The FREQ Show: Feminist Frequency's new crowdfunded series about "today’s most pressing social issues"

[anon67018654]

@wysinwyg

So you’re arguing that Nazis are the only racist people in history? Has it ever occurred to you that the Nazis probably thought their beliefs were correct?

No he’s arguing that Nazis were absolut explicit about their racism. They flatly stated that there are races and that some of these races were so wildy inferior that they needed to be subjugated or exterminated. So yes, these people set out to be racist. Nazis didn’t bother with microaggresions, they didn’t think that being called a racist is worse than being a racist, or that white privilige is some kind of myth. There’s a reason why out dear grandfathers called it “Rassenlehre" after all.

What they didn’t consider themselves to be is evil.

[Mister_Eppy]

@gregor

Those are good points, I didn’t really expect this to be an active message board

@gregor

Since I’ve been following BB the FemFreq vids has been the only content posted here that I very much dislike.

@gregor

Unfortunately Feedly won’t tell me how long I’ve been following BB, but I have the vague feeling that it won’t change your preconceived notions about me anyway.

So you didn’t think this was an active message board, but you’ve been following Boing Boing for a while?

@gregor

Oh, ethics in games journalism?

Yes, thank you, I wasn’t pushed in a corner enough. Keep up the mob mentality!

@gregor

Not everyone who disagrees with FF is a GamerGate trolley and plenty of people are torn between the extremes. Those are just not the people who are the loudest on YT & other sites. And those people might be convinced by more sound arguments

@gregor

I didn’t even follow GamerGate, nor do I really know what it is about. So I if really matched the talking points, that’s by chance.

You didn’t follow GamerGate, but know immediately know that someone saying “Ethics in Journalism” is pushing you in a corner?

Your comments are at best disingenuous in this thread. Quod Erat Demonstratum

[orenwolf]

Ok ok ok, @gregor has been thoroughly repudiated for his initial comments and reaction here. They are not the topic of this post. Lets move on, please.

[gregor]

@Mister_Eppy

So you didn’t think this was an active message board, but you’ve been following Boing Boing for a while?

I only follow the RSS, didn’t even know there was a community behind it.

@Mister_Eppy

You didn’t follow GamerGate, but know immediately know that someone saying “Ethics in Journalism” is pushing you in a corner?

Your comments are at best disingenuous in this thread. Quod Erat Demonstratum

Cheritability is expected of me, but never given. Tired of explaining myself.

[jacklecou]

@gregor

in the very paragraph you quoted I responded to @jacklecou talking about scientific data.

I said something very specific about science, which you appear to be using far outside its proper context.

The science says basically ‘media reinforcement of problematic tropes can have actual consequences’. It doesn’t necessarily have anything conclusive to say on what is or isn’t objectification, for example.

So your attempt to say that you didn’t feel like the DiD trope is actually objectification wasn’t really responsive to the point.

And @wysinwyg was perfectly correct in turn to say that what actually matters so far as that goes is whether any real life women feel that it’s a problem. Because if women feel it’s a problem, then guess what – it’s a problem. (It’s after this point where the science takes over, by confirming that invoking something problematic repeatedly in media is going to tend to reinforce, perpetuate and exacerbate the problem.)

Besides which, DiD is just literally, objectively objectifying. As @wysinwyg also pointed out. . Princess Peach or ‘Lady’ from Donkey Kong, for example, could literally be Mario’s wallet or something without significantly changing the ‘story’ or Mario’s motivation. (AFAICT, I’m in 100% agreement with everything @wysinwyg has said - they’ve saved me a lot of typing here by saying everything I would have tried to say. Even stole my MacGuffin line straight from a draft post.)

To maybe add something which @wysinwyg hasn’t gotten around to stealing out of my mouth yet (curse you wysinwyg!), I’d point out that tropes also cut both ways: the reason a trope like DiD is an effective shortcut for a minimalist game like Mario to use is that it does a lot of work by leveraging the power of all the OTHER media which uses the trope. Everybody immediately grasps the plot of Mario in just a few pixels, because everybody knows how the DiD scenario is supposed to go: we’ve seen it before in hundreds of books and movies and Broadway shows, etc. etc.

But that means it brings all the baggage of all those other depictions with it. And a lot of them are much more plainly sexist (or, let’s be honest, downright rapey), especially (but not exclusively, alas) the further back you go. They’re also tied tightly into related tropes like “the hero gets the girl”, which are possibly even more loaded with all kinds of consent, agency and objectification issues.

All of that means you can’t deflect criticism from even something as basic as Mario by saying a few pixels can’t possibly be sexist – because those few pixels are deliberately and indiscriminately invoking a huge cultural macro expansion to do their work, and they implicitly give approval and reinforcement to the whole complex as they do.

