensely, the author points out that:
1) this isn't a problem with Starcraft - it's a problem with society and the structure of our social hierarchies 2) Starcraft is merely symptomatic of these problems, and is useful as an exemplar.
And she has a point. Starcraft fails the Bechdel test; it has few female characters (even the non-human characters are archetypally male). This doesn't mean that those who made Starcraft were sexist - it just goes to show that Starcraft is not above the (potentially negative) stereotypes and motifs that run through society.
Oh no a computer game doesn't aim to fix flaws in society, let's all make a big fuss.
But how are flaws in society to be fixed, if not in part through small movements from the mass media?
You're right in that making a big fuss is pointless and fairly infantile. I don't really agree with the article, but there was an interesting point that a lot of people on here didn't seem to grasp so I thought I'd bring it up.
The point is only as good as what you are basing it off. If the article was just that, then it would be a lot more convincing. Toss in enough of the nonsensical drivel and message itself becomes marginalized, this should be argued against even if the person has a good message, like how you cut off the rest of the "analysis". Even then it is pretty tainted already.
I agree with you in principle. However, the message may be marginalised but that doesn't mean it's not true. If I gave a proof of there being an infinite number of prime numbers, and padded it with a load of crazy garbled nonsense and drivel, that may marginalise my proof but doesn't invalidate it.
On May 17 2009 05:14 The Raurosaur wrote: Did any of you actually read the article, or even its opening paragraphs? While the article quickly descends into the post-structuralist cultural studies style that I dislike immensely, the author points out that:
1) this isn't a problem with Starcraft - it's a problem with society and the structure of our social hierarchies 2) Starcraft is merely symptomatic of these problems, and is useful as an exemplar.
And she has a point. Starcraft fails the Bechdel test; it has few female characters (even the non-human characters are archetypally male). This doesn't mean that those who made Starcraft were sexist - it just goes to show that Starcraft is not above the (potentially negative) stereotypes and motifs that run through society.
And if there were more women, they would complain that women are represented as ruthless killing machines, which is totally insulting to women. There would always be something to complain about.
Stereotype #53: Women complain a lot. Are Raynor or Tassadar portrayed as ruthless killing machines? You're making a strawman.
Are the zerg portrayed as women and the protoss and terran as men? Who's making a strawman?
What I'm getting at is that the situation you're suggesting (women being in the game, and the feminists still complaining about it) is one that you don't really have any evidence for. If someone tells you you're doing something wrong, and you fix it, and they still say it's wrong, either a) they're never pleased or b) you didn't understand what was wrong with it in the first place. In this case I think it's a mixture of both of them.
And she has a point. Starcraft fails the Bechdel test; it has few female characters (even the non-human characters are archetypally male). This doesn't mean that those who made Starcraft were sexist - it just goes to show that Starcraft is not above the (potentially negative) stereotypes and motifs that run through society.
Uh, why don't you actually examine the story and the contexts surrounding the units. The terrans are largely criminals: Criminals are male. Males are unfit to be in society. Clearly a pro-patriarchy move, right?
Protoss have 2 branches of their highest caste. One is run by females, the other is run by men. Shocking.
The zerg are led by a woman. The woman's origins and rise to power are nearly identical to those which are portrayed in a unit of the same type who is male. He dies.
All i can see from this is that toss are fairly egalitarian. Human males are still unfit for society and are sent off to war to die, and that females when directly compared to their counterpart males are superior.
2) So they made it with what guys want. Do guys actively want games with empty female characters in them? Most of the response in this thread suggests that people don't care.
Obviously not but the female characters in SC are every bit as deep as the male ones. Which is to say, not very but it's an RTS not an RPG.
Sounds to me like a feminist seeking attention by looking for any random excuse to call something sexist...
Why not call all movies and TV shows with a male lead role sexist? Or almost everything in the media for that matter. It's not a matter of people being sexist. It's a problem with people seeing everything around them as sexist...
Edit: PS. I do not masturbate to the apparently sexually appealing gameplay of Zerg and I highly doubt anyone does... (well maybe a couple of exceptions...)
On May 17 2009 05:14 The Raurosaur wrote: Did any of you actually read the article, or even its opening paragraphs? While the article quickly descends into the post-structuralist cultural studies style that I dislike immensely, the author points out that:
1) this isn't a problem with Starcraft - it's a problem with society and the structure of our social hierarchies 2) Starcraft is merely symptomatic of these problems, and is useful as an exemplar.
And she has a point. Starcraft fails the Bechdel test; it has few female characters (even the non-human characters are archetypally male). This doesn't mean that those who made Starcraft were sexist - it just goes to show that Starcraft is not above the (potentially negative) stereotypes and motifs that run through society.
Humans are sexually dimorphic in both physiology and behavior. Military units are primarily composed of male-bonded networks. In all societies and cultures. Starcraft is a game about... military units.
And she has a point. Starcraft fails the Bechdel test; it has few female characters (even the non-human characters are archetypally male). This doesn't mean that those who made Starcraft were sexist - it just goes to show that Starcraft is not above the (potentially negative) stereotypes and motifs that run through society.
Uh, why don't you actually examine the story and the contexts surrounding the units. The terrans are largely criminals: Criminals are male. Males are unfit to be in society. Clearly a pro-patriarchy move, right?
Protoss have 2 branches of their highest caste. One is run by females, the other is run by men. Shocking.
The zerg are led by a woman. The woman's origins and rise to power are nearly identical to those which are portrayed in a unit of the same type who is male. He dies.
All i can see from this is that toss are fairly egalitarian. Human males are still unfit for society and are sent off to war to die, and that females when directly compared to their counterpart males are superior.
On May 17 2009 05:14 The Raurosaur wrote: Did any of you actually read the article, or even its opening paragraphs? While the article quickly descends into the post-structuralist cultural studies style that I dislike immensely, the author points out that:
1) this isn't a problem with Starcraft - it's a problem with society and the structure of our social hierarchies 2) Starcraft is merely symptomatic of these problems, and is useful as an exemplar.
And she has a point. Starcraft fails the Bechdel test; it has few female characters (even the non-human characters are archetypally male). This doesn't mean that those who made Starcraft were sexist - it just goes to show that Starcraft is not above the (potentially negative) stereotypes and motifs that run through society.
think about the target market for sc when it was released
But her point still stands. To use an extreme example, if someone comes along with a KKK booklet and says "this shit is racist", pointing out its target audience (KKK members) doesn't make it less racist.
you just equated being a guy with being a member of the KKK.
On May 17 2009 05:14 The Raurosaur wrote: Did any of you actually read the article, or even its opening paragraphs? While the article quickly descends into the post-structuralist cultural studies style that I dislike immensely, the author points out that:
1) this isn't a problem with Starcraft - it's a problem with society and the structure of our social hierarchies 2) Starcraft is merely symptomatic of these problems, and is useful as an exemplar.
And she has a point. Starcraft fails the Bechdel test; it has few female characters (even the non-human characters are archetypally male). This doesn't mean that those who made Starcraft were sexist - it just goes to show that Starcraft is not above the (potentially negative) stereotypes and motifs that run through society.
Oh no a computer game doesn't aim to fix flaws in society, let's all make a big fuss.
But how are flaws in society to be fixed, if not in part through small movements from the mass media?
You're right in that making a big fuss is pointless and fairly infantile. I don't really agree with the article, but there was an interesting point that a lot of people on here didn't seem to grasp so I thought I'd bring it up.
The point is only as good as what you are basing it off. If the article was just that, then it would be a lot more convincing. Toss in enough of the nonsensical drivel and message itself becomes marginalized, this should be argued against even if the person has a good message, like how you cut off the rest of the "analysis". Even then it is pretty tainted already.
I agree with you in principle. However, the message may be marginalised but that doesn't mean it's not true. If I gave a proof of there being an infinite number of prime numbers, and padded it with a load of crazy garbled nonsense and drivel, that may marginalise my proof but doesn't invalidate it.
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?
I'm pretty sure its for an essay for college and certainly she has some points you know, If you can argue correctly, you're never wrong right? I think it took some creativity to draw out the metaphors that she has and such. An example for a high school essay was that the Lord of The Rings was a tale for feminist power or some such.
Well, GTA IV is intentionally obscene for shock value. It's more interesting to analyse games that aren't intentionally trying to be rude, but are anyway. Some games go out of their way to make a point about cultural stereotypes, like Eternal Darkness. Some games don't think about it at all, and you end up seeing something revealing about how we think.
Anyone who is a gamer expects female characters to be seductive, or damsel's in distress. Tomb Raida: seductive. Zelda: Damsel.
How often do you get characters that are just women with various interesting different personalities? I can point to the Final Fantasy series, maybe. But other than E.D., I can't really think of any others. Big tits mcgee action star and little girl who needs to be saved. [edit: I guess Clock Tower one was pretty phenomenally unsexist]
That's not to say than men get stereotyped a lot in games too... But you at least see various personalities among them, and body types. Only Duke Nuk'em and Gears of War are really saying the protagonist has to be beefy.
What I'm basically saying, is tightcasting a gender to a role isn't feminazi bullshit. It's something that should change if only to make games more interesting.
EDIT: Or 10 posts could happen inbetween this and who I was replying to.. whatever.
But her point still stands. To use an extreme example, if someone comes along with a KKK booklet and says "this shit is racist", pointing out its target audience (KKK members) doesn't make it less racist.
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!
On May 17 2009 05:29 travis wrote: except for most of those stereotypes and motifs are not only based on truths of our society, but on truths of our behavior as individuals of our species.
That's a totally unfounded statement. Firstly, we don't understand the interactions between nature and nurture with regards to human behaviour, especially considering the conditioning effect of society. Secondly, what about all the different cultures around the world that have different power structures and different stereotypes and tropes?
kewl I get to argue
your point here is a great one, and in general I will concede that many stereotypes may in fact be unfounded outside of our society. but I don't think all.
On May 17 2009 05:29 travis wrote: beyond that, mahnini made the most obvious point I can think of. the game is for guys, not for girls. why wouldn't they make it what guys want?
I have to challenge both of your premises here. 1) Starcraft was made for guys. Really? I'll agree that the market audience was mainly young males, but I doubt the design team at Blizzard sat down and said "right, let's make a good old strategy game for the lads". It wasn't marketed as a particularly "boyish" game.
it doesn't need to be. strategy games = boy games. and I am talking any kind of strategy game, really. chess, go, poker, starcraft, age of empiries, warcraft 3, online games like travian, even the stock market.
2) So they made it with what guys want. Do guys actively want games with empty female characters in them? Most of the response in this thread suggests that people don't care.
well "empty" is just how you would describe it, but I won't disagree hehe. anyways I would agree most guys probably don't care. however I think most guys probably do like having hot gurlz in their games. but personally I would indeed like complex, interesting female characters in games. who were also hot of course.
The power of the Zerg lies not in how many productive buildings you have, but in how many reproductive (larva-birthing) buildings you have. Also, their power lies not in efficiency of building (more marines per minute) but in keeping your troops alive long enough to get them nurtured and grown up to a state of power. (Good job for those of you who are putting together the gender argument already).
On May 17 2009 05:59 Chef wrote: Well, GTA IV is intentionally obscene for shock value. It's more interesting to analyse games that aren't intentionally trying to be rude, but are anyway. Some games go out of their way to make a point about cultural stereotypes, like Eternal Darkness. Some games don't think about it at all, and you end up seeing something revealing about how we think.
Anyone who is a gamer expects female characters to be seductive, or damsel's in distress. Tomb Raida: seductive. Zelda: Damsel.
How often do you get characters that are just women with various interesting different personalities? I can point to the Final Fantasy series, maybe. But other than E.D., I can't really think of any others. Big tits mcgee action star and little girl who needs to be saved.
You'll find the same thing in media that caters to adolescent women. Sometimes people just want wish fulfillment. There is nothing wrong with that, what is wrong is getting outraged about it and turning it into a morally significant matter. That's a philosophical error known as moralism.
On May 17 2009 05:14 The Raurosaur wrote: Did any of you actually read the article, or even its opening paragraphs? While the article quickly descends into the post-structuralist cultural studies style that I dislike immensely, the author points out that:
1) this isn't a problem with Starcraft - it's a problem with society and the structure of our social hierarchies 2) Starcraft is merely symptomatic of these problems, and is useful as an exemplar.
And she has a point. Starcraft fails the Bechdel test; it has few female characters (even the non-human characters are archetypally male). This doesn't mean that those who made Starcraft were sexist - it just goes to show that Starcraft is not above the (potentially negative) stereotypes and motifs that run through society.
And if there were more women, they would complain that women are represented as ruthless killing machines, which is totally insulting to women. There would always be something to complain about.
Stereotype #53: Women complain a lot. Are Raynor or Tassadar portrayed as ruthless killing machines? You're making a strawman.
Are the zerg portrayed as women and the protoss and terran as men? Who's making a strawman?
What I'm getting at is that the situation you're suggesting (women being in the game, and the feminists still complaining about it) is one that you don't really have any evidence for. If someone tells you you're doing something wrong, and you fix it, and they still say it's wrong, either a) they're never pleased or b) you didn't understand what was wrong with it in the first place. In this case I think it's a mixture of both of them.
Considering what is called evidence in the article, I have evidence to prove anything you want. 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!
She's got an interesting idea but fails to tie it together with her poor writing. I think she could've stuck to the economy theory and gotten somewhere, but then she'd have to reconcile the fact that Zerg are in no way products of nurture, but strictly nature, which would go against the typical Marxist-feminist critique.
Most of the time people fail when they try to relate gender to specific shapes of structures, and I think she has. She also misses some of the obvious examples and has nothing to say about Kerrigan, who is very much in the model of a third wave feminist, or could even be described as a model of Harraway's Cyborg.
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. Still, her basic premise of unit development and the histories of the races has some merit but she goes in the wrong direction very early on.
I'd say that the spore colony could be rather phallic in nature shooting hot green loads of protein... similar things could be said about sunken colonies with their rock hard shaft that makes medics moan in only 3 touches.
I'm appalled that the penis is being bastardized by this game... why it's an insult to men with penises worldwide!
On May 17 2009 05:29 travis wrote: except for most of those stereotypes and motifs are not only based on truths of our society, but on truths of our behavior as individuals of our species.
That's a totally unfounded statement. Firstly, we don't understand the interactions between nature and nurture with regards to human behaviour, especially considering the conditioning effect of society. Secondly, what about all the different cultures around the world that have different power structures and different stereotypes and tropes?
kewl I get to argue
your point here is a great one, and in general I will concede that many stereotypes may in fact be unfounded outside of our society. but I don't think all.
He/she is incorrect. All known societies are based on male public power structures, with some possible fringe exceptions that aren't well studied. All military actions are performed primarily by males in known societies. This includes thousands of different societies across the entire globe, including hunting-gathering based societies, that have never had contact with Europeans. Many societies are polygamous (many wives for powerful men), extremely few societies are polyandrous (and the only known examples, about 2-3, are still patriarchal, and the multiple husbands are usually brothers.) Many societies have taboos for menstruating women (which is sexist according to modern feminists), yet they independently created them. Almost all societies discourage female promiscuity, same idea.
Etc. Needs an explanation. Only valid explanation is biological factors, which are actually well studied through the science of evolutionary psychology and evolutionary science in general. Ever wondered why male gorillas are huge compared to female gorillas? Evolution through sexual selection. Same ideas operate in humans.
On May 17 2009 06:08 Tyrant wrote: I'd say that the spore colony could be rather phallic in nature shooting hot green loads of protein... similar things could be said about sunken colonies with their rock hard shaft that makes medics moan in only 3 touches.
I'm appalled that the penis is being bastardized by this game... why it's an insult to men with penises worldwide!
On May 17 2009 05:29 travis wrote: except for most of those stereotypes and motifs are not only based on truths of our society, but on truths of our behavior as individuals of our species.
That's a totally unfounded statement. Firstly, we don't understand the interactions between nature and nurture with regards to human behaviour, especially considering the conditioning effect of society. Secondly, what about all the different cultures around the world that have different power structures and different stereotypes and tropes?
kewl I get to argue
your point here is a great one, and in general I will concede that many stereotypes may in fact be unfounded outside of our society. but I don't think all.
He/she is incorrect. All known societies are based on male public power structures, with some possible fringe exceptions that aren't well studied. All military actions are performed primarily by males in known societies. This includes thousands of different societies across the entire globe, including hunting-gathering based societies, that have never had contact with Europeans. Many societies are polygamous (many wives for powerful men), extremely few societies are polyandrous (and the only known examples, about 2-3, are still patriarchal, and the multiple husbands are usually brothers.) Many societies have taboos for menstruating women (which is sexist according to modern feminists), yet they independently created them. Almost all societies discourage female promiscuity, same idea.
Etc. Needs an explanation. Only valid explanation is biological factors, which are actually well studied through the science of evolutionary psychology and evolutionary science in general. Ever wondered why male gorillas are huge compared to female gorillas? Evolution through sexual selection. Same ideas operate in humans.
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.
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.
Wow I couldn't actually read all of it... I was able to read about 3/4 of it... That's quite an accomplishment by the author.
There are so many claims that are as close to wrong as you can be in an open-ended discussion, and are actually weaker when the author tires to back it up.
It's clear she chose her goal, then tried to think of ways to reach that goal while writing her essay, even if it meant making claims that would never make sense if you weren't working towards a certain goal ._.
On May 17 2009 06:01 Rekrul wrote: scvs aren't black are you crazy?
look at the nose and lips
They aren't, it's just the poor lighting. They aren't black in sc2 as well.
BS
They are totally black
You're wrong.
While it's unclear as to whether blacks' voices sound different than whites, SCVs have a hapless hickish southern accent usually associated with backwater white trash. This same kind of voice is exhibited in many of the cinema scenes by white characters.
Watch this youtube video. 3:23. Check out the lighting too.
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.
it sounds like that woman just had an argument in mind and found anything that could have possibly supported her "claim". For all we know, she could've claimed that terrans were racist because of the scvs were black/mexican/whatever and the seige tanks are rednecks, valks are german, etc
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.
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.
Bwahahaha this woman is just as stupid as that one person who called the police because Popeyes (forgot which restaurant) ran out of chicken. It's people like these which make you question how stupid people can be.
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.
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.
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.
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
I've only taken a quick look at the article and the ridiculousness of both her attitude and prose already annoy me so much. I wish I had time to say more but I don't. All I can safely say is that she took a women's studies course recently and is just seeking an outlet for her newfound analytical skillset. 100% sure she only half-believes what she's writing and is just having fun talking smack, like a naive collegegirl version of Ann Coulter. Well maybe that's too much.
On May 17 2009 05:24 FrozenArbiter wrote: Why have I looked through 3 pages of this thread and not seen a single "lol you retards, it's a joke" post?
I mean, reading the description I was SURE it had to be a joke.
Not a joke? Really? Fuck me.
But feminist writings really all read like this :p
EDIT - If you mean that the whole movement in itself is a joke though I am tempted to agree!
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.
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.
On May 17 2009 05:29 travis wrote: except for most of those stereotypes and motifs are not only based on truths of our society, but on truths of our behavior as individuals of our species.
That's a totally unfounded statement. Firstly, we don't understand the interactions between nature and nurture with regards to human behaviour, especially considering the conditioning effect of society. Secondly, what about all the different cultures around the world that have different power structures and different stereotypes and tropes?
kewl I get to argue
your point here is a great one, and in general I will concede that many stereotypes may in fact be unfounded outside of our society. but I don't think all.
He/she is incorrect. All known societies are based on male public power structures, with some possible fringe exceptions that aren't well studied. All military actions are performed primarily by males in known societies. This includes thousands of different societies across the entire globe, including hunting-gathering based societies, that have never had contact with Europeans. Many societies are polygamous (many wives for powerful men), extremely few societies are polyandrous (and the only known examples, about 2-3, are still patriarchal, and the multiple husbands are usually brothers.) Many societies have taboos for menstruating women (which is sexist according to modern feminists), yet they independently created them. Almost all societies discourage female promiscuity, same idea.
Etc. Needs an explanation. Only valid explanation is biological factors, which are actually well studied through the science of evolutionary psychology and evolutionary science in general. Ever wondered why male gorillas are huge compared to female gorillas? Evolution through sexual selection. Same ideas operate in humans.
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.
On May 17 2009 04:36 vicviper wrote: "A Nydus Canal is a large, vaginal opening, that if a Zerg unit enters, it may emerge at the other end, in a manner that "greatly puzzles most Terran scientists." (This quote is too much to not mock: What? Men cannot understand the vagina: the symbolic representation of women? I never would have guessed.)"
lol that is gold
Thank you for sharing this it gave me a good laugh
this article makes much more sense in the way that I can understand the reasoning behind it even though you might disagree with it or see other reasons why something is as it is, you have to admit, that the author makes some good points
On May 17 2009 05:29 travis wrote: except for most of those stereotypes and motifs are not only based on truths of our society, but on truths of our behavior as individuals of our species.
That's a totally unfounded statement. Firstly, we don't understand the interactions between nature and nurture with regards to human behaviour, especially considering the conditioning effect of society. Secondly, what about all the different cultures around the world that have different power structures and different stereotypes and tropes?
kewl I get to argue
your point here is a great one, and in general I will concede that many stereotypes may in fact be unfounded outside of our society. but I don't think all.
He/she is incorrect. All known societies are based on male public power structures, with some possible fringe exceptions that aren't well studied. All military actions are performed primarily by males in known societies. This includes thousands of different societies across the entire globe, including hunting-gathering based societies, that have never had contact with Europeans. Many societies are polygamous (many wives for powerful men), extremely few societies are polyandrous (and the only known examples, about 2-3, are still patriarchal, and the multiple husbands are usually brothers.) Many societies have taboos for menstruating women (which is sexist according to modern feminists), yet they independently created them. Almost all societies discourage female promiscuity, same idea.
ok, but so what is he/she incorrect about?
Etc. Needs an explanation. Only valid explanation is biological factors, which are actually well studied through the science of evolutionary psychology and evolutionary science in general. Ever wondered why male gorillas are huge compared to female gorillas? Evolution through sexual selection. Same ideas operate in humans.
you seem to be forgetting that civilization also evolves. societies aren't always structured optimally. I find it amusing that you talk about how almost all societies are completely dominated by men, and then follow it up with "Many societies have taboos for menstruating women (which is sexist according to modern feminists), yet they independently created them. Almost all societies discourage female promiscuity, same idea.", as if women have a say about that in a male dominated society.
On May 17 2009 04:36 vicviper wrote: "A Nydus Canal is a large, vaginal opening, that if a Zerg unit enters, it may emerge at the other end, in a manner that "greatly puzzles most Terran scientists." (This quote is too much to not mock: What? Men cannot understand the vagina: the symbolic representation of women? I never would have guessed.)"
This is the kind of ridiculousness that can only happen when someone who is highly educated in a bullshit field thinks too much. Interesting proposition at best, idealized fantasy at worst. I hope this paper got her an A, and I'm also pretty amazed that the author actually knew what starcraft was in the first place.
Kerrigan (in her infested form) is the archetypic woman. She rules her dominions with brute force, just like those lesbians do in jail. And that pretty much sums it up i would say!
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL at that last picture Patriot.
But seriously, if Blizzard starts to put more woman-piloted fighters and support units into the game some random dumbass is gonna start rambling about how sexist it is for women to be potrayed in such a way.
*sigh* There should be a law forbidding stupid people to write articles...
don't get me wrong, I love girls... but... hahah! I never EVER had any thoughts related to sex while playing starcraft (even when i'm drunk!!!!) There simply is NO hint whatsoever of sexuality in starcraft. Oh, yeah, I did wish that the Terran medic looked sexier, i mean come on! what were you people doing while making SC2? who thought up of the dumbfag medivac?? replacing the possible concept of an uber smoking hot long-haired, long-legged chick with a stupid piece of metallic junk that heals people.... *sigh*
Zerg being the female? HAHAHAA what are you ON woman?? Are you trying to plagiarise Sigmund Freud's work? Jesus, I thought his concept of "everything is sexual" was now outdated, and most people now consider him as a perverted old freak, next to the brand new psychologists who thought up of biopsychology and cognitive psychology concepts.
Zergs do not represent females, Mrs. Allerenson... they are, in fact, extraterrestrial life forms that greatly resemble the morphology of insects. Many of their terms (evolution, Hive, Lair, Larva, Queen, Drone, morph, hatchery, Tavern, Egg) are all definitions frequently found in insectology. Ever heard of a maggot's lair? a bee hive? a drone ant? an ant queen? an ant larva? Their behaviour also resembles very much of those of insects. Ants are known for their ambition to conquer new territory and expand into colonies. Bees, wasps, and ants all use morphology that distinguishes each insect into their specific tasks (just like the zergs who use morphology to allocate the units into different tasks e.g. hydralisks are artillery and zerglings are melee soldiers). And I'm pretty sure all of the units found in the game are ASEXUAL.
So please, PLEASE, get a life, get away for a while, get some fresh air, forget about this stupid crap of an idea of Starcraft being sexist, and please, learn how to write an article with the right aideas and the right topic. Best of Luck, Mrs. Allerenson! Oh and please don't raise children, it scares me to think about your next generation...
Sadir: PS: sunkens make medics moan in three hits....lol
hahah! that's hilarious
Edit: this article could well be offensive to competitive Starcraft fans, as it totally mocks the use of lurkers and sunkens... I mean, do u kno how cool it looks when Jaedong uses a bunch of lurkers to massacre a group of medics, putting aside the insinuation of mass penetration? And, pffff, do journalists (or those that follow their path) have that much free time in their hands as to evoke sexual stuff in a war game like this? man, people should keep them occupied!
I'm ashamed to say that even I, the starter of the thread, am very far from political sciences. I'm in engineering. All I got from it was a 50x50 array of 'LOLWTF!??'
I'm glad you guys get a good analysis on it though, interesting read.
tbh modern values are still rampantly racist and sexist. It's time people did realise this. Even the acknowledgement of their existence is a sign that they're still there..
This on the other hand is worse than those people trying to boycott the Lord of the Rings movies because they don't contain black characters...
As I'm sure those of you in college already know, There are radicals everywhere. Some of them go on starcraft on BNet with game titles such as "no niggs" or talk about killing jews in game. They usually talk big and use cheeses. Lose a lot of games. Some correlation for the few that I've seen.
You don't have to understand why they're so radical though, you can ignore these people.
I'm glad we all had a good laugh at this article. If anyone's gone through college, feel free to share some stories of these extremists.
Sadir: PS: sunkens make medics moan in three hits....lol
there's girl's on terran side too stop complaining that zerg are "woman" when this is a fun game that we all enjoy to kill each other with. let us make peace
Unfortunately, if you have never encountered critical theory, structuralism, or queer theory, works like this will seem totally incomprehensible and ridiculous.
On May 17 2009 04:53 Rekrul wrote: uh no, but starcraft IS racist
take a look at the scvs
The SCV isn't black.
that is a black dude: broad nose, dark hair, dark skin.
