|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
I've never thought much about feminism, but I thought of something today that made me look at it in a way I hadn't before.
To look at the world in a feminist perspective is not necessarily to find something to criticize. At its root, a feminist view is to observe the way things are and perceive some way in which patriarchy has made them that way. Criticism probably follows, but not always. Most feminist critiques of popular culture that get posted on TL (usually critiques of video games, in our case) are generally dismissed by the community. I think the basic idea of a feminist critique is sort of a foreign concept to most people in TL's demographic.
Let me sharply change subjects. Blizzard ranks its SC2 leagues, from weakest to strongest, like so: Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum, Diamond (excluding Masters/GM). It is likely that the placement of Diamond at the top of the heap has its (ancient) roots in De Beers' marketing efforts in the 1930s and beyond (first, their accomplishment of making a diamond ring a critical part of an engagement; second, the feat of convincing nearly everyone that purchasing a synthetic diamond simply isn't the same as buying an organic, yet identical, piece of carbon). Blizzard's choice to make Diamond the "premier" league reflects society's attitudes towards diamonds and the precious metals listed. Without the mysticism surrounding diamonds, brought about by De Beers, it is unlikely that society would view something that can be flawlessly replicated to be worth more than the most precious of metals.
De Beers' propaganda has been a source of great evil in this world (conflict diamonds, plus the unnecessary and massive transfer of wealth to De Beers over the last century). Given that, it makes a weird sort of sense to wish that Blizzard did not have a part to play in reinforcing the valuation of diamonds over materials like gold or platinum in our society. Yet if I were to write an article to that effect (Change the name of Diamond league, Blizzard!) I would promptly be laughed off TL. The same sort of ridicule is often applied towards feminist articles which follow the line of reasoning of my diamonds example. The word "ridiculous" shows up a lot in threads about feminists taking issue to game elements that they view as products of a patriarchal society and/or work environment ("save the princess" storylines, for example).
I guess the point of this article is, jointly, a) that being able to take a feminist perspective on things can highlight social ills that are not immediately evident, and b) that feminist critiques are not automatically ridiculous or trivial because of the mere fact that game companies are not going out of their way to perpetuate patriarchy when they implement patriarchal elements in their games, like saving the damsel in distress.
 
|
Northern Ireland23017 Posts
Feminists are often right, but their cause has a major, major image problem because the term itself is far too broad and ill-defined. A breakdown into say, I don't what terms I'd use, but ones with more specificity could be prudent.
I agree with what they say regarding games sometimes, but equally I feel it is rather like fussing over a cigarette that you drop on the floor when your house is already burning to the ground around you.
Feminists also far too often give women a pass in perpetuating the gender roles that exist today, in my experience.
|
Their fringe groups tend to be very loud these days. It sucks that these "social justice" types are appropriating every other social movement as well. They bring race and LGBT under their umbrella of "kyriarchy" theory as an extension of patriarchy, and have a bad habit of bullying and shouting down dissenters even when they are allied to the broader goals of the movement if they think something like "it is possible for women to be sexist towards men." They think issues of privilege give them an excuse to treat people like shit because they are by default an oppressor for the way they were born. When the third wave feminists got mixed in with postmodernist philosophy and tried to apply it to daily life that's when shit started going wrong for them. (Some people ACTUALLY subscribe to the belief that "logic is a tool of the partriarchy")
Maybe I've just been spending too much time on reddit.com/r/tumblrinaction and have had run ins with the group Shitredditsays on reddit, but I've also meant these people in real life and they are not pleasant to be around. Also please don't take this as a criticism of feminism as a whole but the growing social justice warrior fringe.
|
Its a very strange situation. I think the problem feminism has to face is that while in an ideal society (and even that I'm not certain about) there wouldn't be gender roles, the fact is gender roles exist and people for better or for worse have accepted them (both men *and* women). So is there impetus to change that, even within feminine ranks? I'm not sure. Are there guys who wish that they could be the dames (masculine form of damsel?) in distress, and have a strong woman come in and save him? Do guys wish they were portrayed with a more feminine, caring side in games (haha even I did it, wow...okay just caring)? Conversely, do girls make a fuss out of being seen as princesses, or caregivers, or do they see it as a natural description of a woman's typical nature? If people constantly reinforce an image, eventually people come to see it as naturally true. So from that perspective is it wrong for companies to market games that way? I don't think its necessarily bad.
