Feminism/Sexism and Gaming/Geek/Popular culture Catch All

Seth wrote:

I know anecdotes aren't evidence, but we all referred to them as LEGO guys, too.

also we capitalize LEGOs where I come from. :)

Doesn't this say more about how our vocabulary is male-centered in our culture? In Dutch as well anyting neutral becomes male by default.

I also called them LEGO men when I was a kid, but since I got back into LEGO as an adult, I've called them minifigs.

Nearly all my Lego guys came from the old 80s space and knight sets. We had a couple of female hairstyles and the rest were rather androgynous, but I always thought of them as male.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

I want to kind of challenge the idea that the standard minifig is gender neutral though. I don't know about you guys, but we always called them Lego Men.* Adding female hair made them female, but the default was undoubtedly male to myself and the kids I played with, and the hair bits always got lost and meant the Lego Man couldn't wear a sweet helmet or hat. Now I know LarryC is some kind of detached Zen master who doesn't see gender or race or any other thing the rest of us see :p , but do you honestly see a standard minifig as genderless? Do you consider that a reasonable perspective?

I think it's reasonable. To me a hairless stock Lego guy was genderless, and acquired gender with the hair or hat. As a kid I was peeved that you couldn't stack, say, a fireman hat on hair, so unless you had female heads (with the red mouth or eyelashes) any fig with a hat always became male. Stupid manufacturing jerks

To me "guy" is male but "guys" is gender-neutral, fwiw.

clover wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

I want to kind of challenge the idea that the standard minifig is gender neutral though. I don't know about you guys, but we always called them Lego Men.* Adding female hair made them female, but the default was undoubtedly male to myself and the kids I played with, and the hair bits always got lost and meant the Lego Man couldn't wear a sweet helmet or hat. Now I know LarryC is some kind of detached Zen master who doesn't see gender or race or any other thing the rest of us see :p , but do you honestly see a standard minifig as genderless? Do you consider that a reasonable perspective?

I think it's reasonable. To me a hairless stock Lego guy was genderless, and acquired gender with the hair or hat. As a kid I was peeved that you couldn't stack, say, a fireman hat on hair, so unless you had female heads (with the red mouth or eyelashes) any fig with a hat always became male. Stupid manufacturing jerks

To me "guy" is male but "guys" is gender-neutral, fwiw.

This may be a weird place to join the conversation, but I think that reinforces the point: why does putting a hat on make a minifig male?

Yeah I think honestly the default idea is that they're Lego men, but I also think there's some merit that if you look at a Lego figure in a somewhat neutral outfit like a space suit or scuba gear (I'm not full caps on Lego OR scuba, eat it, Baseball) it's easy for a girl to project herself onto them. I think she avoided the whole "lego figures are de facto men" argument wisely, because they're neutral entities in meaningful ways. And they do pretty much embody the universal appeal aspect she was wanting to see.

I should also reinforce that I don't disagree with her basic premise. I was more critiquing how she went about it and she did trip one of my pet peeves when it went from "a line of argument" to "anything that could possibly be seen as wrong from any given point of view just to get more attacks in".

Anita Sarkeesian does sometimes make points I don't agree with, but so what? It's not like I've ever seen a you tube culture critic I agreed with 100%. She makes damned good points the majority of the time and has done a LOT to open my eyes about gender bias.

Bloo Driver wrote:

(I'm not full caps on Lego OR scuba, eat it, Baseball)

we are fighting. We are in a fight.

We are fight?

Garden Ninja wrote:

This may be a weird place to join the conversation, but I think that reinforces the point: why does putting a hat on make a minifig male?

Dunno, I think because of lack of visible hair. Did back then, at least... now I know enough women with crew cuts that I don't think it would register as a particular gender.

But- theories need to be tested. To the Lego store!

Hypatian wrote:

We are fight?

Then who was phone?

I apologize, as this is a bit off the direct topic of the Kickstarter, though I it is related to gender protrayals in media in general.

clover wrote:
Garden Ninja wrote:

This may be a weird place to join the conversation, but I think that reinforces the point: why does putting a hat on make a minifig male?

