Print

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

[Dutchling]

* Glowcat awards the bay12 band their award for providing a completely self-unaware example of "mansplaining" the existence and extent of sexism. Itself also an example of everyday sexism. Way to go, dudes!

* Dutchling hangs the award on the wall of the men's room used for the bi-monthly Patriarchy meetings. It will surely cheer the place up a bit.

[Neonivek]

WAIT!!!

a completely self-unaware example of "mansplaining"

Glowcat just said this?

Ok... Glowcat...No. Don't drag your sexism into this thread. We do not need strawmen feminists in this discussion. I hope it was parody.

"Mansplaining" is flat out sexism. Would you prefer we start using the term "Bitching"? Since those are equal terms aren't they? Terms used to invalidate one gender that are rude and sexist?

You have an objection, object. Don't drag this conversation down.

[Ogdibus]

Some of us have first hand social experience as both men and women.  Have you taken that into consideration?

Except Neo said in the rest of the post that it didn't actually end up mattering at all.

I think Neonivek was talking about mattering to the narrative, while Vector was talking about mattering to the player.  They aren't really contradicting each other on this.

Oh, right. I can't sympathise with that view, really at all. The character is completely distinct from the player controlling them. I suppose that some people don't see it that way, but it's a thing so fundamentally different to the way I experience the media that I don't think I could really understand it properly.

Are you saying that you see yourself as observing the characters, rather than the character being an avatar, so you don't feel the need to identify with them?  If so, I think that a lot of other people might share that same view.  It might also explain the "I would rather stare at a woman's butt" thing.

[Neonivek]

Some of us have first hand social experience as both men and women.  Have you taken that into consideration?

The statement was more of a "Look, saying men can't know because they aren't women" is the same as saying "Well women can't know because they aren't men". It is just a vicious argument that doesn't go anywhere except to try to shut people out of the conversation or invalidate their opinions due to an arbitrary set of circumstances they have no control over.

The technicalities don't matter, because I wasn't being serious I was drawing parallels.

"Ohh your a cripple, clearly you can't know anything about football. so your opinion that they should provide better financial aid for the players is invalid. Your clearly just Cripsplaining thing."

"Ohh your poor, clearly you can't know anything about business. So your opinion on how taxation should work is invalid. Your clearly just poorsplaining things"

"Ohh your just a man, everything you said is clearly just sexist drivel because you can't see things from a woman's perspective. Your just mansplaining things"

Are you saying that you see yourself as observing the characters, rather than the character being an avatar, so you don't feel the need to identify with them?  If so, I think that a lot of other people might share that same view.  It might also explain the "I would rather stare at a woman's butt" thing.

For me it depends on the protagonist (there are a few I basically put myself into the game as a character) but usually I default to simply observing the character. I am not "In the game".

[Gatleos]

Some of us have first hand social experience as both men and women.  Have you taken that into consideration?

The statement was more of a "Look, saying men can't know because they aren't women" is the same as saying "Well women can't know because they aren't men". It is just a vicious argument that doesn't go anywhere except to try to shut people out of the conversation.

The technicalities don't matter, because I wasn't being serious I was drawing parallels.

Actually that's a very good point. Just because you're on the "wrong" side of the oppression coin doesn't mean you have an objective view of that reality. I don't even disagree with Glowcat, it's just a

completely self-unaware

argument.


That said, y'all need to amplify your relaxed states.

[Neonivek]

The problem with that Glatleos is just because your on the "right" side of the coin it doesn't mean you have an objective view of that reality.

So no one has the "objectivity" award.

The only one who can claim to have the LEAST possible bias would be a third party... which cannot possibly exist.

[scrdest]

Some of us have first hand social experience as both men and women.  Have you taken that into consideration?

The statement was more of a "Look, saying men can't know because they aren't women" is the same as saying "Well women can't know because they aren't men". It is just a vicious argument that doesn't go anywhere except to try to shut people out of the conversation.

The technicalities don't matter, because I wasn't being serious I was drawing parallels.

