Well, that’s not boring, I love education policy! The problem with that is, let’s say I disagree with you about education policy. If I point out that the U.S. spends more per-pupil than all but 2 or 3 other countries in the world and that it’s more likely that the problem is mismanagement of education funds than a lack of them, and then you disagree with that and we go back and forth a bit, how on earth have we done even the smallest thing to “reduce flaming misogyny?”
While it is important to discuss these things, and while reasonable, decent people can disagree on how to obtain a more equal world in regards to gender, more respect (or less reflexive disrespect) for women in all fields of work and thought, I honestly don’t know how this helps the problem of emotionally disturbed/disabled individuals who lash out at women in threatening ways.
Then again, maybe there is a way to identify those people and engage them in the kind of larger context conversations you’re talking about, and in such a way that they’re less likely to “go off” while considering their positions. But then, I honestly don’t know, which is why I asked, I suppose!
EDIT: Upon rereading this comment, I think your point possibly became slightly clearer. The more we all discuss gender issues, through the years, there will simply be fewer misogynists whose emotional problems manifest this way. I think there are fewer misogynists now than there were, say, 50 years ago (or at least a smaller percentage of them, anyway). And I think that’s due to a change in culture that began with conversations. Is that kind of/sort of what you’re getting at?
Misogyny played for lulz is sad, but is best intentionally ignored.
Misogyny based on blind hatred should probably be dealt with like other blind hatred, which can involve forced correction for infractions or counseling and therapy.
Misogyny based on ignorance can only be defused by dialog IF that person is open to that dialog…
Which to me, means it’s very important to try to make one’s messages palatable to the people who need it most. Shouting your ideas into an echo chamber might feel good, but is not a very effective way to get your point across if your intent is to influence people you disagree with.
Yeah, the rereading is important here. I tend to look at misogyny as an ‘excuse’ as opposed to a motivator.
Whether one believes in evolution, intelligent design, or Divine Creation, one thing is certain. Since the beginning of history, human beings have been at war with each other, under the pretext of religion, ideology, ethnicity and other reasons. And no civilization has ever willingly given up its most powerful weapons.
– Mohamed ElBaradei
Might want to check the logic on this though, is she enticing people to send death threats to her?
Whoa… i’m not implying that at all.
I’m saying that they are playing into that phenomenon - where persecution breeds attention and credibility - not that she’s engineering it that way (though that has been argued by others).
I don’t believe you think she’s so wrong you have to threaten her with physical violence.
As i say, I don’t believe any level of wrong warrants that in polite society. And again, the effect is often opposite of intent anyway so it is exponentially unacceptable.
(dang just discovered that quote user thing when i hilite text… that is SLICK!)
Oh I agree they’re disturbed. Death threats? Rape threats??? Seriously? Who does that?
But I think the reason for the hate she gets may be more subtle than it appears on the surface.
The videos I linked to touch upon it as well - yes, she’s a woman. Yes, she’s a feminist. But is the reason why she is hated because she is a woman and/or feminist? And not say, because she’s a histrionic crank that has the presumption of appropriating an entire industry and hobby base for her own personal gain and telling them how they should think and be? As far as I can tell, nobody… in the history of the world… likes that.
If a girl forces her way into a party and starts telling everyone how much they suck, is it misogyny when they yell her down and tell her to GTFO?
Thank you. This is, imo, the reasonable position. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with that. Games haven’t made men who sexualize hot women. We sexualize hot women just fine on our own! And we have been doing it for as long as human beings have walked the earth. But in the disagreeable parlance of a certain branch of feminism, that kind of “sexualization” and “objectification” is unequivocally wrong. May as well argue that salivating at food is wrong. We are, to the core of our beings animals. Is it so shocking when our animalistic appetites manifest in our higher endeavors?
And again, that’s the reasonable position. Not to demonize the appetites and instincts of men as inherently evil but to acknowledge that our appetites and instincts are not the end all be all of human existence and to make accommodations for the appetites of instincts of others. There’s nothing wrong with our bikini models but there are lots of things in society that take precedence over our simple lusts. We want a society that is fair and egalitarian and welcoming to men, women, all, whether or not they’re bikini models. That’s the reasonable position that many self reporting “feminists” can’t seem to grasp - a prioritization of valid impulses and not the negation of inborn natures.
That’s part of the problem though - that statement cuts both ways. As I would argue, her theses are not valid positions. They’re supported with manufactured and cherry picked examples and more than anything, they are a reflection of a certain kind of sensibility and not an overarching ethical mandate for society.
That being the case, maybe she’s the one that should have thought, “maybe it’s not about me!”
Don’t worry, there’s no conversation about whether it is credible. There is one misguided person who speculated about the credibility of threats they knew nothing about and one angry person declaring the threats (or at least their credibility) is a hoax to scam money. Then there are people informing them they are wrong or ignoring them.
That’s not a conversation, and we certainly don’t have to make it into one.
If someone says that men are being held back from becoming childcare workers by feminists then they are a raging idiot. Yes, the attitudes that keep men out of this work are largely perpetuated by the same culture that discriminates against women, which is exactly which is seems weird to say that you can’t be sexist against men - the exact same sexism that hurts women is negatively affecting men as well.
And as long as we keep saying that it’s laughable that there is a widescale problem with men staying away from “women’s work” men who want to do things like care for children will continue to understand they are being laughed at. I don’t see how it’s a competition. If I was saying, “There are certainly instances where women are discriminated against but to say that they are nearly as bad as the discrimination against the severely mentally ill is laughable” that would be a very strange point to try to make.
I see how a discussion of discrimination against men is beside the point and why “Not All Men” is total BS. That doesn’t mean that discrimination against men isn’t real and it shouldn’t be belittled because it doesn’t stand up to discrimination against women. It’s just another way that we tell men they should just toughen up, and it’s all part of the same problem.
And this is 90% of her purpose, anyway! Even if you ignore all of her arguments, even if you watch the videos with the sound off, she’s still contributing positively just by pointing out that misogyny is all around us. She’s definitely made me take a closer look at the games I’m playing–where are the female protagonists? Why are female characters so paper thin? Why are they handled differently than male characters? I don’t even remember most of her points from the last few videos, but I remember the image of Princess Peach in a literal ball, in a game in one of the most popular game series in history.
And to claim that she’s cherry-picking is to be pretty ignorant of the game industry and the particular, most popular games in it. She makes use of Red Dead Redemption in several examples. This is my favorite game of all time. It’s one of the most popular games ever made by Rockstar, arguably the most successful game company in history. It’s a game praised both for its gameplay and its compelling story and voice acting. It’s a game I played the shit out of, even getting all the stupid item collection achievements.
And yet, this is a game in which I clearly remember rescuing the same saloon hooker at least 6 times in exactly the same way. I had actually forgotten some of the other violence against wallpaper women that happens. RDR has a few important, not-paper-thin female characters in it, but that doesn’t justify the cliched use of misogynistic violence in the rest of the game.
The other games in her list are equally popular and important. God of War III (with an example that’s genuinely shocking, even in this context), Hitman 2, Watch_Dogs, GTA’s both 4 and 5. (She could just as easily have included examples from GTA 3, but it would have been redundant.) None of the scenes she shows are easily avoidable, they’re all part of the core game. In most of these cases you have to participate in the scenes to continue the game, so we aren’t talking about tangential material in niche games here, we’re talking about required material in massive, massive Triple-A games. It’s insulting to the intelligence to call this “cherry-picking.”
I take it you didn’t read that. If you fail to register, while you’re unlikely to be prosecuted for it, it is in fact a violation of the Military Selective Service Act and is punishable by prison time up to five years and/or up to a $250,000 fine. At most, though, you’ll probably find it extremely difficult to get financial assistance for college and won’t be able to work for the Feds without doing so. And if you fail to sign up before you’re 26, you’re probably SOL.
As far as I know, women, despite having the right to join the military and enter combat, are not forced to sign up for possible future conscription in order to get Federal aid or to hold a Federal job. (Come to that, given that recruiters send out information to men before they sign up for SSS, the whole thing is silly.)
Yes you are, look, you can speak for yourself, I’ll grant that you can disagree with her but you can’t speak for the people you disavow. To say they are playing into a phenomenon is to miss that they are going apeshit banananas over something you wouldn’t get so mad about either.
Point is, does she deserve this level of response or not?
She doesn’t? great! then its fully on the trollies to account for their behavior, if that weakens anybody’s position, so be it.
Again, is the reason she gets hate, enough of a reason to threaten violence?
Look, you’re presenting a reasonable front while attacking a position no one is defending, her credibility.
You’ve deliberately misinterpreted what I wrote. I feel like I’m being trolled. I’ll bow out now.
Selective service was devised by men in positions of power only interested in protecting their positions of power. The exclusion of women is firmly based in the misogynist notion that women require protection, in no small part, because they birth the canon fodder.
All of which is completely OT, nor is it germane to Sarkeesian receiving death threats containing her address and the address of her parents because she dared point out some pretty obvious flaws in some people’s favored form of entertainment.
Yes, we know. But nobody has actually faced prison time or fines in 30 years. So like I said, yes, it should be eliminated, but it’s hardly evidence of societal misandry.
Hello mods, it looks like all my posts in this thread have been removed, I suspect either accidentally or because of a misunderstanding. Please review?
As the saying goes, someone is wrong on the internet… and there are many lengthier comments going on the derailed train.
So, sexism against women is ok when women are doing it? If women but not men were not allowed to drive, get a federal job, and put into a legal limbo if they don’t sign up for the possibility of being shipped off at random to a foreign land where they may likely be given orders leading to their murder, that would not be considered sexist? While I’d say the men’s rights people are generally ridiculous, I figured I would just mention a blindingly obvious example of sexism against men.
I don’t know, but it’s possible your posts were responding to a post or posts that were the actual problem, and that means all the fruit of the poison tree get deleted too.
And then the military industrial complex will crush their foes with a rainbow shot from their magical unicorn? I’m sure Rockstar games is going to take a serious second look at how sexist GTA is, and they’ll make a serious effort to make it gender-neutral.
I have never seen anyone threaten to kill George Lucas, his immediate family, and his parents. I certainly haven’t seen anyone post the addresses of these people in the context of these threats. And I find it difficult to believe that George Lucas gets a lot of people graphically threatening to rape him and telling him how much they would enjoy it. Instead, people manage to convey their disgust with Mr. Lucas without resorting to specific threats of death an sexual violence.
