Death threats drive Anita Sarkeesian from her home

[mathew]

@jinchoung

You say you want it repealed but if you don’t think it means anything unless it’s enforced (such that it can’t be cited in your opponent’s argument)… the proper question would be… WHY?

OK, let me try and take it slowly and clearly.

The fact that the law exists in the form it does says that historically, in the past, US society held that men should be sent to war but women should not. (Even though when push came to shove, as in the Civil War, women did serve.)

The fact that the law has not been enforced in 30 years, combined with the fact that women are now 14.5% of the soldiers in the US military, says that society no longer holds that men should be sent to war but women should not. Hence the law does not indicate misandry in society; at best it indicates historical misandry, which has been overcome.

Although the law is never enforced these days, it’s generally a bad idea to keep old obsolete laws on the books for a couple of reasons. Firstly because it makes the system of laws bigger and harder for people to understand and deal with; and secondly because politicians often take advantage of old obsolete laws to push their agendas. Hence, the law should be eliminated as soon as is practical.

In fact, the grabbing of obsolete laws and suddenly deciding to enforce them selectively is such a problem that there’s a concept called desuetude by which the legal system tries to reduce the problem.

Was that clear enough?

@jinchoung

Your point, which is a continuation from your previous post is that somehow, its lack of enforcement means something critical.

Yes, it means that the law is no longer in keeping with society’s values, so society has chosen not to enforce it. There are many such laws in various states: sodomy laws making it a crime to be gay, laws against walking dogs on long leashes, laws making it illegal to smoke marijuana, laws saying atheists can’t be elected to government, laws forbidding interracial marriage, and so on.

Massachusetts went through and tried to eliminate a bunch of obsolete laws a few years back. For example, it was illegal to snore in Massachusetts unless you ensured that all doors and windows were closed and locked. Did that indicate that the state was engaging in bias against people who were afflicted with a medical condition that was not their fault? Was it placing an unfair and discriminatory burden on them? No, because the law was never enforced. Massachusetts did not, in fact, engage in discrimination against my wife for her sleep apnea. We slept with windows open many times and didn’t get raided by police even once.

So if I saw a thread where snorers were being criticized, and I charged in and cited this law as evidence that snorers were actually subject to systematic unfairness and persecution, people would quite rightly consider me an idiot.

Applying this lesson to the current thread is left as an exercise for the reader.

[enso]

@SirCracked

Individual men facing gender discrimination is sexism.

No, it isn’t because men do not face systematic (know that word?) discrimination specifically because of their sex. Women do.

[SirCracked]

Systemic bias examples are covered in the multiple posts made yesterday, as well as an acknowledgment of the difference in magnitude. Give them a read.

[enso]

@SirCracked

Systemic bias examples are covered in the multiple posts made yesterday, as well as an acknowledgment of the difference in magnitude. Give them a read.

I did but, no offense, you’re making excuses. The handful of instances where men run into bias because of their sex don’t compare to the overwhelming issues women run into constantly. I mean, shit, people post flowcharts on when it is ok to catcall a woman (never, basically) because people literally need to be told not to do that crap. A few men run into issues is not systematic sexism.

[grumblebum]

@anon50609448

I think a big problem here is that we have a system of rational justification that is built up over people’s emotions… But most rational arguments are merely masks over emotions and tribalism.

Oh, agreed. (Feel free to check out my long-standing “personal motto,” on my bbs profile.) The denizens of bbs are better than many other online communities in recognizing this basic human foible. Better, but not perfect, and it can still feel mob-ish around here at times.

@anon50609448

I think she could do a better job delivering her message, but unless she wants my advice or someone else who is making a similar video wants my advice I’m not sure what my critique is accomplishing.