[gregor]

@jacklecou

And @wysinwyg was perfectly correct in turn to say that what actually matters so far as that goes is whether any real life women feel that it’s a problem. Because if women feel it’s a problem, then guess what – it’s a problem. (It’s after this point where the science takes over, by confirming that invoking something problematic repeatedly in media is going to tend to reinforce, perpetuate and exacerbate the problem.)

And if other women don’t feel it’s a problem? Is something problematic as soon as someone feels it is a problem?

@jacklecou

Besides which, DiD is just literally, objectively objectifying. As @wysinwyg also pointed out. . Princess Peach or ‘Lady’ from Donkey Kong, for example, could literally be Mario’s wallet or something without significantly changing the ‘story’ or Mario’s motivation.

Well you could also swap Mario for a bag of Dorito’s and nothing would change significantly about the “story”. I don’t really se how that proves objetification.

@jacklecou

To maybe add something which @wysinwyg hasn’t gotten around to stealing out of my mouth yet (curse you wysinwyg!), I’d point out that tropes also cut both ways: the reason a trope like DiD is an effective shortcut for a minimalist game like Mario to use is that it does a lot of work by leveraging the power of all the OTHER media which uses the trope. Everybody immediately grasps the plot of Mario in just a few pixels, because everybody knows how the DiD scenario is supposed to go: we’ve seen it before in hundreds of books and movies and Broadway shows, etc. etc.

Completely agree. It’s so effective and can be minimalistic because it is well-known.

@jacklecou

All of that means you can’t deflect criticism from even something as basic as Mario by saying a few pixels can’t possibly be sexist – because those few pixels are deliberately and indiscriminately invoking a huge cultural macro expansion to do their work, and they implicitly give approval and reinforcement to the whole complex as they do.

I guess where I very much differ from this community and am more aligned with the people into which’s group I get pigenholed is that reinforcing status quo is not what I’d consider sexist. For me to consider art sexist, it would have to make explicit discriminations. Having a “traditional” relationship dynamic between “hero” and “damsel” is hardly that. I understand all your frustration, but all I can see in such games is simplicity and traditionalism. I’ve had my fair share of debates with sexists and while they are probably more prone to these kinds of media, for me it would be problematic to devalue the term sexism (or racism for that matter) by applying it not only to people who explicitly hold these vile views, but to lazy media.

[jacklecou]

@gregor

And if other women don’t feel it’s a problem? Is something problematic as soon as someone feels it is a problem?

Yes.

@gregor

Well you could also swap Mario for a bag of Dorito’s and nothing would change significantly about the “story”. I don’t really se how that proves objetification.

That swap is a change of depiction not objectification. Unless you mean the game about our putative bag of Doritos would literally involve just sitting there being a passive bag of chips until a game character opens and eats it, I guess. But assuming you mean there’s an actual game going on, where the bag of Doritos moves around in response to the controls, etc., then it’d be a player character and not an object.

Likewise Koopa could be depicted as a fire hydrant or a broken fluorescent tube, assuming that hydrant or light bulb is still the antagonist, however, then it would necessarily have to do something, which makes it, you know, not an object.

I wonder if the problem here is just not really knowing what words mean.

@gregor

I guess where I very much differ from this community and am more aligned with the people into which’s group I get pigenholed is that reinforcing status quo is not what I’d consider sexist.

Aaaand…suspicion confirmed. This looks like you just refusing to use the definition of sexist that everyone else is using. It’s a term of art, and you’re the one not using it correctly.

Reinforcing sexist tropes by recycling them is sexist. Full stop. Being the ‘status quo’ or ‘traditional’ doesn’t somehow make something not sexist. (It only makes reinforcing it all the more damaging!)

Similarly, something like ‘racist hiring practices’ doesn’t just mean some bigot who openly declares that he won’t hire ‘n*****s’ or whatever. That’s not necessarily even very common these days. What’s far more common – and harmful! – is the perfectly well-meaning-in-their-heart boss who nevertheless hires Chet instead of Jamaal because they just have a better ‘gut feeling’ about Chet, and don’t feel Jamaal would have been a ‘good fit’ with the existing team (which is 98% white, natch).

That’s not deliberate, but it’s sure as s**t racist. (And also – did I mention this? – widespread and harmful.)

[jacklecou]

@jacklecou

Reinforcing sexist tropes by recycling them is sexist. Full stop. Being the ‘status quo’ or ‘traditional’ doesn’t somehow make something not sexist. (It only makes reinforcing it all the more damaging!)

Which, incidentally ties into the actual topic of the post too: things like ‘c**t’ or ‘throws like a girl’ or ‘take it in the ass’ or ‘retard’ or whatever are basically given force as insults and expressions because of an underlying sexist, homophobic and or ableist framework, and using them in turn serves to reinforce and approve of those frameworks, which is thus sexist and homophobic and ableist.

