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

The Conformist wrote:

Would these men be as much of a threat to women if there was say no nudity?

I've heard plenty of accounts of horrific rape, abuse and nasty treatment of women in countries where they are required to wear burkas at all times. So I'm going to say that yes, they would be.

Everyone has different boundaries and comfort levels, it is true, but in many of these stories (such as the Black Cat one), the woman indicates she is uncomfortable and the treatment persists. That's a damn good line in the sand. If a woman says she is uncomfortable with a man's behavior, he should stop. It doesn't matter what she is wearing or how she is posing or if she was flirting with him just five minutes ago, discomfort = stop.

SixteenBlue wrote:
The Conformist wrote:

Oh I absolutely agree with that. And those of us who are mature enough to see that you should not treat women like that can see the difference. I'm referring more to the men that are just absolute pigs of human beings. Would these men be as much of a threat to women if there was say no nudity? Does that type of media encourage more cave man like behavior? Not justifying it, just thinking about it.

You're veering dangerously close to blame the victim territory. Saying certain people just suck and we shouldn't give them the opportunity to suck is essentially saying the impetus to prevention is on the victim, not the perpetrator.

I'm only identifying men in this situation because because of the topic. I'm more or less asking this question with both parties in mind. Do either men or women benefit or suffer from things such as nude pictures, porn and so forth. Simply put, do these types of media encourage in any way, on either side, a negative outlook or behavior that otherwise would not be there.

Demyx wrote:
The Conformist wrote:

Would these men be as much of a threat to women if there was say no nudity?

I've heard plenty of accounts of horrific rape, abuse and nasty treatment of women in countries where they are required to wear burkas at all times. So I'm going to say that yes, they would be.

Everyone has different boundaries and comfort levels, it is true, but in many of these stories (such as the Black Cat one), the woman indicates she is uncomfortable and the treatment persists. That's a damn good line in the sand. If a woman says she is uncomfortable with a man's behavior, he should stop. It doesn't matter what she is wearing or how she is posing or if she was flirting with him just five minutes ago, discomfort = stop.

I don't disagree at all.

The Conformist wrote:

I'm only identifying men in this situation because because of the topic. I'm more or less asking this question with both parties in mind. Do either men or women benefit or suffer from things such as nude pictures, porn and so forth. Simply put, do these types of media encourage in any way, on either side, a negative outlook or behavior that otherwise would not be there.

So, you're basically asking "does porn = abusive men?"

Given that there's many, many orders of magnitude more porn available in many, many orders of magnitude easier to access fashions than say, 20 years ago, for your assumption to be true, we should be awash in abused women where we weren't 20 years ago..

And that's simply not the case. It's demonstrably false.

SixteenBlue wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
DanB wrote:
1Dgaf wrote:

As for the Black Cat woman, she shouldn't have been spoken to like that. However, I also think it's OK for men to flirt, even if they're big and middle aged. But the context and setting is very important.

True enough but there's a pretty wide and obvious gulf between flirting and being a sleaze

The problem being that there is a variable range for each and every person there, and trying to stick to the lowest common denominator is really not in a lot of people's nature. I'm not condoning what happened here (I haven't actually had a chance to read the story myself yet), but there is no range of what's fun/enjoyable for a lady and what's creepy/off-putting/harassment that applies to all women. What offends some women may be enjoyable to others.

She had essentially just given a speech explaining to this guy exactly what her range is.

Having read the article, I would argue that this guy was a total pig. I would also argue that he was not flirting in the slightest and actually came into the situation prepared to be (and consequently was) a total pig who was looking to be as over-the-top and obnoxious as possible.

My statements, on the other hand, were solely on the topic of flirting, really. We can certainly say that social skills and assuming that something is over the line until proven it isn't are good ideas.

My experience, however, is that adaquete social skills are about as common as common sense for a lot of people. That's why half my calls at my job are from customers who have no ability to recognize a no-win scenario for the people trying to help them, and then act like that attendent who was trying to help them was instead trying to murder them and demand we give them hundreds of dollars over a $2 issue or they'll sue us and go nuts on Facebook.