Slave controlled vehicle. Confederate earth. "I'm locked in here tighter than a frog's butt in a watermelon seed fight.''. etc
Space Construction Vehicle actually, but yes I was reminded of the watermelon line as well (funnily enough, I don't think I knew about that connection before there was a big thread about it on TL yeaaaaars ago - if my memory is correct anyway).
Anyone else think its funny she says Protoss are "Purity of Essence", and Zerg are "Purity of Form", when its actually the other way around? Seems like a crazy rant where she just says stuff.
It's a shame because there would've been some decent points to make about how sexualized some of the female units are, medics being a prime example, but instead she bullshits some nonesense about how zerg buildings are giant oozing vaginas.
Besides, what's a zerg spire if not a giant wobbly cock?
I know it was written a long time ago but imagine the outrage if she watched gomtv and heard nick and superdanielman talking about penetrating that base or hes going to penetrate haha
On May 17 2009 04:53 Rekrul wrote: uh no, but starcraft IS racist
take a look at the scvs
The SCV isn't black.
that is a black dude: broad nose, dark hair, dark skin.
Slave controlled vehicle. Confederate earth. "I'm locked in here tighter than a frog's butt in a watermelon seed fight.''. etc
What the hell does that saying even mean? Wtf is a watermelon fight? Do people actually throw watermelon seeds at eachother? And why is a frog getting in between the fight? Is the scv implying the watermelon seed will go into the frogs anus if the fight is not correctly supervised?
indeed, i thought he was white until this thread. His face just looks black because its dark in the suit and his nose/mouth looks like that because pictures of sc characters aren't drawn very accurately.
Anyway it's pretty sad that people have to call things racist because there isn't an even numbers of the races in the game ect, or that because a black guy is an scv-worker that it's racist.
On May 17 2009 04:53 Rekrul wrote: uh no, but starcraft IS racist
take a look at the scvs
The SCV isn't black.
that is a black dude: broad nose, dark hair, dark skin.
Slave controlled vehicle. Confederate earth. "I'm locked in here tighter than a frog's butt in a watermelon seed fight.''. etc
What the hell does that saying even mean? Wtf is a watermelon fight? Do people actually throw watermelon seeds at eachother? And why is a frog getting in between the fight? Is the scv implying the watermelon seed will go into the frogs anus if the fight is not correctly supervised?
I don't think you are supposed to get the reference.
sent her an e-mail (lolathegrig@hotmail.com) apologizing on behalf of all masochistic starcraft players and sent her several pictures of a lone girl in need of help out there in the starcraft community and explained her valiant feminist struggle in this male dominated game world.
On May 17 2009 04:40 Scooge wrote: Don't really care what some retard on a small website has to say. Feel free to bring more attention to her obscure work.
But isn't it only fitting to bring this article to a Starcraft forum ? Look at the fun it caused.
On May 17 2009 04:53 Rekrul wrote: uh no, but starcraft IS racist
take a look at the scvs
Don't know if your joking or not, but w/e
----
Someone has got to be the worker, its kind of racist/sexist in and of itself if you make sure everything you create, be it a game or a book, ensures that no minority is conducting any lower, menial, or stereotypical act. The White must be the scv! The black must be the BC! The Women must be the marine, and the man must be the medic! Kind of retarded.
Anyways, this article gave me a lot of laughs. GJ feminism.
Edit: To the guy on the other page who said the scv might not be black- he is clearly black. Doesn't matter if he speaks in a southern accent or not, because shock, lots of blacks live in the south.
Ms. Kelly Alerenson, the author of this article, tries to argue that Zerg runs on a "female" economy, which relies on reproduction, and that Zerg buildings look convincingly gynic. She analyzed further that Zerg gameplay is like the development of an orgasm.
hahaha i always thought that the top of the hatchery lookd like a pulsating anus. and the queen a big flying anus. and the muta a small flying anus with teeth.
Ms. Kelly Alerenson, the author of this article, tries to argue that Zerg runs on a "female" economy, which relies on reproduction, and that Zerg buildings look convincingly gynic. She analyzed further that Zerg gameplay is like the development of an orgasm.
hahaha i always thought that the top of the hatchery lookd like a pulsating anus. and the queen a big flying anus. and the muta a small flying anus with teeth.
On May 17 2009 04:53 Rekrul wrote: uh no, but starcraft IS racist
take a look at the scvs
The SCV isn't black.
mexican i believe
Redneck.
In starcraft 2 ^_^!
I'm currently reading how she describes Zerg and I though she was describing porncraft lol
EDIT: What the fuck? She forgot Kerrigan as the most powerful being in the current SC universe. How the hell can you say that Zerg are evil when all they wanted is the Protoss Gene Pool.. Then is the Overmind a woman? Don't get me wrong but I wouldn't hit that big chunk of brain..
If you check out how the Overmind converse with his cerebrates it's kinda Roman Catholic-like or as if he is reading something from the bible.
oh my goodness... what a ridiculous article. First of all the author makes assumptions about what the reader already knows about sexism and male/female gender roles, which is shitty writing. Secondly, this :
quote: "The power of the Zerg lies not in how many productive buildings you have, but in how many reproductive (larva-birthing) buildings you have. Also, their power lies not in efficiency of building (more marines per minute) but in keeping your troops alive long enough to get them nurtured and grown up to a state of power. (Good job for those of you who are putting together the gender argument already)."
Seriously, has she even played the game? In general, the Zerg are ridiculously about macro, and the 'Toss and Terran are more like the ones to keep their troops alive longer until they have ammased a powerful army. (Only in a guardian build would that idea make sense for Zerg.) The author's general idea of games reinforcing gender stereotypes is valid, but her actual evidence for Starcraft is quite lacking and misguided =/
On May 17 2009 11:44 Xenixx wrote: this was a good laugh
sent her an e-mail (lolathegrig@hotmail.com) apologizing on behalf of all masochistic starcraft players and sent her several pictures of a lone girl in need of help out there in the starcraft community and explained her valiant feminist struggle in this male dominated game world.
On May 17 2009 04:44 FieryBalrog wrote: the sperm/egg model was sexist because scientists described the egg as more or less sitting there and the sperm as active and swimming towards the egg.
Oh god, you're referring to "The Sperm and the Egg" by Emily Martin. Fuck did I want to throw that book into the fireplace while reading it.
I laughed all the way through the article, starting with the idea that zergs are actually female and ending with the fact that it was signed by a women.
she says a lot of equally sexist bullshit herself... "It is the economy that is set up by the half of the species that cannot bear children, the half than needs to invest worth in order to gain." so... hunter/gatherer is an investment based economy?
"Also, their power lies not in efficiency of building (more marines per minute) but in keeping your troops alive long enough to get them nurtured and grown up to a state of power. (Good job for those of you who are putting together the gender argument already)." <-- look at that sexist act of reinforcing the extrapolation of ideas without proper evidence!
The Protoss and Terrans, follow the male sexuality of building up, and up, and up, until finally it is the long awaited moment, while the Zerg build up, and then drop some, then build more… and more… and more… and more, and once dropped it may re-build up again, much sooner than it's male counterpart. <--- she has obviously never seen a 30 gate toss
she claims that the protoss and terran structures are phallic? what about the spire? what building does either terran or protoss have that is more phallic than the zerg spire?
what a noob.
I dunno about you guys, but I tried nurturing my drones into ultralisk on iccup and I won 0 times... damn... what was I thinking? Oh yeah, I thought I was playing the vagina race and that I had to nurture my units and get them to grow up... because zerg is the least aggressive race, and always wins by turtle.
On May 17 2009 05:14 The Raurosaur wrote: Did any of you actually read the article, or even its opening paragraphs? While the article quickly descends into the post-structuralist cultural studies style that I dislike immensely, the author points out that:
1) this isn't a problem with Starcraft - it's a problem with society and the structure of our social hierarchies 2) Starcraft is merely symptomatic of these problems, and is useful as an exemplar.
And she has a point. Starcraft fails the Bechdel test; it has few female characters (even the non-human characters are archetypally male). This doesn't mean that those who made Starcraft were sexist - it just goes to show that Starcraft is not above the (potentially negative) stereotypes and motifs that run through society.
think about the target market for sc when it was released
exactly man, go watch all episodes of Sex and the City and you'll know what sexist is...
Etc. Needs an explanation. Only valid explanation is biological factors, which are actually well studied through the science of evolutionary psychology and evolutionary science in general. Ever wondered why male gorillas are huge compared to female gorillas? Evolution through sexual selection. Same ideas operate in humans.
you seem to be forgetting that civilization also evolves. societies aren't always structured optimally. I find it amusing that you talk about how almost all societies are completely dominated by men, and then follow it up with "Many societies have taboos for menstruating women (which is sexist according to modern feminists), yet they independently created them. Almost all societies discourage female promiscuity, same idea.", as if women have a say about that in a male dominated society.
You'd be surprised by what women do and don't have a say in in traditional societies. It certainly isn't a one way dialogue. Society is male dominated in that political power structures are created and run by men in all societies. That public power is what I'm referring to and it does not simply dictate the nuts and bolts of every day human rituals, behaviors and taboos, in fact the power structure is borne of society, the society is not borne of the power structure. Something like a menstruation taboo isn't created by a committee of the ruling men. And the idea of women as mute recipients of male action is ahistorical.
Yeah I agree that the author of the article went a bit overboard, but I can still understand where she is coming from. This touches alot on sociology and Foucaults work about discourse.
Basically we have certain values and ways of thinking in our society which are largely subconscious, for example about women. It's a fact that we live in a society where the male sets the rules to a big extent.
So to everyone replying "lol fucking feminists" or "rofl she is a moron" do yourself a favour and think one step forward and actually try and get what she is getting at, although her arguments go a bit overboard. This is not so far fetched as some people would like to think
so, who wants to be the first one to use this as his quote ? * the Protoss buildings are tall and thin, reaching toward the sky, the large phalluses reach upwards, rigid and firm, an emblem of power for all to behold *
On May 17 2009 20:07 qoou wrote: The 'evidence' part at the end is what saddens me the most. Example:
Siege Tank: "Yes Sir." "Orders Sir." (While these last two are not sexual, they give the obvious implication that the game player must be male.)
These people will see what they want to see.
Lol i thought this part was pretty ridiculous too. Hey, lets forget that 99% of wars as we know it are fought traditionally by men and adjust quotes for the sake of 'equality'
hahah I love these kind of people, who just see sexist things everywhere. Im mean SERIOUSLY WTF, this is a videogame,about and it takes a lot of fantasy to see a female orgasm in a zerg-build oO
On May 17 2009 20:29 Marti DiBergi wrote: hahah I love these kind of people, who just see sexist things everywhere. Im mean SERIOUSLY WTF, this is a videogame
Yeah that's because in all seriousness there are sexist things everywhere.
It's a videogame, sure. So what? It's made my people, who are socialized in a certain way of thinking and behaving, based on their sex. This will basically show in everything man-made, and thus this article is not so far-fetched as one would think at a first glance.
Basically everything that happens in an interaction between people is a result and expression of socially constructed gender roles, that are deeply ingrained in our society. Just because you're born a man you don't have to be ignorant when it comes to women and their "roles" in society. There's still alot of inequality in our society regarding gender.
There's a difference between feminists who strive for equality in politics, bussinessworld, ... and feminists who just plain hate men :s They always toss the words equality and sexist around where it fits them the best. You can't win an discussion with these women (with any women really "OH NOES SEXIST REMARK" they rely too much on their emotions in the heat of the discussion)
Anyway, most women rule :D . They're soft, smell nice, pretty looking, compassionate, kind, sweet, I could go on and on But to those few bitter women/feminists/whatever who are out to spite and are looking to pick a fight I say gtfo
On May 17 2009 20:47 DwmC_Foefen wrote: There's a difference between feminists who strive for equality in politics, bussinessworld, ... and feminists who just plain hate men :s They always toss the words equality and sexist around where it fits them the best. You can't win an discussion with these women (with any women really "OH NOES SEXIST REMARK" they rely too much on their emotions in the heat of the discussion)
Anyway, most women rule :D . They're soft, smell nice, pretty looking, compassionate, kind, sweet, I could go on and on But to those few bitter women/feminists/whatever who are out to spite and are looking to pick a fight I say gtfo
The argument about the "good" feminists and "bad" (who hate men) ones is common. It can be interpreted as a masculine way of stripping the "stronger" women of their power by calling the ones "who hate men" the bad ones, because they are a threat to the male hierarchy.
How many men hates women? Certainly theres quite alot of men who despise women for many of the ways of how women behave. Also, the hatred some women feel towards men is quite justifiable when taking into account how many women are abused physically, sexually and mentally each and every day, still in this day and era. Throughout history women have been dominated by men, and frankly have been viewed as second class citizens.
I'm not that into feminist theory but I think it's VERY important for both men and women to realize that there are still issues regarding equality, and actually see how we as a society play a huge role in socializing the next generations with these views that are already ingrained in us.
Everybody should take a 101 Sociology course for a better understanding of society as a whole, because I often see how these insights are lacking in people. It's something that concerns us all very much.
maybe women are supposed to be submissive to men, i'll say this: i don't know any hot girls who give a fuck about feminism....
in fact you will find that intelligent and well adjusted girls will admit to things like women make worse leaders on average due to emotional instability compared to men, and other little "woman issues" that can get in the way of being a good leader or effective employee, as well as different priorities and a lesser sense of company loyalty than men.
of course that's not to say we should judge women on an individual level, but things like 50:50 men/women CEOs is not a realistic outcome. there's huge advantage to being tall in leadership positions too, something like 90% of CEOs are over average height for example, and the USA presidents list supports data like that. i haven't seen much publicity from short people complaining about height inequality cos it'd come across as bitter short man syndrome but we have to respect womens feminism complaints? same thing with good looking people too, it's a huge employment advantage. imo it just so happens that men tend to possess traits that we are instinctually drawn to respect and obey, in addition to tending to be more focussed and driven to succeed
i think many feminists are striving male ideals of power and achievement when at a fundamental level women don't necessarily have the same drive for those things that men do. the whole equality movement just comes of as forced to me because i just don't think we're wired that way fundamentally. of course if they keep forcing it down our throats for a few 100 years it'll become reality but don't pretend that equality is the fundamental truth and somehow men are pigheadedly pushing women down
On May 17 2009 11:38 stroggos wrote: indeed, i thought he was white until this thread. His face just looks black because its dark in the suit and his nose/mouth looks like that because pictures of sc characters aren't drawn very accurately.
Anyway it's pretty sad that people have to call things racist because there isn't an even numbers of the races in the game ect, or that because a black guy is an scv-worker that it's racist.
On May 17 2009 20:47 DwmC_Foefen wrote: There's a difference between feminists who strive for equality in politics, bussinessworld, ... and feminists who just plain hate men :s They always toss the words equality and sexist around where it fits them the best. You can't win an discussion with these women (with any women really "OH NOES SEXIST REMARK" they rely too much on their emotions in the heat of the discussion)
Anyway, most women rule :D . They're soft, smell nice, pretty looking, compassionate, kind, sweet, I could go on and on But to those few bitter women/feminists/whatever who are out to spite and are looking to pick a fight I say gtfo
The argument about the "good" feminists and "bad" (who hate men) ones is common. It can be interpreted as a masculine way of stripping the "stronger" women of their power by calling the ones "who hate men" the bad ones, because they are a threat to the male hierarchy.
How many men hates women? Certainly theres quite alot of men who despise women for many of the ways of how women behave. Also, the hatred some women feel towards men is quite justifiable when taking into account how many women are abused physically, sexually and mentally each and every day, still in this day and era. Throughout history women have been dominated by men, and frankly have been viewed as second class citizens.
I'm not that into feminist theory but I think it's VERY important for both men and women to realize that there are still issues regarding equality, and actually see how we as a society play a huge role in socializing the next generations with these views that are already ingrained in us.
Everybody should take a 101 Sociology course for a better understanding of society as a whole, because I often see how these insights are lacking in people. It's something that concerns us all very much.
I meant that there is nothing wrong with women who want equality, it's horrible that ie. men earn more money doing the same job in the same company than a woman. That's just plain wrong. I was adressing a) the women who just like to toss around words like sexist, discriminating, ... whenever it fits them. b) the women who say they're feminist just to mask the fact that they just plain hate men.
And isn't that just the way nature works? Men dominating women? Not in a bad way ofcourse but just, more decisive and such. I think there's a reason why throughout history most of the leaders were men and still are. Isn't that just genetics(can't find another word for it, genetics isn't the good word)? Even amongst other animals we see the males take the lead, protecting the females, getting food, whatever they do and the females just follow, fullfilling the female roles (as opposed to the male roles).
I could be using a stupid argument here because we're in the 21st century where people are much more sophisticated but I think it still applies.
But you seem like a well-educated person and I'm surely wrong, just wanted to express my thoughts.
And I do want to take sociology 101 tbh, it seems interesting.
I'm waiting for someone to write a paper about the homoerotic implications of starcraft-playing dudes talking about 'raping' each other all the time. Oh, and all that Mantoss stuff.
The fact is: Blizzard does not give a fuck. The object was to make a game that people will buy. They have clearly thrown enough balance of male and female characters to not stir the raging hormones of feminists everywhere.
In terms heroes, in both the Warcraft and Starcraft universes, there is definitely depth to each character and their growth in the story. What one could use for a basis on a "Blizzard is sexist" paper another could argue is an intriguing plot device.
Units in both games: peons, grunts, marines, medics, etc. Are INTENTIONALLY shallow, and thus flawed. (or in this case, portrayed "sexistly").
Grasping at straws is EXACTLY what the author is doing.
I can't believe people believe she has a good point. You are trying to use your brain too hard to comprehend what anyone should be able to see is a terrible piece of literature.
If these arguments aren't enough 'evidence' to get you to at least contemplate the possibility that the Zerg are intended to be taken as female, while the Protoss and Terran are to be taken as male, I feel that you should reread the evidence more carefully, and perhaps simply examine if you don't want to believe it. Now, to the crux of the matter. The reason why it is harmful for games like this to draw on such ideologies is that it reinforces negative gender stereotypes, in regard to both men and women. I am mainly concerned with the female aspect, and so that is what I will put my emphasis upon.To solidify into gamers minds the idea of Zerg = female, alongside Zerg = unknowable, evil beast yields a culture who regard female = unknowable, evil beast. This is obviously a problem. Women are human, men are human. In that sense there is no distinction. I would say "women are as worthy (or as human (or as anything)) as men", but this statement itself reinforces the ideology that men are standard, while women simply strive to be like them. this need not be the way that we look at it. Women and Men are equals, and anything, addictively entertaining or not, that reinforces an ideology that says otherwise needs be taken to task. I am not assaulting Blizzard, for I truly believe that they are not even aware of what they did. The problem lies in the fact that this game, in fact nearly all computer games, is a direct product of the American male fantasy. The problem lies not in the game (although it perpetuates the problem), but in the fantasy life that we have set up for the American male youth. Freud refers to women as the "immense heart of darkness", the unknowable, the different, the other. This permeates our society.
There is so much glaringly wrong about this conclusion that I don't even know where to begin.
On May 17 2009 20:47 DwmC_Foefen wrote: There's a difference between feminists who strive for equality in politics, bussinessworld, ... and feminists who just plain hate men :s They always toss the words equality and sexist around where it fits them the best. You can't win an discussion with these women (with any women really "OH NOES SEXIST REMARK" they rely too much on their emotions in the heat of the discussion)
Anyway, most women rule :D . They're soft, smell nice, pretty looking, compassionate, kind, sweet, I could go on and on But to those few bitter women/feminists/whatever who are out to spite and are looking to pick a fight I say gtfo
The argument about the "good" feminists and "bad" (who hate men) ones is common. It can be interpreted as a masculine way of stripping the "stronger" women of their power by calling the ones "who hate men" the bad ones, because they are a threat to the male hierarchy.
How many men hates women? Certainly theres quite alot of men who despise women for many of the ways of how women behave. Also, the hatred some women feel towards men is quite justifiable when taking into account how many women are abused physically, sexually and mentally each and every day, still in this day and era. Throughout history women have been dominated by men, and frankly have been viewed as second class citizens.
I'm not that into feminist theory but I think it's VERY important for both men and women to realize that there are still issues regarding equality, and actually see how we as a society play a huge role in socializing the next generations with these views that are already ingrained in us.
Everybody should take a 101 Sociology course for a better understanding of society as a whole, because I often see how these insights are lacking in people. It's something that concerns us all very much.
I meant that there is nothing wrong with women who want equality, it's horrible that ie. men earn more money doing the same job in the same company than a woman. That's just plain wrong. I was adressing a) the women who just like to toss around words like sexist, discriminating, ... whenever it fits them. b) the women who say they're feminist just to mask the fact that they just plain hate men.
By dismissing their claims without understanding them, you're perpetrating their status as an Other. I don't think you've considered that from their perspective, it could be a reasonable claim. And the pay equity thing is a completely different problem, but it's generally not like what people describe. In most jobs, equally qualified women do not earn 76% of men's salaries, or else companies would be filled with women instead of men.
And isn't that just the way nature works? Men dominating women? Not in a bad way ofcourse but just, more decisive and such. I think there's a reason why throughout history most of the leaders were men and still are. Isn't that just genetics(can't find another word for it, genetics isn't the good word)? Even amongst other animals we see the males take the lead, protecting the females, getting food, whatever they do and the females just follow, fullfilling the female roles (as opposed to the male roles).
No. Different animals have different cultures, and that's the guiding idea behind feminism. Culture shapes behavior and roles more than anything else. There may be certain traits like strength which tend to give more power to males in the wild, but there are some female dominant animals and even among male dominant ones, females often do more of the work.
For humans today, this doesn't mean shit because being an engineer has nothing to do with physical capacity and yet the vast majority are men, and the left brained/right brained thing is a myth. There definitely are innate differences but it's thought that most of the differences are created through socialization, which isn't necessarily a good or bad bad thing. Feminism has gone in hiding because most people associate it with the women from the 60s and 70s who wanted nothing to do with men, but most younger feminists embrace gender differences, they just think they've been mostly created by culture.
On May 17 2009 22:25 keV. wrote: The fact is: Blizzard does not give a fuck. The object was to make a game that people will buy. They have clearly thrown enough balance of male and female characters to not stir the raging hormones of feminists everywhere.
In terms heroes, in both the Warcraft and Starcraft universes, there is definitely depth to each character and their growth in the story. What one could use for a basis on a "Blizzard is sexist" paper another could argue is an intriguing plot device.
Units in both games: peons, grunts, marines, medics, etc. Are INTENTIONALLY shallow, and thus flawed. (or in this case, portrayed "sexistly").
Grasping at straws is EXACTLY what the author is doing.
I can't believe people believe she has a good point. You are trying to use your brain too hard to comprehend what anyone should be able to see is a terrible piece of literature.
You're not using your brain hard enough. Not all discrimination is consciously done.
On May 17 2009 22:43 Jibba wrote: For humans today, this doesn't mean shit because being an engineer has nothing to do with physical capacity and yet the vast majority are men, and the left brained/right brained thing is a myth. There definitely are innate differences but it's thought that most of the differences are created through socialization, which isn't necessarily a good or bad bad thing. Feminism has gone in hiding because most people associate it with the women from the 60s and 70s who wanted nothing to do with men, but most younger feminists embrace gender differences, they just think they've been mostly created by culture.
It's true about them being associated with baby boomer crazies. I also believe that feminism is an idea with no ideas. I think its undeniable that at least modern culture is generally male dominated. But feminists have no idea how to fix anything either and if they can't think of anything reasonable, then males surely can't.
On May 17 2009 22:25 keV. wrote: The fact is: Blizzard does not give a fuck. The object was to make a game that people will buy. They have clearly thrown enough balance of male and female characters to not stir the raging hormones of feminists everywhere.
In terms heroes, in both the Warcraft and Starcraft universes, there is definitely depth to each character and their growth in the story. What one could use for a basis on a "Blizzard is sexist" paper another could argue is an intriguing plot device.
Units in both games: peons, grunts, marines, medics, etc. Are INTENTIONALLY shallow, and thus flawed. (or in this case, portrayed "sexistly").
Grasping at straws is EXACTLY what the author is doing.
I can't believe people believe she has a good point. You are trying to use your brain too hard to comprehend what anyone should be able to see is a terrible piece of literature.
You're not using your brain hard enough. Not all discrimination is consciously done.
Of course not all discrimination is consciously done, and if that's the case then how can a blizzard dev be expected to realize what they are doing? I think they do a pretty good job of throwing in powerful and admirable female characters in both universes, When I use the term "Grasping at straws" what I am implying is that the author is cherry picking. In order to make a statement like "This game is sexist" you have to take the entire game in question into consideration, if anyone read the whole article, it is clear that the author does not do that. So their entire thesis holds zero weight.
If you had a business of 100 people, 50 black and 50 white, where all the black people worked in accounting and all the white people worked in research, this would be like writing a paper on either individual side being racist. Its silly and worthless.
The article in the OP could be either parody or a journal-level (ie professional level) feminist/cultural critique. That should go a long way to telling you the state of feminist/social/cultural critiques as a displine. Academia really is just that bad: people spend their time drawing inferences from nothing to agree with their own pre-determined conclusions.
On May 17 2009 22:43 Jibba wrote: For humans today, this doesn't mean shit because being an engineer has nothing to do with physical capacity and yet the vast majority are men, and the left brained/right brained thing is a myth. There definitely are innate differences but it's thought that most of the differences are created through socialization, which isn't necessarily a good or bad bad thing. Feminism has gone in hiding because most people associate it with the women from the 60s and 70s who wanted nothing to do with men, but most younger feminists embrace gender differences, they just think they've been mostly created by culture.
It's true about them being associated with baby boomer crazies. I also believe that feminism is an idea with no ideas. I think its undeniable that at least modern culture is generally male dominated. But feminists have no idea how to fix anything either and if they can't think of anything reasonable, then males surely can't.
Modern culture is male dominated? Please back this up with statistics and evidence, and please no anecdotal evidence or specific examples as they are not necessarily representative of anything.
On May 17 2009 20:47 DwmC_Foefen wrote: There's a difference between feminists who strive for equality in politics, bussinessworld, ... and feminists who just plain hate men :s They always toss the words equality and sexist around where it fits them the best. You can't win an discussion with these women (with any women really "OH NOES SEXIST REMARK" they rely too much on their emotions in the heat of the discussion)
Anyway, most women rule :D . They're soft, smell nice, pretty looking, compassionate, kind, sweet, I could go on and on But to those few bitter women/feminists/whatever who are out to spite and are looking to pick a fight I say gtfo
The argument about the "good" feminists and "bad" (who hate men) ones is common. It can be interpreted as a masculine way of stripping the "stronger" women of their power by calling the ones "who hate men" the bad ones, because they are a threat to the male hierarchy.