(It’s not actually that hard to give them up, either.)

[gregor]

@jacklecou

That swap is a change of depiction not objectification. Unless you mean the game about our putative bag of Doritos would literally involve just sitting there being a passive bag of chips until a game character opens and eats it, I guess. But assuming you mean there’s an actual game going on, where the bag of Doritos moves around in response to the controls, etc., then it’d be a player character and not an object.

True, I guess I just gave an example of personifying an object. Scratch that.

@jacklecou

I wonder if the problem here is just not really knowing what words mean.

Well, maybe I’m too empathetic, but I don’t feel that Peach is just an object and I think there is a significance to her not wanting to be captured and imprisioned which just wouldn’t be there if she was changed to be a wallet. Bowser objectifies her by denying her autonomy, while she clearly shows an interest in being free and wishes for Mario to rescue her.

@jacklecou

Aaaand…suspicion confirmed. This looks like you just refusing to use the definition of sexist that everyone else is using. It’s a term of art, and you’re the one not using it correctly.

Maybe, I don’t know the history of the word. I only know how I came in contact with it a few decades ago, which would have necessitated an explicit ideology that’s demeaning towards women. Same goes for racism. And etymology wise I think that’s what’s true for all the -isms.

@jacklecou

Similarly, something like ‘racist hiring practices’ doesn’t just mean some bigot who openly declares that he won’t hire ‘n*****s’ or whatever. That’s not necessarily even very common these days. What’s far more common – and harmful! – is the perfectly well-meaning-in-their-heart boss who nevertheless hires Chet instead of Jamaal because they just have a better ‘gut feeling’ about Chet, and don’t feel Jamaal would have been a ‘good fit’ with the existing team (which is 98% white, natch).

That’s not deliberate, but it’s sure as s**t racist. (And also – did I mention this? – widespread and harmful.)

Widespread and harmful, yes. But doesn’t fit my definition of racism itself. “institutional racism” or “aversive racism” are terms that are more commonly used for that in my field of study. It may sound nitpicky, but from my experience with pro-status-quo people is that these -ism label’s don’t bode well and result in a backfire effect (mostly because these people still believe -isms are related to ideologies). I find it rather unfortunate and a source of many pointless discussions that these terms got overloaded.

[jacklecou]

@gregor

Widespread and harmful, yes. But doesn’t fit my definition of racism itself. “institutional racism” or “aversive racism” are terms that are more commonly used for that in my field of study.

Absolutely - “institutional racism” is also a perfectly cromulent and more specific term. What we’ve been talking about is, of course, a manifestation of “institutional sexism”.

But I would think that “institutional racism” is also necessarily a kind of racism, rather than a completely different thing. Kind of like how “coal miners” are, in fact, also “miners” or how “Spanish impressionism” is a kind of impressionism.

@gregor

It may sound nitpicky, but from my experience with pro-status-quo people is that these -ism label’s don’t bode well and result in a backfire effect (mostly because these people still believe -isms are related to ideologies). I find it rather unfortunate and a source of many pointless discussions that these terms got overloaded.

Oh, people freak out about those words, no argument from me. (The term I’m familiar with for that is ‘fragility’, e.g., ‘white fragility’, ‘male fragility’ etc.)

And perhaps it’s pragmatically helpful to use euphemisms in certain situations – like you’re doing a corporate sensitivity training or something and need to get the concepts across without getting people’s dander up right off the bat.

But if there’s anything ‘unfortunate’ about the words there, it’s the need for euphemisms in the first place. That is, the unfortunate thing is not that we have plain and useful words for talking about racism and sexism in the normal and mundane forms we actually encounter. The unfortunate thing is that some people have taken it in their heads that ‘*-ism’ doesn’t have a plain and useful meaning, but instead somehow means “something evil and deliberate that I couldn’t possibly be doing because I’m a good person so how dare you you insult me by accusing me of it!”

[gregor]

@jacklecou

But if there’s anything ‘unfortunate’ about the words there, it’s the need for euphemisms in the first place. That is, the unfortunate thing is not that we have plain and useful words for talking about racism and sexism in the normal and mundane forms we actually encounter. The unfortunate thing is that some people have taken it in their heads that ‘*-ism’ doesn’t have a plain and useful meaning, but instead somehow means “something evil and deliberate that I couldn’t possibly be doing because I’m a good person so how dare you you insult me by accusing me of it!”

I don’t think the last quoted part captures what I was saying (though I’d agree with most of the things you said before). To my knowledge -ism’s always identified ideologies, and that changed (/is starting to change) with the terms racism & sexism and I think that’s largely for tactical reasons because they WERE effective words. But what we’re getting in return is a backfire effect. You might call it a euphemism, I’d call it an unfortunate overloading of terms.

