Print

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

[Sheb]

Yeah, I facepalmed several time reading the last pages.

[Uristoteles]

Hello

I have followed this thread since it popped up again and I would like to contribute my opinion.

First off, English is not my natural language. I say this because I had trouble understanding some passages which were apparently written very fast and with insufficient re-reading. The use of unmarked irony and sarkasm where not helpful either. Direct and indirect insults thrown around made it difficult for me to think clearly, even though they were not directed at me personally.

I think that many people here had a heartbeat of ~180bpm at least once while posting and I also can't shake the feeling that some arguments here are not being made to find that precious intersubjective truth or mutual understanding but to substantiate personal sensitivities.
Now misunderstandings and vitriol were needlessly rushing through this thread and made it very hard for everyone involved to reflect one's own position.
I expected this topic to be purged, but I'm happy that it didn't happen because I think that some kind of consensus can still be achieved.

Although it certainly looks pretty bad right now.

On topic:

Do I understand the current status of this thread correctly when I summarise it like this? :

"Men should shut up and listen when feminists explain the symptoms of the sexism which is directed at women."
Alright. I assume there is almost no one here who didn't do that in one way or another. I also assume that almost everyone here understood that women have it generally worse than men.

Now it comes to analysing and interpreting the symptoms, trying to find what causes those symptoms and thinking about ways to alleviate – or better – to extinguish the symptoms along with their roots. Now is also the time to find ways to make the problems easier to understand for those who don't see them, to get as many people involved as possible. In short: To think and to talk together about the apparent issues.

Now, is it the final word of this thread, that at this point (in the process of dissolving the sexism directed at women) a man's only contribution can be by following the opinions and actions of female feminists? That his reasoning and his opinion on how to understand and how to address the problem is considered _less_ than that of a female feminist?

-

As I understand it, all involved humans must change the way they think and the way they act to dissolve this unfair inequality for women. Women want to change, because the are underprivilged, men want to change because they want to abolish this unfair inequality. If a man's honest and serious opinion at this point is not valued equal, but expected to comply without convincing reasoning, then he will probably neither accept nor support this kind of feminism and turn his back.

[Jopax]

Just want to say that you are eloquent as fuck for someone who's not a native english speaker.

That is all.

[Rolepgeek]

Thank you, Uristoteles. I think, however, that the idea is less that a man should shut up and listen and do as he's told, and more that men should not claim they know more. That is what I have been arguing against, at least. It continuallys seems like Neonivek and associates are trying to tell the feminists/women in the thread that X is true, while the feminists/women have been saying Y is true. And his story has, in all honesty, less credence. His expertise is lesser, and therefore, while he may make an interesting point if he wishes to, he hasn't been, lately. He's been trying to turn the discussion into one about men, or at least it seems like that's what he's been trying to do. That, and focusing way too much on analogies. His opinion is respected; so long as he understands it is just that. Opinion. Not fact. The word of women as to their plight is more credible than the word of men as to women's plight.

[Gatleos]

I can't speak for anyone in this thread, but a general problem with discussing this issue (and ones like it) is that for some people the debate has been distorted by extremists. You know what extremists I mean: MRAs, inflammatory misandrist Tumblr blogs, etc. These people hurt the discussion for everyone else by creating a divide between those who should be coming together to understand each other.

Do those people that sent rape threats to Anita Sarkeesian represent anything close to the majority? No. And does a woman who saw this occurring come to the conclusion that they do? Probably not. But it all contributes to mistrust. And when everybody involved in the debate feels like the other side has it out for them, real discussion just doesn't happen.

[Ogdibus]

@ Uristoteles

That's not exactly what is going on in this thread, and others like it.  When a feminist or other civil rights issue is raised, the discussion shifts almost immediately from "what to do" to "prove that this is really a problem" and "no, let's talk about my problems instead".

As I understand it, all involved humans must change the way they think and the way they act to dissolve this unfair inequality for women.