How many men hates women? Certainly theres quite alot of men who despise women for many of the ways of how women behave. Also, the hatred some women feel towards men is quite justifiable when taking into account how many women are abused physically, sexually and mentally each and every day, still in this day and era. Throughout history women have been dominated by men, and frankly have been viewed as second class citizens.
I'm not that into feminist theory but I think it's VERY important for both men and women to realize that there are still issues regarding equality, and actually see how we as a society play a huge role in socializing the next generations with these views that are already ingrained in us.
Everybody should take a 101 Sociology course for a better understanding of society as a whole, because I often see how these insights are lacking in people. It's something that concerns us all very much.
I meant that there is nothing wrong with women who want equality, it's horrible that ie. men earn more money doing the same job in the same company than a woman. That's just plain wrong. I was adressing a) the women who just like to toss around words like sexist, discriminating, ... whenever it fits them. b) the women who say they're feminist just to mask the fact that they just plain hate men.
By dismissing their claims without understanding them, you're perpetrating their status as an Other. I don't think you've considered that from their perspective, it could be a reasonable claim. And the pay equity thing is a completely different problem, but it's generally not like what people describe. In most jobs, equally qualified women do not earn 76% of men's salaries, or else companies would be filled with women instead of men.
And isn't that just the way nature works? Men dominating women? Not in a bad way ofcourse but just, more decisive and such. I think there's a reason why throughout history most of the leaders were men and still are. Isn't that just genetics(can't find another word for it, genetics isn't the good word)? Even amongst other animals we see the males take the lead, protecting the females, getting food, whatever they do and the females just follow, fullfilling the female roles (as opposed to the male roles).
No. Different animals have different cultures, and that's the guiding idea behind feminism. Culture shapes behavior and roles more than anything else. There may be certain traits like strength which tend to give more power to males in the wild, but there are some female dominant animals and even among male dominant ones, females often do more of the work.
For humans today, this doesn't mean shit because being an engineer has nothing to do with physical capacity and yet the vast majority are men, and the left brained/right brained thing is a myth. There definitely are innate differences but it's thought that most of the differences are created through socialization, which isn't necessarily a good or bad bad thing. Feminism has gone in hiding because most people associate it with the women from the 60s and 70s who wanted nothing to do with men, but most younger feminists embrace gender differences, they just think they've been mostly created by culture.
I think you really underestimate the biological/genetic side of things. It's only thought that biology has little psychological role among feminists/sociologists/etc. Evolutionary psychology disagree heavily with the "society dictates almost everything" view, but it's not politically correct to say so. Even the most basic observations back it up, though.
On May 17 2009 22:43 Jibba wrote: For humans today, this doesn't mean shit because being an engineer has nothing to do with physical capacity and yet the vast majority are men, and the left brained/right brained thing is a myth. There definitely are innate differences but it's thought that most of the differences are created through socialization, which isn't necessarily a good or bad bad thing. Feminism has gone in hiding because most people associate it with the women from the 60s and 70s who wanted nothing to do with men, but most younger feminists embrace gender differences, they just think they've been mostly created by culture.
It's true about them being associated with baby boomer crazies. I also believe that feminism is an idea with no ideas. I think its undeniable that at least modern culture is generally male dominated. But feminists have no idea how to fix anything either and if they can't think of anything reasonable, then males surely can't.
Modern culture is male dominated? Please back this up with statistics and evidence, and please no anecdotal evidence or specific examples as they are not necessarily representative of anything.
Do you understand how badly you just contradicted yourself? Anyone with half of a brain knows there is no pie-chart for male dominance in society without citing specific examples or anecdotal evidence.
On May 17 2009 22:25 keV. wrote: The fact is: Blizzard does not give a fuck. The object was to make a game that people will buy. They have clearly thrown enough balance of male and female characters to not stir the raging hormones of feminists everywhere.
In terms heroes, in both the Warcraft and Starcraft universes, there is definitely depth to each character and their growth in the story. What one could use for a basis on a "Blizzard is sexist" paper another could argue is an intriguing plot device.
Units in both games: peons, grunts, marines, medics, etc. Are INTENTIONALLY shallow, and thus flawed. (or in this case, portrayed "sexistly").
Grasping at straws is EXACTLY what the author is doing.
I can't believe people believe she has a good point. You are trying to use your brain too hard to comprehend what anyone should be able to see is a terrible piece of literature.
You're not using your brain hard enough. Not all discrimination is consciously done.
Of course not all discrimination is consciously done, and if that's the case then how can a blizzard dev be expected to realize what they are doing?
By being made aware. Discrimination will never go away, but you can work to make yourself more aware of it.
I think they do a pretty good job of throwing in powerful and admirable female characters in both universes, When I use the term "Grasping at straws" what I am implying is that the author is cherry picking. In order to make a statement like "This game is sexist" you have to take the entire game in question into consideration, if anyone read the whole article, it is clear that the author does not do that. So their entire thesis holds zero weight.
Yeah, she is, cause it's a shitty paper. I don't think any of us are accusing Blizzard of much, but it's interesting to think about how the different races and economies develop. 'Sexist' is a shitty term to use, but there are probably are some ideas in the game shaped by the developer's socialization, and unknowingly discriminatory in some mild way. Honestly, the author probably doesn't know much feminist theory herself, cause she stuck to pretty superficial and terrible arguments.
If you had a business of 100 people, 50 black and 50 white, where all the black people worked in accounting and all the white people worked in research, this would be like writing a paper on either individual side being racist. Its silly and worthless.
On May 17 2009 23:03 cz wrote: The article in the OP could be either parody or a journal-level (ie professional level) feminist/cultural critique.
I take it you've never actually read journal-level work, unless you mean the journal of a 10th grade girl.
On May 17 2009 23:04 cz wrote: Modern culture is male dominated? Please back this up with statistics and evidence, and please no anecdotal evidence or specific examples as they are not necessarily representative of anything.
On May 17 2009 22:43 Jibba wrote: For humans today, this doesn't mean shit because being an engineer has nothing to do with physical capacity and yet the vast majority are men, and the left brained/right brained thing is a myth. There definitely are innate differences but it's thought that most of the differences are created through socialization, which isn't necessarily a good or bad bad thing. Feminism has gone in hiding because most people associate it with the women from the 60s and 70s who wanted nothing to do with men, but most younger feminists embrace gender differences, they just think they've been mostly created by culture.
It's true about them being associated with baby boomer crazies. I also believe that feminism is an idea with no ideas. I think its undeniable that at least modern culture is generally male dominated. But feminists have no idea how to fix anything either and if they can't think of anything reasonable, then males surely can't.
Modern culture is male dominated? Please back this up with statistics and evidence, and please no anecdotal evidence or specific examples as they are not necessarily representative of anything.
Do you understand how badly you just contradicted yourself? Anyone with half of a brain knows there is no pie-chart for male dominance in society without citing specific examples or anecdotal evidence.
I didn't contradict myself. I asked for you to support your claim with evidence, and pre-emptively struck out against anecdotal and specific examples as evidence because I knew that's what you would go for first AND that "evidence" is not evidence at all: ie, it being true doesn't necessarily prove the claim.
I'll repeat again, please provide evidence to back up your claim that "society is male dominated".
On May 17 2009 23:03 cz wrote: The article in the OP could be either parody or a journal-level (ie professional level) feminist/cultural critique.
I take it you've never actually read journal-level work, unless you mean the journal of a 10th grade girl.
Actually as a university student I have to read drivel like this all the time. If you edit the article with more academic buzzwords it would be equivalent to a lot of sociological/cultural-critical journal articles I've had to read.
Also, to your edit, anecdotal evidence and specific examples don't prove or disprove statistics or general trends, which is what I was talking about (ie the claim "society is male dominated"). Labeling it qualitative or any other multi-syllabic term doesn't change that.
On May 17 2009 21:50 no_comprender wrote: maybe women are supposed to be submissive to men, i'll say this: i don't know any hot girls who give a fuck about feminism....
in fact you will find that intelligent and well adjusted girls will admit to things like women make worse leaders on average due to emotional instability compared to men, and other little "woman issues" that can get in the way of being a good leader or effective employee, as well as different priorities and a lesser sense of company loyalty than men.
of course that's not to say we should judge women on an individual level, but things like 50:50 men/women CEOs is not a realistic outcome. there's huge advantage to being tall in leadership positions too, something like 90% of CEOs are over average height for example, and the USA presidents list supports data like that. i haven't seen much publicity from short people complaining about height inequality cos it'd come across as bitter short man syndrome but we have to respect womens feminism complaints? same thing with good looking people too, it's a huge employment advantage. imo it just so happens that men tend to possess traits that we are instinctually drawn to respect and obey, in addition to tending to be more focussed and driven to succeed
i think many feminists are striving male ideals of power and achievement when at a fundamental level women don't necessarily have the same drive for those things that men do. the whole equality movement just comes of as forced to me because i just don't think we're wired that way fundamentally. of course if they keep forcing it down our throats for a few 100 years it'll become reality but don't pretend that equality is the fundamental truth and somehow men are pigheadedly pushing women down
I have one thing to say here: socially constructed gender roles.
You seem to think that the differences between males and females are all biological, and I hardly think that is the case at all. Thus I don't agree with your assumptions on how women and men are.
On May 17 2009 22:43 Jibba wrote: For humans today, this doesn't mean shit because being an engineer has nothing to do with physical capacity and yet the vast majority are men, and the left brained/right brained thing is a myth. There definitely are innate differences but it's thought that most of the differences are created through socialization, which isn't necessarily a good or bad bad thing. Feminism has gone in hiding because most people associate it with the women from the 60s and 70s who wanted nothing to do with men, but most younger feminists embrace gender differences, they just think they've been mostly created by culture.
It's true about them being associated with baby boomer crazies. I also believe that feminism is an idea with no ideas. I think its undeniable that at least modern culture is generally male dominated. But feminists have no idea how to fix anything either and if they can't think of anything reasonable, then males surely can't.
Modern culture is male dominated? Please back this up with statistics and evidence, and please no anecdotal evidence or specific examples as they are not necessarily representative of anything.
Do you understand how badly you just contradicted yourself? Anyone with half of a brain knows there is no pie-chart for male dominance in society without citing specific examples or anecdotal evidence.
I didn't contradict myself. I asked for you to support your claim with evidence, and pre-emptively struck out against anecdotal and specific examples as evidence because I knew that's what you would go for first AND that "evidence" is not evidence at all: ie, it being true doesn't necessarily prove the claim.
I'll repeat again, please provide evidence to back up your claim that "society is male dominated".
Ok, prove to me how it is not male dominated without using evidence.
On May 17 2009 22:43 Jibba wrote: For humans today, this doesn't mean shit because being an engineer has nothing to do with physical capacity and yet the vast majority are men, and the left brained/right brained thing is a myth. There definitely are innate differences but it's thought that most of the differences are created through socialization, which isn't necessarily a good or bad bad thing. Feminism has gone in hiding because most people associate it with the women from the 60s and 70s who wanted nothing to do with men, but most younger feminists embrace gender differences, they just think they've been mostly created by culture.
It's true about them being associated with baby boomer crazies. I also believe that feminism is an idea with no ideas. I think its undeniable that at least modern culture is generally male dominated. But feminists have no idea how to fix anything either and if they can't think of anything reasonable, then males surely can't.
Modern culture is male dominated? Please back this up with statistics and evidence, and please no anecdotal evidence or specific examples as they are not necessarily representative of anything.
Do you understand how badly you just contradicted yourself? Anyone with half of a brain knows there is no pie-chart for male dominance in society without citing specific examples or anecdotal evidence.
I didn't contradict myself. I asked for you to support your claim with evidence, and pre-emptively struck out against anecdotal and specific examples as evidence because I knew that's what you would go for first AND that "evidence" is not evidence at all: ie, it being true doesn't necessarily prove the claim.
I'll repeat again, please provide evidence to back up your claim that "society is male dominated".
Ok, prove to me how it is not male dominated without using evidence.
I'm not making the claim. The burden of proof is on you.
Also, go ahead and back up your claim that "society is male dominated" using whatever evidence you want. You will have to establish that your evidence, if true, actually proves your claim however (otherwise it's not useful evidence).
On May 17 2009 22:43 Jibba wrote: For humans today, this doesn't mean shit because being an engineer has nothing to do with physical capacity and yet the vast majority are men, and the left brained/right brained thing is a myth. There definitely are innate differences but it's thought that most of the differences are created through socialization, which isn't necessarily a good or bad bad thing. Feminism has gone in hiding because most people associate it with the women from the 60s and 70s who wanted nothing to do with men, but most younger feminists embrace gender differences, they just think they've been mostly created by culture.
It's true about them being associated with baby boomer crazies. I also believe that feminism is an idea with no ideas. I think its undeniable that at least modern culture is generally male dominated. But feminists have no idea how to fix anything either and if they can't think of anything reasonable, then males surely can't.
Modern culture is male dominated? Please back this up with statistics and evidence, and please no anecdotal evidence or specific examples as they are not necessarily representative of anything.
Do you understand how badly you just contradicted yourself? Anyone with half of a brain knows there is no pie-chart for male dominance in society without citing specific examples or anecdotal evidence.
I didn't contradict myself. I asked for you to support your claim with evidence, and pre-emptively struck out against anecdotal and specific examples as evidence because I knew that's what you would go for first AND that "evidence" is not evidence at all: ie, it being true doesn't necessarily prove the claim.
I'll repeat again, please provide evidence to back up your claim that "society is male dominated".
Ok, prove to me how it is not male dominated without using evidence.
I'm not making the claim. The burden of proof is on you.
Also, go ahead and back up your claim that "society is male dominated" using whatever evidence you want. You will have to establish that your evidence, if true, actually proves your claim however (otherwise it's not useful evidence).
Its a good thing you are not head of research anywhere. Thanks for wasting my time, people like you should have stuck to studying marine biology.
On May 17 2009 22:43 Jibba wrote: For humans today, this doesn't mean shit because being an engineer has nothing to do with physical capacity and yet the vast majority are men, and the left brained/right brained thing is a myth. There definitely are innate differences but it's thought that most of the differences are created through socialization, which isn't necessarily a good or bad bad thing. Feminism has gone in hiding because most people associate it with the women from the 60s and 70s who wanted nothing to do with men, but most younger feminists embrace gender differences, they just think they've been mostly created by culture.
It's true about them being associated with baby boomer crazies. I also believe that feminism is an idea with no ideas. I think its undeniable that at least modern culture is generally male dominated. But feminists have no idea how to fix anything either and if they can't think of anything reasonable, then males surely can't.
Modern culture is male dominated? Please back this up with statistics and evidence, and please no anecdotal evidence or specific examples as they are not necessarily representative of anything.
Do you understand how badly you just contradicted yourself? Anyone with half of a brain knows there is no pie-chart for male dominance in society without citing specific examples or anecdotal evidence.
I didn't contradict myself. I asked for you to support your claim with evidence, and pre-emptively struck out against anecdotal and specific examples as evidence because I knew that's what you would go for first AND that "evidence" is not evidence at all: ie, it being true doesn't necessarily prove the claim.
I'll repeat again, please provide evidence to back up your claim that "society is male dominated".
Ok, prove to me how it is not male dominated without using evidence.
I'm not making the claim. The burden of proof is on you.
Also, go ahead and back up your claim that "society is male dominated" using whatever evidence you want. You will have to establish that your evidence, if true, actually proves your claim however (otherwise it's not useful evidence).
Its a good thing you are not head of research anywhere. Thanks for wasting my time, people like you should have stuck to studying marine biology.
So, summary of your discussion so far.
- I come into thread and see you claiming that "culture is male dominated". - I ask you to establish that claim or back it up with evidence, pre-emptively striking out against anecdotal and specific examples as non-evidence as they don't prove or disprove general claims - You respond that I contradicted myself (I'm not sure how) - I reply by explaining why I didn't want anecdotal evidence, but decide to just ask you to establish your claim that "culture is male dominated" using whatever evidence you want, though I say I will criticize your evidence if I feel it doesn't necessarily prove the claim (that is what evidence is supposed to do) - You respond by saying I'm "wasting your time"
Again, please go ahead and establish your claim that "modern culture is male dominated" with whatever evidence you want, otherwise you may want to retract it and/or learn to brazenly state things as true if you can't back them up when challenged.
On May 17 2009 20:47 DwmC_Foefen wrote: There's a difference between feminists who strive for equality in politics, bussinessworld, ... and feminists who just plain hate men :s They always toss the words equality and sexist around where it fits them the best. You can't win an discussion with these women (with any women really "OH NOES SEXIST REMARK" they rely too much on their emotions in the heat of the discussion)
Anyway, most women rule :D . They're soft, smell nice, pretty looking, compassionate, kind, sweet, I could go on and on But to those few bitter women/feminists/whatever who are out to spite and are looking to pick a fight I say gtfo
The argument about the "good" feminists and "bad" (who hate men) ones is common. It can be interpreted as a masculine way of stripping the "stronger" women of their power by calling the ones "who hate men" the bad ones, because they are a threat to the male hierarchy.
How many men hates women? Certainly theres quite alot of men who despise women for many of the ways of how women behave. Also, the hatred some women feel towards men is quite justifiable when taking into account how many women are abused physically, sexually and mentally each and every day, still in this day and era. Throughout history women have been dominated by men, and frankly have been viewed as second class citizens.
I'm not that into feminist theory but I think it's VERY important for both men and women to realize that there are still issues regarding equality, and actually see how we as a society play a huge role in socializing the next generations with these views that are already ingrained in us.
Everybody should take a 101 Sociology course for a better understanding of society as a whole, because I often see how these insights are lacking in people. It's something that concerns us all very much.
I meant that there is nothing wrong with women who want equality, it's horrible that ie. men earn more money doing the same job in the same company than a woman. That's just plain wrong. I was adressing a) the women who just like to toss around words like sexist, discriminating, ... whenever it fits them. b) the women who say they're feminist just to mask the fact that they just plain hate men.
By dismissing their claims without understanding them, you're perpetrating their status as an Other. I don't think you've considered that from their perspective, it could be a reasonable claim. And the pay equity thing is a completely different problem, but it's generally not like what people describe. In most jobs, equally qualified women do not earn 76% of men's salaries, or else companies would be filled with women instead of men.
And isn't that just the way nature works? Men dominating women? Not in a bad way ofcourse but just, more decisive and such. I think there's a reason why throughout history most of the leaders were men and still are. Isn't that just genetics(can't find another word for it, genetics isn't the good word)? Even amongst other animals we see the males take the lead, protecting the females, getting food, whatever they do and the females just follow, fullfilling the female roles (as opposed to the male roles).
No. Different animals have different cultures, and that's the guiding idea behind feminism. Culture shapes behavior and roles more than anything else. There may be certain traits like strength which tend to give more power to males in the wild, but there are some female dominant animals and even among male dominant ones, females often do more of the work.
For humans today, this doesn't mean shit because being an engineer has nothing to do with physical capacity and yet the vast majority are men, and the left brained/right brained thing is a myth. There definitely are innate differences but it's thought that most of the differences are created through socialization, which isn't necessarily a good or bad bad thing. Feminism has gone in hiding because most people associate it with the women from the 60s and 70s who wanted nothing to do with men, but most younger feminists embrace gender differences, they just think they've been mostly created by culture.
I think you really underestimate the biological/genetic side of things. It's only thought that biology has little psychological role among feminists/sociologists/etc. Evolutionary psychology disagree heavily with the "society dictates almost everything" view, but it's not politically correct to say so. Even the most basic observations back it up, though.
Evolution psychology/sociobiology is the baby theory here. I'm not saying it doesn't have merit, but it's much less explored than the idea of socialization. I think they both have a place.
Also, "animals have different cultures". What?
I was responding to this: "Even amongst other animals we see the males take the lead, protecting the females, getting food, whatever they do and the females just follow, fullfilling the female roles (as opposed to the male roles)."
Different species have different cultures and roles for the sexes. Extrapolating the female behavior of cats based on a lioness, for instance, does no good.
On May 17 2009 23:03 cz wrote: The article in the OP could be either parody or a journal-level (ie professional level) feminist/cultural critique.
I take it you've never actually read journal-level work, unless you mean the journal of a 10th grade girl.
Actually as a university student I have to read drivel like this all the time. If you edit the article with more academic buzzwords it would be equivalent to a lot of sociological/cultural-critical journal articles I've had to read.
Also, to your edit, anecdotal evidence and specific examples don't prove or disprove statistics or general trends, which is what I was talking about (ie the claim "society is male dominated"). Labeling it qualitative or any other multi-syllabic term doesn't change that.
You must be an economist. Not everything is quantifiable. It can be done in this case and I've read a few economic papers on labor disparities, but it's easier to do it qualitatively.
On May 17 2009 20:47 DwmC_Foefen wrote: There's a difference between feminists who strive for equality in politics, bussinessworld, ... and feminists who just plain hate men :s They always toss the words equality and sexist around where it fits them the best. You can't win an discussion with these women (with any women really "OH NOES SEXIST REMARK" they rely too much on their emotions in the heat of the discussion)
Anyway, most women rule :D . They're soft, smell nice, pretty looking, compassionate, kind, sweet, I could go on and on But to those few bitter women/feminists/whatever who are out to spite and are looking to pick a fight I say gtfo
The argument about the "good" feminists and "bad" (who hate men) ones is common. It can be interpreted as a masculine way of stripping the "stronger" women of their power by calling the ones "who hate men" the bad ones, because they are a threat to the male hierarchy.
How many men hates women? Certainly theres quite alot of men who despise women for many of the ways of how women behave. Also, the hatred some women feel towards men is quite justifiable when taking into account how many women are abused physically, sexually and mentally each and every day, still in this day and era. Throughout history women have been dominated by men, and frankly have been viewed as second class citizens.
I'm not that into feminist theory but I think it's VERY important for both men and women to realize that there are still issues regarding equality, and actually see how we as a society play a huge role in socializing the next generations with these views that are already ingrained in us.
Everybody should take a 101 Sociology course for a better understanding of society as a whole, because I often see how these insights are lacking in people. It's something that concerns us all very much.
I meant that there is nothing wrong with women who want equality, it's horrible that ie. men earn more money doing the same job in the same company than a woman. That's just plain wrong. I was adressing a) the women who just like to toss around words like sexist, discriminating, ... whenever it fits them. b) the women who say they're feminist just to mask the fact that they just plain hate men.
By dismissing their claims without understanding them, you're perpetrating their status as an Other. I don't think you've considered that from their perspective, it could be a reasonable claim. And the pay equity thing is a completely different problem, but it's generally not like what people describe. In most jobs, equally qualified women do not earn 76% of men's salaries, or else companies would be filled with women instead of men.
And isn't that just the way nature works? Men dominating women? Not in a bad way ofcourse but just, more decisive and such. I think there's a reason why throughout history most of the leaders were men and still are. Isn't that just genetics(can't find another word for it, genetics isn't the good word)? Even amongst other animals we see the males take the lead, protecting the females, getting food, whatever they do and the females just follow, fullfilling the female roles (as opposed to the male roles).
No. Different animals have different cultures, and that's the guiding idea behind feminism. Culture shapes behavior and roles more than anything else. There may be certain traits like strength which tend to give more power to males in the wild, but there are some female dominant animals and even among male dominant ones, females often do more of the work.
For humans today, this doesn't mean shit because being an engineer has nothing to do with physical capacity and yet the vast majority are men, and the left brained/right brained thing is a myth. There definitely are innate differences but it's thought that most of the differences are created through socialization, which isn't necessarily a good or bad bad thing. Feminism has gone in hiding because most people associate it with the women from the 60s and 70s who wanted nothing to do with men, but most younger feminists embrace gender differences, they just think they've been mostly created by culture.
I think you really underestimate the biological/genetic side of things. It's only thought that biology has little psychological role among feminists/sociologists/etc. Evolutionary psychology disagree heavily with the "society dictates almost everything" view, but it's not politically correct to say so. Even the most basic observations back it up, though.
Evolution psychology/sociobiology is the baby theory here. I'm not saying it doesn't have merit, but it's much less explored than the idea of socialization. I think they both have a place.
I was responding to this: "Even amongst other animals we see the males take the lead, protecting the females, getting food, whatever they do and the females just follow, fullfilling the female roles (as opposed to the male roles)."
Different species have different cultures and roles for the sexes. Extrapolating the female behavior of cats based on a lioness, for instance, does no good.
Well, I suppose it depends on what exactly we are talking about when it comes to nurture vs nature, or sociological explanations vs evolutionary psychology ones. Without defining exactly what we are talking about, we can't really argue whether it's nature or nurture "more" responsible.
As for animals and cultures, I can't really discuss this further until the word "culture" is exhaustively defined. Until then we are both using our own pre-conceived views of what the term means and we can both be right/wrong with contradicting statements.
On May 17 2009 23:03 cz wrote: The article in the OP could be either parody or a journal-level (ie professional level) feminist/cultural critique.
I take it you've never actually read journal-level work, unless you mean the journal of a 10th grade girl.
Actually as a university student I have to read drivel like this all the time. If you edit the article with more academic buzzwords it would be equivalent to a lot of sociological/cultural-critical journal articles I've had to read.
Also, to your edit, anecdotal evidence and specific examples don't prove or disprove statistics or general trends, which is what I was talking about (ie the claim "society is male dominated"). Labeling it qualitative or any other multi-syllabic term doesn't change that.
You must be an economist. Not everything is quantifiable.
Then don't make claims you can't back up, which is what I'm talking about. Can't just claim "modern culture is male dominated", say there is no quantifiable evidence (and so far no other evidence given) and say that your statements stands as true. If you want to say its an opinion, do so, but the original guy's context made it appear that it wasn't just his opinion, but obviously true.
Honestly this is what really irritates me about the social "sciences": they are unscientific.
I probably could've chosen a better term than 'culture.' I meant the behaviors/characteristics of a particular group, in this case a species or sub-species.
On May 17 2009 22:43 Jibba wrote: For humans today, this doesn't mean shit because being an engineer has nothing to do with physical capacity and yet the vast majority are men, and the left brained/right brained thing is a myth. There definitely are innate differences but it's thought that most of the differences are created through socialization, which isn't necessarily a good or bad bad thing. Feminism has gone in hiding because most people associate it with the women from the 60s and 70s who wanted nothing to do with men, but most younger feminists embrace gender differences, they just think they've been mostly created by culture.
It's true about them being associated with baby boomer crazies. I also believe that feminism is an idea with no ideas. I think its undeniable that at least modern culture is generally male dominated. But feminists have no idea how to fix anything either and if they can't think of anything reasonable, then males surely can't.
Modern culture is male dominated? Please back this up with statistics and evidence, and please no anecdotal evidence or specific examples as they are not necessarily representative of anything.
Do you understand how badly you just contradicted yourself? Anyone with half of a brain knows there is no pie-chart for male dominance in society without citing specific examples or anecdotal evidence.