But I’m glad to be proven wrong on this and that -ism’s have been used like that for a long time (or more importantly, commonly understood like that, connotation beats denotation in politics after all). So if someone has something I should read on that, feel free to shoot that at me.

[jacklecou]

@gregor

To my knowledge -ism’s always identified ideologies, and that changed (/is starting to change) with the terms racism & sexism and I think that’s largely for tactical reasons because they WERE effective words. But what we’re getting in return is a backfire effect. You might call it a euphemism, I’d call it an unfortunate overloading of terms.

I don’t think it could ever have required an ideology. If that were true, it would make common and useful ‘-ist’ uses meaningless. “Sexist policy” for example. A policy that gives an advantage to one gender or another is literally ‘sexist’ regardless of the intent or ideology behind it. (Of course, usually there is an ideology, behind it, or a history of various ideologies, but even if the sexist effect were actually entirely accidental, the policy would still be sexist.)

Over time the ‘-ist’ words have naturally come to be used more frequently in reference to the implicit and institutional forms, as more open and explicit forms of bigotry have become more taboo and retreated (somewhat), but the basic meaning and usage never changed, only the relative frequency of the behaviors to which they apply.

(There’re also some subtleties in usage: in my view, “you are a sexist” would be something said of someone who had an inherently sexist outlook and is probably less frequently heard these days, while “you are acting sexist” would more broadly apply to words and behaviors which may or may not be backed by any particular intent. Sexist was and is the right word in both cases, however.)

I also don’t think the backfire effect comes entirely from semantics. Semantics plays a role, but I think you’ve got the causation backward: narrowing the meaning of negative words like sexism or racism is the first order defense mechanism. It’s very comfortable to use those words in reference only to that other guy, who’s really bad. Then we decide that’s the only place they apply, and we avoid having to look any closer to home where it might be less comfortable.

Giving in to that impulse and letting the words drift down into a narrow meaning doesn’t help combat the actual harms being done, either. If you allow words like ‘racist’ or ‘sexist’ to become horrible bogey-man insults that can’t possibly apply to things normal people actually do, then you’re not only reducing the ability to strongly call out genuinely harmful behaviors, you’re also just making it easier for even the people with explicitly *-ist ideologies to get people to call them ‘race realists’ or whatever.

[Footface]

I understand: it takes all kinds. Still, I don’t understand the people who seem determined to spend so much energy on someone else’s opinion about video games.

[anon61221983]

Because she’s a woman who has an opinion, essentially. It’s that thing that many can’t stand. They think that her making a critical appraisal of games means that she thinks that all games are sexist, and that all gamers are “bad” people. They feel like “gaming culture” is their exclusive domain, and they don’t like people they consider outsiders, especially women being critical of that culture. They feel like it’s an attack on them personally somehow. It’s a silly way to feel about it, because this is just what people do now with popular culture - they talk about it, with it, through it, and try to establish some meaning around it, because that’s what human beings have always done - used the language and ideas of the time to try and make meaning out of the world.

And of course, being critical of something doesn’t mean you don’t like or enjoy it. Game of Thrones has a real problem with gratuitous boobs, but it’s still a great show and I really like it, despite it’s flaws.

[Footface]

Yes, I understand this. I just don’t understand it.

[anon61221983]

Honestly, me neither. It never makes any sense to me. How hard is it to listen to others and respect them.

[Footface]

Or listen to others, disagree with them, and move on? You don’t even need to respect them. They’re just other people on the Internet, who don’t need to be made aware that you disagree with them.

[anon61221983]

You can disagree with people and still respect them. But lots of people can’t do others the basic human decency of listening.

[TobinL]

@anon61221983

You can disagree with people and still respect them.

Yeah well I can disagree with and not respect TFoot as he is a manbaby who is whiny the wimmens are in his ‘s3kr3t clubzors’ or something… I may have quibbles with a few examples in the Tropes series but I have a hell of a lot of respect for Anita being so visibly out there and bringing up topics that need to be talked about cause overall she is fucking spot on. I definitely think more about where I spend my video game money thanks to her and I pay closer attention to what the kid plays or wants to play as well.

[emo_pinata]

This is where I’m at too. I’ve been in the middle of discussing the content she provides and it’s very difficult to have a discussion while someone complaining about how -isms are being treated in the world. It’s especially painful to hear in every single thread about her when she is making new projects that are (in my opinion) much better that Tropes vs. I think @Missy_Pants brining up Lewis’ Law is pretty conclusive in this case.

I mean, I posted a gif upthread because Thunderf00t didn’t just present his case layered with hyperbole, the first 3-4 minutes are a nonsensical rant that strengthens the point made by Sarkesian in the attempt to refute it.

As for this video right here and now. This video raises uncomfortable truths about people “not talking about gay people” when they call someone a fag, or that they are “just talking shop” throwing around cunt. She even provides an example of stunning wit in the video that isn’t derogatory to others: