Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

No I am getting annoyed with the things she does say, notably the misuse of the term patriarchy just because some feminists decided that it meant pretty much any sort of oppression and didn't really ever tell anybody else what they meant.

What is obvious to you, the very person who provided this new definition of patriarchy, might not be as clear to everybody. You can't just assume everybody makes a living studying this stuff, most people will misunderstand when you use incorrect terms that also have been appropriated by academics into their jargon.

If you have to provide a definition for the video series to clarify what these videos mean, then these videos have a problem.

You don't have to assume they make a living out of it, but you can damn sure assume that people who wants to have a serious discussion about feminism at least have read some feminism 101.

[Max White]

If you were trying to make some other point related to my post with those quotes, please, let me know what it was.

My point is that she blames discrimination on a patriarchy. Would you agree?

You don't have to assume they make a living out of it, but you can damn sure assume that people who wants to have a serious discussion about feminism at least have read some feminism 101.

I didn't do gender studies, I did software, focusing in Systems analysis and Design. It involved diagnosing a problem and designing a solution, so working with a client is a big part of that. One of the most important lessons we were taught is to not use jargon. Who the fuck knows what an is API anyway? Not your client, that is who!
If you are going to make a series to bring awareness of an issue to the public, you make sure you are using approachable language, otherwise you just failed your first test, effectively communicating your argument.

[palsch]

My point is that she blames discrimination on a patriarchy. Would you agree?

In the videos? No, I wouldn't agree.

In the videos she makes a case that certain tropes and common narratives promoted through video games and other media perpetuate and reinforce various sexist attitudes and views. This is the exact argument that you quoted.

Now this fits entirely within patriarchy theory, where those sexist attitudes and views - along with the media that support and promote them - are part of the patriarchy. But at no point does she make that argument.

And even that argument doesn't go as far as you claim it does. Even arguing that gender discrimination falls under the term patriarchy, as is fairly common, doesn't claim that all discrimination does. That's where you get to intersectionality, kyriarchy, etc.

And even the argument that gender discrimination falls under patriarchy doesn't claim that men are universally and personally to blame for discrimination. The whole point of patriarchy theory is that it is systematic. Again, check the 101 link.

[scriver]

So you're saying that even if I want to have a serious discussion about software, I shouldn't even bother learning what APR is. It's completely okay it that every time it is used I associate it with Acoustic Paramagnetic Resonance and refuse to acknowledge that you are using it to mean something different. Because it's somehow not my responsibility to educate myself on these things before I engage in arguments about them.

Oh, and here's another thing. You are not a "client". You are not hiring somebody because they have knowledge you don't that they need to explain to you in terms you can understand. This is you engaging in debate on philosophical, cultural, and practical feminism. Yes, you should educate yourself on what feminists are actually saying before you start arguing against it. At least, you know, if you want to accomplish anything constructive or do anything else than shout empty words at people.

[Reelya]

Personally, I have a bigger problem with Anita's use of the word "epidemic" when describing real-world violence. It's clearly as semantically incorrect as it is emotionally arresting.

Every time she says "epidemic" I cringe. And there's definitely no special feminist sense of that word to justify it's use.

EDIT: Actually, she could get away with it, if she used it as an adjective, which is allowed, but not as a noun, for her intended use.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/epidemic

[palsch]

Domestic, family and intimate partner violence are seen as a public health issue at epidemic levels by various health organisations around the world, the AMA in particular. Reference to epidemics of violence are pretty common in the medical literature, especially referring to gendered or domestic violence.

It may not be dictionary correct, but many of the public health responses are the same as to other epidemics. As are many of the effects.

[Reelya]

Ok, but that link is over 20 years old, from 1991, and crime rates, especially violent crimes have fallen massively since then. If I recall correctly, 1991 was during the massive spike in handgun murders that started in 1986 and peaked in 1995, before plummetting down.

"Epidemic" was a perfect description of the murder rate at that time which was skyrocketing year by year. Here's the relevant chart:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[scriver]

Fat epidemic. Reality TV epidemic. Neoliberalism epidemic. The use of "epidemic" to describe a massive worldwide trend of something you think is negative is common.

[Reelya]

The problem here is that in Anita's case - it isn't such a trend. An epidemic is a trend of something increasing, not decreasing.

In all those cases, people are fatter than before, there's more reality TV, neoliberals are getting elected.

[penguinofhonor]

So you're saying that even if I want to have a serious discussion about software, I shouldn't even bother learning what APR is. It's completely okay it that every time it is used I associate it with Acoustic Paramagnetic Resonance and refuse to acknowledge that you are using it to mean something different. Because it's somehow not my responsibility to educate myself on these things before I engage in arguments about them.

Oh, and here's another thing. You are not a "client". You are not hiring somebody because they have knowledge you don't that they need to explain to you in terms you can understand. This is you engaging in debate on philosophical, cultural, and practical feminism. Yes, you should educate yourself on what feminists are actually saying before you start arguing against it. At least, you know, if you want to accomplish anything constructive or do anything else than shout empty words at people.

I agree. People using existing terms for a slightly different meaning within a specific context all the goddamn time. I can't think of a single community, science, or movement that hasn't done this.

Claiming feminism specifically is bad for doing this is either dishonest or misinformed. There are plenty of feminists that hide behind walls of terms instead of actually making arguments, but just using those terms isn't a bad thing in itself.

[palsch]

A quick pubmed search of the medical literature of the last five years turned up quite a number of references to domestic violence as epidemic, searching only titles and abstracts. Without being exhaustive and with some basic filtering, a quick ten.

A google scholar search for this year alone turns up 793 hits for "domestic violence" epidemic. Not all are relevant (a summary glance suggests about 20-30% are), but it's still a common enough term in the serious literature.

That's without expanding the searches to use the terms "intimate partner violence", "family violence", or "violence against women", all of which are often used nearly interchangeably (rightly or wrongly) depending on the source. For example, the WHO often talks about intimate partner violence.

I'm not saying it's a technically perfect term going by the definition you want to use (although I think you are narrowing the definition considerably to defend your point), but it's a commonly accepted term that is consider accurate within the public health community.

[Reelya]

I was going off the dictionary definition. But I really wanted to highlight how Anita's frequent use of the term gives the impression of something massively increasing.

[Vector]

Bad girl, bad!   

[Loud Whispers]

Smiley OD makes puppies die.

[Reelya]

Bad girl, bad!   

Anita has taken it on herself to critique a whole body of literature. Is her literature immune to analysis? Saying something is an epidemic when it is not actually getting worse, is yellow journalism. It's hype regardless of the writer. Anita critiques games, someone else critiques Anita's analysis. Maybe that person is just "pro-game" rather than "anti-woman"?

Jack Thompson was mocked mercilessly for similar, people even sent death threats and made games about killing him. I was appalled when I first heard about the threats made to Anita - they were, and are, reprehensible and irresponsible, but I also acknowledge that nobody, including myself, seems to care about the threats to Jack Thompson.