I didn't contradict myself. I asked for you to support your claim with evidence, and pre-emptively struck out against anecdotal and specific examples as evidence because I knew that's what you would go for first AND that "evidence" is not evidence at all: ie, it being true doesn't necessarily prove the claim.
I'll repeat again, please provide evidence to back up your claim that "society is male dominated".
Ok, prove to me how it is not male dominated without using evidence.
I'm not making the claim. The burden of proof is on you.
Also, go ahead and back up your claim that "society is male dominated" using whatever evidence you want. You will have to establish that your evidence, if true, actually proves your claim however (otherwise it's not useful evidence).
Its a good thing you are not head of research anywhere. Thanks for wasting my time, people like you should have stuck to studying marine biology.
So, summary of your discussion so far.
- I come into thread and see you claiming that "culture is male dominated". - I ask you to establish that claim or back it up with evidence, pre-emptively striking out against anecdotal and specific examples as non-evidence as they don't prove or disprove general claims - You respond that I contradicted myself (I'm not sure how) - I reply by explaining why I didn't want anecdotal evidence, but decide to just ask you to establish your claim that "culture is male dominated" using whatever evidence you want, though I say I will criticize your evidence if I feel it doesn't necessarily prove the claim (that is what evidence is supposed to do) - You respond by saying I'm "wasting your time"
Again, please go ahead and establish your claim that "modern culture is male dominated" with whatever evidence you want, otherwise you may want to retract it and/or learn to brazenly state things as true if you can't back them up when challenged.
Alright, lets try again.
- Lets get technical: I never said "culture is male dominated" I said "I think its undeniable that modern culture is male dominated." - You ask me to establish why I think this its true without citing specific examples of why I think its true. I think most would understand that this is not a "Yes" or "No" answer, but rather like that of a trial or debate. I have to prove to you that my claim of "I think its undeniable that modern culture is male dominated" holds weight. - I now realize that I am speaking with a fool. Thus, you are wasting my time.
It was never a brazen claim. Please read next time.
On May 17 2009 20:47 DwmC_Foefen wrote: There's a difference between feminists who strive for equality in politics, bussinessworld, ... and feminists who just plain hate men :s They always toss the words equality and sexist around where it fits them the best. You can't win an discussion with these women (with any women really "OH NOES SEXIST REMARK" they rely too much on their emotions in the heat of the discussion)
Anyway, most women rule :D . They're soft, smell nice, pretty looking, compassionate, kind, sweet, I could go on and on But to those few bitter women/feminists/whatever who are out to spite and are looking to pick a fight I say gtfo
The argument about the "good" feminists and "bad" (who hate men) ones is common. It can be interpreted as a masculine way of stripping the "stronger" women of their power by calling the ones "who hate men" the bad ones, because they are a threat to the male hierarchy.
How many men hates women? Certainly theres quite alot of men who despise women for many of the ways of how women behave. Also, the hatred some women feel towards men is quite justifiable when taking into account how many women are abused physically, sexually and mentally each and every day, still in this day and era. Throughout history women have been dominated by men, and frankly have been viewed as second class citizens.
I'm not that into feminist theory but I think it's VERY important for both men and women to realize that there are still issues regarding equality, and actually see how we as a society play a huge role in socializing the next generations with these views that are already ingrained in us.
Everybody should take a 101 Sociology course for a better understanding of society as a whole, because I often see how these insights are lacking in people. It's something that concerns us all very much.
I meant that there is nothing wrong with women who want equality, it's horrible that ie. men earn more money doing the same job in the same company than a woman. That's just plain wrong. I was adressing a) the women who just like to toss around words like sexist, discriminating, ... whenever it fits them. b) the women who say they're feminist just to mask the fact that they just plain hate men.
And isn't that just the way nature works? Men dominating women? Not in a bad way ofcourse but just, more decisive and such. I think there's a reason why throughout history most of the leaders were men and still are. Isn't that just genetics(can't find another word for it, genetics isn't the good word)? Even amongst other animals we see the males take the lead, protecting the females, getting food, whatever they do and the females just follow, fullfilling the female roles (as opposed to the male roles).
I could be using a stupid argument here because we're in the 21st century where people are much more sophisticated but I think it still applies.
But you seem like a well-educated person and I'm surely wrong, just wanted to express my thoughts.
And I do want to take sociology 101 tbh, it seems interesting.
Why are you assuming that women just throw around words like sexism and discrimination? Seems like you think that they aren't capable of actually understanding these words.
Btw, do tell how you are able to know when you can actually use those 2 words and when you can't. When do you know that you got the job because you are a beautiful girl and when do you know that you didn't get the job because you are an immigrant. Also sexism and discrimination is to an large extent built into our society, because a man is the norm, which makes women inferior.
I got your view on feminists the first time, and I already adressed them in my first response.
You say that some women just plain hate men. Why? Why do they hate men? Are some women just born like that? Are they retarded? Why would they hate men, just because?
How "nature" works...What is nature? I think "men" and "women" are largely socially constructed roles of behavior. This socialization continues through generations. Well I think there is a biological factor too but I think it's not that big and that our gender roles are more important. Sure, women are physically weaker than men in general, but are they less decisive? For one, they are taught to be less decisive and being in closer touch with their emotions.
In my opinion, your argument applies to pure physical strength but that's about it.
Nah man, I'm glad you are expressing your thoughts and don't think your opinion is bad in any way, it's how you think at this point in your life as a result of your parents, school, friends, society; basically your current level of knowledge of the world in which you live.
Well I've studied sociology, psychology and social work so I'm a bit experienced but anyone can study sociology. It's extremely fascinating.
On May 17 2009 22:43 Jibba wrote: For humans today, this doesn't mean shit because being an engineer has nothing to do with physical capacity and yet the vast majority are men, and the left brained/right brained thing is a myth. There definitely are innate differences but it's thought that most of the differences are created through socialization, which isn't necessarily a good or bad bad thing. Feminism has gone in hiding because most people associate it with the women from the 60s and 70s who wanted nothing to do with men, but most younger feminists embrace gender differences, they just think they've been mostly created by culture.
It's true about them being associated with baby boomer crazies. I also believe that feminism is an idea with no ideas. I think its undeniable that at least modern culture is generally male dominated. But feminists have no idea how to fix anything either and if they can't think of anything reasonable, then males surely can't.
Modern culture is male dominated? Please back this up with statistics and evidence, and please no anecdotal evidence or specific examples as they are not necessarily representative of anything.
Do you understand how badly you just contradicted yourself? Anyone with half of a brain knows there is no pie-chart for male dominance in society without citing specific examples or anecdotal evidence.
I didn't contradict myself. I asked for you to support your claim with evidence, and pre-emptively struck out against anecdotal and specific examples as evidence because I knew that's what you would go for first AND that "evidence" is not evidence at all: ie, it being true doesn't necessarily prove the claim.
I'll repeat again, please provide evidence to back up your claim that "society is male dominated".
Ok, prove to me how it is not male dominated without using evidence.
I'm not making the claim. The burden of proof is on you.
Also, go ahead and back up your claim that "society is male dominated" using whatever evidence you want. You will have to establish that your evidence, if true, actually proves your claim however (otherwise it's not useful evidence).
Its a good thing you are not head of research anywhere. Thanks for wasting my time, people like you should have stuck to studying marine biology.
So, summary of your discussion so far.
- I come into thread and see you claiming that "culture is male dominated". - I ask you to establish that claim or back it up with evidence, pre-emptively striking out against anecdotal and specific examples as non-evidence as they don't prove or disprove general claims - You respond that I contradicted myself (I'm not sure how) - I reply by explaining why I didn't want anecdotal evidence, but decide to just ask you to establish your claim that "culture is male dominated" using whatever evidence you want, though I say I will criticize your evidence if I feel it doesn't necessarily prove the claim (that is what evidence is supposed to do) - You respond by saying I'm "wasting your time"
Again, please go ahead and establish your claim that "modern culture is male dominated" with whatever evidence you want, otherwise you may want to retract it and/or learn to brazenly state things as true if you can't back them up when challenged.
Alright, lets try again.
- Lets get technical: I never said "culture is male dominated" I said "I think its undeniable that modern culture is male dominated." - You ask me to establish why I think this its true without citing specific examples of why I think its true. I think most would understand that this is not a "Yes" or "No" answer, but rather like that of a trial or debate. I have to prove to you that my claim of "I think its undeniable that modern culture is male dominated" holds weight. - I now realize that I am speaking with a fool. Thus, you are wasting my time.
Your original wording doesn't change anything. You are still making a statement. I'm asking you to establish that statement as true. Use whatever evidence you want. Go.
Otherwise admit that your statement is opinion, and you are not willing to establish it's validity. It's one or the other.
On May 17 2009 22:43 Jibba wrote: For humans today, this doesn't mean shit because being an engineer has nothing to do with physical capacity and yet the vast majority are men, and the left brained/right brained thing is a myth. There definitely are innate differences but it's thought that most of the differences are created through socialization, which isn't necessarily a good or bad bad thing. Feminism has gone in hiding because most people associate it with the women from the 60s and 70s who wanted nothing to do with men, but most younger feminists embrace gender differences, they just think they've been mostly created by culture.
It's true about them being associated with baby boomer crazies. I also believe that feminism is an idea with no ideas. I think its undeniable that at least modern culture is generally male dominated. But feminists have no idea how to fix anything either and if they can't think of anything reasonable, then males surely can't.
Modern culture is male dominated? Please back this up with statistics and evidence, and please no anecdotal evidence or specific examples as they are not necessarily representative of anything.
lol
Presidents, CEOs of large companies. differences in wages, sports etc etc etc
On May 17 2009 23:03 cz wrote: The article in the OP could be either parody or a journal-level (ie professional level) feminist/cultural critique.
I take it you've never actually read journal-level work, unless you mean the journal of a 10th grade girl.
Actually as a university student I have to read drivel like this all the time. If you edit the article with more academic buzzwords it would be equivalent to a lot of sociological/cultural-critical journal articles I've had to read.
Also, to your edit, anecdotal evidence and specific examples don't prove or disprove statistics or general trends, which is what I was talking about (ie the claim "society is male dominated"). Labeling it qualitative or any other multi-syllabic term doesn't change that.
You must be an economist. Not everything is quantifiable.
Then don't make claims you can't back up, which is what I'm talking about. Can't just claim "modern culture is male dominated", say there is no quantifiable evidence (and so far no other evidence given) and say that your statements stands as true. If you want to say its an opinion, do so, but the original guy's context made it appear that it wasn't just his opinion, but obviously true.
I was referring to the fact that you said evidence entailed hard numbers, and other methods don't work. If you want a small bit of qualitative work, Throwing Like a Girl by Iris Young (should be on JSTOR) describes the way that girls are brought up to objectify themselves, and why men tend to be more "active" in their motions and how they perceive the world rather than passive. She goes a bit out there when she's talking about "yonder" and crap.
If you want numbers, you could look at labor practices and the work cycles of men and women. The pay discrepancy argument is mostly bogus, but there's a lot worthwhile in the explanations of why most engineers and men and most teachers are women.
On May 17 2009 22:43 Jibba wrote: For humans today, this doesn't mean shit because being an engineer has nothing to do with physical capacity and yet the vast majority are men, and the left brained/right brained thing is a myth. There definitely are innate differences but it's thought that most of the differences are created through socialization, which isn't necessarily a good or bad bad thing. Feminism has gone in hiding because most people associate it with the women from the 60s and 70s who wanted nothing to do with men, but most younger feminists embrace gender differences, they just think they've been mostly created by culture.
It's true about them being associated with baby boomer crazies. I also believe that feminism is an idea with no ideas. I think its undeniable that at least modern culture is generally male dominated. But feminists have no idea how to fix anything either and if they can't think of anything reasonable, then males surely can't.
Modern culture is male dominated? Please back this up with statistics and evidence, and please no anecdotal evidence or specific examples as they are not necessarily representative of anything.
lol
Presidents, CEOs of large companies. differences in wages, sports etc etc etc
So your arguement is:
1. If most presidents, CEOs of large companies are male, and there are differences in wages and spectator sports are dominated by males, then modern culture is male dominated. 2. Most presidents, CEOs of large companies are male, and there are differences in wages and spectator sports are dominated by males 3. Therefore modern culture is male dominated.
Please establish premise #1, as your entire argument relies on it being true for the conclusion to be true. Also premise #2 on the wage gap needs to be established.
It's true about them being associated with baby boomer crazies. I also believe that feminism is an idea with no ideas. I think its undeniable that at least modern culture is generally male dominated. But feminists have no idea how to fix anything either and if they can't think of anything reasonable, then males surely can't.
Modern culture is male dominated? Please back this up with statistics and evidence, and please no anecdotal evidence or specific examples as they are not necessarily representative of anything.
Do you understand how badly you just contradicted yourself? Anyone with half of a brain knows there is no pie-chart for male dominance in society without citing specific examples or anecdotal evidence.
I didn't contradict myself. I asked for you to support your claim with evidence, and pre-emptively struck out against anecdotal and specific examples as evidence because I knew that's what you would go for first AND that "evidence" is not evidence at all: ie, it being true doesn't necessarily prove the claim.
I'll repeat again, please provide evidence to back up your claim that "society is male dominated".
Ok, prove to me how it is not male dominated without using evidence.
I'm not making the claim. The burden of proof is on you.
Also, go ahead and back up your claim that "society is male dominated" using whatever evidence you want. You will have to establish that your evidence, if true, actually proves your claim however (otherwise it's not useful evidence).
Its a good thing you are not head of research anywhere. Thanks for wasting my time, people like you should have stuck to studying marine biology.
So, summary of your discussion so far.
- I come into thread and see you claiming that "culture is male dominated". - I ask you to establish that claim or back it up with evidence, pre-emptively striking out against anecdotal and specific examples as non-evidence as they don't prove or disprove general claims - You respond that I contradicted myself (I'm not sure how) - I reply by explaining why I didn't want anecdotal evidence, but decide to just ask you to establish your claim that "culture is male dominated" using whatever evidence you want, though I say I will criticize your evidence if I feel it doesn't necessarily prove the claim (that is what evidence is supposed to do) - You respond by saying I'm "wasting your time"
Again, please go ahead and establish your claim that "modern culture is male dominated" with whatever evidence you want, otherwise you may want to retract it and/or learn to brazenly state things as true if you can't back them up when challenged.
Alright, lets try again.
- Lets get technical: I never said "culture is male dominated" I said "I think its undeniable that modern culture is male dominated." - You ask me to establish why I think this its true without citing specific examples of why I think its true. I think most would understand that this is not a "Yes" or "No" answer, but rather like that of a trial or debate. I have to prove to you that my claim of "I think its undeniable that modern culture is male dominated" holds weight. - I now realize that I am speaking with a fool. Thus, you are wasting my time.
Your original wording doesn't change anything. You are still making a statement. I'm asking you to establish that statement as true. Use whatever evidence you want. Go.
Otherwise admit that your statement is opinion, and you are not willing to establish it's validity. It's one or the other.
I wouldn't waste numbers on someone who can't comprehend them (or just plain words for that matter). You are asking me to prove an argument is true, which as we all know can't be done, the best I can do is give you specific examples and other research as to why my argument is correct and your argument is false. There is one problem, you have no argument. Google debate.
Modern culture is male dominated? Please back this up with statistics and evidence, and please no anecdotal evidence or specific examples as they are not necessarily representative of anything.
Do you understand how badly you just contradicted yourself? Anyone with half of a brain knows there is no pie-chart for male dominance in society without citing specific examples or anecdotal evidence.
I didn't contradict myself. I asked for you to support your claim with evidence, and pre-emptively struck out against anecdotal and specific examples as evidence because I knew that's what you would go for first AND that "evidence" is not evidence at all: ie, it being true doesn't necessarily prove the claim.
I'll repeat again, please provide evidence to back up your claim that "society is male dominated".
Ok, prove to me how it is not male dominated without using evidence.
I'm not making the claim. The burden of proof is on you.
Also, go ahead and back up your claim that "society is male dominated" using whatever evidence you want. You will have to establish that your evidence, if true, actually proves your claim however (otherwise it's not useful evidence).
Its a good thing you are not head of research anywhere. Thanks for wasting my time, people like you should have stuck to studying marine biology.
So, summary of your discussion so far.
- I come into thread and see you claiming that "culture is male dominated". - I ask you to establish that claim or back it up with evidence, pre-emptively striking out against anecdotal and specific examples as non-evidence as they don't prove or disprove general claims - You respond that I contradicted myself (I'm not sure how) - I reply by explaining why I didn't want anecdotal evidence, but decide to just ask you to establish your claim that "culture is male dominated" using whatever evidence you want, though I say I will criticize your evidence if I feel it doesn't necessarily prove the claim (that is what evidence is supposed to do) - You respond by saying I'm "wasting your time"
Again, please go ahead and establish your claim that "modern culture is male dominated" with whatever evidence you want, otherwise you may want to retract it and/or learn to brazenly state things as true if you can't back them up when challenged.
Alright, lets try again.
- Lets get technical: I never said "culture is male dominated" I said "I think its undeniable that modern culture is male dominated." - You ask me to establish why I think this its true without citing specific examples of why I think its true. I think most would understand that this is not a "Yes" or "No" answer, but rather like that of a trial or debate. I have to prove to you that my claim of "I think its undeniable that modern culture is male dominated" holds weight. - I now realize that I am speaking with a fool. Thus, you are wasting my time.
Your original wording doesn't change anything. You are still making a statement. I'm asking you to establish that statement as true. Use whatever evidence you want. Go.
Otherwise admit that your statement is opinion, and you are not willing to establish it's validity. It's one or the other.
I wouldn't waste numbers on someone who can't comprehend them (or just plain words for that matter). You are asking me to prove an argument is true, which as we all know can't be done, the best I can do is give you specific examples and other research as to why my argument is correct and your argument is false. There is one problem, you have no argument. Google debate.
So basically you have nothing to offer to back up your claim, despite my repeated requests?
Okay.
edit: Also I'm not making any argument. You are the one with the claim, not me.
On May 17 2009 23:03 cz wrote: The article in the OP could be either parody or a journal-level (ie professional level) feminist/cultural critique.
I take it you've never actually read journal-level work, unless you mean the journal of a 10th grade girl.
Actually as a university student I have to read drivel like this all the time. If you edit the article with more academic buzzwords it would be equivalent to a lot of sociological/cultural-critical journal articles I've had to read.
Also, to your edit, anecdotal evidence and specific examples don't prove or disprove statistics or general trends, which is what I was talking about (ie the claim "society is male dominated"). Labeling it qualitative or any other multi-syllabic term doesn't change that.
You must be an economist. Not everything is quantifiable.
Then don't make claims you can't back up, which is what I'm talking about. Can't just claim "modern culture is male dominated", say there is no quantifiable evidence (and so far no other evidence given) and say that your statements stands as true. If you want to say its an opinion, do so, but the original guy's context made it appear that it wasn't just his opinion, but obviously true.
I was referring to the fact that you said evidence entailed hard numbers, and other methods don't work. If you want a small bit of qualitative work, Throwing Like a Girl by Iris Young (should be on JSTOR) describes the way that girls are brought up to objectify themselves, and why men tend to be more "active" in their motions and how they perceive the world rather than passive. She goes a bit out there when she's talking about "yonder" and crap.
If you want numbers, you could look at labor practices and the work cycles of men and women. The pay discrepancy argument is mostly bogus, but there's a lot worthwhile in the explanations of why most engineers and men and most teachers are women.
I'm not interested enough to read the article, so I won't criticize it but I don't see it's relevance to the original claim of "modern culture is male dominated". Or are we just talking about socialization in general and how it affects gender roles?
i had a really good laugh reading some of this : )
but starcraft is feminine somehow too.. for example when i select all zerg units the ultralisk speaks, but when i disselect the ultra speaks the queen (somehow feminine!)... also when you select all the terran units speaks the valkyrie -> valkyrie is the responible for all terran troops -> a woman is the boss -> wtf sc so feminist!! also when you select medic and marine -> the medic speaks -> how can this happen in a masculine world XD for toss units speaks the carrier, but after that is the dark templar (which i believe was connected to matriarchy somehow)
On May 17 2009 23:10 cz wrote: I think you really underestimate the biological/genetic side of things. It's only thought that biology has little psychological role among feminists/sociologists/etc. Evolutionary psychology disagree heavily with the "society dictates almost everything" view, but it's not politically correct to say so. Even the most basic observations back it up, though.
Also, "animals have different cultures". What?
Are you trying to group up feminists and sociologists as the weird people who are against "science" or something? I get that impression anyways.
I've studied different fields of psychology and while there of course is a large biological aspect of psychology, it's heavily affected by environment. Thus some genes don't express themselves because of environmental factors and some genes come to expression because of some different environmental factors.
Biological and environmental factors affect each other in complicated ways, so one can't really say that it's all nature or all environment.
Evolutionary psychology has some huge weaknesses. Mainly that they are too focused on biology and hardly considers environmental factors. For some reason they don't take environment into account, and that's a serious scientifical flaw; they see what they want to see.
Evolutionary pscyhology is like science from the early 2000:th century, where everything that can't be measured is not interesting. You can measure genes and atoms, but you hardly can't measure how a society works and what effect it has on people.
On May 17 2009 23:30 cz wrote: Honestly this is what really irritates me about the social "sciences": they are unscientific.
For someone who seems to be advocating precise definitions and backing up claims with scientific proof that's a pretty bold statement. Where do you take the expertise from to make that claim?
On May 17 2009 23:03 cz wrote: The article in the OP could be either parody or a journal-level (ie professional level) feminist/cultural critique.
I take it you've never actually read journal-level work, unless you mean the journal of a 10th grade girl.
Actually as a university student I have to read drivel like this all the time. If you edit the article with more academic buzzwords it would be equivalent to a lot of sociological/cultural-critical journal articles I've had to read.
Also, to your edit, anecdotal evidence and specific examples don't prove or disprove statistics or general trends, which is what I was talking about (ie the claim "society is male dominated"). Labeling it qualitative or any other multi-syllabic term doesn't change that.
You must be an economist. Not everything is quantifiable.
Then don't make claims you can't back up, which is what I'm talking about. Can't just claim "modern culture is male dominated", say there is no quantifiable evidence (and so far no other evidence given) and say that your statements stands as true. If you want to say its an opinion, do so, but the original guy's context made it appear that it wasn't just his opinion, but obviously true.
I was referring to the fact that you said evidence entailed hard numbers, and other methods don't work. If you want a small bit of qualitative work, Throwing Like a Girl by Iris Young (should be on JSTOR) describes the way that girls are brought up to objectify themselves, and why men tend to be more "active" in their motions and how they perceive the world rather than passive. She goes a bit out there when she's talking about "yonder" and crap.
If you want numbers, you could look at labor practices and the work cycles of men and women. The pay discrepancy argument is mostly bogus, but there's a lot worthwhile in the explanations of why most engineers and men and most teachers are women.
I'm not interested enough to read the article, so I won't criticize it but I don't see it's relevance to the original claim of "modern culture is male dominated". Or are we just talking about socialization in general and how it affects gender roles?
It's claimed that patriarchal society is what causes them to grow up objectifying themselves.
On May 17 2009 23:10 cz wrote: I think you really underestimate the biological/genetic side of things. It's only thought that biology has little psychological role among feminists/sociologists/etc. Evolutionary psychology disagree heavily with the "society dictates almost everything" view, but it's not politically correct to say so. Even the most basic observations back it up, though.
Also, "animals have different cultures". What?
Are you trying to group up feminists and sociologists as the weird people who are against "science" or something? I get that impression anyways.
I've studied different fields of psychology and while there of course is a large biological aspect of psychology, it's heavily affected by environment. Thus some genes don't express themselves because of environmental factors and some genes come to expression because of some different environmental factors.
Biological and environmental factors affect each other in complicated ways, so one can't really say that it's all nature or all environment.
Evolutionary psychology has some huge weaknesses. Mainly that they are too focused on biology and hardly considers environmental factors. For some reason they don't take environment into account, and that's a serious scientifical flaw; they see what they want to see.
Evolutionary pscyhology is like science from the early 2000:th century, where everything that can't be measured is not interesting. You can measure genes and atoms, but you hardly can't measure how a society works and what effect it has on people.
Well we disagree then, I give a lot more weight to evolutionary psychology than socialization in a lot of things than you do. Depends on the specific topic we are discussing though.
It's a strawman to claim that evolutionary psychologists view everything as purely dictated by genes, though. Everyone knows that environment and biology interact in complicated ways: it's that way that is unclear and where disagreement comes from.
I also disagree with what you claim to be a weakness, but again it depends on what exactly we are talking about. We need a specific example to discuss genetics vs socialization, rather than talking about human behaviour as a whole.
On May 17 2009 23:30 cz wrote: Honestly this is what really irritates me about the social "sciences": they are unscientific.
For someone who seems to be advocating precise definitions and backing up claims with scientific proof that's a pretty bold statement. Where do you take the expertise from to make that claim?
Personal observation and opinion. It's not a claim I'm really going to defend or stand by too much.
On May 17 2009 23:03 cz wrote: The article in the OP could be either parody or a journal-level (ie professional level) feminist/cultural critique.
I take it you've never actually read journal-level work, unless you mean the journal of a 10th grade girl.
Actually as a university student I have to read drivel like this all the time. If you edit the article with more academic buzzwords it would be equivalent to a lot of sociological/cultural-critical journal articles I've had to read.
Also, to your edit, anecdotal evidence and specific examples don't prove or disprove statistics or general trends, which is what I was talking about (ie the claim "society is male dominated"). Labeling it qualitative or any other multi-syllabic term doesn't change that.
You must be an economist. Not everything is quantifiable.
Then don't make claims you can't back up, which is what I'm talking about. Can't just claim "modern culture is male dominated", say there is no quantifiable evidence (and so far no other evidence given) and say that your statements stands as true. If you want to say its an opinion, do so, but the original guy's context made it appear that it wasn't just his opinion, but obviously true.
I was referring to the fact that you said evidence entailed hard numbers, and other methods don't work. If you want a small bit of qualitative work, Throwing Like a Girl by Iris Young (should be on JSTOR) describes the way that girls are brought up to objectify themselves, and why men tend to be more "active" in their motions and how they perceive the world rather than passive. She goes a bit out there when she's talking about "yonder" and crap.
If you want numbers, you could look at labor practices and the work cycles of men and women. The pay discrepancy argument is mostly bogus, but there's a lot worthwhile in the explanations of why most engineers and men and most teachers are women.
I'm not interested enough to read the article, so I won't criticize it but I don't see it's relevance to the original claim of "modern culture is male dominated". Or are we just talking about socialization in general and how it affects gender roles?
It's claimed that patriarchal society is what causes them to grow up objectifying themselves.
I see. Patriarchal society does not necessarily mean that culture is male dominated though.
- You make claim - I ask for evidence/backing of claim - You keep dodging.
Yeah.
No, you don't understand what a debate is. The statement "modern society is male dominated" can never be 100% true. I am not claming that is 100% true, I am stating that I believe there is more evidence that society is generally more male dominated, then that it is not.
