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

[jannamark]

After watching both of these videos the other day, I find my #resistance is much more focused.

[Jilly]

I’ve diligently read through the responses to this thread, and rather than getting into a granular point-by-point dissection, I’ll say this:

@missy_pants with her reference to Lewis’ Law is correct. Methinks the man (@gregor) doth protest too much. What is so threatening about a different point of view? Why such sturm und drang?

[Melizmatic]

@Jilly

What is so threatening about a different point of view?

Perhaps it’s that conformity is ‘safe and familiar;’ while different is ‘strange and threatening.’

Anecdotally, I saw a woman on the subway today wearing the coolest FREQ graphic tee-shirt.

[Jilly]

@Melizmatic

Perhaps it’s that conformity is ‘safe and familiar;’ while different is ‘strange and threatening.’

To quote the imitable Carrie Fisher, “You’re right, you’re right, I know you’re right.” But it still depresses me. What cheers me up, however, are pics of Idris.

[Melizmatic]

Yeah, I hear ya…

[gregor]

@jacklecou

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.)

I’m still curious, can you find other -ism that are not related to ideology? Note that we also talk about secularist policies, while secularism itself is also very much an ideology/belief system and we that wouldn’t relate to policies that have secular effects, but rather that were put in place with secularism in mind.

@jacklecou

(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 like this distinction. But I don’t think I’ve seen the latter use, even though it might be useful.

@jacklecou

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.

I think you’ve got the etymology backwards here. If you read the history of sexism and racism you can see that they were talking about beliefs, not effects. I’ve talked to some party friends from the old-left brigade and indeed that’s how they viewed the words as well (though to be fair, they seemed more open to broadening the meaning than me). So for me it really looks like a shift in meaning over the generations. But again, I’m no linguist, and I haven’t found a good long read on this, so if anyone has something in that area, please chime in.

For me it’s not about taking away helpful language, I just don’t believe it is helpful. If you’ve ever had a discussion about capitalism vs. socialism you might have a vague idea of how much clear cut definitions can improve communication. And especially how opposing sides can have wildy different definitions of the same word. And I feel like that’s also part of the problem here. If your way of understanding a term is only understood by people in your camp, you’re creating an echo chamber. To get back on the science train, I’d be really curious to see a study on how people in different political camps understand the term sexism.

@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.

Some people like discussions, maybe you don’t. There are also a lot of people here determined to spend much energy on someone else’s opinion about someone else’s opinion about video games. But I guess that doesn’t work as good with your narrative.

@anon61221983

Because she’s a woman who has an opinion, essentially.

@anon61221983

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.

True, which is also why I enjoyed TvsW despite thinking that most of it’s conclusions are wrong (I still enjoy some of the observations).

@Melizmatic

Perhaps it’s that conformity is ‘safe and familiar;’ while different is ‘strange and threatening.’

I wish something ever felt familiar. Or safe. But enough about, it seems like y’all seem pretty safe and familiar here with each other (there is not only one kind of conformity, ya know?).

Idris tho

[emo_pinata]

[quote=“gregor, post:110, topic:101364”]
True, which is also why I enjoyed TvsW despite thinking that most of it’s conclusions are wrong (I still enjoy some of the observations).
[/quote]Umm… what? How does this stand with anything else you have been doing in this thread?

[Footface]

@gregor

Some people like discussions, maybe you don’t. There are also a lot of people here determined to spend much energy on someone else’s opinion about someone else’s opinion about video games. But I guess that doesn’t work as good with your narrative.

Sure, sure. Awesome. So the vicious attacks Sarkeesian gets—and the endless griping and carping of Gamergaters… That’s just “discussion.” My point was: How have Sarkeesian’s videos critiquing elements of video games, of all things generated so much, um, robust discussion? And you really think anti-Gamergater is an identity in the same way that Gamergater is?

[anon61221983]

Mock all you want. It’s true. Your denial of misogyny doesn’t make it untrue.

[gregor]

@emo_pinata

Umm… what? How does this stand with anything else you have been doing in this thread?