This is not the reality of the situation.  There are quite a few people in this conversation and in the world, that already have a way of thinking that is productive toward equality.  We are not at the beginning of the struggle, we are in the middle of it.

[Uristoteles]

First off: Thanks Jopax! It's reassuring to hear 
(But, I must say, it took me the better part of two hours to get a hopefully coherent idea of what is going on and to write that down)

The word of women as to their plight is more credible than the word of men as to women's plight.

I agree. But I'd like to add, that men are for the most part the propagators (wittingly or unwittingly) of this plight; they are part of the problem and I think it can only be resolved with their cooperation.
As soon as they unhappily accept their position as (unwilling) abusers, they not only learn to see the sexism directed at women but also learn to see the sexism which works against them as well. And I guess some of them want that at least to be acknowledged. Why not give them this acknowledgement?

And when everybody involved in the debate feels like the other side has it out for them, real discussion just doesn't happen.

Yes, that's the problem. In this case I suggest to argue for the point that a succesful feminist movement will not only set women free, but will also lead to more liberties for men (albeit less than for women, it's still a win-win situation).

@ Ogdibus

"prove that this a problem"

But it has been proven so often in the last fifty years, there are hundreds of videos, essays, books, aso flying around. Those poeple should be pointed to them and be told not to come back before understanding what is going on. (If they refuse, claiming that they know better than three generations of contemporary intellectuals, they can be safely _ignored_)

There is one video which I think is pretty good to convince males, and it should also have some interesting points for females. The problem with this video is that the first 11min are in german, but they can safely be skipped. When the guy actually gets talking he annoyingly needs ~15min to get rolling, so he's very dry and a bit fumbling at first, but turns out to be a pretty good talker once he's warmed up. He is interesting and nice to listen to for the remainder of the video (which is almost two hours long – but it's worth it!).

Michael Kimmel - The Guy´s Guide to Feminism

"no, let's talk about my problems instead"

well, yeah; acknowledge their problem and point to the thread title, they are in the wrong place. But this has been tried here. Far easier said than done :/
A mod or active op is really necessary.

As I understand it, all involved humans must change the way they think and the way they act to dissolve this unfair inequality for women.

This is not the reality of the situation.  There are quite a few people in this conversation and in the world, that already have a way of thinking that is productive toward equality.  We are not at the beginning of the struggle, we are in the middle of it.

That's true too. Sadly 2000 years of intellectually supported sexism take some effort to abolish. I also think that this change is an ongoing process even for those who are constructively involved in it for the last decades. There are many young feminists, the second generation gender sciences graduates and the LGBTQ-movement which are all changing the picture. (I have a hard time following all that, e.g. the contemporary assumption that gender is 100% society-dependent and 0% body-dependent does not sit right with me, but that's another subject entirely)

-

Now. What can we do for this thread?

Looking back at the video about women in videogames and the thread, I noticed that there is an agreement that her examples are partly really bad. When her examples get shot down, her points will suffer as well and that's not helpful.
I would would suggest to look at the examples Anita Sarkeesian took and analyse them: which are supportive for the points she wants to make and which are detrimental? Can we find better examples?
The good thing with this would be that it's something that supporters and critics of her work can do equally and I think it would further the discussion in a meaningful way.

[phew, excuse me now, I need a sandwich, some pointless media to unwind and then sleep; it's well past midnight in my part of the world, I'll return tomorrow]

edit: typo

[Vector]

Looking back at the video about women in videogames and the thread, I noticed that there is an agreement that her examples are partly really bad. When her examples get shot down, her points will suffer as well and that's not helpful.
I would would suggest to look at the examples Anita Sarkeesian took and analyse them: which are supportive for the points she wants to make and which are detrimental? Can we find better examples?
The good thing with this would be that it's something that supporters and critics of her work can do equally and I think it would further the discussion in a meaningful way.

I like you, and I like this idea. Thanks, let's do this.

[Neonivek]

To help this  so people don't have to do too much rewatching. Why don't we keep this within the discussion of the most recent video.