Disproving me does not come from mind games that you think are super clever, where I cannot correctly connect a specific piece of evidence with an 100% truth, but rather from evidence that says that society is not male dominated.
Your inability to understand this is what makes communication between me and you impossible.
You are trying to use your little mind game that you probably learned in 6th grade to disprove everything. When all it does in reality is make you look like a moron.
On May 17 2009 23:03 cz wrote: The article in the OP could be either parody or a journal-level (ie professional level) feminist/cultural critique.
I take it you've never actually read journal-level work, unless you mean the journal of a 10th grade girl.
Actually as a university student I have to read drivel like this all the time. If you edit the article with more academic buzzwords it would be equivalent to a lot of sociological/cultural-critical journal articles I've had to read.
Also, to your edit, anecdotal evidence and specific examples don't prove or disprove statistics or general trends, which is what I was talking about (ie the claim "society is male dominated"). Labeling it qualitative or any other multi-syllabic term doesn't change that.
You must be an economist. Not everything is quantifiable.
Then don't make claims you can't back up, which is what I'm talking about. Can't just claim "modern culture is male dominated", say there is no quantifiable evidence (and so far no other evidence given) and say that your statements stands as true. If you want to say its an opinion, do so, but the original guy's context made it appear that it wasn't just his opinion, but obviously true.
I was referring to the fact that you said evidence entailed hard numbers, and other methods don't work. If you want a small bit of qualitative work, Throwing Like a Girl by Iris Young (should be on JSTOR) describes the way that girls are brought up to objectify themselves, and why men tend to be more "active" in their motions and how they perceive the world rather than passive. She goes a bit out there when she's talking about "yonder" and crap.
If you want numbers, you could look at labor practices and the work cycles of men and women. The pay discrepancy argument is mostly bogus, but there's a lot worthwhile in the explanations of why most engineers and men and most teachers are women.
I'm not interested enough to read the article, so I won't criticize it but I don't see it's relevance to the original claim of "modern culture is male dominated". Or are we just talking about socialization in general and how it affects gender roles?
It's claimed that patriarchal society is what causes them to grow up objectifying themselves.
I see. Patriarchal society does not necessarily mean that culture is male dominated though.
I think it absolutely does, since males begin as the main authority.
Let me ask you, is evolutionary biology a science? Where are the statistics there? Calculus has a much bigger role in political science (for better or worse) than in some of the "hard" sciences. Do you measure a science strictly by the result?
Basically young male monkeys prefer stereotypically male ones, and the opposite is true for young female monkeys. I think there was a more recent study that found this too, though this may be the one.
On May 17 2009 22:43 Jibba wrote: For humans today, this doesn't mean shit because being an engineer has nothing to do with physical capacity and yet the vast majority are men, and the left brained/right brained thing is a myth. There definitely are innate differences but it's thought that most of the differences are created through socialization, which isn't necessarily a good or bad bad thing. Feminism has gone in hiding because most people associate it with the women from the 60s and 70s who wanted nothing to do with men, but most younger feminists embrace gender differences, they just think they've been mostly created by culture.
It's true about them being associated with baby boomer crazies. I also believe that feminism is an idea with no ideas. I think its undeniable that at least modern culture is generally male dominated. But feminists have no idea how to fix anything either and if they can't think of anything reasonable, then males surely can't.
Modern culture is male dominated? Please back this up with statistics and evidence, and please no anecdotal evidence or specific examples as they are not necessarily representative of anything.
lol
Presidents, CEOs of large companies. differences in wages, sports etc etc etc
So your arguement is:
1. If most presidents, CEOs of large companies are male, and there are differences in wages and spectator sports are dominated by males, then modern culture is male dominated. 2. Most presidents, CEOs of large companies are male, and there are differences in wages and spectator sports are dominated by males 3. Therefore modern culture is male dominated.
Please establish premise #1, as your entire argument relies on it being true for the conclusion to be true. Also premise #2 on the wage gap needs to be established.
There is research on wages, don't tell me you have never heard or actually read anything about it? It's a known fact that women make less than men, and I think you're just trying to be technical here because everyone knows this. But I agree that everything should be backed up by evidence, so heres a link for ya regarding wages in the US:
We all know sports are male dominated. In the same way I know that 1+1=2 there's no point in trying to "prove" it in any other way. This is not maths and no one is going to write a paper to discuss whether or not sports are male dominated, because they are.
So presidents in pretty much every country in the world are male. Go look them up on wikipedia or whatever, because I sure as hell won't bother just so you will get your facts, which I already know are true. Like I said, look em up yourself. Men hold the positions in power basically, which makes men have a huge impact on culture, spending and the direction on society.
- You make claim - I ask for evidence/backing of claim - You keep dodging.
Yeah.
No, you don't understand what a debate is. The statement "modern society is male dominated" can never be 100% true. I am not claming that is 100% true, I am stating that I believe there is more evidence that society is generally more male dominated, then that it is not.
Disproving me does not come from mind games that you think are super clever, where I cannot correctly connect a specific piece of evidence with an 100% truth, but rather from evidence that says that society is not male dominated.
Your inability to understand this is what makes communication between me and you impossible.
You are trying to use your little mind game that you probably learned in 6th grade to disprove everything. When all it does in reality is make you look like a moron.
Let's move this to being about the wage gap, I've always been skeptical about it and wanted to see some hard evidence. Looking at Foucaults evidence now.
edit: It says that women make 75.5 cents for every dollar a man makes. But are these at the same positions, with the same seniority, or just an aggregate of everything? I mean if a man is more likely to be a doctor than a woman is, and women are more likely to be a nurse, I wouldn't say the wage gap is bad but expected and just.
Anyone have hard evidence showing that women and men with the same job and level make different amounts of money per hour worked?
- You make claim - I ask for evidence/backing of claim - You keep dodging.
Yeah.
No, you don't understand what a debate is. The statement "modern society is male dominated" can never be 100% true. I am not claming that is 100% true, I am stating that I believe there is more evidence that society is generally more male dominated, then that it is not.
Disproving me does not come from mind games that you think are super clever, where I cannot correctly connect a specific piece of evidence with an 100% truth, but rather from evidence that says that society is not male dominated.
Your inability to understand this is what makes communication between me and you impossible.
You are trying to use your little mind game that you probably learned in 6th grade to disprove everything. When all it does in reality is make you look like a moron.
Then show your evidence.
Why don't you use that block in your skull to read some of the evidence that has already been presented here.
- You make claim - I ask for evidence/backing of claim - You keep dodging.
Yeah.
No, you don't understand what a debate is. The statement "modern society is male dominated" can never be 100% true. I am not claming that is 100% true, I am stating that I believe there is more evidence that society is generally more male dominated, then that it is not.
Disproving me does not come from mind games that you think are super clever, where I cannot correctly connect a specific piece of evidence with an 100% truth, but rather from evidence that says that society is not male dominated.
Your inability to understand this is what makes communication between me and you impossible.
You are trying to use your little mind game that you probably learned in 6th grade to disprove everything. When all it does in reality is make you look like a moron.
Then show your evidence.
Why don't you use that block in your skull to read some of the evidence that has already been presented here.
On May 17 2009 23:03 cz wrote: The article in the OP could be either parody or a journal-level (ie professional level) feminist/cultural critique.
I take it you've never actually read journal-level work, unless you mean the journal of a 10th grade girl.
Actually as a university student I have to read drivel like this all the time. If you edit the article with more academic buzzwords it would be equivalent to a lot of sociological/cultural-critical journal articles I've had to read.
Also, to your edit, anecdotal evidence and specific examples don't prove or disprove statistics or general trends, which is what I was talking about (ie the claim "society is male dominated"). Labeling it qualitative or any other multi-syllabic term doesn't change that.
You must be an economist. Not everything is quantifiable.
Then don't make claims you can't back up, which is what I'm talking about. Can't just claim "modern culture is male dominated", say there is no quantifiable evidence (and so far no other evidence given) and say that your statements stands as true. If you want to say its an opinion, do so, but the original guy's context made it appear that it wasn't just his opinion, but obviously true.
I was referring to the fact that you said evidence entailed hard numbers, and other methods don't work. If you want a small bit of qualitative work, Throwing Like a Girl by Iris Young (should be on JSTOR) describes the way that girls are brought up to objectify themselves, and why men tend to be more "active" in their motions and how they perceive the world rather than passive. She goes a bit out there when she's talking about "yonder" and crap.
If you want numbers, you could look at labor practices and the work cycles of men and women. The pay discrepancy argument is mostly bogus, but there's a lot worthwhile in the explanations of why most engineers and men and most teachers are women.
I'm not interested enough to read the article, so I won't criticize it but I don't see it's relevance to the original claim of "modern culture is male dominated". Or are we just talking about socialization in general and how it affects gender roles?
It's claimed that patriarchal society is what causes them to grow up objectifying themselves.
I see. Patriarchal society does not necessarily mean that culture is male dominated though.
I think it absolutely does, since males begin as the main authority.
Let me ask you, is evolutionary biology a science? Where are the statistics there? Calculus has a much bigger role in political science (for better or worse) than in some of the "hard" sciences. Do you measure a science strictly by the result?
A lot of evolutionary psychology is just theories, but a lot is backed up via statistics and incidence of genes vs results, ie how much IQ is linked to genetics etc.
On May 17 2009 22:43 Jibba wrote: For humans today, this doesn't mean shit because being an engineer has nothing to do with physical capacity and yet the vast majority are men, and the left brained/right brained thing is a myth. There definitely are innate differences but it's thought that most of the differences are created through socialization, which isn't necessarily a good or bad bad thing. Feminism has gone in hiding because most people associate it with the women from the 60s and 70s who wanted nothing to do with men, but most younger feminists embrace gender differences, they just think they've been mostly created by culture.
It's true about them being associated with baby boomer crazies. I also believe that feminism is an idea with no ideas. I think its undeniable that at least modern culture is generally male dominated. But feminists have no idea how to fix anything either and if they can't think of anything reasonable, then males surely can't.
Modern culture is male dominated? Please back this up with statistics and evidence, and please no anecdotal evidence or specific examples as they are not necessarily representative of anything.
lol
Presidents, CEOs of large companies. differences in wages, sports etc etc etc
So your arguement is:
1. If most presidents, CEOs of large companies are male, and there are differences in wages and spectator sports are dominated by males, then modern culture is male dominated. 2. Most presidents, CEOs of large companies are male, and there are differences in wages and spectator sports are dominated by males 3. Therefore modern culture is male dominated.
Please establish premise #1, as your entire argument relies on it being true for the conclusion to be true. Also premise #2 on the wage gap needs to be established.
There is research on wages, don't tell me you have never heard or actually read anything about it? It's a known fact that women make less than men, and I think you're just trying to be technical here because everyone knows this. But I agree that everything should be backed up by evidence, so heres a link for ya regarding wages in the US:
The 76% paygap thing is a great example of numbers being used to deceive people. The only things it takes into account are income and sex. It says nothing about careers or qualification or anything else.
The author doesn't find that much corporate discrimination, if you account for qualification, experience, work habits (ie. leaving work to start a family), etc. If it were the case, it'd be a simple economic problem and you'd see more women being hired at a lower price than an equally qualified man. He does, however, find societal discrimination which causes differences in division of labor and some business practices that are unfair to women.
On May 17 2009 23:30 cz wrote: Honestly this is what really irritates me about the social "sciences": they are unscientific.
For someone who seems to be advocating precise definitions and backing up claims with scientific proof that's a pretty bold statement. Where do you take the expertise from to make that claim?
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.
Yeah ok that's probably coming from someone in the field of math, physics, economy or something similar, where you are taught that only quantitative methods are reliable.
With the social sciences it's usually not possible to measure stuff with cruder methods that work for example with math; i.e 1+1=2. Does that mean that feminist statements aren't true? Of course not, it's just a realization of the fact that not everything can be measured and organized into certain schemes.
Science isn't as clear-cut as you'd think. Alot of scientists try to fit stuff into pre-thought out slots, that will make their claims true.
On May 17 2009 23:30 cz wrote: Honestly this is what really irritates me about the social "sciences": they are unscientific.
For someone who seems to be advocating precise definitions and backing up claims with scientific proof that's a pretty bold statement. Where do you take the expertise from to make that claim?
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.
Yeah ok that's probably coming from someone in the field of math, physics, economy or something similar, where you are taught that only quantitative methods are reliable.
With the social sciences it's usually not possible to measure stuff with cruder methods that work for example with math; i.e 1+1=2. Does that mean that feminist statements aren't true? Of course not, it's just a realization of the fact that not everything can be measured and organized into certain schemes.
Science isn't as clear-cut as you'd think. Alot of scientists try to fit stuff into pre-thought out slots, that will make their claims true.
Lack of evidence isn't an excuse. If it's the case, just admit that there is a lack of evidence and therefore the theories are essentially unprovable until the evidence is found. To say that it's hard to find evidence and therefore lower standards to need to be applied for what can be accepted as "true" in the social sciences vs the hard sciences is unacceptable. Things are either true or not, whatever artificially-designated discipline you are working within.
Also nothing of which I am talking about is learned from any qualified instructor. I am self-taught, mostly through discussion.
Basically young male monkeys prefer stereotypically male ones, and the opposite is true for young female monkeys. I think there was a more recent study that found this too, though this may be the one.
Yeah, that's the result of the research but does it mean anything? It might just have happened. They need to do this over and over and over like 1000 times in order for it to be statistical and significant at all.
Basically young male monkeys prefer stereotypically male ones, and the opposite is true for young female monkeys. I think there was a more recent study that found this too, though this may be the one.
Yeah, that's the result of the research but does it mean anything? It might just have happened. They need to do this over and over and over like 1000 times in order for it to be statistical and significant at all.
I think they repeated a bunch of tests, but yeah I don't know the methodology without reading it all.
On May 18 2009 00:00 cz wrote: Let's move this to being about the wage gap, I've always been skeptical about it and wanted to see some hard evidence. Looking at Foucaults evidence now.
edit: It says that women make 75.5 cents for every dollar a man makes. But are these at the same positions, with the same seniority, or just an aggregate of everything? I mean if a man is more likely to be a doctor than a woman is, and women are more likely to be a nurse, I wouldn't say the wage gap is bad but expected and just.
Anyone have hard evidence showing that women and men with the same job and level make different amounts of money per hour worked?
Expected and just? Then it's an obvious result of a society where a man is the norm and he gets the power position as the doctor, and the woman gets to be the inferior nurse. Why would a man be more likely to be a doctor than a woman, in a biological sense?
On May 17 2009 23:30 cz wrote: Honestly this is what really irritates me about the social "sciences": they are unscientific.
For someone who seems to be advocating precise definitions and backing up claims with scientific proof that's a pretty bold statement. Where do you take the expertise from to make that claim?
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.
Yeah ok that's probably coming from someone in the field of math, physics, economy or something similar, where you are taught that only quantitative methods are reliable.
With the social sciences it's usually not possible to measure stuff with cruder methods that work for example with math; i.e 1+1=2. Does that mean that feminist statements aren't true? Of course not, it's just a realization of the fact that not everything can be measured and organized into certain schemes.
Science isn't as clear-cut as you'd think. Alot of scientists try to fit stuff into pre-thought out slots, that will make their claims true.
Lack of evidence isn't an excuse. If it's the case, just admit that there is a lack of evidence and therefore the theories are essentially unprovable until the evidence is found. To say that it's hard to find evidence and therefore lower standards to need to be applied for what can be accepted as "true" in the social sciences vs the hard sciences is unacceptable. Things are either true or not, whatever artificially-designated discipline you are working within.
Also nothing of which I am talking about is learned from any qualified instructor. I am self-taught, mostly through discussion.
What makes hard numbers more correct than a case study? The people who create the models in which the numbers go are also human and so in some sense they're arbitrary as well. I would submit that science is a process, not a result. Nothing is ever deductively proven, but reasonable inferences can be made from qualitative and quantitative data.
On May 18 2009 00:00 cz wrote: Let's move this to being about the wage gap, I've always been skeptical about it and wanted to see some hard evidence. Looking at Foucaults evidence now.
edit: It says that women make 75.5 cents for every dollar a man makes. But are these at the same positions, with the same seniority, or just an aggregate of everything? I mean if a man is more likely to be a doctor than a woman is, and women are more likely to be a nurse, I wouldn't say the wage gap is bad but expected and just.
Anyone have hard evidence showing that women and men with the same job and level make different amounts of money per hour worked?
Expected and just? Then it's an obvious result of a society where a man is the norm and he gets the power position as the doctor, and the woman gets to be the inferior nurse. Why would a man be more likely to be a doctor than a woman, in a biological sense?
I think it's changing greatly now, ie the sex ratio of new doctors. Also women are being encouraged via government initiatives to be doctors far more than men are, along with receiving female-only scholarships.
It's not necessarily the result of society at all, either. What matters is that there is now more than equal opportunity for women to become doctors than men.
On May 17 2009 23:30 cz wrote: Honestly this is what really irritates me about the social "sciences": they are unscientific.
For someone who seems to be advocating precise definitions and backing up claims with scientific proof that's a pretty bold statement. Where do you take the expertise from to make that claim?
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.
Yeah ok that's probably coming from someone in the field of math, physics, economy or something similar, where you are taught that only quantitative methods are reliable.
With the social sciences it's usually not possible to measure stuff with cruder methods that work for example with math; i.e 1+1=2. Does that mean that feminist statements aren't true? Of course not, it's just a realization of the fact that not everything can be measured and organized into certain schemes.
Science isn't as clear-cut as you'd think. Alot of scientists try to fit stuff into pre-thought out slots, that will make their claims true.
Lack of evidence isn't an excuse. If it's the case, just admit that there is a lack of evidence and therefore the theories are essentially unprovable until the evidence is found. To say that it's hard to find evidence and therefore lower standards to need to be applied for what can be accepted as "true" in the social sciences vs the hard sciences is unacceptable. Things are either true or not, whatever artificially-designated discipline you are working within.
Also nothing of which I am talking about is learned from any qualified instructor. I am self-taught, mostly through discussion.
Things are definately more than just true or not. Maybe not in math though.
Evidence comes in different forms, qualitative research for example is often used in social sciences, just because the "traditional" scientific methods can't measure complicated processes in society, and give results which actually depict reality.
I've done research and I'm about to research even more this fall, probably about psychiatry and what defines mental "illness" (not that anyone cares but yeah). So I've studied philosophy of science, method, theory and all that but it's a very complicated and huge field.
On May 17 2009 23:30 cz wrote: Honestly this is what really irritates me about the social "sciences": they are unscientific.
For someone who seems to be advocating precise definitions and backing up claims with scientific proof that's a pretty bold statement. Where do you take the expertise from to make that claim?
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.
Yeah ok that's probably coming from someone in the field of math, physics, economy or something similar, where you are taught that only quantitative methods are reliable.
With the social sciences it's usually not possible to measure stuff with cruder methods that work for example with math; i.e 1+1=2. Does that mean that feminist statements aren't true? Of course not, it's just a realization of the fact that not everything can be measured and organized into certain schemes.
Science isn't as clear-cut as you'd think. Alot of scientists try to fit stuff into pre-thought out slots, that will make their claims true.
Lack of evidence isn't an excuse. If it's the case, just admit that there is a lack of evidence and therefore the theories are essentially unprovable until the evidence is found. To say that it's hard to find evidence and therefore lower standards to need to be applied for what can be accepted as "true" in the social sciences vs the hard sciences is unacceptable. Things are either true or not, whatever artificially-designated discipline you are working within.
Also nothing of which I am talking about is learned from any qualified instructor. I am self-taught, mostly through discussion.
What makes hard numbers more correct than a case study? The people who create the models in which the numbers go are also human and so in some sense they're arbitrary as well. I would submit that science is a process, not a result. Nothing is ever deductively proven, but reasonable inferences can be made from qualitative and quantitative data.
Sure, there is always bias in both. The thing is that statistical studies are data, whereas case studies tend to have inferences and conclusions built into them. Otherwise you just have a statistical study.
On May 17 2009 23:30 cz wrote: Honestly this is what really irritates me about the social "sciences": they are unscientific.
For someone who seems to be advocating precise definitions and backing up claims with scientific proof that's a pretty bold statement. Where do you take the expertise from to make that claim?
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.
Yeah ok that's probably coming from someone in the field of math, physics, economy or something similar, where you are taught that only quantitative methods are reliable.
With the social sciences it's usually not possible to measure stuff with cruder methods that work for example with math; i.e 1+1=2. Does that mean that feminist statements aren't true? Of course not, it's just a realization of the fact that not everything can be measured and organized into certain schemes.
Science isn't as clear-cut as you'd think. Alot of scientists try to fit stuff into pre-thought out slots, that will make their claims true.
Lack of evidence isn't an excuse. If it's the case, just admit that there is a lack of evidence and therefore the theories are essentially unprovable until the evidence is found. To say that it's hard to find evidence and therefore lower standards to need to be applied for what can be accepted as "true" in the social sciences vs the hard sciences is unacceptable. Things are either true or not, whatever artificially-designated discipline you are working within.
Also nothing of which I am talking about is learned from any qualified instructor. I am self-taught, mostly through discussion.
Things are definately more than just true or not. Maybe not in math though.
Evidence comes in different forms, qualitative research for example is often used in social sciences, just because the "traditional" scientific methods can't measure complicated processes in society, and give results which actually depict reality.
Things are either true or not. There is no gray area. What is a grey area is our view of whether or not the statement/claim is true: we can't really tell, but might be kinda sure its true.
I don't think lower standards should be applied to social sciences in terms of what evidence is enough to consider something true or not. If there is a lack of evidence due to the nature of what is being studied, then admit that and state that the certainty of whether the claim or true or not cannot be concluded at as high a certainty as in disciplines where there is more data.
On May 17 2009 23:30 cz wrote: Honestly this is what really irritates me about the social "sciences": they are unscientific.
For someone who seems to be advocating precise definitions and backing up claims with scientific proof that's a pretty bold statement. Where do you take the expertise from to make that claim?
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.
Yeah ok that's probably coming from someone in the field of math, physics, economy or something similar, where you are taught that only quantitative methods are reliable.
With the social sciences it's usually not possible to measure stuff with cruder methods that work for example with math; i.e 1+1=2. Does that mean that feminist statements aren't true? Of course not, it's just a realization of the fact that not everything can be measured and organized into certain schemes.
Science isn't as clear-cut as you'd think. Alot of scientists try to fit stuff into pre-thought out slots, that will make their claims true.
Lack of evidence isn't an excuse. If it's the case, just admit that there is a lack of evidence and therefore the theories are essentially unprovable until the evidence is found. To say that it's hard to find evidence and therefore lower standards to need to be applied for what can be accepted as "true" in the social sciences vs the hard sciences is unacceptable. Things are either true or not, whatever artificially-designated discipline you are working within.
Also nothing of which I am talking about is learned from any qualified instructor. I am self-taught, mostly through discussion.
What makes hard numbers more correct than a case study? The people who create the models in which the numbers go are also human and so in some sense they're arbitrary as well. I would submit that science is a process, not a result. Nothing is ever deductively proven, but reasonable inferences can be made from qualitative and quantitative data.
Sure, there is always bias in both. The thing is that statistical studies are data, whereas case studies tend to have inferences and conclusions built into them. Otherwise you just have a statistical study.
Yea but try measuring feelings with numbers. Modern psychology tries to do this alot but how accurate is it really. Is it even possible to depict feelings with numbers and "data" for instance?
Statistical studies also have conclusions built into them, the pre-knowledge of the researcher and the way he conducts his research.
On May 17 2009 23:30 cz wrote: Honestly this is what really irritates me about the social "sciences": they are unscientific.
For someone who seems to be advocating precise definitions and backing up claims with scientific proof that's a pretty bold statement. Where do you take the expertise from to make that claim?
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.
Yeah ok that's probably coming from someone in the field of math, physics, economy or something similar, where you are taught that only quantitative methods are reliable.
With the social sciences it's usually not possible to measure stuff with cruder methods that work for example with math; i.e 1+1=2. Does that mean that feminist statements aren't true? Of course not, it's just a realization of the fact that not everything can be measured and organized into certain schemes.
Science isn't as clear-cut as you'd think. Alot of scientists try to fit stuff into pre-thought out slots, that will make their claims true.
Lack of evidence isn't an excuse. If it's the case, just admit that there is a lack of evidence and therefore the theories are essentially unprovable until the evidence is found. To say that it's hard to find evidence and therefore lower standards to need to be applied for what can be accepted as "true" in the social sciences vs the hard sciences is unacceptable. Things are either true or not, whatever artificially-designated discipline you are working within.
Also nothing of which I am talking about is learned from any qualified instructor. I am self-taught, mostly through discussion.
What makes hard numbers more correct than a case study? The people who create the models in which the numbers go are also human and so in some sense they're arbitrary as well. I would submit that science is a process, not a result. Nothing is ever deductively proven, but reasonable inferences can be made from qualitative and quantitative data.
Sure, there is always bias in both. The thing is that statistical studies are data, whereas case studies tend to have inferences and conclusions built into them. Otherwise you just have a statistical study.
Yea but try measuring feelings with numbers. Modern psychology tries to do this alot but how accurate is it really. Is it even possible to depict feelings with numbers and "data" for instance?
Statistical studies also have conclusions built into them, the pre-knowledge of the researcher and the way he conducts his research.
Things should work like this:
1. Data gathered with the least possible influence of bias from data gathering. 2. Data analyzed to form theories. 3. More data either supports or works against theory.
You can use case studies or whatever you want to form the data, though it's naturally not all equal.
edit: That's really just the scientific method. My problem comes when people don't have data and so just claim their statement is true, or their data is limited in scope and/or possible bias.
An example from the article in the OP is that people tend to pick protoss as their favorite race because it is masculine and/or represents the future of human civilization, or whatever the author said. No data, just a statement.
On May 17 2009 23:30 cz wrote: Honestly this is what really irritates me about the social "sciences": they are unscientific.
For someone who seems to be advocating precise definitions and backing up claims with scientific proof that's a pretty bold statement. Where do you take the expertise from to make that claim?
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.
Yeah ok that's probably coming from someone in the field of math, physics, economy or something similar, where you are taught that only quantitative methods are reliable.
With the social sciences it's usually not possible to measure stuff with cruder methods that work for example with math; i.e 1+1=2. Does that mean that feminist statements aren't true? Of course not, it's just a realization of the fact that not everything can be measured and organized into certain schemes.
Science isn't as clear-cut as you'd think. Alot of scientists try to fit stuff into pre-thought out slots, that will make their claims true.
Lack of evidence isn't an excuse. If it's the case, just admit that there is a lack of evidence and therefore the theories are essentially unprovable until the evidence is found. To say that it's hard to find evidence and therefore lower standards to need to be applied for what can be accepted as "true" in the social sciences vs the hard sciences is unacceptable. Things are either true or not, whatever artificially-designated discipline you are working within.