That does not, however, excuse any of the behavior from people after she basically just shared "Oh hey, here's a thing a guy did that was awful, so if you don't want to be awful you shouldn't act that way."

That's the most repugnant thing to me. Yes, there will always be socially maladroit people (although that doesn't begin to explain the sheer volume of sh*t women have to deal with). However, the very idea that if someone complains about such behavior, even in terms of just pointing out "in case any of you were wondering, this is the kind of thing that's inappropriate", they'll receive a torrent of hate mail, rape threats, stalking threats, etc. etc. That idea is just repulsive.

Hypatian wrote:

That does not, however, excuse any of the behavior from people after she basically just shared "Oh hey, here's a thing a guy did that was awful, so if you don't want to be awful you shouldn't act that way."

That's the most repugnant thing to me. Yes, there will always be socially maladroit people (although that doesn't begin to explain the sheer volume of sh*t women have to deal with). However, the very idea that if someone complains about such behavior, even in terms of just pointing out "in case any of you were wondering, this is the kind of thing that's inappropriate", they'll receive a torrent of hate mail, rape threats, stalking threats, etc. etc. That idea is just repulsive.

+ eleventy billion. I just tweeted Rebecca thanking her for the article. I totally agree that the only way to stop this kind of behavior is to drag these people kicking and screaming into the open, to expose their ugly, reprehensible attitudes and show that this kind of thing is not acceptable in a modern, educated society. Get thee back to the stone age, troglodyte!

Rallick wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

That does not, however, excuse any of the behavior from people after she basically just shared "Oh hey, here's a thing a guy did that was awful, so if you don't want to be awful you shouldn't act that way."

That's the most repugnant thing to me. Yes, there will always be socially maladroit people (although that doesn't begin to explain the sheer volume of sh*t women have to deal with). However, the very idea that if someone complains about such behavior, even in terms of just pointing out "in case any of you were wondering, this is the kind of thing that's inappropriate", they'll receive a torrent of hate mail, rape threats, stalking threats, etc. etc. That idea is just repulsive.

+ eleventy billion. I just tweeted Rebecca thanking her for the article. I totally agree that the only way to stop this kind of behavior is to drag these people kicking and screaming into the open, to expose their ugly, reprehensible attitudes and show that this kind of thing is not acceptable in a modern, educated society. Get thee back to the stone age, troglodyte!

I'm not excusing or condoning their behavior in any way. I specifically said I think the dude was deliberately being a pig. I was glad to see a lot of likes, reblogs, and such after that story.

All my other comments about flirting and social skills are really more on the topic in general... not this one story (again, I don't consider that even a story about inappropriate flirting becoming skeavy, but a story about a guy who came into the situation looking to be obnoxious regardless of anyone's boundaries. The more depressing thing from this story was after this lady made it clear she was mad about the line of questioning, that the audience chimed in on the inappropriateness by contributing more).

I think you guys are talking past one another. It seems like some people are talking about Rebecca Watson and some people are talking about the Black Cat cosplayer.

muttonchop wrote:

I think you guys are talking past one another. It seems like some people are talking about Rebecca Watson and some people are talking about the Black Cat cosplayer.

Thank you! I've been trying to figure out the context of some of the posts (thinking they were all related to Rebecca Watson) and I was very confused.

SixteenBlue wrote:
muttonchop wrote:

I think you guys are talking past one another. It seems like some people are talking about Rebecca Watson and some people are talking about the Black Cat cosplayer.

Thank you! I've been trying to figure out the context of some of the posts (thinking they were all related to Rebecca Watson) and I was very confused.

Yar, I saw posts about the appropriateness of types of flirting and went with that, I wasn't talking about any particular story posted here for that.

It's not to do with the clothes, it's about the culture. I think some women were sexually assaulted in Egypt recently because they were wearing their headscarves in a slutty way.