It would be bad to deny a woman the opportunity to be something more, and that's why there should be *some* games that do show that side. But if the vast majority of males and females want to see a particular story, then by market forces that's what they should receive. By what right does a minority have to demand their views on how women and men should behave be reflected in the entertainment media watched or played by the rest of society?
The feminist case has to be one of equal opportunity, not necessarily equal representation in all roles. But I guess the complex part is, even if you are logically only presenting a particular representation of a woman in a particular role, over time, the repetition of that representation implies that that is all women can be...even if its an illogical conclusion, it is what people draw. So that's why I think there should be some games that present alternative representations of women, not just to appeal to the minority who desire that as per standard market forces that give people what they want, but also to prevent the majority from wrongly believing (irrationally) that that is all they are capable of.
Edit: Also, while I post this, I am seeing an advertisement for a game with a woman who is nearly completely naked. At this point, I have to consider the effect of saturation of male desires in games, vs that of female desires. If the media images presented to allure males into playing their games is so extreme that it causes objective harm in terms of how women are treated in the world, then it should be changed, even if women are not involved at all in terms of marketing or believing what they are capable of. But there must be a causal link established between this portrayal, and the activity it generates.
I guess that's why this might be different from the debeers case. Because in that case we're dealing with something which is objectively bad; the exploitation (and deaths) of many African workers. Although we should also consider whether, perhaps, on balance the demand for diamonds has lifted enough people out of what would otherwise be abject poverty that its worth it?
Interesting thinking!
|
Northern Ireland23017 Posts
100% agreed Nikoras. As a 'fellow traveller' of kinds with parts of the feminist movement, I actually went to some feminist meetings, tried to engage and got so much unwarranted abuse at times for the minute differences I had on certain issues.
Thought 'fuck that', and am back in my own little insular existence, free to chill out and think about issues without being called a 'rape apologist', 'perpetuer of patriarchy', along with those that made me out to not have a clue on the issues involved.
Tbh beyond that, I don't think some of the fringe/protest people ever want their goals to be realised. Their self-worth is imparted by being seen to be progressive, or influential in whatever protest group they are in. They lose that if their end goals are reached.
|
Canada5154 Posts
On April 09 2013 12:08 Wombat_NI wrote:
Feminists are often right, but their cause has a major, major image problem because the term itself is far too broad and ill-defined. A breakdown into say, I don't what terms I'd use, but ones with more specificity could be prudent.
I agree with what they say regarding games sometimes, but equally I feel it is rather like fussing over a cigarette that you drop on the floor when your house is already burning to the ground around you.
Feminists also far too often give women a pass in perpetuating the gender roles that exist today, in my experience.
I'll address each bolded point real quick because it made me twitch:
a) It's not that it's ill-defined, it's that people misuse it
b) This is a result of people misusing the term "feminism"
Detach the word from whatever bad experience you've had
Let me try to summarize feminism as succinctly as possible. At its core, Feminism is a stance promoting substantive equality with a particular focus on gender.
Substantive equality is the root of the ideology. That is to say, that equality is not a "treat everyone the same" affair, but rather, "recognize the differences and account for them" affair. The goal is to avoid a differential impact.
A simple example of this is workplace leave and discrimination on the basis of pregnancy. In Canada, at least, discrimination in the workforce on the grounds of pregnancy is a breach of equality rights.
Don't let some teenage kid who spouts "girl power" on her tumblr affect how you view a very real and very important lens you can use to view various issues.
|
Very nice analogy, never thought of it that way. Of course there's a question whether most people who label themselves feminists do think that way or is it just some intellectual ideal that rarely manifests outside of academic literature.
For the record if you ever decide to write an article criticizing Blizzard's choice of 'Diamond league', you'll have my support.
|
On April 09 2013 12:37 HawaiianPig wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 12:08 Wombat_NI wrote:
Feminists are often right, but their cause has a major, major image problem because the term itself is far too broad and ill-defined. A breakdown into say, I don't what terms I'd use, but ones with more specificity could be prudent.