Also nothing of which I am talking about is learned from any qualified instructor. I am self-taught, mostly through discussion.
What makes hard numbers more correct than a case study? The people who create the models in which the numbers go are also human and so in some sense they're arbitrary as well. I would submit that science is a process, not a result. Nothing is ever deductively proven, but reasonable inferences can be made from qualitative and quantitative data.
Sure, there is always bias in both. The thing is that statistical studies are data, whereas case studies tend to have inferences and conclusions built into them. Otherwise you just have a statistical study.
You're speaking as if statistics are infallible when really they're the most exploited type of data there is. Let me choose the data sets and I can run linear regressions until I prove the Moon is made of cheese. That's why I asked about things like biology/geology/etc. Those fields typically rely on case studies rather than statistical analysis.
On May 17 2009 23:30 cz wrote: Honestly this is what really irritates me about the social "sciences": they are unscientific.
For someone who seems to be advocating precise definitions and backing up claims with scientific proof that's a pretty bold statement. Where do you take the expertise from to make that claim?
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.
Yeah ok that's probably coming from someone in the field of math, physics, economy or something similar, where you are taught that only quantitative methods are reliable.
With the social sciences it's usually not possible to measure stuff with cruder methods that work for example with math; i.e 1+1=2. Does that mean that feminist statements aren't true? Of course not, it's just a realization of the fact that not everything can be measured and organized into certain schemes.
Science isn't as clear-cut as you'd think. Alot of scientists try to fit stuff into pre-thought out slots, that will make their claims true.
Lack of evidence isn't an excuse. If it's the case, just admit that there is a lack of evidence and therefore the theories are essentially unprovable until the evidence is found. To say that it's hard to find evidence and therefore lower standards to need to be applied for what can be accepted as "true" in the social sciences vs the hard sciences is unacceptable. Things are either true or not, whatever artificially-designated discipline you are working within.
Also nothing of which I am talking about is learned from any qualified instructor. I am self-taught, mostly through discussion.
What makes hard numbers more correct than a case study? The people who create the models in which the numbers go are also human and so in some sense they're arbitrary as well. I would submit that science is a process, not a result. Nothing is ever deductively proven, but reasonable inferences can be made from qualitative and quantitative data.
Sure, there is always bias in both. The thing is that statistical studies are data, whereas case studies tend to have inferences and conclusions built into them. Otherwise you just have a statistical study.
Yea but try measuring feelings with numbers. Modern psychology tries to do this alot but how accurate is it really. Is it even possible to depict feelings with numbers and "data" for instance?
Statistical studies also have conclusions built into them, the pre-knowledge of the researcher and the way he conducts his research.
Things should work like this:
1. Data gathered with the least possible influence of bias from data gathering. 2. Data analyzed to form theories. 3. More data either supports or works against theory.
You can use case studies or whatever you want to form the data, though it's naturally not all equal.
edit: That's really just the scientific method. My problem comes when people don't have data and so just claim their statement is true.
Yeah but you have a false assumption that quantitative research gets "objective" results, which isn't true. There's no such thing as non-biased data.
Like I said earlier, you think from a very conventional scientific standpoint, which is sometimes not possible when it comes to more complex and "human" things like feelings, thoughts etc. Whenever you measure something, you are making an assumption that the thing you're trying to measure actually fit's your idea of how it should be measured. Therefore there is a tendency to make data fit into your pre-thought out slots.
And lol data, I could make a statistical connection about fact that I've gotten a headache 3 times when I've worn my blue shirt. But the headache doesn't have anything to do with my shirt at all, it's just a statistical coincidence. Don't put too much faith in your data.
On May 17 2009 23:30 cz wrote: Honestly this is what really irritates me about the social "sciences": they are unscientific.
For someone who seems to be advocating precise definitions and backing up claims with scientific proof that's a pretty bold statement. Where do you take the expertise from to make that claim?
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.
Yeah ok that's probably coming from someone in the field of math, physics, economy or something similar, where you are taught that only quantitative methods are reliable.
With the social sciences it's usually not possible to measure stuff with cruder methods that work for example with math; i.e 1+1=2. Does that mean that feminist statements aren't true? Of course not, it's just a realization of the fact that not everything can be measured and organized into certain schemes.
Science isn't as clear-cut as you'd think. Alot of scientists try to fit stuff into pre-thought out slots, that will make their claims true.
Lack of evidence isn't an excuse. If it's the case, just admit that there is a lack of evidence and therefore the theories are essentially unprovable until the evidence is found. To say that it's hard to find evidence and therefore lower standards to need to be applied for what can be accepted as "true" in the social sciences vs the hard sciences is unacceptable. Things are either true or not, whatever artificially-designated discipline you are working within.
Also nothing of which I am talking about is learned from any qualified instructor. I am self-taught, mostly through discussion.
What makes hard numbers more correct than a case study? The people who create the models in which the numbers go are also human and so in some sense they're arbitrary as well. I would submit that science is a process, not a result. Nothing is ever deductively proven, but reasonable inferences can be made from qualitative and quantitative data.
Sure, there is always bias in both. The thing is that statistical studies are data, whereas case studies tend to have inferences and conclusions built into them. Otherwise you just have a statistical study.
Yea but try measuring feelings with numbers. Modern psychology tries to do this alot but how accurate is it really. Is it even possible to depict feelings with numbers and "data" for instance?
Statistical studies also have conclusions built into them, the pre-knowledge of the researcher and the way he conducts his research.
Things should work like this:
1. Data gathered with the least possible influence of bias from data gathering. 2. Data analyzed to form theories. 3. More data either supports or works against theory.
You can use case studies or whatever you want to form the data, though it's naturally not all equal.
edit: That's really just the scientific method. My problem comes when people don't have data and so just claim their statement is true.
Yeah but you have a false assumption that quantitative research gets "objective" results, which isn't true. There's no such thing as non-biased data.
Like I said earlier, you think from a very conventional scientific standpoint, which is sometimes not possible when it comes to more complex and "human" things like feelings, thoughts etc. Whenever you measure something, you are making an assumption that the thing you're trying to measure actually fit's your idea of how it should be measured. Therefore there is a tendency to make data fit into your pre-thought out slots.
And lol data, I could make a statistical connection about fact that I've gotten a headache 3 times when I've worn my blue shirt. But the headache doesn't have anything to do with my shirt at all, it's just a statistical coincidence. Don't put too much faith in your data.
Data is data. How significant it is depends on how large the sample is and what other possible variables can influence the data.
Lack of data is not an excuse for lower standards of what is considered true or false. If it's difficult to gather data in the social sciences, then deal with it and admit that conclusions of similar certainty to hard sciences are difficult to obtain rather than just lowering the standards.
On May 17 2009 04:57 RHCPgergo wrote: In addition to the nydus canal, the hatchery looks like a thing with multiple vaginas. And larvas come out of them... such an insult to women.
i never thought i would find a thread where it would be appropriate to post this but holy shit here it is
For someone who seems to be advocating precise definitions and backing up claims with scientific proof that's a pretty bold statement. Where do you take the expertise from to make that claim?
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.
Yeah ok that's probably coming from someone in the field of math, physics, economy or something similar, where you are taught that only quantitative methods are reliable.
With the social sciences it's usually not possible to measure stuff with cruder methods that work for example with math; i.e 1+1=2. Does that mean that feminist statements aren't true? Of course not, it's just a realization of the fact that not everything can be measured and organized into certain schemes.
Science isn't as clear-cut as you'd think. Alot of scientists try to fit stuff into pre-thought out slots, that will make their claims true.
Lack of evidence isn't an excuse. If it's the case, just admit that there is a lack of evidence and therefore the theories are essentially unprovable until the evidence is found. To say that it's hard to find evidence and therefore lower standards to need to be applied for what can be accepted as "true" in the social sciences vs the hard sciences is unacceptable. Things are either true or not, whatever artificially-designated discipline you are working within.
Also nothing of which I am talking about is learned from any qualified instructor. I am self-taught, mostly through discussion.
What makes hard numbers more correct than a case study? The people who create the models in which the numbers go are also human and so in some sense they're arbitrary as well. I would submit that science is a process, not a result. Nothing is ever deductively proven, but reasonable inferences can be made from qualitative and quantitative data.
Sure, there is always bias in both. The thing is that statistical studies are data, whereas case studies tend to have inferences and conclusions built into them. Otherwise you just have a statistical study.
Yea but try measuring feelings with numbers. Modern psychology tries to do this alot but how accurate is it really. Is it even possible to depict feelings with numbers and "data" for instance?
Statistical studies also have conclusions built into them, the pre-knowledge of the researcher and the way he conducts his research.
Things should work like this:
1. Data gathered with the least possible influence of bias from data gathering. 2. Data analyzed to form theories. 3. More data either supports or works against theory.
You can use case studies or whatever you want to form the data, though it's naturally not all equal.
edit: That's really just the scientific method. My problem comes when people don't have data and so just claim their statement is true.
Yeah but you have a false assumption that quantitative research gets "objective" results, which isn't true. There's no such thing as non-biased data.
Like I said earlier, you think from a very conventional scientific standpoint, which is sometimes not possible when it comes to more complex and "human" things like feelings, thoughts etc. Whenever you measure something, you are making an assumption that the thing you're trying to measure actually fit's your idea of how it should be measured. Therefore there is a tendency to make data fit into your pre-thought out slots.
And lol data, I could make a statistical connection about fact that I've gotten a headache 3 times when I've worn my blue shirt. But the headache doesn't have anything to do with my shirt at all, it's just a statistical coincidence. Don't put too much faith in your data.
Data is data. How significant it is depends on how large the sample is and what other possible variables can influence the data.
Lack of data is not an excuse for lower standards of what is considered true or false. If it's difficult to gather data in the social sciences, then deal with it and admit that conclusions of similar certainty to hard sciences are difficult to obtain rather than just lowering the standards.
You totally didn't get what I wrote in my last response because this is the same thing that you wrote earlier.
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.
Yeah ok that's probably coming from someone in the field of math, physics, economy or something similar, where you are taught that only quantitative methods are reliable.
With the social sciences it's usually not possible to measure stuff with cruder methods that work for example with math; i.e 1+1=2. Does that mean that feminist statements aren't true? Of course not, it's just a realization of the fact that not everything can be measured and organized into certain schemes.
Science isn't as clear-cut as you'd think. Alot of scientists try to fit stuff into pre-thought out slots, that will make their claims true.
Lack of evidence isn't an excuse. If it's the case, just admit that there is a lack of evidence and therefore the theories are essentially unprovable until the evidence is found. To say that it's hard to find evidence and therefore lower standards to need to be applied for what can be accepted as "true" in the social sciences vs the hard sciences is unacceptable. Things are either true or not, whatever artificially-designated discipline you are working within.
Also nothing of which I am talking about is learned from any qualified instructor. I am self-taught, mostly through discussion.
What makes hard numbers more correct than a case study? The people who create the models in which the numbers go are also human and so in some sense they're arbitrary as well. I would submit that science is a process, not a result. Nothing is ever deductively proven, but reasonable inferences can be made from qualitative and quantitative data.
Sure, there is always bias in both. The thing is that statistical studies are data, whereas case studies tend to have inferences and conclusions built into them. Otherwise you just have a statistical study.
Yea but try measuring feelings with numbers. Modern psychology tries to do this alot but how accurate is it really. Is it even possible to depict feelings with numbers and "data" for instance?
Statistical studies also have conclusions built into them, the pre-knowledge of the researcher and the way he conducts his research.
Things should work like this:
1. Data gathered with the least possible influence of bias from data gathering. 2. Data analyzed to form theories. 3. More data either supports or works against theory.
You can use case studies or whatever you want to form the data, though it's naturally not all equal.
edit: That's really just the scientific method. My problem comes when people don't have data and so just claim their statement is true.
Yeah but you have a false assumption that quantitative research gets "objective" results, which isn't true. There's no such thing as non-biased data.
Like I said earlier, you think from a very conventional scientific standpoint, which is sometimes not possible when it comes to more complex and "human" things like feelings, thoughts etc. Whenever you measure something, you are making an assumption that the thing you're trying to measure actually fit's your idea of how it should be measured. Therefore there is a tendency to make data fit into your pre-thought out slots.
And lol data, I could make a statistical connection about fact that I've gotten a headache 3 times when I've worn my blue shirt. But the headache doesn't have anything to do with my shirt at all, it's just a statistical coincidence. Don't put too much faith in your data.
Data is data. How significant it is depends on how large the sample is and what other possible variables can influence the data.
Lack of data is not an excuse for lower standards of what is considered true or false. If it's difficult to gather data in the social sciences, then deal with it and admit that conclusions of similar certainty to hard sciences are difficult to obtain rather than just lowering the standards.
You totally didn't get what I wrote in my last response because this is the same thing that you wrote earlier.
On May 18 2009 00:27 cz wrote: Things should work like this:
1. Data gathered with the least possible influence of bias from data gathering. 2. Data analyzed to form theories. 3. More data either supports or works against theory.
You can use case studies or whatever you want to form the data, though it's naturally not all equal.
edit: That's really just the scientific method. My problem comes when people don't have data and so just claim their statement is true, or their data is limited in scope and/or possible bias.
An example from the article in the OP is that people tend to pick protoss as their favorite race because it is masculine and/or represents the future of human civilization, or whatever the author said. No data, just a statement.
And what do you think happens in fields like psychology? A professor just sits down one day, decides he's going to reinvent the world and makes up a new theory out of thin air?
I haven't read the whole thread, but it sounds to me like you've read some bad publications (there are loads of those in social sciences and it's one of the problems the field has) and decided the whole field isn't scientific.
On May 18 2009 03:01 NeO)MasCoT wrote: I'm going to guess the past 10 pages have been Internet White Knights trying to defend women in hopes one fucks them. Someone confirm this.
I'm not even gonna comment on this, because this is just silly and you know it.
"The blatant problem however is the way that women are depicted in this game, and perhaps the bigger problem is the comments on women that Blizzard may or may not have even realized that they put in (you may argue that if Blizzard didn't know, it's not a problem… if you want to argue this, first read some Michel Foucault… then e-mail me. (A game is a work, just like a book, once out of the author's hand, it is no longer theirs.)."
NEW FLASH:
People who live in society create stuff that expresses what a dominant group in society thinks.
What I understand from that article is that, women are overly sexualized, whatever the fuck that means, in starcraft. And somehow because women are sexualized, they become "more like" objects of sex. I guess as opposed to less like objects of sex, since it's clearly a scale with I don't know what on one end and sexual objects on the other. So I guess, the masculine artist whos theme is "war", should not express any hint of masculinity nor patriarchal discourse since you know, that would be UNFAIR, ROFLMAO.
On May 18 2009 03:01 NeO)MasCoT wrote: I'm going to guess the past 10 pages have been Internet White Knights trying to defend women in hopes one fucks them. Someone confirm this.
The rest of the posts are normal people going, "Lawl. Troll troll is troll," or, "lolwat? Has to be a joke."
How can people like this even exist? O_o;;
IDK if I was a dumb braud I'd want to fuck an Internet White Knight. Like Sir Gallahad.
On May 18 2009 05:40 zulu_nation8 wrote: why did you make the ID Foucault if you're gonna argue for gender equality, have you read anything besides snippets of History of Sexuality?
Because I like Foucault and I wrote an research essay on his book "Madness and civilization".
I can call myself whatever I like and argue for gender equality. Why do you call yourself "zulu_nation8", do you identify yourself with Africa Bambaata?
Could one not just say for argument in contradiction, the Zerg are much more aggressive and likely to attack first, so are they not Male? And that stuff about orgasms made me laugh... yes, apparently only females can have one of those. God damn feminists.
"Gamers" tend to be a lot more sexist than most of the population. Notice the super aggressive backlash to this article from so many people on this site. If you're not being sexist, why does something like this upset you so much and get you so enraged? I don't really agree with the article, but it doesn't make me angry or hate feminism.
If anything SC is sexist because Kerrigan has high heels built into her legs (since SC2) and is portrayed as a "backstabbing bitch" etc. etc.
On May 18 2009 13:30 systranerror wrote: "Gamers" tend to be a lot more sexist than most of the population. Notice the super aggressive backlash to this article from so many people on this site. If you're not being sexist, why does something like this upset you so much and get you so enraged? I don't really agree with the article, but it doesn't make me angry or hate feminism.
On May 17 2009 04:53 Rekrul wrote: uh no, but starcraft IS racist
take a look at the scvs
The SCV isn't black.
that is a black dude: broad nose, dark hair, dark skin.
Slave controlled vehicle. Confederate earth. "I'm locked in here tighter than a frog's butt in a watermelon seed fight.''. etc
What the hell does that saying even mean? Wtf is a watermelon fight? Do people actually throw watermelon seeds at eachother? And why is a frog getting in between the fight? Is the scv implying the watermelon seed will go into the frogs anus if the fight is not correctly supervised?
I don't think you are supposed to get the reference.
In the south they have watermelon seed spitting contest. Check guinness book you will be astounded at the distances and shit. and Yes I knew its space not slave SCV, its just something I thought of as soon as I saw the game 11 years ago.
On May 18 2009 13:30 systranerror wrote: "Gamers" tend to be a lot more sexist than most of the population. Notice the super aggressive backlash to this article from so many people on this site. If you're not being sexist, why does something like this upset you so much and get you so enraged?
If you're not a criminal, why do you get upset when people accuse of you of being one? So I guess you are a criminal/sexist after all. Idiotic. People get tired of the constant outrage-mongering and whining about absolutely nothing. Turning tiny issues into occasions for moral chastisment is simply a club with which to bludgeon people (especially men).
On May 18 2009 13:30 systranerror wrote: I don't really agree with the article, but it doesn't make me angry or hate feminism.
If anything SC is sexist because Kerrigan has high heels built into her legs (since SC2) and is portrayed as a "backstabbing bitch" etc. etc.
So having a female villain with high heels is sexist? Do you get as upset when the male villain has muscular arms? :nooo
I don't really understand the logic behind the idea that gender is artificial and constructed primarily, so a few questions:
On May 17 2009 23:34 Foucault wrote:
Btw, do tell how you are able to know when you can actually use those 2 words and when you can't. When do you know that you got the job because you are a beautiful girl and when do you know that you didn't get the job because you are an immigrant. Also sexism and discrimination is to an large extent built into our society, because a man is the norm, which makes women inferior.
Why is man the norm?
On May 17 2009 23:34 Foucault wrote:
You say that some women just plain hate men. Why? Why do they hate men? Are some women just born like that? Are they retarded? Why would they hate men, just because?
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?
On May 17 2009 23:34 Foucault wrote: How "nature" works...What is nature? I think "men" and "women" are largely socially constructed roles of behavior. This socialization continues through generations.
So all cultures across the world decided to construct male and female roles in similar positions of relative dominance?
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?
On May 17 2009 23:34 Foucault wrote: Well I think there is a biological factor too but I think it's not that big and that our gender roles are more important. Sure, women are physically weaker than men in general, but are they less decisive? For one, they are taught to be less decisive and being in closer touch with their emotions.
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?
On May 17 2009 23:34 Foucault wrote:
Why are you assuming that women just throw around words like sexism and discrimination? Seems like you think that they aren't capable of actually understanding these words.
On May 17 2009 23:48 Foucault wrote:
Are you trying to group up feminists and sociologists as the weird people who are against "science" or something? I get that impression anyways.
You really like your loaded language, don't you?
Evolutionary psychology has some huge weaknesses. Mainly that they are too focused on biology and hardly considers environmental factors. For some reason they don't take environment into account, and that's a serious scientifical flaw; they see what they want to see.
Evolutionary pscyhology is like science from the early 2000:th century, where everything that can't be measured is not interesting. You can measure genes and atoms, but you hardly can't measure how a society works and what effect it has on people.
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?
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.
Too bad this person got so many hits for their stupid article. Wish there was a comment section... it'd be swamped by now I'm sure, with hilarity ensuing.
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 =)
Feels more like a Freudian analysis placing unnecessary emphasis on sex and symbols. She tries to tap into some fucked up sexual psychology of the artist/game designer's work, and because somehow she feels her interpretations are justified, she uses them to support ridiculous feminist claims.
Has anyone ever seen the southpark episode when they wanted to change the flag (which was a bunch of white people standing around a black person being hung). The kids when they looked at the flag didn't see it as white people hanging black people, they saw it as just a person being hung and all the people were the same. The same concept could be applied to starcraft. When kids play it they see a game. For years I've been playing starcraft and never in my life did i think of zerg to resemble females in any way. In fact I never thought of race or sexuality in any way playing the game. ITS A FREAKING GAME. The two things that come to mind are war and strategy. But when articles like this one are made that point out something that no one else in the world saw, it does more harm to the cause than it does help out the cause.
And she has a point. Starcraft fails the Bechdel test; it has few female characters (even the non-human characters are archetypally male). This doesn't mean that those who made Starcraft were sexist - it just goes to show that Starcraft is not above the (potentially negative) stereotypes and motifs that run through society.
Uh, why don't you actually examine the story and the contexts surrounding the units. The terrans are largely criminals: Criminals are male. Males are unfit to be in society. Clearly a pro-patriarchy move, right?
Protoss have 2 branches of their highest caste. One is run by females, the other is run by men. Shocking.
The zerg are led by a woman. The woman's origins and rise to power are nearly identical to those which are portrayed in a unit of the same type who is male. He dies.
All i can see from this is that toss are fairly egalitarian. Human males are still unfit for society and are sent off to war to die, and that females when directly compared to their counterpart males are superior.
NEW ARTICLE: STARCRAFT IS MISANDRIST.
Shhh, you'll question Raurosaur's dogmas.
?? 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 05:14 The Raurosaur wrote: Did any of you actually read the article, or even its opening paragraphs? While the article quickly descends into the post-structuralist cultural studies style that I dislike immensely, the author points out that:
1) this isn't a problem with Starcraft - it's a problem with society and the structure of our social hierarchies 2) Starcraft is merely symptomatic of these problems, and is useful as an exemplar.
And she has a point. Starcraft fails the Bechdel test; it has few female characters (even the non-human characters are archetypally male). This doesn't mean that those who made Starcraft were sexist - it just goes to show that Starcraft is not above the (potentially negative) stereotypes and motifs that run through society.
think about the target market for sc when it was released
But her point still stands. To use an extreme example, if someone comes along with a KKK booklet and says "this shit is racist", pointing out its target audience (KKK members) doesn't make it less racist.
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 05:14 The Raurosaur wrote: Did any of you actually read the article, or even its opening paragraphs? While the article quickly descends into the post-structuralist cultural studies style that I dislike immensely, the author points out that:
1) this isn't a problem with Starcraft - it's a problem with society and the structure of our social hierarchies 2) Starcraft is merely symptomatic of these problems, and is useful as an exemplar.
And she has a point. Starcraft fails the Bechdel test; it has few female characters (even the non-human characters are archetypally male). This doesn't mean that those who made Starcraft were sexist - it just goes to show that Starcraft is not above the (potentially negative) stereotypes and motifs that run through society.
Oh no a computer game doesn't aim to fix flaws in society, let's all make a big fuss.
But how are flaws in society to be fixed, if not in part through small movements from the mass media?
You're right in that making a big fuss is pointless and fairly infantile. I don't really agree with the article, but there was an interesting point that a lot of people on here didn't seem to grasp so I thought I'd bring it up.
The point is only as good as what you are basing it off. If the article was just that, then it would be a lot more convincing. Toss in enough of the nonsensical drivel and message itself becomes marginalized, this should be argued against even if the person has a good message, like how you cut off the rest of the "analysis". Even then it is pretty tainted already.
I agree with you in principle. However, the message may be marginalised but that doesn't mean it's not true. If I gave a proof of there being an infinite number of prime numbers, and padded it with a load of crazy garbled nonsense and drivel, that may marginalise my proof but doesn't invalidate it.
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.
But her point still stands. To use an extreme example, if someone comes along with a KKK booklet and says "this shit is racist", pointing out its target audience (KKK members) doesn't make it less racist.
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)
On May 17 2009 05:14 The Raurosaur wrote: Did any of you actually read the article, or even its opening paragraphs? While the article quickly descends into the post-structuralist cultural studies style that I dislike immensely, the author points out that:
1) this isn't a problem with Starcraft - it's a problem with society and the structure of our social hierarchies 2) Starcraft is merely symptomatic of these problems, and is useful as an exemplar.
And she has a point. Starcraft fails the Bechdel test; it has few female characters (even the non-human characters are archetypally male). This doesn't mean that those who made Starcraft were sexist - it just goes to show that Starcraft is not above the (potentially negative) stereotypes and motifs that run through society.
And if there were more women, they would complain that women are represented as ruthless killing machines, which is totally insulting to women. There would always be something to complain about.
Stereotype #53: Women complain a lot. Are Raynor or Tassadar portrayed as ruthless killing machines? You're making a strawman.
Are the zerg portrayed as women and the protoss and terran as men? Who's making a strawman?
What I'm getting at is that the situation you're suggesting (women being in the game, and the feminists still complaining about it) is one that you don't really have any evidence for. If someone tells you you're doing something wrong, and you fix it, and they still say it's wrong, either a) they're never pleased or b) you didn't understand what was wrong with it in the first place. In this case I think it's a mixture of both of them.
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 06:05 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.
On May 17 2009 23:30 cz wrote: Honestly this is what really irritates me about the social "sciences": they are unscientific.
For someone who seems to be advocating precise definitions and backing up claims with scientific proof that's a pretty bold statement. Where do you take the expertise from to make that claim?
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.
It's sad that after all this time women are still making 75 cents for every dollar a male makes. It's time they be able to earn as much as the male population. We need to start giving them extra hours so they can keep up.
Hey guys, The Road is sexist because the only major female character is shown as weak and selfish. And the book is about male bonding and guns(the guns are phalluses). Also it's influenced by the Bible. Every book is sexist because they are all influenced by the Bible and the bible treats women as property(typical guys treating women like property, right?).
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Real problems in this context would be mainstream entertainment that moves the norm further into gender discrimination. Starcraft isn't free of gender stereotyping but it is moving in the right direction compared to games before it. Another thing that should be focused on as a real problem is the effect of current games, as critique of current games will have an affect on the next set of current games. Though video games are becoming more popular they don't affect the culture at large as much as movies and television do. Of course I wasn't just talking about real problems in entertainment, when the feminist brand is damaged or feminists are made to look stupid it hurts all types of feminist efforts.
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.
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.
¬¬ 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.
Well that's moronic, but on Sweden's SAT a couple of years ago one (of five) swedish texts they had chosen was written by a woman saying that Sauromans evil eye was actually an evil cunt. And that JRR Tolkien was sexist and so forth. GJ sweden!
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.
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?
¬¬ 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?
¬¬ 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?
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
¬¬ 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?
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
The article writer is blatantly wrong. She says "Women in this and many computer games are depicted as sexual objects, and nothing more."