Dunno, I think because of lack of visible hair. Did back then, at least... now I know enough women with crew cuts that I don't think it would register as a particular gender.

But- theories need to be tested. To the Lego store!

Crew cuts / shaved heads aren't the norm for men either though, so it seems weird that lacking gender markers, the assumption is male. That's speaking as someone who makes the same kind of assumptions. I had presumed it was simple bias due to being a dude, but your post made me think it isn't that simple. Neutral is assumed to be just another kind of dude, and the principle extends beyond minifigs. Robots, for example are usually assumed to be "male" in some sense unless they are specifically made female. If, anecdotally at least, women make the same assumptions then it isn't a case "like me by default" like I initially thought. It probably is related, however, to a history of patriarchy, and it is interesting to me how effects like that remain, even if we've made a lot of progress getting rid of the overt and egregious problems from that history.

Garden Ninja wrote:

Crew cuts / shaved heads aren't the norm for men either though, so it seems weird that lacking gender markers, the assumption is male. That's speaking as someone who makes the same kind of assumptions. I had presumed it was simple bias due to being a dude, but your post made me think it isn't that simple. Neutral is assumed to be just another kind of dude, and the principle extends beyond minifigs. Robots, for example are usually assumed to be "male" in some sense unless they are specifically made female. If, anecdotally at least, women make the same assumptions then it isn't a case "like me by default" like I initially thought. It probably is related, however, to a history of patriarchy, and it is interesting to me how effects like that remain, even if we've made a lot of progress getting rid of the overt and egregious problems from that history.

There's a class factor, too. I grew up poor, so a lot of the boys I knew had crew cuts because their moms could do it at home for free. Most of the girls had longer hair for the same reason.

Garden Ninja:

It's probably cultural. Bloo Driver jokingly refers to me as a Zen Master but it's really coming from the culture I'm from.

We not as patriarchal in terms of jobs and such. There is a very significant participation of women in jobs that I was shocked to find is male dominated in other societies. It is traditional for the woman to control household money and finances. By the time I was in college, most of the College of Engineering were women, just because there were more women who made the grade cut and applied. I had an equal number of female medical school classmates, and more women med students graduated than men. Most of the department heads in the hospital I work in now are women; though we don't really pay attention. I just counted based on memory now and discovered this was so. We refer to them as "Chairmen." We have no problems calling women "men" or "guys," if that's how the position is named. A "fisherman" is not necessarily male. This probably has to do with how Tagalog is very gender-neutral. We don't have gendered profession names, or even have gendered pronouns.

It not even safe to assume the gender of a person based on how he or she looks. You can't really tell whether someone is a man or a woman by that measure; it's more a statement of sexual preference.

It's the social background that's telling me that the standard LEGO minifig is gender-neutral. Even as a small child, I identified them as male, but I knew that that was just me. There was nothing inherent in them that made them males and I could see that even when I was immature and not particularly smart.

So, when I see a doctor or paramedic LEGO minifig, unless there are strong indicators that that is a male, I don't have any strong cultural reasons to think so. Ditto for chefs, store owners, and other such professions. I don't see a robot as male unless it has strong suggestions that it is (strongly male body outline, very low register voice).

I'm sorry, but this whole bit about LEGO really doesn't make much sense to me in the context of this discussion. It seems like you're not keeping your eyes on the ball.

It doesn't matter what she says. It doesn't matter what she's saying it about. It doesn't matter if she's right or wrong or some unholy melange of both. I don't care if she's a feminist. I don't care if she is an actual Nazi. I don't care if she's tap dancing down the street wearing nothing but two damp dishtowels and a smile. I don't care if she peels off her skin a la Men in Black and Ann Coulter pops out with a braying laugh. She could be black, white, Latino, Asian, or plaid for all I care. She could be part of a huge group, or alone in her principles.

The fact that any human being can choose to express themselves and get this kind of reaction out of others is the problem. The fact that still others applaud that she has received this treatment is the problem. The fact that there are probably not going to be much in the way of consequences, even for those who made direct threats to her person and livelihood, is the problem. And the fact that this goes on every bloody day in a thousand ways no matter how much "awareness" or whatever is built is the )&@% problem.

momgamer:

It is kind of relevant, but you have to see the entire Tropes line.