Give women control of their reproductive cycle; make sure boys and girls are educated equally and about equality.

In a few generations things will change.

pgroce wrote:

It Stands to Reason, Skeptics Can Be Sexist Too, in which Richard Dawkins turns out to be a misogynist asshat who uses straw man arguments. (More troublingly, the latter probably offends him more.)

And to think he got to marry Romana....

(I skimmed the last few pages, sorry if it's a dupe.)

Seen rumblings of that over the last few days, but this is the first time I got to it so thanks for the link.

Holy sh*t that's depressing.

Human beings are such assholes. Whatever the ingroup they get so defensive against anything that rocks the boat, most especially if it's an uppity woman.

I've gone back and forth over Richard Dawkins the last few years. I think he is a terrible advert for atheism, he's such a colossal jerk.

I've sort of flirted with the idea that I may actually be an atheist, but can't quite make that step. People like Dawkins just make it so unappealing.

*****

Slight tangent, but this popped up in my Twitter feed today, so I thought I'd share. About why the majority of women won't call themselves feminist.

Essentially, feminists are also assholes.

I would link to a relevant Spaceballs pic, but some people may be reading this at work.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

I've sort of flirted with the idea that I may actually be an atheist, but can't quite make that step. People like Dawkins just make it so unappealing.

I'm an atheist! I'm really nice, own a cat, and make cartoons! How is that NOT appealing?

bombsfall wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

I've sort of flirted with the idea that I may actually be an atheist, but can't quite make that step. People like Dawkins just make it so unappealing.

I'm an atheist! I'm really nice, own a cat, and make cartoons! How is that NOT appealing?

You're one of my favourite in my Twitter timeline. there's more to it than that, but is a factor.

bombsfall wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

I've sort of flirted with the idea that I may actually be an atheist, but can't quite make that step. People like Dawkins just make it so unappealing.

I'm an atheist! I'm really nice, own a cat, and make cartoons! How is that NOT appealing?

IMAGE(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NnbOACoKz4Y/TeblMQaLadI/AAAAAAAABsQ/SmVmV1LG_Pg/s1600/monty_python_witch.jpg)

WITCH!

MrDeVil909 wrote:

Slight tangent, but this popped up in my Twitter feed today, so I thought I'd share. About why the majority of women won't call themselves feminist.

Essentially, feminists are also assholes.

I would link to a relevant Spaceballs pic, but some people may be reading this at work.

Any group large enough is going to have assholes. This article is mostly about one feminist who has some views the author disagrees with. Fair enough, but you know there are plenty of feminist writers who would agree with her views. For example, she mentions that Moran has issues with sex work. This is part of a larger conversation in feminism: can sex work ever be empowering, or is it always demeaning? In early feminism, the view that it was always demeaning won out (mainstream feminism was also anti-pornography), but these days the pendulum has swung back the other way and the author could easily find feminists in favor of sex work if she cared to look.

I mean, I agree fully with the points about there are infinite ways to be a woman and no woman should be excluded, and so do many other feminists. The author complains that feminism is not enough concerned with issues that affect minority women, well, we're not some monolithic movement getting our orders from a central authority. I think she'd find most feminists do care about issues affecting minority women, but may need someone to raise awareness - I doubt anyone is aware of or has time to devote to all feminism related issues at once.

If it weren't for feminism, she wouldn't even be able to write that column and put it on the website, so she could be a little grateful.

Personally, I think the reason many women won't call themselves feminists is because anti-feminist groups have purposefully tarred and stained the word.

bombsfall wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

I've sort of flirted with the idea that I may actually be an atheist, but can't quite make that step. People like Dawkins just make it so unappealing.

I'm an atheist! I'm really nice, own a cat, and make cartoons! How is that NOT appealing?

Answered your own question there.

/kidding!

MrDeVil909 wrote:

I've sort of flirted with the idea that I may actually be an atheist, but can't quite make that step. People like Dawkins just make it so unappealing.

Agreed that he comes off as a collossal jerk at times. However, your beliefs are yours. Belief isn't a binary issue, no matter how often people try to turn the myriad of questions around it into a Red v. Blue toggle.

I have nothing useful to add to the topic other than to say there's a lot of work to do and conflicts to come. Dawkins might have had a valid point in that there are more overtly vicious, dangerous and anti-female groups and power structures throughout the world and individuals in much greater immediate peril, but his message got lost in his assholiness. I'm still puzzling over what he was trying to accomplish by snarking off, other than shaming his subject.

Demyx wrote:

Personally, I think the reason many women won't call themselves feminists is because anti-feminist groups have purposefully tarred and stained the word.

+1

There has been a nearly 100 years of reactionary, knee-jerk belittling, deriding and mocking of anything referred to as or looking even remotely feminist

Regarding Rebecca Watson: I don't really think what the guy did in the elevator was wrong. I also don't think her reaction to it was wrong. Politely declining an invitation to sex and then offering a little advice about the irony in petitioning a woman for sex after hours of listening to her make clear that she was not really interested in that all makes sense. She could have completely humiliated him.

I realize that one of the unfortunate nuances of The Internet is a race to the bottom when it comes to disagreeing, so "I don't quite agree but we can still be friends" devolves into "I'm gonna rape your dead cat's guts in your church" at lightspeed. I dunno how we're gonna change that, but I think we're seeing the very painful beginnings of that trend to change now.

Also, between this story and the puddle of human urine I stepped in on the bus to work has drained a good deal of my faith in humanity this morning.

I realize that one of the unfortunate nuances of The Internet is a race to the bottom when it comes to disagreeing, so "I don't quite agree but we can still be friends" devolves into "I'm gonna rape your dead cat's guts in your church" at lightspeed. I dunno how we're gonna change that, but I think we're seeing the very painful beginnings of that trend to change now.

Raping dead cat guts in church? I think it's time to invoke...

IMAGE(http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/271/rule_34.jpg)

MrDeVil909 wrote:

I've sort of flirted with the idea that I may actually be an atheist, but can't quite make that step. People like Dawkins just make it so unappealing.

I don't understand why it would make a difference? Not believing in God makes you similar to him in only that way.

DanB wrote:
Demyx wrote:

Personally, I think the reason many women won't call themselves feminists is because anti-feminist groups have purposefully tarred and stained the word.

+1

There has been a nearly 100 years of reactionary, knee-jerk belittling, deriding and mocking of anything referred to as or looking even remotely feminist

And a trend for almost every group to be identified by the most vocal or parodied by an image of the most out there members. Not all people who support animal safety or fight against animal cruelty are PETA members, but when someone brings up animals rights, that's an image that pops into my head because that's the group most made fun of in that issue. They may be out there, but a lot of other groups like the world wildlife fund/federation (can't remember which) that do good work for this too, but most people know and think of crazy old PETA whenever this issue gets brought up because that's what they've heard about the most.

PETA doesn't actually fight for animal rights anymore; they just fight for their own ego. One of my friends is fighting one of their chapters from relocating an elephant out of a zoo because the elephant no longer is capable of living in the wild. PETA just wants it outta there. They have no plans beyond messing up the status quo. In all likelihood, if PETA gets their way, the elephant will die a slow and painful death.

It seems to me that some women who like to call themselves feminists are "fighting for women," with the exact same ulterior motives.

Demosthenes wrote:
DanB wrote:
Demyx wrote:

Personally, I think the reason many women won't call themselves feminists is because anti-feminist groups have purposefully tarred and stained the word.

+1

There has been a nearly 100 years of reactionary, knee-jerk belittling, deriding and mocking of anything referred to as or looking even remotely feminist

And a trend for almost every group to be identified by the most vocal or parodied by an image of the most out there members. Not all people who support animal safety or fight against animal cruelty are PETA members, but when someone brings up animals rights, that's an image that pops into my head because that's the group most made fun of in that issue. They may be out there, but a lot of other groups like the world wildlife fund/federation (can't remember which) that do good work for this too, but most people know and think of crazy old PETA whenever this issue gets brought up because that's what they've heard about the most.