Considering 2 of the 3 factions are matriarchal, isn't that just kind of retarded? The dark templar had Raszagal as their queen and Kerrigan leads the Zerg. Is this writer just stupid or what?
Raszagal got kidnapped and then died heroically for her people, while Kerrigan is like an iconic symbol of feminist power: Woman who's caught up in the system, trained to do the bidding of a patriarch (Mengsk), falls while in combat, gets subverted by another patriarch (Cerebrate), then breaks free and takes control of her own destiny, THEN goes on to take over the Swarm. This is reinforcing a negative gender stereotype?
On top of that she's straight up wrong about the economies. There is absolutely nothing masculine about investing in infrastructure to produce things. That's a trait of civilization, not men. WTF does this bitch come up with this crap?
And the zerg are obviously modeled after ant/termite/bee like societies. Which are dominated by females, but it's more like one queen and a ton of non-producing females. That's not a "reproduction" based society any more than one man with a harem of women is a reproduction based society. In fact, I'd claim the guy with the harem is doing a lot more producing! Also, her whole point about nurturing is wrong because insect Queens don't nurture their young in a mature colony. They lay eggs and then force workers to take care of them. Again, the writer is WRONG.
The fact that she's solely basing this off human anatomy (whereas zerg are alien) is even more retarded. Seeing as how there are many animal species out there where the male is the nurturer while the female goes out and forages for food. Sea horses, penguins, fish, certain frogs/toads etc.
THen she gets into architecture, which is another dumb theory. Wonder what she had to say about Protoss gateways... or Terran starports. I could claim starports look like a 2-d model of the female breast and they secrete Science vessels which are like nipples, who shoot EMP pulses which are like beads of milk splashing outwards.
Only thing I can say that agrees with her theory is that Zergs are based on a matriarchal society and that a lot of their design cues come from the Aliens franchise, which its creator has explicitly stated draws heavily from male/female anatomy.
Oh and then there was the hilarious but moronic list of sayings by Blizzard units. This one in particular was retarded: "Yes Sir." "Orders Sir." (While these last two are not sexual, they give the obvious implication that the game player must be male.)
According to this writer, sir can only refer to a man? What, women in the military are referred to as ma'am? Does this article writer have any clue what she's talking about?
This person doesn't have any idea what she's talking about. That's all there is to it. The way the units talk is just the way they talk. It's funny to see how far the actually was able to stretch her arguments.
Something was mentioned about how male economy (terran) is better and female economy (zerg) is worse... so what does that mean?
The blatant problem however is the way that women are depicted in this game, and perhaps the bigger problem is the comments on women that Blizzard may or may not have even realized that they put in (you may argue that if Blizzard didn't know, it's not a problem… if you want to argue this, first read some Michel Foucault… then e-mail me. (A game is a work, just like a book, once out of the author's hand, it is no longer theirs.).
This is revealing, and I regret to say, reminescent of the line of argumentation of a few people on these forums on various occasions, who represent themselves educated because of their adherence to a system of belief rooted in non-representational vocabulary.*
It is true that this systematizing vocabulary is the foundation of modern scientific practices (which some people still mistakenly refer to as "empirical,") but applied to the field of structuralist, feminist, or marxist analysis, amounts to little more than the attribution of motives.
Marx in The German Ideology:
historians are wrong when they write about the factors of politics or religion; these are the illusions of that epoch
On the other hand, Goethe:
By our means of thinking, we lift ourselves from perceiving reality as product to perceiving it as that which produces....the essential nature of a thing...comes to light only when the thing is brought into relation with man.
Yes, Marx had every reason believing himself to be the most scientific of social critics, as do the disciples of Foucault and subjectivists, dependent as they are on the cartesian partition of the world into mind and matter, into an observing and an observed. Under this assumption, social science may be the most illiberal of practices in denying society the free will which is inherent in any observer.
Students who are entering universities everywhere, where they will be taught to analyse the world influenced by dogma, pressured to make their academic careers on confirming the reality of the same, ought to remember that the intellectual progress of the modern world has in many ways led us back to the thought system of the middle ages.
Men disregarded the individual qualities and the fine distinctions of things, deliberately and on purpose, in order to always bring them under some general principle. The mind is not in search of individual realities, but of models, examples, norms....there is in the Middle Ages a tendency to ascribe a sort of substantiality to abstract concepts.
-Johan Huizinga
If we do not remember that progress is the consequence of self-sustained learning and not of logic or reason, even the observer may become the object of fate.
*P.S. Perhaps this is not sufficiently clear, since being educated has historically usually meant being indoctrinated in some sort of thought system. Hence the modern "educated" interpreter of literature with the jargon of Foucault, Barthes and Derrida retains that status over the layman, common-sensed reader without that indoctrination. In the same sense that the medieval man could not give a learned dissertation on the holy trinity without the jargon of Aristotilean metaphysics, a modern scholar cannot produce an academic article without a reference to current academic jargon. Yet reading has always been an act of independence. An old-fashioned reader was probably not an academic, but someone with a broader mind than the illiterate peasantry, and a more liberal mind than the educated state bureaucracy. Today, the most liberal minds are training themselves for entry into some kind of state or private bureaucracy. What will be role of academic dogma then? It it any wonder that bureaucrats seem to the common people to be far removed from reality?
The blatant problem however is the way that women are depicted in this game, and perhaps the bigger problem is the comments on women that Blizzard may or may not have even realized that they put in (you may argue that if Blizzard didn't know, it's not a problem… if you want to argue this, first read some Michel Foucault… then e-mail me. (A game is a work, just like a book, once out of the author's hand, it is no longer theirs.).
This is revealing, and I regret to say, reminescent of the line of argumentation of a few people on these forums on various occasions, who represent themselves educated because of their adherence to a system of belief rooted in non-representational vocabulary.*
It is true that this systematizing vocabulary is the foundation of modern scientific practices (which some people still mistakenly refer to as "empirical,") but applied to the field of structuralist, feminist, or marxist analysis, amounts to little more than the attribution of motives.
By our means of thinking, we lift ourselves from perceiving reality as product to perceiving it as that which produces....the essential nature of a thing...comes to light only when the thing is brought into relation with man.
Yes, Marx had every reason believing himself to be the most scientific of social critics, as do the disciples of Foucault and subjectivists, dependent as they are on the cartesian partition of the world into mind and matter, into an observing and an observed. Under this assumption, social science may be the most illiberal of practices in denying society the free will which is inherent in any observer.
Students who are entering universities everywhere, where they will be taught to analyse the world influenced by dogma, pressured to make their academic careers on confirming the reality of the same, ought to remember that the intellectual progress of the modern world has in many ways led us back to the thought system of the middle ages.
Men disregarded the individual qualities and the fine distinctions of things, deliberately and on purpose, in order to always bring them under some general principle. The mind is not in search of individual realities, but of models, examples, norms....there is in the Middle Ages a tendency to ascribe a sort of substantiality to abstract concepts.
-Johan Huizinga
If we do not remember that progress is the consequence of self-sustained learning and not of logic or reason, even the observer may become the object of fate.
*P.S. Perhaps this is not sufficiently clear, since being educated has historically usually meant being indoctrinated in some sort of thought system. Hence the modern "educated" interpreter of literature with the jargon of Foucault, Barthes and Derrida retains that status over the layman, common-sensed reader without that indoctrination. In the same sense that the medieval man could not give a learned dissertation on the holy trinity without the jargon of Aristotilean metaphysics, a modern scholar cannot produce an academic article without a reference to current academic jargon. Yet reading has always been an act of independence. An old-fashioned reader was probably not an academic, but someone with a broader mind than the illiterate peasantry, and a more liberal mind than the educated state bureaucracy. Today, the most liberal minds are training themselves for entry into some kind of state or private bureaucracy. What will be role of academic dogma then? It it any wonder that bureaucrats seem to the common people to be far removed from reality?
Some of you people posting here come across way more retarded than the woman writing that analysis. It's not retarded to assume that gender is "taught" through literature, games etc. And gender basically influences everything, that can't be much of a secret to anyone if you think about it.
So people who post blatantly stupid comments in this thread, do this because 1) They are too friggin stupid to actually understand the concepts discussed 2) They feel threatened as "men" by this womans writings. 3) They are immature, basically young and think it's cool to be like "who cares about this stupid bitch? I'm gonna go watch more porn now".
I never managed to understand how some people can talk about women in ways like "what a stupid bitch, she needs to get fucked", when they have a mother, grandmother, maybe sisters etc. Are those women somehow saints and everyone else is not?
Do yourselves a favor and try to actually use your brains. It's not cool to try to act stupid ("uhh who cares about this bitch"). Comments like that make you seem like a brain damaged redneck. This is for the people who make silly comments in this thread.
The blatant problem however is the way that women are depicted in this game, and perhaps the bigger problem is the comments on women that Blizzard may or may not have even realized that they put in (you may argue that if Blizzard didn't know, it's not a problem… if you want to argue this, first read some Michel Foucault… then e-mail me. (A game is a work, just like a book, once out of the author's hand, it is no longer theirs.).
This is revealing, and I regret to say, reminescent of the line of argumentation of a few people on these forums on various occasions, who represent themselves educated because of their adherence to a system of belief rooted in non-representational vocabulary.*
It is true that this systematizing vocabulary is the foundation of modern scientific practices (which some people still mistakenly refer to as "empirical,") but applied to the field of structuralist, feminist, or marxist analysis, amounts to little more than the attribution of motives.
By our means of thinking, we lift ourselves from perceiving reality as product to perceiving it as that which produces....the essential nature of a thing...comes to light only when the thing is brought into relation with man.
Yes, Marx had every reason believing himself to be the most scientific of social critics, as do the disciples of Foucault and subjectivists, dependent as they are on the cartesian partition of the world into mind and matter, into an observing and an observed. Under this assumption, social science may be the most illiberal of practices in denying society the free will which is inherent in any observer.
Students who are entering universities everywhere, where they will be taught to analyse the world influenced by dogma, pressured to make their academic careers on confirming the reality of the same, ought to remember that the intellectual progress of the modern world has in many ways led us back to the thought system of the middle ages.
Men disregarded the individual qualities and the fine distinctions of things, deliberately and on purpose, in order to always bring them under some general principle. The mind is not in search of individual realities, but of models, examples, norms....there is in the Middle Ages a tendency to ascribe a sort of substantiality to abstract concepts.
-Johan Huizinga
If we do not remember that progress is the consequence of self-sustained learning and not of logic or reason, even the observer may become the object of fate.
*P.S. Perhaps this is not sufficiently clear, since being educated has historically usually meant being indoctrinated in some sort of thought system. Hence the modern "educated" interpreter of literature with the jargon of Foucault, Barthes and Derrida retains that status over the layman, common-sensed reader without that indoctrination. In the same sense that the medieval man could not give a learned dissertation on the holy trinity without the jargon of Aristotilean metaphysics, a modern scholar cannot produce an academic article without a reference to current academic jargon. Yet reading has always been an act of independence. An old-fashioned reader was probably not an academic, but someone with a broader mind than the illiterate peasantry, and a more liberal mind than the educated state bureaucracy. Today, the most liberal minds are training themselves for entry into some kind of state or private bureaucracy. What will be role of academic dogma then? It it any wonder that bureaucrats seem to the common people to be far removed from reality?
Also, hardly any commercial fiction writers waste their time reading Derrida or Barthes. Semiotics is especially retarded to me because writers are much more intuitive than that. Yes, on an instinctual level, some of the immersiveness of writing can be explained and analyzed through semiotics, but nobody ever sits down and goes through the creative writing process that way.
Academics are those who can't do it themselves, so they try to duplicate innate talent through sheer methodology. Kind of pathetic in my op.
And yes, academia has long been people who never left school, and just stayed away from the real world, incubating their weird sheltered ideas. That's why kids fall asleep in class and don't see any connection between their learning material and their lives. Big disconnect.
On May 17 2009 21:50 no_comprender wrote: maybe women are supposed to be submissive to men, i'll say this: i don't know any hot girls who give a fuck about feminism....
in fact you will find that intelligent and well adjusted girls will admit to things like women make worse leaders on average due to emotional instability compared to men, and other little "woman issues" that can get in the way of being a good leader or effective employee, as well as different priorities and a lesser sense of company loyalty than men.
of course that's not to say we should judge women on an individual level, but things like 50:50 men/women CEOs is not a realistic outcome. there's huge advantage to being tall in leadership positions too, something like 90% of CEOs are over average height for example, and the USA presidents list supports data like that. i haven't seen much publicity from short people complaining about height inequality cos it'd come across as bitter short man syndrome but we have to respect womens feminism complaints? same thing with good looking people too, it's a huge employment advantage. imo it just so happens that men tend to possess traits that we are instinctually drawn to respect and obey, in addition to tending to be more focussed and driven to succeed
i think many feminists are striving male ideals of power and achievement when at a fundamental level women don't necessarily have the same drive for those things that men do. the whole equality movement just comes of as forced to me because i just don't think we're wired that way fundamentally. of course if they keep forcing it down our throats for a few 100 years it'll become reality but don't pretend that equality is the fundamental truth and somehow men are pigheadedly pushing women down
I have one thing to say here: socially constructed gender roles.
You seem to think that the differences between males and females are all biological, and I hardly think that is the case at all. Thus I don't agree with your assumptions on how women and men are.
the whole thing is ironic to me, rejection of traditional roles like husband=breadwinner ,wife=homekeeper/childraiser is a reflection of the male self-preferential bias of men>women. maybe if women didn't already idolize men the pissed off / rejected ones wouldn't try to emulate their role in society and complain when it wasn't an option. what could possibly be more important than raising the next generation, and yet "career women" want to leave the child to a nanny and go and work? feminists are trying to make females more "male", if they were embracing the traditional roles women have in society instead of expanding their right to occupy the traditional role of men i'd have a lot more support for the movement because it wouldn't stink so strongly of self-esteem issues
movements like feminism are luxuries of the ability to influence our own environment, and feminists have the ability (you could also call it a right) to push for them, but they are changing a status quo which has had a huge effect on our development, women have taken submissive roles for many years in most civilized societies.feminists are pushing gender roles (a huge cornerstone of society and interaction) in an abruptly different direction with no assurance of success, and shifting the paradigm like this so quickly is not good for the mental health of individuals in general imo. there is just no way to know at this point, not that we really have a choice but to accept it. eventually the gender roles will merge somewhat due to the efforts of feminists but don't call it a return to the "equilibrium". things like the starcraft thing completely destroys the credibility of the movement and reinforces the perception that a high % of them are failures (or their recruits) on a emotional crusade that has much more to do with the psychological issues of individuals than it does with a true desire to "equalize" society's gender roles
of course with the individualistic direction society is taking things like feminism are inevitable, its not good enough anymore to be part of a collective and i think thats the bigger underlying problem. everyone want's to make their mark now, and because people respect that ideal they support evening the playing field to cater for the bleating disadvantaged. society is letting them so good for them, but back in the day people born with congenital defects or a crap immune system died instead of burdening other organisms with their disproportionate consumption, it makes me uncomfortable about the future. how long do we expend more and more resources protecting the rights of the individual without considering the health of the species and society as a whole? we have these ideals of basic human rights that simply don't fit with the fundamental rules of life on earth, the entire system is based on competition. not that that particular point is relevant to feminism in particular since male/female competition is not an issue on a evolutionary level, but it is a related concept in terms of the roots of feminism
so of course the differences aren't all biological. but our social environment plays a huge part in our function because as organisms we are constructed to occupy an environment, and only in these modern times do we have truly significant control over that environment. i'm arguing not that we are born with the idea that men are dominant but that we are born to occupy a society in which the concept of male superiority in areas like leadership and providing resources prevails so we are conditioned to learn that concept. it's all part of one system, you can't separate things like gender roles from the greater reality and say "yeah lets just tweak the gender roles knob back to equal and everything will be a-ok", systems don't work like that, there are consequences to everything and in finely tuned systems consequences of change are usually negative
The Zerg on the other hand, build up first a small and weak group of troops. These troops usually test the mettle of the enemy, and so you build up a slightly larger group to do the same. You then follow this with a larger, and more powerful, and a larger and more powerful, and a larger and more powerful group… until finally you have won, or you are struck in the instant of rebuilding before your next great thrust begins. While this argument is much more blatant when shown graphically, anyone who has studied either human sexuality, or gender-comparative literary styles should recognize this pattern. It is the comparative stages of sexual peaks, climaxes, and orgasm(s).
On May 27 2009 02:29 no_comprender wrote: movements like feminism are luxuries of the ability to influence our own environment, and feminists have the ability (you could also call it a right) to push for them, but they are changing a status quo which has had a huge effect on our development, women have taken submissive roles for many years in most civilized societies.feminists are pushing gender roles (a huge cornerstone of society and interaction) in an abruptly different direction with no assurance of success
Ok sorry I don't have time to answer to your entire post but this I want to respond to since I think it's essential.
Women haven't taken any roles, they have been given roles by men really. Since men have set the standards for acceptable behaviour for women, the women have pretty much been forced into submission. So I hope you don't think that women throughout history have chosen to be submissive, they are born into a pre-made gender role. Men are too, however since men have had much greater power than women historically speaking (and still today) they don't really complain now do they.
What do you mean "with no assurance of success". So you are saying it's dangerous to let women be equal and be in charge more? lol please. Think of all the shit man has started; wars and what not. I don't really know what to say about this one, except that I think you're having too much bias against women, going into this discussion.
of course with the individualistic direction society is taking things like feminism are inevitable, its not good enough anymore to be part of a collective and i think thats the bigger underlying problem. everyone want's to make their mark now
I believe his point was more that individualism is responsible for the motivation towards such a movement, not that the movement itself falls under the umbrella of individualism. If all changes in the current dogmatic philosophy had to stem from themselves, we would still be living with pre-egyptian mores.
His post, for instance, is heavily post-feminist, probably motivated by some of the failures of third wave feminism.
But if the critique was aimed more at the later part of his phrase, I'd argue that his beef lies largely with an outgrowth of individualism rather than individualism itself.
On May 27 2009 02:29 no_comprender wrote: movements like feminism are luxuries of the ability to influence our own environment, and feminists have the ability (you could also call it a right) to push for them, but they are changing a status quo which has had a huge effect on our development, women have taken submissive roles for many years in most civilized societies.feminists are pushing gender roles (a huge cornerstone of society and interaction) in an abruptly different direction with no assurance of success
Ok sorry I don't have time to answer to your entire post but this I want to respond to since I think it's essential.
Women haven't taken any roles, they have been given roles by men really. Since men have set the standards for acceptable behaviour for women, the women have pretty much been forced into submission. So I hope you don't think that women throughout history have chosen to be submissive, they are born into a pre-made gender role. Men are too, however since men have had much greater power than women historically speaking (and still today) they don't really complain now do they.
What do you mean "with no assurance of success". So you are saying it's dangerous to let women be equal and be in charge more? lol please. Think of all the shit man has started; wars and what not. I don't really know what to say about this one, except that I think you're having too much bias against women, going into this discussion.
i mean taken only in that those are the roles that they have occupied, nothing else is implied.
i mean no assurance of success in the sense that who knows if using gender neutral pronouns and promoting whatever other measures are going to alleviate suffering that occurs as a result of the things feminists fight to banish, it's not as if feminism is science and we know the issues we're tackling and we know how they function and how to counter them. it's enthusiastic action based on a lot of hypothesizing imo
i don't think it's "dangerous" to have less gender role separation wrt wars etc, i mean it as a conservative position that too much change in too short time has inherent vulnerability in poorly understood complex systems (psychology/society in this case).
wars weren't started because of males anyway, they result from disputes over resources/land between entities generally, not individual men with a power complex blindly starting fights for no reason. changing the gender in charge wouldn't stop those disputes arising, the idea that with women in charge we'd all make up peacefully and international disputes wouldn't be a problem is a myth. women can be just as competitive and ruthless as men can be
i still cannot believe this woman made such a dumb argument... she might as well called any movie where there's bleeding of any kind followed by an explosion sexist too.... wtf? she needs to get off w.e drug she's taking...
haha it's like one of those arguments where giving a women birth control pill is sexist because men don't have such pills
or like giving women estrogen therapy is sexist because men don't get such therapies done
frggin retarded! every time i read something like this i lose faith in humanity (and women, just cus these feminists r being dumb)
A Nydus Canal is a large, vaginal opening, that if a Zerg unit enters, it may emerge at the other end, in a manner that "greatly puzzles most Terran scientists."
The spire actually looks more like a jellyfish. But with a name like "spire"
And terrans are definitely male. I mean everytime i get mutalisks I encounter big balls that spray that liquid-gas stuff all over my mutalisks and big rods (carriers) that pump out hundreds interceptors.
And don't even get me started on how those hydralisks squirt out their juice onto the other team's medics.
It's when I read things like these that I feel ashamed for my sex. I started by laughing, but the more I think about it the more angry I feel. Feminists are like freaking insects. They're fine as long as they're sitting over THERE and don't move or make any sounds. It was fine when it was about men and women being equal in the society, but when it is like this, it's only about giving back for what has happened previously. If you look for patterns, odds are you will find them.
Oh yeah, the valk is totally my fav unit speech -.-
Wait, so am I a misogynist pig for playing Zerg and supporting/exploiting their perversion of the female sex or am I sticking it to the man by beating down the male races?
(Also, everyone must recognize that this makes ZvZ the sexiest mu)
On May 17 2009 05:06 damenmofa wrote: lol great find ^^ especially her section covering gameplay comparing it to male (t/p) and female (z) orgasm when she actually doesnt know how to play the races is ridiculous...
Say what? Surely you must agree that Terran gameplay is indeed characterized by a consistent build up followed by a great release that is very reminiscent of the male orgasm whereas Zerg play a different more sketchy kind of game.
That analogy I thought was spot on. The earlier and to me contradictory remark about the Zergs supposed female economy however did make me think that she had no idea how the races are played (before she redeemed herself). Zergs nurturing their units? The Overmind, or anyone assuming his role, sacrifice units like no other. If anyone is nurturing and babysitting their units it would be a Terran. Treating every Siege Tank like a baby and every Marine like a potential rape victim.
On May 17 2009 05:06 damenmofa wrote: lol great find ^^ especially her section covering gameplay comparing it to male (t/p) and female (z) orgasm when she actually doesnt know how to play the races is ridiculous...
Say what? Surely you must agree that Terran gameplay is indeed characterized by a consistent build up followed by a great release that is very reminiscent of the male orgasm whereas Zerg play a different more sketchy kind of game.
That analogy I thought was spot on. The earlier and to me contradictory remark about the Zergs supposed female economy however did make me think that she had no idea how the races are played (before she redeemed herself). Zergs nurturing their units? The Overmind, or anyone assuming his role, sacrifice units like no other. If anyone is nurturing and babysitting their units it would be a Terran. Treating every Siege Tank like a baby and every Marine like a potential rape victim.
Exactly, I almost want to write a madlib of her paper and paint zerg as the dispensable, brutish, primitive, unintelligent MALES who are carelessly sacrificed like animals. Much like human MALES have been treated throughout human history, as very much disposable and expendable, each individual zerg unit is disposable and expendable. Their buildings look very phallic to me. I haven't read the whole thread, but the spore colony is clearly an uncircumsized penis and the evolution chamber and hydralisk are both mighty phallic looking. It's men who suffer the most from war, nations are built on the blood and bones of young men and boys. Far more men throughout human history have been killed in war than women. Similarly, in a game of starcraft, even when the zerg win, they almost ALWAYS suffer the most casualties. Therefore, starcraft encourages us as a society to view men as disposable, the last off the titanic, the first into the battle.
I really hate to go off on a tangent here about gender relations, but I'll leave you all with this. Feminists and gender egalitarians, and I make the distinctions because feminists are clearly not interested in equality, as that could not be achieved by empowering only one gender, often forget one immutable aspect of human nature. Eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap. Females have finite reproductive capacities, men are virtually unlimited. Therefore, men very indeed ARE disposable, our species could easily survive, grow, and prosper with far fewer males than females. Though this sounds very darwinian, remember just how much most of humanity is driven by animalistic instinct. It behooves us, from a purely evolutionary perspective, to preserve females, it doesn't hurt us to dispose of males. This is reflected in how our societies behave and it has been throughout human history. One needs only to point to the fact that males are far more frequently relegated to jobs and activities which endanger their lives than women, including military service.
Women in this and many computer games are depicted as sexual objects, and nothing more. Simply put, women are much more than that. Women, men… we are people, humans… nothing more, nothing less. Just because some of us have breasts, and others penises, does not make either more of an object of sex, nor more an object of power.
Lol how old is this person?? Isn't it supposed to be penii, not penises??
Women in this and many computer games are depicted as sexual objects, and nothing more. Simply put, women are much more than that. Women, men… we are people, humans… nothing more, nothing less. Just because some of us have breasts, and others penises, does not make either more of an object of sex, nor more an object of power.
Lol how old is this person?? Isn't it supposed to be penii, not penises??
On May 27 2009 02:29 no_comprender wrote: movements like feminism are luxuries of the ability to influence our own environment, and feminists have the ability (you could also call it a right) to push for them, but they are changing a status quo which has had a huge effect on our development, women have taken submissive roles for many years in most civilized societies.feminists are pushing gender roles (a huge cornerstone of society and interaction) in an abruptly different direction with no assurance of success
Ok sorry I don't have time to answer to your entire post but this I want to respond to since I think it's essential.
Women haven't taken any roles, they have been given roles by men really. Since men have set the standards for acceptable behaviour for women, the women have pretty much been forced into submission. So I hope you don't think that women throughout history have chosen to be submissive, they are born into a pre-made gender role. Men are too, however since men have had much greater power than women historically speaking (and still today) they don't really complain now do they.
What do you mean "with no assurance of success". So you are saying it's dangerous to let women be equal and be in charge more? lol please. Think of all the shit man has started; wars and what not. I don't really know what to say about this one, except that I think you're having too much bias against women, going into this discussion.
But problems with employement did show up after women were giving more roles in career industry, you must admit the persons earlier reply about women no longer do there natural responsibilitys "they have gone against nature is correct".
I think that alot problems are not men but the women who infuelence there decisions, women are no angels so dont presume they are, they have went against there natures and thats why our world is so screwed because each generation isn't being taken care of as it should of been and isnt being taught in education either.
Nature always had it so roles would be played and going against nature is why the world is in state it is in now, it nothing do with equality it was everything to do with a balance.
o.o hi, your new to teamliquid i presume , well one of the rules here is dont really bump old threads unless you got something really big to contribute because all it does is push the more recent things down.
And yea thats is true maybe the lady made that report when only sc original came out?
On August 13 2009 11:17 ShmotZ wrote: o.o hi, your new to teamliquid i presume , well one of the rules here is dont really bump old threads unless you got something really big to contribute because all it does is push the more recent things down.
And yea thats is true maybe the lady made that report when only sc original came out?
