Feminism Catch-All (with FAQ)

Hypatian wrote:

So, CFI finally made an official response the whole Women in Secularism CFI conference fiasco. Here's a breakdown of how their statement reads.

Yeah, I saw Rebecca Watson's reply to that earlier in the day. She's basically pulling her support for CFI, and, against her preference, boycotting the organization. It's a shame, but they're botching this response terribly, in about as alienating a way as possible to a constituency that's supposed to value reason and honesty.

What did Ron Lindsay do? All I can seem to find are angry parsings and responses to him. Might there be a video or audio?

The text of his talk is prefaced by a note, which makes this page somewhat confusing. But that's it.

In short: as the [em]keynote for a conference on feminism and secularism[/em] he did a bunch of mansplaining, misrepresented the idea of privilege, etc. Which is kind of weird and ooky, so a lot of people raised their eyebrows and were like "You don't have any background in gender studies, was it really appropriate for you to give this keynote speech?" And then he want off the rails at people who were criticizing him, to the extent of comparing Rebecca Watson (who was an invited speaker at the conference) to a North Korean propagandist.

This summarizes pretty well why people complained about the "keynote".

that summary wrote:

And this particular straw feminist is one of the most commonly-used ones by the most hostile opponents of feminism. This is one of the chief anti-feminist talking points: that feminists are hostile to all men, that we’re uninterested in the experiences of any man, that we think everything men say about feminism is wrong, that we don’t think sexism affects men or that feminism has anything to do with them. This image of the ball-busting, man-hating feminist is one of the primary ways that feminists get demonized, marginalized, trivialized, and ignored.

To hear it coming out of the mouth of the person hosting the Women in Secularism conference, in his welcoming speech to the conference’s speakers and attendees and financial supporters… it was appalling. It was reprehensible. It treated us with contempt. (More about this in my piece about Context.)

And the other part of the summary, about context, is also important. I had no idea about this part, which is just... odious:

And all of this unfolded while one of the primary anti-feminist harassers was sitting there in the audience. All of this unfolded while a person who has been invading and disrupting the Twitter feeds of conferences he thinks are too feminist, a person who has defended the misogynistic online harassment and the use of hate speech against feminist women in the atheist movement, a person who has written for, and done a recent interview with, a misogynist, rape apologist website that’s being monitored by the Southern Poverty Law Center (the organization that monitors hate groups), a person who has said, “I fail to see how refusing to believe in God leads to the ‘logical conclusion’ of abandoning the belief that women exist to serve men,” a person who dealt with a dispute by posting someone’s home address on the Internet, was sitting in the room. The fact that Justin Vacula was attending this conference had many people on edge: nobody knew if he was planning in-person confrontations, or continued online harassment, or what. Many of the people Vacula has personally targeted with harassment were in that room with him. For Lindsay to give that particular opening talk in that loaded environment — and for him to then make a point of going up to Vacula and personally welcoming him to the conference — showed a level of contempt for the speakers and attendees of that conference that is shocking… and that is entirely unacceptable.

(Emphasis mine. Wow, holy sh*t.)

Aside from that, the conference was apparently pretty amazingly awesome.

For some people foot and mouth is not an excuse. I gotta say that CEO of the Center for Inquiry is one such person. In an opening speech for a CFI event, the plausibility is less so.

I think there is a reason why I prefer James Randi, the JREF, and TAM.

As an atheist and a free thinker. My observation is that the main reason religion is harmful is when people take it too damn seriously. When you start taking atheism too damn seriously, you get the same problem. And frankly, as an alternative to religion, don't say something that I would expect to come from Pat Robertson.

I sent a polite, encouraging tweet to Rebecca Watson earlier today; about half an hour ago it was retweeted by one of these MRA groups, and I've already gotten one delusional tweet about how the hordes of oppressed men have fought back against Watson.

I don't know whom she might have oppressed. Did her ex husband make any sort of statement?

This is neither appropriate nor sensitive, but watching Arrested Development has made it impossible for me to read "MRA" without thinking "Mentally {ableist slur} Adult."

So. Yeah.

While I fully believe there are problems in the industry, I just can't get worked up over that comment. I just didn't take it that way. I'm sure someone will say that means I'm part of the problem. I did watch it with a very close member of my family who had the act supposedly being threatened happen to her and she also did not take it that way. Beats me.

Just wanted to add. I'm not saying anyone is wrong for being offended. If you were, please let them know.

obirano wrote:

While I fully believe there are problems in the industry, I just can't get worked up over that comment. I just didn't take it that way. I'm sure someone will say that means I'm part of the problem. I did watch it with a very close member of my family who had the act supposedly being threatened happen to her and she also did not take it that way. Beats me.

Just wanted to add. I'm not saying anyone is wrong for being offended. If you were, please let them know.

Is this pertaining to the Killer Instinct play where the dude said "it will be all over soon"? Because I hear that damn near any time something unpleasant happens to me-tooth filling, vasectomy. The vasectomy was not over soon enough, and was weird.