Well, people do love to be reactionary rather than take on board some arguments, decide for themselves and maybe change something.

Valmorian wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

I've sort of flirted with the idea that I may actually be an atheist, but can't quite make that step. People like Dawkins just make it so unappealing.

I don't understand why it would make a difference? Not believing in God makes you similar to him in only that way.

It's not really a factor, it was a flippant comment I shouldn't have made because it's off topic and a distraction from my point.

DanB wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
DanB wrote:
Demyx wrote:

Personally, I think the reason many women won't call themselves feminists is because anti-feminist groups have purposefully tarred and stained the word.

+1

There has been a nearly 100 years of reactionary, knee-jerk belittling, deriding and mocking of anything referred to as or looking even remotely feminist

And a trend for almost every group to be identified by the most vocal or parodied by an image of the most out there members. Not all people who support animal safety or fight against animal cruelty are PETA members, but when someone brings up animals rights, that's an image that pops into my head because that's the group most made fun of in that issue. They may be out there, but a lot of other groups like the world wildlife fund/federation (can't remember which) that do good work for this too, but most people know and think of crazy old PETA whenever this issue gets brought up because that's what they've heard about the most.

Well, people do love to be reactionary rather than take on board some arguments, decide for themselves and maybe change something.

I would just say that their minds automatically flip to the images they see the most, which are usually the most ridiculous protrayed by the media. It's still their responsibility to look beyond that crap to the REAL people who are fighting for reasonable and good causes... but not everyone makes as much effort as we do on those kinds of things.

Rebecca Watson is an Atheist too.

That has kind of been the thrust of her problem. She is an outspoken atheist, an outspoken skeptic, proponent of science and reason.

But she is still just a silly twat to a lot of men, even in that community. And she kind of thought that community was too smart for that kind of behavior. Sadly she was wrong.

Demyx wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

Slight tangent, but this popped up in my Twitter feed today, so I thought I'd share. About why the majority of women won't call themselves feminist.

Essentially, feminists are also assholes.

I would link to a relevant Spaceballs pic, but some people may be reading this at work.

Any group large enough is going to have assholes. This article is mostly about one feminist who has some views the author disagrees with. Fair enough, but you know there are plenty of feminist writers who would agree with her views. For example, she mentions that Moran has issues with sex work. This is part of a larger conversation in feminism: can sex work ever be empowering, or is it always demeaning? In early feminism, the view that it was always demeaning won out (mainstream feminism was also anti-pornography), but these days the pendulum has swung back the other way and the author could easily find feminists in favor of sex work if she cared to look.

I mean, I agree fully with the points about there are infinite ways to be a woman and no woman should be excluded, and so do many other feminists. The author complains that feminism is not enough concerned with issues that affect minority women, well, we're not some monolithic movement getting our orders from a central authority. I think she'd find most feminists do care about issues affecting minority women, but may need someone to raise awareness - I doubt anyone is aware of or has time to devote to all feminism related issues at once.

If it weren't for feminism, she wouldn't even be able to write that column and put it on the website, so she could be a little grateful.

Personally, I think the reason many women won't call themselves feminists is because anti-feminist groups have purposefully tarred and stained the word.

Well, I think that the people who presume to speak for a movement, whether it feminism, skepticism or anything you care to name could stand to take a more inclusive stance. Particularly when it's a movement that's misunderstood and attacked.

I mentioned in another thread a movement called Black Consciousness. It's about Black people reclaiming the label and making it a subject of pride, rather than a stigma. More progressive movements, including feminism, need to reclaim the labels that have been deliberately tarnished by outsiders.

I'm a little troubled by the statement I bolded. I know it's not your intent, but that reads a lot like a 'shut up and get back in line.' It doesn't seem much different to Dawkin's comments to Watson or what many uppity women get told when they say something inconvenient.