Don't worry I am still staying out of this (One, because I help more by not getting involved, and two because I am going to wait until the chapter is complete before I comment), afterall I said I was fully out.

[Vector]

To help this  so people don't have to do too much rewatching. Why don't we keep this within the discussion of the most recent video.

That's also a good idea. Let's start there for sure, also to keep the discussion focused.

[Graknorke]

I like you, and I like this idea. Thanks, let's do this.

Alright then. First things first I would say that a lot of the examples that are in relatively open games and where the random NPCs are taken aren't appropriate, and there should be more taken from games where character is a focus (like your Mass Effects and that) so that the contrast between character and object is clear. I'm sure there are people other than me who know more about those kinds of games who can give good examples.

Off the top of my head I can think of the woman from Hotline Miami, who you rescue her from who I can only assume is a violent rapist, then she sits around for a few missions before being killed as part of the protagonist's story. While in that game there are only a few characters with actual dialogue, the silent characters communicate a decent amount of intent by what actions they take. Not so much a thing when you do nothing of consequence between being introduced and dying.She is literally just decoration around the apartment inbetween missions for a bit.

[palsch]

Alright then. First things first I would say that a lot of the examples that are in relatively open games and where the random NPCs are taken aren't appropriate, ...

I'd disagree with this. If there is a heavy use of sexualised female NCPs in such a game then it's definitely relevant.

Think of the contrast between a GTA and a Skyrim. Both are generally sandbox worlds with largely optional plots and hoards of NCPs that can be slaughtered or ignored at will, most of whom have very little in the way of agency.

But in Skyrim there is little in the way of sexualisation (unless you deliberately mod it in, which plenty of people are happy to do). I'd also argue that women are better distributed throughout the game in gender equal ways, but it's been a while since I played either to any extent and couldn't make a solid argument on that point without a lot more time and research. The combination of minimal sexualisation and broader/better representation within the game makes a lot of difference.

Looking at roles of female characters in games like that is, I think, entirely relevant.

[Jopax]

I'd just like to chime in that looking at it like that isn't really fair to the game itself. Since the setting, general tone and intent of the game gets overlooked like that. Skyrim is set in the fantasy north, it's rather cold so you won't really see scantly clad ladies. GTA is usually set on the west coast of the US which is hot and therefore allows scantly clad ladies. The time period is different, with different standards and social conduct. And ultimately the aim of the games is different, Skyrim is a generic fantasy H&S with a big damn hero protagonist, while GTA is usually focused on the more criminal elements of the modern society with antihero protagonists.

So of course one will have more sexualized women and prostitutes than the other.

[scrdest]

I'd just like to chime in that looking at it like that isn't really fair to the game itself. Since the setting, general tone and intent of the game gets overlooked like that. Skyrim is set in the fantasy north, it's rather cold so you won't really see scantly clad ladies. GTA is usually set on the west coast of the US which is hot and therefore allows scantly clad ladies. The time period is different, with different standards and social conduct. And ultimately the aim of the games is different, Skyrim is a generic fantasy H&S with a big damn hero protagonist, while GTA is usually focused on the more criminal elements of the modern society with antihero protagonists.

So of course one will have more sexualized women and prostitutes than the other.

GTA also has this weird... kinda-satire-kinda-not kind of thing going.

[Cheeetar]

I'd just like to chime in that looking at it like that isn't really fair to the game itself. Since the setting, general tone and intent of the game gets overlooked like that. Skyrim is set in the fantasy north, it's rather cold so you won't really see scantly clad ladies. GTA is usually set on the west coast of the US which is hot and therefore allows scantly clad ladies. The time period is different, with different standards and social conduct. And ultimately the aim of the games is different, Skyrim is a generic fantasy H&S with a big damn hero protagonist, while GTA is usually focused on the more criminal elements of the modern society with antihero protagonists.

So of course one will have more sexualized women and prostitutes than the other.

GTA also has this weird... kinda-satire-kinda-not kind of thing going.

If Neonivek hadn't disavowed himself of this thread, he could explain all about his 'satire cake' theory to us.