I agree with what they say regarding games sometimes, but equally I feel it is rather like fussing over a cigarette that you drop on the floor when your house is already burning to the ground around you.
Feminists also far too often give women a pass in perpetuating the gender roles that exist today, in my experience. I'll address each bolded point real quick because it made me twitch: a) It's not that it's ill-defined, it's that people misuse it b) This is a result of people misusing the term "feminism" Detach the word from whatever bad experience you've had Let me try to summarize feminism as succinctly as possible. At its core, Feminism is a stance promoting substantive equality with a particular focus on gender. Substantive equality is the root of the ideology. That is to say, that equality is not a "treat everyone the same" affair, but rather, "recognize the differences and account for them" affair. The goal is to avoid a differential impact. A simple example of this is workplace leave and discrimination on the basis of pregnancy. In Canada, at least, discrimination in the workforce on the grounds of pregnancy is a breach of equality rights. Don't let some teenage kid who spouts "girl power" on her tumblr affect how you view a very real and very important lens you can use to view various issues.
I agree with you in general, but not all of feminism's negative baggage can be attributed merely to teenage girls and their misunderstanding. There are ideologies that fall under the "feminist" umbrella that put forth some very gender essentialist and in my mind harmful ideas; granted, many of these are hardly mainstream nor acknowledged by the reasonable majority of feminists, but they do exist, and not only because of youthful ignorance.
None of that changes the fact that feminism is indeed a useful lens with which to look at the world and attempt to better understand things.
|
Northern Ireland23017 Posts
It's not as simple as that. Feminism is one of the few subjects in my undergrad degree that I actually took an interest in, and vaguely knew my shit about I guess. I see it as like the term 'the left', which is an umbrella term that encompasses many, many subdivisions under some basic overarching principles. Feminists who wish to supplant patriarchy with some Amazonian society, will still be seen to share an overall platform as somebody who has much less radical views.
I just see the term as one of the biggest problems with the entire movement/ideology. There's a stubborn refusal to accept the near-poisonous nature of the term nowadays and, if not 'rebrand' then at least take into account that such misconceptions exist. Again, this is informed from personal experiences, isn't entirely reflective of the wider movement, but is so, so common with my dealings with those that self-define as feminists that I do genuinely believe it is reflective of a wider malaise.
I speak as somebody who actually is feminist by the definition you expanded upon, and whose main bone of contention is the media culture in which we live in and how that adversely impacts on women.
|
On April 09 2013 12:30 Nikoras wrote:
Their fringe groups tend to be very loud these days. It sucks that these "social justice" types are appropriating every other social movement as well. They bring race and LGBT under their umbrella of "kyriarchy" theory as an extension of patriarchy, and have a bad habit of bullying and shouting down dissenters even when they are allied to the broader goals of the movement if they think something like "it is possible for women to be sexist towards men." They think issues of privilege give them an excuse to treat people like shit because they are by default an oppressor for the way they were born. When the third wave feminists got mixed in with postmodernist philosophy and tried to apply it to daily life that's when shit started going wrong for them. (Some people ACTUALLY subscribe to the belief that "logic is a tool of the partriarchy")
Maybe I've just been spending too much time on reddit.com/r/tumblrinaction and have had run ins with the group Shitredditsays on reddit, but I've also meant these people in real life and they are not pleasant to be around. Also please don't take this as a criticism of feminism as a whole but the growing social justice warrior fringe.
I heavily dislike how the "social justice warrior fringe"* has taken the rather neutral concept of "privilege" and attached such a negative connotation to it that it is now perceived as an attack. (Yes, privilege exists in varying forms. Yes, it is something everyone should be aware of. But in no way does someone's privileged status give you the excuse to be a nasty, vicious cyber-bully. That's just basic human manners.)
The positive side of all this is that I do think women, especially in circles associated with higher education, are aware of the very serious issues that feminism grapples with on a daily basis. Being loud and radical has that effect, and I do think that some noise (even radical noise) is better than no noise at all. There's a problem. We all know that now, even if we don't know how to correct it. The fact that it's even being discussed these days on video game forums of all things is a sign of progress. (Though admittedly TL is well-moderated, so perhaps it is a bad example.)
|
Popular feminism tends to be problematic where kids on tumblr go in hordes to blame everything in the world on men and patriarchy and dismiss any problems or disadvantages men might suffer due to feminism. You don't need to be an expert to realize how one sided family law is for example, and yet when men try to speak up about the bullshit of becoming a working mule to feed a family you should no longer legally be tied to, you get shut down by screaming hordes of feminists trying to destroy your shit.
There are many agreeable points in feminism, but the way it is practiced by many people, even high profile spokespersons make it detestable in many different ways.
|
Northern Ireland23017 Posts
Being loud and radical can also have the converse effect, namely to bore people into apathy, or cause others to feel threatened and mobilise in other ways.
For example, the 'Men's Right Activists' that seem to be springing up around the place. I've seen these guys written off as a joke, and in terms of agreeing/disagreeing with them, I'd be very much in the latter camp. To my mind though, they do reflect something, things just don't occur in a vacuum with no underlying cause.
|
Northern Ireland23017 Posts
On April 09 2013 12:50 ktimekiller wrote:
Popular feminism tends to be problematic where kids on tumblr go in hordes to blame everything in the world on men and patriarchy and dismiss any problems or disadvantages men might suffer due to feminism. You don't need to be an expert to realize how one sided family law is for example, and yet when men try to speak up about the bullshit of becoming a working mule to feed a family you should no longer legally be tied to, you get shut down by screaming hordes of feminists trying to destroy your shit.
There are many agreeable points in feminism, but the way it is practiced by many people, even high profile spokespersons make it detestable in many different ways.
Feminists would often agree with you on that. They see the family unit and the demarcation of roles on a female/male basis as something that is undesirable, and the bias in family law is reflective of something that they desire to be changed.
|
@ Wombat: My dealings with feminists have been overwhelmingly positive outside of online activity. Even the more radical feminists I've met in real life have been pleasant people. Again, personal experience, as you say.
I do think online activity in particular should not be taken as an indication of what a group is "at large," as we all know what happens under the protection of anonymity. Once again, I think there's a positive side to the entire social network equation: It's being discussed! Sort of ...? If you want to call that a discussion ...
Okay, and here is the terrible thing about using sites like Tumblr and Twitter and Facebook in particular to "discuss" feminist and other issues: It's not really a discussion. People use these sites because they like to hear themselves talk. They like to feel like they're being heard, and it's amazingly easy to attach yourself to minority groups so that you no longer feel like you have no value in the world. I mean, who actually has worthwhile discussions on Tumblr of all places? It's about reblogging pretty pictures and the generic flavor of the week, not about debating or discussing, and its format makes it susceptible to mindless attacks, where you end up just bullying a person out of internet existence. It's disgusting behavior.
Anyways, sorry, I started off talking about feminism and devolved into a incoherent rant about social networking these days.
EDIT: And despite what I sound like, I am actually a feminist (and I do have a stake in many of the issues the discuss), just a frustrated one. -.-
|
I've always thought of feminism as more of a lens through which to view the world rather than an ideology. To be a feminist is to be aware of how women and femininity is treated and portrayed in society; it does not necessarily mean screaming about discrimination all the time. Granted this lens will often lead to action, which is why I've been attempting to remove the word, "bitch" from my vocabulary, as it really is misogynistic in all the same ways that the word, "faggot" is homophobic.
|
The whole "patriarchal society" viewpoint seems stupid to me in comparison to the other viewpoints one can apply to the minor issues feminists are obsessing over today. A good example would be the recent damsel in distress discussion. Keep in mind these arguments are just examples, and I haven't put in the effort that I would put in a real argument that I truly believed in.
Economic viewpoint: Those video games were primarily enjoyed by guys and produced for them. Girls didn't (and still don't) have as much of a place in the games market at that time as guys and so shouldn't be complaining that the product is not to their tastes since they aren't actually buying it.
If girls want to influence this market, they should actually take part in the video game market by buying games, especially the ones they want to play, thus showing that girls are a large group of consumers and should be catered to in order for the video game companies to earn money and be successful.
Biological viewpoint: Guys naturally enjoy this type of plot. It isn't a "product of a patriarchal society." It is only natural and does not directly harm women. Removing this type of plot will accomplish nothing since the problem is not a product of our society and could actually be interpreted as hypocrisy.