Anita Sarkeesian rightly riles about the Straw Feminist portrayal of feminism in modern media. Her own LEGO videos comes dangerously close to this trope, however. It damages her own cause to be reasoning and thinking this way - it gives more fuel for the misogynists to burn.

That's important to this topic, isn't it?

LarryC wrote:

momgamer:

It is kind of relevant, but you have to see the entire Tropes line.

Anita Sarkeesian rightly riles about the Straw Feminist portrayal of feminism in modern media. Her own LEGO videos comes dangerously close to this trope, however. It damages her own cause to be reasoning and thinking this way - it gives more fuel for the misogynists to burn.

That's important to this topic, isn't it?

No, Larry, I don't have to see her videos. That's the point of my comment. What she's saying doesn't matter. There is nothing in any of those videos that could ever justify what is being done to her. Even if it was pure, hate speech, dripping vitriol from every syllable it wouldn't matter.

As long as you sit there and opine about the message as if there was some word in any language that could be spoken or written by anyone that could justify their behavior, you are your own little part of the problem as far as I'm concerned.

momgamer:

You're coming from a "deserve" side of it. I'm coming from a pragmatic side of it. I'm not part of the problem since I'm not part of your culture. This little space is the only part where I usually comment, because the rest of the internet generally makes me want to punch my monitor. It's not good for my health.

I'm not saying that misogynist behavior is justifiable in any way. There is that message macro in your culture, so I can see where you're mistaking me for saying that.

I'm saying that Anita in her LEGO videos is coming close to being a caricature of the causes she wants to champion. She is in danger of becoming the Straw Feminist that she herself criticizes. She is seeing sexism where there isn't any, which is dangerous precisely because there is sexism, and her overestimation makes it easier for the sexist to dismiss her message.

The solution to sexism and misogyny is to NOT be sexist and to criticize sexism, not to be sexist the other way.

LarryC wrote:

momgamer:

You're coming from a "deserve" side of it. I'm coming from a pragmatic side of it. I'm not part of the problem since I'm not part of your culture. This little space is the only part where I usually comment, because the rest of the internet generally makes me want to punch my monitor. It's not good for my health.

I'm not saying that misogynist behavior is justifiable in any way. There is that message macro in your culture, so I can see where you're mistaking me for saying that.

I'm saying that Anita in her LEGO videos is coming close to being a caricature of the causes she wants to champion. She is in danger of becoming the Straw Feminist that she herself criticizes. She is seeing sexism where there isn't any, which is dangerous precisely because there is sexism, and her overestimation makes it easier for the sexist to dismiss her message.

The solution to sexism and misogyny is to NOT be sexist and to criticize sexism, not to be sexist the other way.

Which would be fine in a Feminist Frequency Catch-All thread, if we had one. The LEGO video conversation is a derail from the topic of the thread, which is the reaction people had to Anita's Kickstarter.

In Larry's defense, the discussion has sort've split such that a healthy portion are discussing her criticisms, assumedly with the agreement that they are legitimate enough to be discussed. In other words, part of this thread has developed into "critiqueing her critiques," as bombsfall says. That part may deserve its own thread, but for now, it exists here.

The part about others' horrific reaction to her - portrayed by only one, maybe two individuals, in this thread - seems unrelated.

Or...that's how I'm seeing it.

I don't see you as being pragmatic at all. My point is much simpler, and much easier to deal with. You say we're not supposed to notice sexism, but you're basing your point on how good she is at her sex-based comments. If you truly believed in that sentence, you would be in my camp.

I don't think we should be making any determinations as to who "deserves" or doesn't. I believe that there is any "deserving". I don't believe Paul Christoforo would have deserved this. It is not possible to deserve this. Ever.

I don't care how good she is at being a feminist. Making those people's behavior permissible or not based on how good the person is at presenting their point is part of the problem.

And bullsh*t you're not part of the problem. You say it yourself. You're right here in this little space commenting. And the part of the problem right here is yours.

It was bad. We want to do something about it. We're thinking about speaking up in like forums to offset the negative noise.