LOL. Women's rights activists. Who would have though that women are what the're stereotyped to be unless some crazy fool capitalizes on it? Even more, who would have thought that Starcraft engenders female steriotism unless a dumbass crazy fool points it out?
(Also, everyone must recognize that this makes ZvZ the sexiest mu)
Why would a supposedly feminist person attribute 'reproduction' based economy to female is beyond me. I mean...isn't that their whole point that women are not just reproduction machines?
Women in this and many computer games are depicted as sexual objects, and nothing more. Simply put, women are much more than that. Women, men… we are people, humans… nothing more, nothing less. Just because some of us have breasts, and others penises, does not make either more of an object of sex, nor more an object of power.
Lol how old is this person?? Isn't it supposed to be penii, not penises??
and reavers are fat, slow and limp with exploding balls.
and regarding ZvZ..... what does that make Jaedong @_@?
EDIT: In defense for the woman, just because you write ONE article and troll through a feminist lens doesn't mean we all need to email her as angry starcraft nerds "wtf j00 n00b u n33d to get laid and gtfo back to the kitchen bitch." That type of reply does to us exactly what this article did for her.
Even though her zerg argument is completely retarded, the unit voices and what they say really are gender biased and do serve to sexualize women. There is a clear sense of male and female difference in the unit speeches that caters to the male audience when you click on the units. For instance.. the valkyrie says "I have ways of blowing things.. up" and also "you're being very naughty." The medic and kerrigan also say some similar type things that make them into sexual play things. This really isn't a surprise though considering the market. Male gamers outnumber females ones 10 to 1, so there's bound to be some fanservice for the guys. Blizzard obviously knows this and makes all their female units sexy and extra-bangable to capitalize on all the horny single gamers.
On August 13 2009 21:49 ilovelosses wrote: Even though her zerg argument is completely retarded, the unit voices and what they say really are gender biased and do serve to sexualize women. There is a clear sense of male and female difference in the unit speeches that caters to the male audience when you click on the units. For instance.. the valkyrie says "I have ways of blowing things.. up" and also "you're being very naughty." The medic and kerrigan also say some similar type things that make them into sexual play things. This really isn't a surprise though considering the market. Male gamers outnumber females ones 10 to 1, so there's bound to be some fanservice for the guys. Blizzard obviously knows this and makes all their female units sexy and extra-bangable to capitalize on all the horny single gamers.
Yah but those women are just playing the roles. They are technically the stereotypical army sass-mouthers, who aren't afraid to say what they want. Many of these women arrived as prisoners too, don't forget.
On May 17 2009 21:50 no_comprender wrote: back in the day people born with congenital defects or a crap immune system died instead of burdening other organisms with their disproportionate consumption, it makes me uncomfortable about the future. how long do we expend more and more resources protecting the rights of the individual without considering the health of the species and society as a whole?
listen you prick, you wouldnt be saying that if your child was born with such a defact would you?
On May 17 2009 04:36 vicviper wrote: Ms. Kelly Alerenson, the author of this article, tries to argue that Zerg runs on a "female" economy, which relies on reproduction, and that Zerg buildings look convincingly gynic. She analyzed further that Zerg gameplay is like the development of an orgasm.
Damn pre-mature 5-pools.
EDIT: Zerg isn't feminate, ever look at an evo chamber closely?
If I wasn't making myself clear, I actually do think her argument on zerg representing the unknowable evil woman to be BS, but it's still true that Blizzard games do tend to be sexist. They certainly cater to males and present females with a sense of eroticism. Makes me remember some of those ums games like "duke has sex with kerrigan" and all those strip the xxx. Not saying these maps have anything to do with Blizzard directly, more with the consumers, but these types of games appearing are definitely nurtured by the male dominated mindset, which has been facilitated by Blizzard.
On May 19 2009 05:48 VIB wrote: I'm 100% sure you guys got totally trolled by that article. That girl is probably reading this thread and laughing her ass off.
vicviper Canada. May 17 2009 04:36. Posts 8
This thread made my day :D ok back to reading the article
edit: are there really people here who took seriously? Seriously? This is masterpiece troll lol, how it happened I even saw philosophic disputes (Moltkeee rofl)?
So you think that games dedicated to man are nurtured by the male mindset, the same way The Sims and Barbie are nurtured by girls mindset...good point...
And yes, the game in itself (game of war+RTS) was targetting primarly a male audience, twhy did they choose to release a strategical game of war is a more interisting question though...
Article is complete shit btw, the Sigmund Freud theory which basically interprets every hole as a symbolic vagina and every proeminent thing as a phallus has been debunked decennies ago by the modern psychologists. I'm pretty sure it isn't a troll, probably not everything was meant to be taken litteraly though, but a lot is imo pretentious and sincere non-sensical garbage.
Medic- Speaking Seductively "Where does it hurt?" "I've already checked you out commander." "You want another physical?" "Turn your head and cough." "Ready for you sponge bath."
Vulture "I don't have time to fuck around."
Siege Tank "Yes Sir." "Orders Sir." (While these last two are not sexual, they give the obvious implication that the game player must be male.)
Goliath "Checklist completed…. SoB." (Again, not only being a sexually derogatory statement, this implies that only males will be empowered; leading the force.)
Valkyrie- In an overly sexualized Russian accent. "Don't keep me waiting." "I have ways of blowing things…. Up." "You're being very naughty." "Who's your Mommy?" "(Stallion neighing)"
Sarah Kerrigan "I'm ready!" "I'm waitin' on you." "Easily amused, huh?" "Doesn't take a telepath to know what you're thinking." "You get off on annoying people, don't you?"
Infested Kerrigan "Don't think that I need You!"
Infested Duran "I think you're getting too familiar." "I don't think we've met."
and there is still wall of text above
I'm going to mail her picture of me holding sign saying "Woman! You made my day! Please write more like that" I need to think what should I ask her in mail to get response xd
Actually to be on topic. and try to actually contribute something I never liked how blizzard never cared for they amount of sex they try to sell their games with. Thread has mentioned several times already that indeed the units in SC talk in such ways that one could see the females being oppressed.
Now we have to remember though where we live and how everything connects up. Any other product or game out there is doing just the same thing. In a sense we should change the world and what people strive towards to fix this. Just look at WoW female models. they are quite as far-removed from reality as you can get but hardly noone questions them.
Dunno, sex sells. go with it. I for one sure dont mind seeing barely clothed girls in my vidya.
I'm glad I play Protoss: where there are no distinctive female units. (Well, in SC2 maybe the Mothership...) But seriously, I do believe this person is just an epic troll who probably huddles in the sewers of 4chan all day. Or they're just that crazy as to think Blizzard's video games are misogynistic and that all their employees are evil bastards trying to oppress women.
Still, this article made me laugh. I'm going to start calling Nydus Canals "Vaginal Canals." Oh, and whenever someone 4/5 pools, it's going to be an "Orgasm rush."
On August 14 2009 00:33 DrLefTy wrote: So zerg is the feminine race, and our gameplay is that of an orgasm?
I think I was just accused of being a transvestite
Yea Zerg are like... hybrids. Drones can be seen as semen and creep as womb...? zomg
On August 14 2009 00:55 Aznleeman wrote: I'm glad I play Protoss: where there are no distinctive female units. (Well, in SC2 maybe the Mothership...) But seriously, I do believe this person is just an epic troll who probably huddles in the sewers of 4chan all day. Or they're just that crazy as to think Blizzard's video games are misogynistic and that all their employees are evil bastards trying to oppress women.
Still, this article made me laugh. I'm going to start calling Nydus Canals "Vaginal Canals." Oh, and whenever someone 4/5 pools, it's going to be an "Orgasm rush."
You missed that part :D
"The Protoss and Terrans, follow the male sexuality of building up, and up, and up, until finally it is the long awaited moment, while the Zerg build up, and then drop some, then build more… and more… and more… and more, and once dropped it may re-build up again, much sooner than it's male counterpart. "
I agree this may be 4channer... maybe I won't mail any photo >.> There are typos that seem to me as mistakes done during rofls
On August 13 2009 22:44 Foucault wrote: ilovelosses is right
Everyone saying "this is retarded" and nothing more, should perhaps use their assumed brain capacity just a tiny bit more
OK. I do think that "this is retarded" but I will say sth more.
Starcraft is played by men. It was created for men. Its obvious that everything is for men's point of view - just because of the target of this game. Zerg has "female features" and its "unknown" because 15 yo male teenagers dont know much about women. Its like saying: "Romantic comedies should be made more for men - with blood and guns. Its sexism that there is no action in those movies".
On August 14 2009 00:55 Aznleeman wrote: I'm glad I play Protoss: where there are no distinctive female units. (Well, in SC2 maybe the Mothership...) But seriously, I do believe this person is just an epic troll who probably huddles in the sewers of 4chan all day. Or they're just that crazy as to think Blizzard's video games are misogynistic and that all their employees are evil bastards trying to oppress women.
Still, this article made me laugh. I'm going to start calling Nydus Canals "Vaginal Canals." Oh, and whenever someone 4/5 pools, it's going to be an "Orgasm rush."
You missed that part :D
"The Protoss and Terrans, follow the male sexuality of building up, and up, and up, until finally it is the long awaited moment, while the Zerg build up, and then drop some, then build more… and more… and more… and more, and once dropped it may re-build up again, much sooner than it's male counterpart. "
I agree this may be 4channer... maybe I won't mail any photo >.>
Whoever made that article just fails to think on any other way. If you look it like that. how many things in life start as a small and then keep growing up until a they are at said point. But 24 pages tells us that s/he was a good troll or we just like our little game bit too much.
On August 14 2009 00:33 DrLefTy wrote: So zerg is the feminine race, and our gameplay is that of an orgasm?
I think I was just accused of being a transvestite
Yea Zerg are like... hybrids. Drones can be seen as semen and creep as womb...? zomg
On August 14 2009 00:55 Aznleeman wrote: I'm glad I play Protoss: where there are no distinctive female units. (Well, in SC2 maybe the Mothership...) But seriously, I do believe this person is just an epic troll who probably huddles in the sewers of 4chan all day. Or they're just that crazy as to think Blizzard's video games are misogynistic and that all their employees are evil bastards trying to oppress women.
Still, this article made me laugh. I'm going to start calling Nydus Canals "Vaginal Canals." Oh, and whenever someone 4/5 pools, it's going to be an "Orgasm rush."
You missed that part :D
"The Protoss and Terrans, follow the male sexuality of building up, and up, and up, until finally it is the long awaited moment, while the Zerg build up, and then drop some, then build more… and more… and more… and more, and once dropped it may re-build up again, much sooner than it's male counterpart. "
I agree this may be 4channer... maybe I won't mail any photo >.>
Whoever made that article just fails to think on any other way. If you look it like that. how many things in life start as a small and then keep growing up until a they are at said point.
1. A woman wins in the story. 2. There are only 2 prominent zerg figures in the game that are either male or female. The female one is higher in power. 3. Unless you count the QUEEN. 4. Last mission of BW: Kerrigan > Mengsk + Raynor + Artanis + Dugalle + Zeratul. 5. If Zerg are female, then it shows females are stronger as all the heroes + infested terrans are stronger in Zerg form. Tell me if I missed anything.
And if zerg are female, how come every time I draw a greater spire it looks like a cock?
On August 14 2009 03:04 redneck_mike wrote: Okay: Ima do a complete list this time:
1. A woman wins in the story. 2. There are only 2 prominent zerg figures in the game that are either male or female. The female one is higher in power. 3. Unless you count the QUEEN.
4. Last mission of BW: Kerrigan > Mengsk + Raynor + Artanis + Dugalle + Zeratul. 5. If Zerg are female, then it shows females are stronger as all the heroes + infested terrans are stronger in Zerg form. Tell me if I missed anything.
And if zerg are female, how come every time I draw a greater spire it looks like a cock?
Well imho this is just some fat lady and/or frigid who needs a man pronto. There will always be things like this on some part of the web. This doesn't even comes close to hurt my feelings as a man or to touch me on any other level.
Just remember that hell broke lose about Mass Effect sex scene(s). I mean what sex? This is little off topic but Im trying to show that ppl will create issues when there isn't one just to create some self exposure or w/e.
The mission statement of the site says "Provoke dialog and debate about culture, society, politics, and issues " so...half successful I guess...other half resulted in a bunch of good humor lol..especially the science vessel balls, carrier penis, and ultralisk den vagina....
But in all seriousness, the article contains so many fallacies with it's 'evidence' that her argument is thrown out the window. I was going to list them but I'm sleepy.
She insults all women...."...the Zerg...The icky bugs" then..."...the Zerg are women". tsk tsk. The nurture part was a load of crap...definition: to feed, educate, train, help grow develop or cultivate. I never knew we had a tomodachi pet in Zerg form. I also like how she puts Terran and Protoss buildings as tall, rigid, sharp, etc but fails to mention that with the Zerg: Spire, tall Hive 'arms',
All those larvae....and no males to help create them? Zerg must be asexual then, with both reproductive organs, therefore neither male nor female....but BOTH! Oh noe!
...I never knew my girlfriend's vagina could teleport my penis...lord knows where "... it may emerge at the other end..."...lmao...
Finally...(sorry for the long post), if Zerg truly are the "reproductive economy"...Obama should just tell all the women in the U.S. to start breeding like..rabbits--oops! I mean...breeding like Zergs!
I honestly can't imagine hating myself enough to have to sit down and write out an article like this and post it on the web...but I do hate myself enough to read the entire article and I must say it was awful
Who would have thought that a crappy article I wrote poorly seven years ago would make for such a fun Monday!
In short, I got about 150 e-mails saying "OMFGN3WBTITSORGTFOKIKIKI", About 20 e-mails thanking me for my efforts, Ten more asking me if it was ok to repost it elsewhere. About five (six to be exact) asking me if I need laid, and if so if I'd like their numbers. ... two of which included cock-pics (Doubtfully from the sender themselves, but who knows). A few from feminists praising or decrying what I said, And one from a nice young girl who told me I was an inspiration. As for taking so long to respond to anything, That's not an e-mail address that I use any more, I was just curious and bored at work today and thought I'd see if anyone still used it for anything.
I don't really have time to respond to the multitude of good and bad points made in the last 24 pages, but I'll say a word or two:
Firstly, yeah, that article was pretty poorly written. I wrote it quickly to try to fit into a deadline, and VP picked it up and printed it. It wasn't my best work (by far), and as many of you pointed out, it had some definite problems. But hey, I was a Sophomore in college and I spent too much time playing SC and not enough time making my argument. If I'd known it would have reached such popularity a quarter of my life later, I might have worked harder on it. :-D
The important part is that the article was intended to spark discussion, which, seven years later, it did. I probably don't even agree with everything that I said in it, but I'm glad to see communities latching onto it and getting into interesting and important discussions due to it.
The "I'd smash Patriarchy" pic was hilarious to see on the first page of this discussion, as the editor of VP used to use it all the time. Nice bit of nostalgia there.
As was pointed out by some of the people who actually read the article, The point of this piece wasn't to attack Starcraft, or Blizzard for that matter, The purpose was to point out how negative gender stereotypes foment in our society and get expressed through our entertainment which thereby perpetuates those stereotypes. It's problematic, and I admit that the article failed hard at pointing out any good 'fixes' to the problem. But hey, I was young and naive. It doesn't really matter if the good folks at Blizzard knew that they were doing it, and it doesn't really matter if the players realize that it's happening, what matters is *if* it actually effects the way that people (of whatever gender) interact with each other in a negative way. And if it does, then it is something that needs to be looked at critically and fixed. This is true not only of Blizzard games, but of all gaming, and in fact of every aspect of our day to day lives. "The personal is political." We can't pretend that what we do day in and day out doesn't effect the people around us, and doesn't effect the world. The 76% pay discrepancy is just one fine example. The outcry of "TL;DL, gunna go fap now" is another fine one, As is my inbox full of "Fucking Feminist, get back in the Kitchun" And the insinuation that since I pointed out inequality I must be ugly, fat, recently dumped by a man, a transvestite, a lesbian, and I must have an insect fetish.
Rightly pointed out, so are "chick flicks". They're demeaning and degrading to real people who engage in real relationships.
I found it particularly interesting that the poll posted within the forum showed 36% (when I looked) of people thought that playing zerg did make them think that they represented women.
I took 12 pages of notes that I might some day turn into a proper response, But that day is not today.
Thank you all for your interest, My article provoked discussion on an important topic. It also provided me with a day full of laughter.
(Props to the person who pointed out the irony of mentioning Josie in the first line, in all this time, you're the first person to point out the hilarity of that. It was, of course, intentional.)
To the people who posited that it was an 'epic troll', You're somewhat right, and somewhat wrong. The point was to be over-the-top, To claim too much for the sake of provoking discussion... As others have pointed out, I really sucked at writing and critical theory then, So I failed pretty hard.
But hey, it made a discussion happen that wouldn't have happened otherwise.
meh, since I can't delete my post, let's make it an actual response instead...
On August 18 2009 05:33 Kelly Alerenson wrote: To the people who posited that it was an 'epic troll', You're somewhat right, and somewhat wrong. The point was to be over-the-top, To claim too much for the sake of provoking discussion...
But hey, it made a discussion happen that wouldn't have happened otherwise.
Thanks for the fun, ~Hugs~ ~~~Kelly.
Not worth responding to the initial article, as it was written 7 years ago, and the premise was pretty ridiculous. But this is a more interesting question: is "claiming too much" a valid way to make a serious point? It seems pretty dubious to me; you run the strong risk of tarring any valid points you make simply by association. Sure, it provokes a discussion of sorts, but not all discussions are worth having.
Thanks much for the hugs everybody! And for the warm welcome, I hope my appearance made everyone else's day as much as reading and laughing about all of this has made mine.
As for the question "am I the real Kelly Alerenson?", that's a fair one, I was surprised that on this (or the other ten or so sites that linked to that old post), no one had created a fake-me account to post some dumb-shit 'for epic lawls'. But yeah, I'm her. I mean... it's not my ""Real Name"", if that's what you mean, But Kelly Alerenson really is the name that I used to publish under. You'll see some of my other stuff in VP if you go back to the page that the article was in, or if you look up the Harbinger. I think I might have some stuff under that name somewhere else too, but I forget. ... ANYWAY, Yeah, it's me.
The question of "is taking things too far to get people to move a little in that direction an acceptable policy?" is an interesting one... to be honest, I don't know any more. At the time it seemed like a great idea, and it was a good stance to hold while I was in college and got to engage in super-long heated debates regularly. In the world outside of academia, however, you have an interesting point that often if you go TOO far with a claim, people will be so turned off immediately that you might in fact cause a reaction pushing people away from your original point. Either way, it's an interesting question qrs.
While I can understand the "parts" of the argument, I don't know if I neccessarily agree with the whole.
However one thing I can say about the article is that I feel it does a great job of summing up starcraft and introducting each race. The first part of the article is very well written (not that the rest isn't, but the first part I agree with and feel is done well).
(On a side note... if that really is the author of the article posting, why is ur icon Terran? :O)
I'm very surprised that you posted here. We rarely get a comment from the author of the linked article in a thread like this one. I hope you got a good grade for this work. I'm curious to know if you still play Starcraft from time to time and if you'll buy Starcraft 2 when it will come out.
On August 18 2009 07:27 Thratur wrote: I'm very surprised that you posted here. We rarely get a comment from the author of the linked article in a thread like this one. I hope you got a good grade for this work. I'm curious to know if you still play Starcraft from time to time and if you'll buy Starcraft 2 when it will come out.
~Hugs~ ~~~Thratur.
After I wrote that article, I kind of lived on starcraft for a few years. After college ended, I slowed down on playing, I played a lot of WCIII, but really got into modding, especially Mauls (Duke Wintermaul's Tower Defense Map, and its successors), I've shown up at the occasional LAN party where people advertised starcraft tourneys, and generally just owned them in a way that was totally unfun. The lack of ability to find people who could give me an actual challenge kind of made me stop playing,
To be honest I kind of got out of computer gaming entirely, (Went my rounds with various MMOs, staying with City of Heroes the longest) and let my box fall into disrepair. But, then when it started getting closer to SCII (and DIII) actually being a reality, I thought I'd buy a new computer to get ready for it... and then the release that it's not till next year made me cry a little bit in side.
In short, heck yeah, i've been waiting for SCII longer than anyone I know in person. I bought SC and BW within their first week on the shelf (respectively) I beta-ed for WCIII and Frozen Throne, and loved them both. And am likely to sign up for the Beta on SCII now that it's being talked about.
As for the unlikelyhood of my commenting on here.... well... most people are afraid of criticism of their work, But hey, ask Foucault: the author is dead. It's an interesting article, and sure, I'm the one who wrote it, But that doesn't make it me. It came out of me, but it's not me. If people hate it, they hate it. If people come to good discussions from it, I'm glad that something I created changed the world a little, but it's still not me.
Will there probably be things in SCII that bother my inner feminist? Yeah, I'm sure. Kerrigan with spike heels for instance. What the hell?! But that doesn't mean that I won't support the franchise, That doesn't mean that I don't think it's the best RTS that's ever been made, And that doesn't mean that I dislike Blizzard.
:-D And besides, Hell... it's about time. ~Kelly (~~~More hugs for anyone who hasn't gotten one yet~~~)
On August 18 2009 07:03 Kelly Alerenson wrote: The question of "is taking things too far to get people to move a little in that direction an acceptable policy?" is an interesting one... to be honest, I don't know any more. At the time it seemed like a great idea, and it was a good stance to hold while I was in college and got to engage in super-long heated debates regularly. In the world outside of academia, however, you have an interesting point that often if you go TOO far with a claim, people will be so turned off immediately that you might in fact cause a reaction pushing people away from your original point. Either way, it's an interesting question qrs.
~Kelly
It sounds like you're assuming that "taking things too far" can have the effect of "getting people to move a little in that direction", at least in the world of academia. I'm not sure what "acceptable policy" means in that context; if it works, it's acceptable as far as I'm concerned. I wasn't objecting on ethical grounds or anything.
The part I question is whether taking things too far ever results in getting people to move a little in that direction. It gets their attention, sure--this thread illustrates that--but it's negative attention: by definition something "provocative" is meant to provoke a reaction against it. "That's outrageous!" or something like that.
It's one thing if you can back it up, of course, but if even you admit that your statement is over-the-top, and not defensible, how do you plan to make people stick around for your real point? Even in the brick-and-mortar commercial world, bait-and-switch tactics are double-edged, but when the venue is the internet, and all you're selling is a repackaged version of an argument that people have heard many times before, and may have no particular interest in, I really doubt that the initial "false advertising", as it were, will garner any more customers for your viewpoint. The ones you do get will be the ones who would have come anyway.
You do get the advantage of notoriety ("any publicity is good publicity") getting people to hear about your article who would never have heard about it at all. Set against that is the disadvantage of possibly "turning people off", as you say, who would have been receptive to your point. (I find it hard to believe that this wouldn't be a risk in the world of academia either, but I don't live there, so I wouldn't know.)
In any case, "engaging in super-long heated debates" is another thing entirely. The more outrageous your position, the more fun it can be to debate it, if you're arguing for argument's sake. "Troll" has become too pejorative a term, don't you think? Maybe the time has come to reclaim it.
Hahaha, Reclaiming the name of Troll for all of the good that Trolling has done! I like it, could be fun. But I'm not sure if that's a fight that I'm up for myself at the moment.
In response to your actual point though, First I need to point out that seven years ago when I wrote that, the target wasn't the internet. I wrote that article for Vanguard Party, A small independent magazine, printed on paper and distributed to college kids.
Most of our readers were activists and punk rockers, and the way that they interacted was by arguing over the top points in order to get someone to make a small move in position. I remember one argument between an English major and a gutter punk, the former was arguing that the only effective government is a dictatorship while the other was arguing that any government is by definition ineffective. Their argument didn't change how the other saw government, but what it did do was provoke those listening to start discussing flaws and solutions within our American government.
Both arguments, I believe, were well over-the-top untenable positions, but they created a forum for discussion where people could make small changes in their actual views (in our ever-interesting bi-partisan system).
Do I think now that it is the most effective model? Probably not, But at the time it was my market, and so I wrote to it.
As for it being put online, that must have been either Kira, Bog King, or Rich... I didn't really know that it had found a home on the internet, and looking at it, I see that very little of VP is there at all. (A shame really, there are some way more inflaming articles than the one I wrote. :-D)
On August 18 2009 07:53 Kelly Alerenson wrote: In response to your actual point though, First I need to point out that seven years ago when I wrote that, the target wasn't the internet. I wrote that article for Vanguard Party, A small independent magazine, printed on paper and distributed to college kids.
OK, sorry for making assumptions.
Most of our readers were activists and punk rockers, and the way that they interacted was by arguing over the top points in order to get someone to make a small move in position. I remember one argument between an English major and a gutter punk, the former was arguing that the only effective government is a dictatorship while the other was arguing that any government is by definition ineffective. Their argument didn't change how the other saw government, but what it did do was provoke those listening to start discussing flaws and solutions within our American government.
Both arguments, I believe, were well over-the-top untenable positions, but they created a forum for discussion where people could make small changes in their actual views (in our ever-interesting bi-partisan system).
Hmm, I can see that. I guess I need to revise my position, then: taking positions to their logical extreme can stimulate fruitful discussion where people may make small changes in their actual views. Still not sure that this applies where the provocative issue is Nydus canals and the discussion is about misogyny, but your point is taken nonetheless. Thanks.
Sounds like a research essay that hasn't been proofread much. There are so many spelling and grammatical errors that the arguments seem less serious and more comical.
whoa. that article was... strange? i mean feminism is great but isnt this article to overkill? we can take it as the game is racist against black if you want. just figure something to write that makes it racist and wholah! you have an article that makes it against black >.< you can take it either way :O
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.swingingfromthevine.com/wp-content/feminism.gif)
![[image loading]](http://demotivationalblog.com/demotivational/2008/08/beer.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.motifake.com/motivational_posters/bcaeea03e8.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.xcomment.com/g3/img/poster___boobs052708113237.gif)
![[image loading]](http://www.ratemyeverything.net/image/4820/0/Epic_Boobs.ashx)
![[image loading]](http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f270/Hazen123/Posters/poster_feminism.jpg?t=1242503332)
![[image loading]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_xnmtl1pt5AA/SaHl3uI1OFI/AAAAAAAAAEs/_aRouGUJVOw/s400/feminism.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t36/bassjam1/woman.jpg)
because "achtung" is german. You wanted to point out her fault? Anyway just wanted to be sure.
![[image loading]](http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/b/be/C566ac33f3f66c4eac4b5f56.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.scraftwiki.net/images/thumb/f/fa/SCV2.jpg/120px-SCV2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/4172/tossgirl7hm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.demotivateus.com/posters/abuse-30-women-demotivational-poster.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://cashtactics.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/gun-to-head.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://theb2xpress.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/captain-obvious-4-mind-your-own-business-finished.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imagehoster.eu/images/grids5x4slgliesxd3z8.jpg)