Feminists fight against what they feel is a patriarchal society forcing women to adopt values that are not their own, but since enjoying this type of plot is only natural for guys, by removing it women would in effect be forcing values on guys that guys do not share.
(To go on a tangent, I am aware that the dominance of males in video games is a self-reinforcing cycle. Guys buy most of the games, causing the games to be made for guys, which drives aware the girls and so on and so on.)
Another issue I take with the minor issues feminists tackle today is that determining whether or not these issues are actually issues and if they should be fixed is incredibly difficult.
One first needs to determine whether the issue is biological or social. If it is biological, then it can't and shouldn't be fixed.
If it is social, though, one needs to determine what harm it does (if any). One also needs to determine whether or not it justifies the passing of any laws. For example, outlawing "save the princess" plots would be utterly retarded.
Finally, one needs to determine what measures should be instituted. Since the end goal with these measures is to actually change an entire society's values, incredible effort must be put into this step.
We could spend months, maybe even years, and spend massive amounts of money and man-hours on just one of these minor problems feminists are tackling. The complexity of these issues is just mind-boggling.
|
Northern Ireland23017 Posts
On April 09 2013 12:56 babylon wrote:
@ Wombat: My dealings with feminists have been overwhelmingly positive outside of online activity. Even the more radical feminists I've met in real life have been pleasant people. Again, personal experience, as you say.
I do think online activity in particular should not be taken as an indication of what a group is "at large," as we all know what happens under the protection of anonymity. Once again, I think there's a positive side to the entire social network equation: It's being discussed! Sort of ...? If you want to call that a discussion ...
Okay, and here is the terrible thing about using sites like Tumblr and Twitter and Facebook in particular to "discuss" feminist and other issues: It's not really a discussion. People use these sites because they like to hear themselves talk. They like to feel like they're being heard, and it's amazingly easy to attach yourself to minority groups so that you no longer feel like you have no value in the world. I mean, who actually has worthwhile discussions on Tumblr of all places? It's about reblogging pretty pictures and the generic flavor of the week, not about debating or discussing, and its format makes it susceptible to mindless attacks, where you end up just bullying a person out of internet existence. It's disgusting behavior.
Anyways, sorry, I started off talking about feminism and devolved into a incoherent rant about social networking these days.
Social networking is shit for discussion of anything of vague importance, at least in the West. That I agree on. Actually I get most of my interesting discussion/debates here on TL, if you come into threads with an open mind there's a lot of value.
I don't know what that says for much of the rest of our media culture that I genuinely do use TL for much of my news discussion mind 
The feminists I know 'irl' are generally pretty pleasant people as well, I just completely disagree with their methodologies sometimes, while still maintaining a support for their underlying causes/desired endgoals.
|
Nothing is wrong with feminism.
Something is wrong with feminists in general however, every feminist I have met has acted like all men are rapists etc.
Women are not a minority, women are not repressed in the western world, there is very little reason for the hate mongering this fringe group seems to vocalise consistantly.
|
On April 09 2013 12:50 ktimekiller wrote:
Popular feminism tends to be problematic where kids on tumblr go in hordes to blame everything in the world on men and patriarchy and dismiss any problems or disadvantages men might suffer due to feminism. You don't need to be an expert to realize how one sided family law is for example, and yet when men try to speak up about the bullshit of becoming a working mule to feed a family you should no longer legally be tied to, you get shut down by screaming hordes of feminists trying to destroy your shit.
There are many agreeable points in feminism, but the way it is practiced by many people, even high profile spokespersons make it detestable in many different ways.
Pretty much this, there might be reasonable, self-proclaimed feminists out there that I'd totally convene with (as I do agree with the general equality concept behind it), but the term itself is so attached to illogical idiocy in my mind that I just tend to shy away even from these people, which are quite clearly the minority of the movement.
|
Northern Ireland23017 Posts
On April 09 2013 13:03 zbedlam wrote:
Nothing is wrong with feminism.
Something is wrong with feminists in general however, every feminist I have met has acted like all men are rapists etc.
Women are not a minority, women are not repressed in the western world, there is very little reason for the hate mongering this fringe group seems to vocalise consistantly.
They're not legally discriminated against for the most part, I still feel there is much to say about media culture and portrayals of women in that sense that is an important to discuss and debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