I was not under the impression that there was more being actively discussed along those lines, but I'm prepared to participate if there is.

Talking about the justification of the LEGO video discussion is even more offtopic than the LEGO discussion itself. Let's not do that here.

LarryC wrote:

momgamer:

You're coming from a "deserve" side of it. I'm coming from a pragmatic side of it. I'm not part of the problem since I'm not part of your culture. This little space is the only part where I usually comment, because the rest of the internet generally makes me want to punch my monitor. It's not good for my health.

I'm not saying that misogynist behavior is justifiable in any way. There is that message macro in your culture, so I can see where you're mistaking me for saying that.

I'm saying that Anita in her LEGO videos is coming close to being a caricature of the causes she wants to champion. She is in danger of becoming the Straw Feminist that she herself criticizes. She is seeing sexism where there isn't any, which is dangerous precisely because there is sexism, and her overestimation makes it easier for the sexist to dismiss her message.

The solution to sexism and misogyny is to NOT be sexist and to criticize sexism, not to be sexist the other way.

Are you trying to draw the distinction between her having the power to stop this kind of behavior, and the responsibility to stop this kind of behavior?

Good article, terrible comments.

I am with Momgamer.

momgamer:

Step away from your keyboard. Breathe a little bit. Browse some other site. Then get back here and read.

You say we're not supposed to notice sexism
The solution to sexism and misogyny is to NOT be sexist and to criticize sexism, not to be sexist the other way.

You have to notice sexism in order to criticize it, so no, I'm NOT saying that we're not suppose to notice sexism. We're supposed to NOT BE sexist.

I don't think we should be making any determinations as to who "deserves" or doesn't. I believe that there is any "deserving". I don't believe Paul Christoforo would have deserved this. It is not possible to deserve this. Ever.
You're coming from a "deserve" side of it.

That is exactly what I said. You are coming from a deserve side of it. "No one deserves to be treated like this!" I agreed with that.

I'm not saying that misogynist behavior is justifiable in any way.

It's not. We clear on this? Good.

Now that we're agreed that no one deserves this, what is to be done about it?

Anita herself says that Straw Feminist is damaging to her cause. That's not me saying it. That's her saying it. It feels wrong for me to use an example woman to make the same point, it feels sexist. That point should stand on its own.

Larry,

I'm not going to step away. I'm going to continue worrying my pretty little head about this.

Do you truly not see how condescending your post is?

LarryC wrote:

Now that we're agreed that no one deserves this, what is to be done about it?

You ask what we're going to do about it. How about for a first step we stop diluting the main message that you say we agree on by picking nits off the message instead of aiming squarely at the people doing everything in their power to hurt the messenger?

I am worried about your health. I sense a lot of rage interfering between the communications, especially when you're telling me I'm saying things that I'm quite literally not. I quoted myself saying things that contradicted your paraphrase of them later on. This is to show that you're reading things in what I said that are simply not there or completely opposite of what I said.

Your opposition to my statements are logically a strawman. I'm not saying those things, so there is no need for us to pursue logical argument about them. We agree, in fact.

Is it worrisome that you are agreeing with me? Some people do find that worrying, for some reason.

I was asking you to take a breather so you can accurately read what I'm posting for what it is, since you obviously were not doing so. I also asked you to come back and re-engage after.

Again, it feels sexist that I have to put forth Anita to make commentary for me. Shouldn't what I write stand for itself? It's important that you view Straw Feminist because that's where the discussion is coming from vis a vis the LEGO videos.

You ask what we're going to do about it. How about for a first step we stop diluting the main message that you say we agree on by picking nits off the message instead of aiming squarely at the people doing everything in their power to hurt the messenger?

I was under the impression that we were doing exactly that. We have decided to speak up as a group consensus did we not? If you have suggestions for further action, please suggest away.

I'm not picking nits to dilute the message at all. We have discussed it and come to a resolution. I am in the process of putting that to action on YouTube.

I'm just going to poke in here and once again stress that I was offering a critique of her video because I felt it was germane to the topic overall. It was not any attempt to justify or explain away the treatment she had received by others.