EPTStarCraft = Sexist? Some feminists just go too far - Page 20
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
hcliff454
Canada127 Posts
| ||
|
Mooncat
Germany1228 Posts
| ||
|
goswser
United States3519 Posts
| ||
|
BisuBoi
United States350 Posts
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? | ||
|
edahl
Norway483 Posts
EDIT: I'm going to go jerk of to porn with demeaned women in it. Later. | ||
|
Motiva
United States1774 Posts
| ||
|
Reason
United Kingdom2770 Posts
| ||
|
Schismotive
United States60 Posts
Something was mentioned about how male economy (terran) is better and female economy (zerg) is worse... so what does that mean? | ||
|
Gumbo
Canada807 Posts
| ||
MasterReY
Germany2708 Posts
| ||
|
s3raph
58 Posts
| ||
|
Rakanishu2
United States475 Posts
Here goes: 1) You get the idea. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
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? | ||
|
PobTheCad
Australia893 Posts
On May 26 2009 10:14 MasterReY wrote: anyone got the map in which jim raynor and sarah kerrigan fuck in a tank? lol that was duke y'all need some good old fashioned discipline bout time! | ||
|
MasterReY
Germany2708 Posts
| ||
|
tinman
United States287 Posts
On May 26 2009 19:16 MoltkeWarding wrote: 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: On the other hand, Goethe: 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. 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? Moltke, I have missed you. | ||
|
Foucault
Sweden2826 Posts
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. | ||
|
Foucault
Sweden2826 Posts
On May 26 2009 08:33 edahl wrote: Yeah, sure, whatever. EDIT: I'm going to go jerk of to porn with demeaned women in it. Later. The point of this is what? How old are you again? Wow you're cool | ||
|
BisuBoi
United States350 Posts
On May 26 2009 19:16 MoltkeWarding wrote: 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: On the other hand, Goethe: 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. 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. | ||
AltaiR_
Korea (South)922 Posts
But the Zerg buildings are neither angular, nor phallic, but explicitly gynic. then what the fuck is a spire? evo chamber = closest thing to a nutsack in sc? | ||
| ||