Care to elaborate? I don’t see how it contradicts it. I sometimes even enjoy watching creationism videos or discussions with Trumpsters.

@Footface

Sure, sure. Awesome. So the vicious attacks Sarkeesian gets—and the endless griping and carping of Gamergaters… That’s just “discussion.”

I was talking about myself, not other people into which’s group I get lumped.

@Footface

My point was: How have Sarkeesian’s videos critiquing elements of video games, of all things generated so much, um, robust discussion?

Her videos hit a market that wasn’t being served yet. And it had enough errors to also generate criticism (as well as obnoxious responses, no doubt). Your explanation is that all the criticism just came from the fact that she was a woman? I’d say you’re cutting yourself with occam’s razor.

@Footface

And you really think anti-Gamergater is an identity in the same way that Gamergater is?

What do I know? I try to steer away from discussions in which the opposing sides have vastly different definitions of the terms central to the discussion. All I know is there is quite some shared identity and narrative going on here. Likes for posts that clearly miss points I was making and private messages from other members that don’t want to give public support are good indicators for that.

[emo_pinata]

You changed your tune from the series being bad and disliking it presence on this blog around to liking it despite disagreeing with it. Those are leagues apart and raises the question - why did you make your opening post at all?

[Sagoli]

@gregor

What do I know? I try to steer away from discussions in which the opposing sides have vastly different definitions of the terms central to the discussion.

That comes across as somewhat disingenuous considering that your last few posts have been focused on redefining sexism and it’s consequences.

[gregor]

@Sagoli

That comes across as somewhat disingenuous considering that your last few posts have been focused on redefining sexism and it’s consequences.

That is exactly in line with what I said about the definition of sexism. Discovering a common definition/one’s difference in understanding is what improves a discussion.

But I’m getting a bit tired of this all. Peace. It’s been enlightening.

[jacklecou]

@gregor

I like this distinction. But I don’t think I’ve seen the latter use, even though it might be useful.

I don’t know where you hang out, but the use of ‘sexist’ as an actual noun is exceedingly rare in my experience. Aside from typing it out up thread, I’m not even sure I can remember the last time I saw it. The adverbial and adjectival senses – which do not, and really cannot, always imply ideology – are far more common. (And even if you are talking about a person, and one whose ideology is known, phrases like ‘sexist asshole’ or “so and so’s sexist diatribe” are far more likely.)

Incidentally, lest we forget, the adjectival is exactly what was used here to kick off this particular digression. The phrase you objected to was ‘sexist tropes’. Meaning tropes like, e.g., DiD – which are literally stereotypes about women.

@gregor

For me it’s not about taking away helpful language, I just don’t believe it is helpful. If you’ve ever had a discussion about capitalism vs. socialism you might have a vague idea of how much clear cut definitions can improve communication. And especially how opposing sides can have wildy different definitions of the same word. And I feel like that’s also part of the problem here. If your way of understanding a term is only understood by people in your camp, you’re creating an echo chamber.

This is essentially the way language works. If you go to Spain and keep saying how ‘embarazado’ you are that your Spanish isn’t better, you’re going to get funny looks - the locals are not understanding that word the way you’re intending it. And you don’t get to tell them they’re wrong - as the visitor, YOU are the one that needs to adapt.

I think we’ve been pretty generous with providing you a definition you can use to converse here. If you actually wanted to communicate, at some point it’s on you to learn the lingo.

[Melizmatic]

@gregor

But enough about, it seems like y’all seem pretty safe and familiar here with each other

The word you seem to be looking for is camaraderie, and yes; some of us have it with each other. It’s a blessing, and I count it.

However, that doesn’t mean that we all ‘conform’ to each other’s opinions; and the implication is disingenuous.

@gregor

But I’m getting a bit tired of this all. Peace. It’s been enlightening.

http://i43.tinypic.com/5doz9x.jpg

[anon75430791]

Exactly! And then those guys like to hold up how she was invited to game companies to offer her perspective on how to better portray female characters as examples of censorship.

One of a number of common arguments that gives them away on their bs.