There is plenty of much more blatant misogyny going on at E3 and other events to address, without getting into the finer points of intention in that one statement.

Can we not just let people decide what is and isn't important to them?

It's a shame, because it was such a profound, paradigm-shifting statement, that really changes the way you look at existence. "It'll be over soon," from the space between galaxies to the space between subatomic particles, that statement altered the way I view them all in such a way that my soul cries to think I ever did without it. At least a lot of time is being spent defending it, because can you imagine how silly we'd look expending this much to explain and justify a trivial bit of scripted trash talk of dubious taste?

SixteenBlue wrote:

Can we not just let people decide what is and isn't important to them?

It is nice to have faces and names though. Lindsay's comments really leaves a film of ick because of the innuendo and misuse of generalized pronouns.

Grow some and name names so that there can be a discourse and a conversation.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

It's a shame, because it was such a profound, paradigm-shifting statement, that really changes the way you look at existence. "It'll be over soon," from the space between galaxies to the space between subatomic particles, that statement altered the way I view them all in such a way that my soul cries to think I ever did without it. At least a lot of time is being spent defending it, because can you imagine how silly we'd look expending this much to explain and justify a trivial bit of scripted trash talk of dubious taste?

Well, I mean it was on the front page of Forbes.com for a bit. Maybe it is worth mentioning again. Some people seemed to think it was a very important part of E3 and Microsoft.

Like I said, of all the things to point out as bad about E3, this seems out of place to focus on. It really reminded me of VW's Rasta-gate.

KingGorilla wrote:
obirano wrote:

While I fully believe there are problems in the industry, I just can't get worked up over that comment. I just didn't take it that way. I'm sure someone will say that means I'm part of the problem. I did watch it with a very close member of my family who had the act supposedly being threatened happen to her and she also did not take it that way. Beats me.

Just wanted to add. I'm not saying anyone is wrong for being offended. If you were, please let them know.

Is this pertaining to the Killer Instinct play where the dude said "it will be all over soon"? Because I hear that damn near any time something unpleasant happens to me-tooth filling, vasectomy. The vasectomy was not over soon enough, and was weird.

There is plenty of much more blatant misogyny going on at E3 and other events to address, without getting into the finer points of intention in that one statement.

I'm sorry. I just meant that one statement. I might've skimmed a bit too much.

SixteenBlue wrote:

Can we not just let people decide what is and isn't important to them?

I'm not sure who this was directed to, but that is all I am doing.

KingGorilla wrote:

Well, I mean it was on the front page of Forbes.com for a bit. Maybe it is worth mentioning again. Some people seemed to think it was a very important part of E3 and Microsoft.

Like I said, of all the things to point out as bad about E3, this seems out of place to focus on. It really reminded me of VW's Rasta-gate.

It is important, because to a lot of people it's a telling detail. Less important are these tales of dentistry and vasectomies where the phrase might also be used because, too be frank, your context does nothing to invalidate someone else's, and if you think this wasn't a big deal, maybe don't talk about it. The deep irony is that if it hadn't been for those proclaiming it wasn't a big deal, it would have been a page or two of people saying "that sucked," and moving on.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Well, I mean it was on the front page of Forbes.com for a bit. Maybe it is worth mentioning again. Some people seemed to think it was a very important part of E3 and Microsoft.

Like I said, of all the things to point out as bad about E3, this seems out of place to focus on. It really reminded me of VW's Rasta-gate.

It is important, because to a lot of people it's a telling detail. Less important are these tales of dentistry and vasectomies where the phrase might also be used because, too be frank, your context does nothing to invalidate someone else's, and if you think this wasn't a big deal, maybe don't talk about it. The deep irony is that if it hadn't been for those proclaiming it wasn't a big deal, it would have been a page or two of people saying "that sucked," and moving on.

Exactly, your context does nothing to invalidate kinggorilla's. Also, regardless of whether or not someone thought it was a big deal, they are free to share their opinion whether or not you agree. I sincerely doubt he is saying that because he didn't view it as such, no one is allowed to view it that way.

obirano wrote:

Exactly, your context does nothing to invalidate kinggorilla's.

I never said it did.

obirano wrote:

Also, regardless of whether or not someone thought it was a big deal, they are free to share their opinion whether or not you agree.

I also never said otherwise. I did, however, point out the very obvious irony in commenting on something that is alleged to not be a big deal.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
obirano wrote:

Exactly, your context does nothing to invalidate kinggorilla's.

I never said it did.

obirano wrote:

Also, regardless of whether or not someone thought it was a big deal, they are free to share their opinion whether or not you agree.

I also never said otherwise. I did, however, point out the very obvious irony in commenting on something that is alleged to not be a big deal.

It was perceived to be a big deal by some people, who have commented on it, so there are those who are commenting that did not perceive it that way.

Obviously, this is just going to go around in circles.

obirano wrote:

Obviously, this is just going to go around in circles.