To me, this skirts the edge of a trend in thinking about criticism that I’m uncomfortable with; basically, the “if you haven’t done x, you can’t talk about x” argument. Personally, engaging in debate/criticism has nothing much to do with whether the “target” can hear me, or whether they’d find it helpful. I mean, it’s common for prominent recipients of prominent criticism to pointedly ignore same. I don’t expect Sarkeesian or any other public figure to ever read my random thoughts on their work. I don’t even particularly expect to change minds within a given thread. It’s more of a form of mental exercise; I live in something of a cultural bubble, can’t enjoy deep argument at my very modest continuing-education “university,” etc. It just feels good to tangle and stretch, you know?

However, while I can’t exactly share your inclination to be quiet in that particular, I can agree that a temporary hold may be in order. The waters are indeed toxic, at present. But simply from a more shallow perspective, it’s just bad business for me; I risk participating in a mutual ass-showing, as in the other thread, and – more importantly – exhausting whatever small pool of goodwill I’ve banked during my years on bbs.

If I want to scrap, perhaps a better use of mental effort would be to engage the MRA-types and apologists who’ve recently popped up. A selective, limited-time enlistment in the proverbial mob, if you will. Of course, I generally prefer to punch up (or at least laterally), but what can ya’ do?

[anon50609448]

@albill

No, it isn’t because men do not face systematic (know that word?) discrimination specifically because of their sex. Women do.

It looks like you are here to argue about the definition of the word sexism. Go ask ten people on the street what it means to them and I best you’ll find that all ten think it is discrimination against someone on the basis of their sex or gender. If I said that a man being refused a job at a child care center because people weren’t comfortable with a man caring for their kids was sexism, you would be in a small minority by disagreeing. That man could, where I live, take that childcare centre to a human rights tribunal and have it found (provided evidence existed) that the centre was discriminating against him on the basis of his sex, then achieve some kind of redress for the sexism - it’s written down in laws.

What definition are you appealing to? Why is that source’s definition so important? Can’t we just use words are they are commonly understood in a conversation?

I said above, (apparently while “making excuses”) that the discrimination men face as a result of being men mostly stems from the exact same phenomenon as the discrimination women face from being women. Discrimination against men is almost always discrimination against men who want to do things that are seen as women’s things because men aren’t supposed to want to be like women because women are worse than men. That’s the logic of it. I don’t even see how one thing can exist without the other. How can men hate women without policing themselves and other men to ensure they aren’t like women?

@albill

A few men run into issues is not systematic sexism.

And while we are on the definition of words, give me any definition of systematic that would not include the fact that men can’t safely wear dresses in public. You can’t, all you can do is diminish or belittle that as an issue.

But if you want to play “who’s got it worse” then just shut up about sexism and let people with serious mental illnesses have the stage. If instead you want to recognize that wrongs should be redressed, we should be kinder to one another, and we should stop discrimination based on sex and all sorts of other things, then stop making it worse by telling men they should just “toughen the fuck up” because they don’t have real problems.

[gatto]

just keep in mind that you aren’t cat called at everyday when you walk down the street in anything less than a burqa, that your pay for your job isn’t statistically, systematically lower than your other gendered peers.

sarkeesian can inflame the internet for factually pointing out the sexist tropes which exist in almost every major video game. it’s insane.

someone else said it better higher up, but personal events, however important at the individual level, do not equate to the daily, systematic bull*@!# that women have to put up with. both the anecdotes and the statistics can be simultaneously true.

[anon50609448]

@Olo

By now the police should have arrested someone, can’t they track the IP or something?

No they can’t. If they could then those copyright trollies would have a point when they asked for addresses linke to IPs to be released. If someone wants to make a few untraceable tweets that is not a very hard thing to do. You could do it from most public libraries.

@Olo

I don’t know if it’s a crime, but faking a death threat seems serious.

Let’s wait and see what the police finds out.

Yes, faking death threats would be a crime. At the very least she would have filed a false report of a crime to police. Not to mention that fact that if it was ever conclusively linked back to her it would presumably mean the end of her career and the need to go into hiding for quite a while because a lot of people would be pretty mad about that.