Actually that's a very good point. Just because you're on the "wrong" side of the oppression coin doesn't mean you have an objective view of that reality. I don't even disagree with Glowcat, it's just a

completely self-unaware

argument.


That said, y'all need to amplify your relaxed states.

Are you saying Glowcat should glow harder?

[Ogdibus]

The problem with that Glatleos is just because your on the "right" side of the coin it doesn't mean you have an objective view of that reality.

So no one has the "objectivity" award.

The only one who can claim to have the LEAST possible bias would be a third party... which cannot possibly exist.

Some of us have first hand social experience as both men and women.  Have you taken that into consideration?

[Neonivek]

The problem with that Glatleos is just because your on the "right" side of the coin it doesn't mean you have an objective view of that reality.

So no one has the "objectivity" award.

The only one who can claim to have the LEAST possible bias would be a third party... which cannot possibly exist.

Some of us have first hand social experience as both men and women.  Have you taken that into consideration?

Into consideration for what?

As well even you should know that the experiences of someone who switches from one gender to another are not the same experiences that someone who is in one gender for their entire lives anyway. Since one experience colors the other.

It would be the same as people who are rich and then become homeless.

[Rolepgeek]

Your not a man, how do YOU know what we experience? For all you know that is exactly what we do.

Can we stop with the "guys are dumb to the plight of women" talk? I thought we finally stopped it.

But you don't. If you did, you wouldn't be trying to argue against it. There wouldn't be sexism if men saw it how it really is, because people aren't monsters one and all.

[Neonivek]

Your not a man, how do YOU know what we experience? For all you know that is exactly what we do.

Can we stop with the "guys are dumb to the plight of women" talk? I thought we finally stopped it.

But you don't. If you did, you wouldn't be trying to argue against it. There wouldn't be sexism if men saw it how it really is, because people aren't monsters one and all.

Your switching from "All men" to "Some men" don't Strawman.

As well the answer to your assertion is... No.

If that was true then women wouldn't be sexist towards other women by your own argument. It takes more then just knowing about a problem to fix it.

We have the time and ability RIGHT NOW to end world hunger. Everyone knows world hunger is a problem and no one is ignorant of it. Why is there world hunger?

Knowing about a problem and fixing it... are two separate things.

Unfortunately problems run deeper then just willful ignorance and obliviousness.

[Ogdibus]

While, no group has completely uniform experiences, but the members will still have common experiences between each other.  A person that has lived as both a man  and a woman is going to have much more insight that a person that has lived as only one of those.  In addition to that most cultures emphasize portrayals of men in their media. Women are exposed to the perspectives of men more than men are exposed to the perspectives of women, so the second hand experience is unbalanced.

[Neonivek]

While, no group has completely uniform experiences, but the members will still have common experiences between each other.  A person that has lived as both a man  and a woman is going to have much more insight that a person that has lived as only one of those.  In addition to that most cultures emphasize portrayals of men in their media. Women are exposed to the perspectives of men more than men are exposed to the perspectives of women, so the second hand experience is unbalanced.

Yet both have cross experiences, both have exposure to both viewpoints, and both carry their own biases and prejudices.

Neither side can claim to be right on the basis of their gender... nor can one side claim the other is wrong based upon gender.

As well both sides have an innate ability to understand aspects of the other (For example even men have an inherent understanding of pregnancy... it is weird... but men seem to have all the psychological components for pregnancy)

[Ogdibus]

The amount and type matter.  That's why I'm saying that the objectivity of perspective between men, women, and trans people is not evenly distributed.

[Neonivek]

The amount and type matter.  That's why I'm saying that the objectivity of perspective between men, women, and trans people is not evenly distributed.

I am saying that the unevenness of it is irrelevant. It doesn't stop any of them from understanding the other nor from developing detrimental biases for their own Point of view. Which is all that matters.

They all have "Equally valid opinions" because opinions are not more valid because there is a higher chance you have personal exposure.

Once again just gender flip it and see if it seems any more correct.