Especially since all that's been offered is "I took it differently," because, really, what's one to say to that other than "Great. Others didn't?"

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
obirano wrote:

Obviously, this is just going to go around in circles.

Especially since all that's been offered is "I took it differently," because, really, what's one to say to that other than "Great. Others didn't?"

Yep, nothing much to argue.

Hey, if ppl don't want rapey dialogue to be the focus of a major video game conference that was broadcasted to the Internet at large, dudes shouldn't be saying that crap on stage. It's that simple.

That segment of their conference was pretty much an advertisement for Xbox LIVE.

- I can't even block! You're too fast!

--Just let it happen, it'll all be over soon.

- You have a fight stick!

--Wow, you like this.

-No, I don't like this!

Now imagine if a dentist added "Wow, you like this." as he was pulling a tooth. I don't think so.

And don't even get me started how they brought out "inexperienced gamer gurl" to have her butt kicked by "pro-gamer dude". As if we don't get enough of that "lol gurl gamer" crap IRL.

KingGorilla wrote:

Women that aren't 'booth babes' still hard to find at video-game trade show.

I think the title says it well.

I'm not surprised one bit. I know why.

Mystic Violet wrote:

And don't even get me started how they brought out "inexperienced gamer gurl" to have her butt kicked by "pro-gamer dude". As if we don't get enough of that "lol gurl gamer" crap IRL.

To be fair, she later turned out to be a "shark". Umpteen minutes later in the rematch after they demonstrated the guy sharing a video of the beatdown, she said ~"do you know what a shark is?" and demonstrated livestreaming while proceeding to roflstomp him. Of course, you had to sit through like 15 minutes of blah blah blah before getting to that punchline. This may be why they thought it was okay, not realizing that, you know, context matters kind of a lot, and nobody is going to be able to avoid tuning out after that much gonzo marketing demo stuff. Especially if you don't emphasize the punchline much, and the presentation ends right after it.

In short: They failed miserably in pretty much every way.

Oh I know that happened. The way it's been explained to me many times:

"That Killer Instinct part was stupid. Some dude beat up a chick, and then he let her win. It was so scripted!"

O_o Seriously? People are [em]that stupid[/em]?

Edit: Never mind. Of course they are. *sigh*

Totally. Those dudes don't l believe she knew how to actually play. It was "based on a true story" for many people. And this along with "I have no clue what rapists say to their victims" causes that MS segment to merge into the greater context that is "women in the video game industry."

I didn't know that she ended up beating him in the end, myself. Still doesn't change my mind on the matter, though. That "joke" was out of line. Some women (myself included) are brought up with the fear of rape (ie "behave, dress modestly, don't drink at a party or you'll get raped"), enough so that it's not funny one bit. I don't care if she then proceeded to reverse the trend and dominate the scoreboard.

Yeah, Hyp's right, pretty much an epic fail right there.

So the notion that it was scripted for her to let him win first never occurs to them, huh?

The extended quote...that just makes all the Nuh-uh-ing seem that much more absurd.

Lighter Note? Alyssa Rosenberg discusses the two main female characters in Man of Steel and the (both good) differences in their kick-assery.

Mystic Violet wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Women that aren't 'booth babes' still hard to find at video-game trade show.

I think the title says it well.

I'm not surprised one bit. I know why.

Kind of in keeping with the internet f*ckwad theory. What if there were more women from press, from retailers at the show? Anyone else get the "pretend your grandmother is in the front row" lecture in speech class? When the names on the guest lists have more Michelles, Janes, and Andreas, the face must change. Faces in a crowd are real, a blog with a thumbnail photo is a fake person(or just wait a few generations for those old farts to die off, but I am not a patient man by nature). Send them in with cameras, video, audio to see what goes on.

There is this tremendous confluence of issues surrounding videogames in this one instance.

- Either the industry and its fans have a major perception problem that it alienates women, or it actively does so. Either way, there needs to be another face forward.
- Games are not to be taken seriously, so it is OK to go on stage and talk like we are at a stag party boys.
- The people "in charge" think that they can go on stage and talk like it is a stag party.
- This is how these guys act at stag parties. These are the gents who brag about going to Vegas and paying for a prostitute.

I think it is a hobby worth maturing. But I may be wrong. It might go the way of the American muscle car, doomed to die with the baby boomers. But so long as the guest lists and the audiences are filled with a bunch of dudes and the only women to be seen are in Japanese school girl outfits, not much is going to change.

Awww, don't say that, KG!! You're not wrong, I firmly believe that the hobby is worth maturing, but I do think there's still hope. The day we lose hope is the day the hobby dies (well, not per se, but it will for me to a certain extent). As long as we keep getting some variety in our games, as long as there's some progress being made. There's hope, I just know there is.
Look at what's been accomplished so far, there aren't any more booth babes at PAX, more women are getting in the industry than before. We may not be there yet, some of us may be clamoring "are we there yet?" repeatedly, but there's still hope.