At any rate, to claim that these threats were faked you’d have to buy into a somewhat difficult to swallow premise: that she’s never received any death threats at all. What could possibly motivate a person to fake death threats when there are tons of real ones. Considering the large body of reports of women in tech receiving death and rape threats you’d pretty much have to think there was a massive conspiracy. In the thread above someone helpfully gives a list of many people who have received death threats for all kinds of reasons.

So maybe there is a vast conspiracy to make us think that women in tech received threats. Or maybe Sarkeesian is somehow the only woman who criticizes video games who doesn’t receive threats. Or maybe, despite a long list of real threats she could point to, she decided to risk criminal charges, her career and presumably most or all of her friends by inventing a threat instead.

If somehow, “Those threats were real” does not seem like a simpler explanation then you just don’t have a lot of contact with reality.

[SatinSatan]

Let us not forget that while women were not drafted into the military - that many CHOSE to enlist in the capacities that were available to them - as WACS, nurses, etc… Some of those women were injured or died while serving. Not to mention and/or lost their entire family as a result of war. The thing about military action is that it affects EVERYONE. But go on yelling about male “cannon fodder” and the draft.

You are the only person who is saying

@Shane_Simmons

that women are the real victims of males-only conscription,

which again has nothing to do with the topic here. I’m not clear where your logic twists this into

@Shane_Simmons

“why don’t we teach men not to rape” is actually just another way of shitting on women?

If you cannot comprehend that misogyny affects EVERYONE - that is if you are a boy or man who does not spend 100% of his time in a male only environment. Misogyny affects your mother, sister, aunt, the woman next to you on public transit, your waitress, your doctor - it affects every single non-male person you encounter - over 50% of people ! It affects their income, sense of safety in the world, their ability to achieve. It affects the social structure at large.

While you have jumped into this discussion to derail it - “men are cannon fodder !” and are now taking the “not all men” stance this is your actual belief about the state of things as they are:

@Shane_Simmons

Yeah, we could talk about how we need to talk about teaching our kids that this behavior is wrong, but…not only have trollies existed on the internet since it went public, trollies predate the Internet. I’m guessing we’ve always had people who say shitty things just to wind other people up, and it’s arrogant to think we’re going to fix that.

Death threats, rape threats are not just “people (who)say shitty things just to wind people up”. But you don’t want to bother challenging the people who make these threats because people (as in the mostly male people who make these type of threats) have always existed as that is just how people are ? And they do this stuff in secret because they know its wrong (v.s. enjoying the fear it creates in their victims and the aspect of cat and mouse game playing). But don’t bother talking to your children, nieces/nephews, neighbours, dude-bro drinking buddies, or any other people who participate in what is essentially terrorism targeted against one person because they have an issue with their opinion ? Because that’s just how people are always going to be ? WTF ?

[enso]

@anon50609448

If I said that a man being refused a job at a child care center because people weren’t comfortable with a man caring for their kids was sexism, you would be in a small minority by disagreeing.

Nice hypothetical. Are we making up cases or talking about actual instances now? I can make up all kinds of cases for folks too.

If you’re trying to convince me that there is institutionalized and systematic sexism against men simply for being men and it is on par with what women face in their jobs and every time they go outside, I’m just going to laugh you out of the room.

(As to men wearing dresses in public, I really don’t think fashion codes meet the bar and you need to come here to the Bay area where plenty of men wear dresses but thanks for the complete non sequitur.)

[gatto]

actually, the fact that people like tim schaefer and other game industry veterans are saying: hey, watch these videos, is a really positive sign.
gta is not likely to have fewer dead hookers, but red dead redemption might.
games are made by people, and people learn and change.

[enso]

I’ve walked through my neighborhood with my wife and I’ve also done it when there were moving trucks in the way and a bunch of the local guys couldn’t see I was 15 feet behind here. It is amazing how chatty they are with her when they don’t see me. They amazingly get a lot quieter as soon as I round the front of the truck into view.

She’s used to it but it was a wake up call for me.

[anon50609448]

@albill

If you’re trying to convince me that there is institutionalized and systematic sexism against men simply for being men and it is on par with what women face in their jobs and every time they go outside, I’m just going to laugh you out of the room.

No, I was trying to convince you that we shouldn’t get into a pissing contest over who has it worse than who for discrimination. Clearly that is not going to happen. Nice dodge on the mentally ill thing, by the way - but I did win that pissing contest right there.

@albill

(As to men wearing dresses in public, I really don’t think fashion codes meet the bar and you need to come here to the Bay area where plenty of men wear dresses but thanks for the complete non sequitur.)

Yeah total non-sequitur, it’s not like men are beaten to death by other men for dressing like women. No discrimination there.

Really, you were just being flippant about people being murdered. Or maybe you are so absurdly unaware of the world that you didn’t know men are murdered for what they wear? Or it’s just not “systematic”?

[SirCracked]

Well, there was a post above by an actual male schoolteacher who had meetings where they discussed the issue (in the context of how to draw more men into the teaching profession), and while he acknowledged it wasn’t the primary obstacle, that it was a significant one.

As to being “On Par”, Nobody made that claim, not once. The point is that several posters, yourself included, contend that it cannot exist, by definition, in any quantity small or large. And myself, and, it would seem Humbabella (though I do not wish to speak for him/her) take issue with that, in my case because belittling the issues of others is a good way to dissuade them from supporting you.

It’s a bit like when the gay community appealed to the general civil rights community, many whom were people of color who not all that long ago historically fought for interracial marriage, for support for THEIR cause (though ultimately it appears that appeal for help didn’t go so well). Nobody’s saying that one is just as big as the other, affects just as many as the other, simply that it’s similar actions based entirely on animus, and that’s wrong in whatever magnitude that it appears.

[enso]

@anon50609448

Yeah total non-sequitur, it’s not like men are beaten to death by other men for dressing like women. No discrimination there.

Really, you were just being flippant about people being murdered. Or maybe you are so absurdly unaware of the world that you didn’t know men are murdered for what they wear? Or it’s just not “systematic”?

I see you trying to change the topic and construct a straw man that you can carry forward with this and with your new focus on mental illness. That’s not what we’re talking about here and it doesn’t measure up to the problems that all women constantly face every time they participate in our society on a daily basis. I think you just conceded the pissing contest on that. Thanks.

[enso]

@SirCracked

As to being “On Par”, Nobody made that claim, not once. The point is that several posters, yourself included, contend that it cannot exist, by definition, in any quantity small or large.

No, the point is that it is not a culture wide, systematic sexism such as what women have to deal with, no matter how many times you try to move the goal posts in this conversation to focus on “how bad men have it too.”

[enso]

You two seem to be missing the part where this is the discussion of the ongoing and overwhelming harassment that any women who sticks her head up in public, especially in something often considered a male sphere, experiences, up to and including death threats. The problems a few men run into for being men aren’t even comparable or really on the table and it is derailing to keep trying to make it about men and their horrible problems (and I say this as a man). But, please, tell me more about how rough men have it on a thread about a woman getting death threats for critiquing misogyny in video games as a matter of course.

[Falcor]

Mod note: This thread is about a woman. Not men. If you want to discuss sexism against men start a new thread. Further comments about men and how they suffer from sexism as well will be eaten.

[anon50609448]

@albill

The problems a few men run into for being men aren’t even comparable or really on the table and it is derailing to keep trying to make it about men and their horrible problems (and I say this as a man).

We said our piece above and it would have stayed at that. But you were the big important man who with your big important opinion who, a hundred comments later, had to come in and tell us what the definition of a word was because you knew better. When people say “mansplaining” this is exactly what they are talking about.

I have repeatedly said above that “This is a side discussion unrelated to the topic” is a completely valid criticism of anyone bringing up men’s problems. And if the dragon eats all of my posts then so be it.

[IronEdithKidd]

Your service to the community is invaluable.