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

momgamer wrote:

I also loved that they still used quarters in the machines. But that's because I'm old.

Wait, they don't use quarters anymore?

Seth wrote:

Instead, we've had people try to tell me they know the innermost thoughts of the women in my life better than I do, and that I'm discussing from a position of complete ignorance. When that happens, honest discussion ends.
...
That said, I get that many posters here find the idea of a woman taking pleasure in domestic work roles anathema; that's fine and I applaud them for their views.

For someone who is upset at being misunderstood, you certainly are throwing up a few straw men there. Nobody said they knew the women in your life better than you do. Nor did anyone say that women can't or shouldn't take pleasure in domestic work roles. That you think they did says to me you don't really understand what was being complained about.

Valmorian wrote:
Seth wrote:

Instead, we've had people try to tell me they know the innermost thoughts of the women in my life better than I do, and that I'm discussing from a position of complete ignorance. When that happens, honest discussion ends.
...
That said, I get that many posters here find the idea of a woman taking pleasure in domestic work roles anathema; that's fine and I applaud them for their views.

For someone who is upset at being misunderstood, you certainly are throwing up a few straw men there. Nobody said they knew the women in your life better than you do. Nor did anyone say that women can't or shouldn't take pleasure in domestic work roles. That you think they did says to me you don't really understand what was being complained about.

Yeah, I don't recall seeing anything like that being said.

Well if you don't see it, I suppose we're at an impasse. maybe check some of DanB's , Amoebic's, and Valmorian's comments.

Can we please move on?

Garden Ninja wrote:

Can we please move on?

Yes. And my apologies for posting after I said I wouldn't. That's poor form and I judge people harshly for doing so.

I'm listening to coverage of the Petraeus affair debacle, and I admit being more than a little appalled that so far *every news outlet* I've tuned into has made mention of the fact that Petraeus's mistress was very beautiful and regularly wore tight outfits. I fail to see how that's in any way important to the narrative. Are they giving Patreus a pass because he was seduced? This is the type of double standard that is extremely frustrating.

Seth wrote:
Garden Ninja wrote:

Can we please move on?

Yes. And my apologies for posting after I said I wouldn't. That's poor form and I judge people harshly for doing so.

I'm listening to coverage of the Petraeus affair debacle, and I admit being more than a little appalled that so far *every news outlet* I've tuned into has made mention of the fact that Petraeus's mistress was very beautiful and regularly wore tight outfits. I fail to see how that's in any way important to the narrative. Are they giving Patreus a pass because he was seduced? This is the type of double standard that is extremely frustrating.

It also seems that the default narrative is that she seduced him, as if that's the only possibility. Why not simply mutual attraction? It shouldn't matter of course who 'seduced' who, but still...

Seth wrote:

I'm listening to coverage of the Petraeus affair debacle, and I admit being more than a little appalled that so far *every news outlet* I've tuned into has made mention of the fact that Petraeus's mistress was very beautiful and regularly wore tight outfits. I fail to see how that's in any way important to the narrative. Are they giving Patreus a pass because he was seduced? This is the type of double standard that is extremely frustrating.

Yeah, agreed entirely. The spider woman narrative that seems to be growing is concerning.

dejanzie wrote:
Seth wrote:
Garden Ninja wrote:

Can we please move on?

Yes. And my apologies for posting after I said I wouldn't. That's poor form and I judge people harshly for doing so.

I'm listening to coverage of the Petraeus affair debacle, and I admit being more than a little appalled that so far *every news outlet* I've tuned into has made mention of the fact that Petraeus's mistress was very beautiful and regularly wore tight outfits. I fail to see how that's in any way important to the narrative. Are they giving Patreus a pass because he was seduced? This is the type of double standard that is extremely frustrating.

It also seems that the default narrative is that she seduced him, as if that's the only possibility. Why not simply mutual attraction? It shouldn't matter of course who 'seduced' who, but still...

I know he wasn't her boss or anything direct like that, but I hate the idea that the guy with all the power is by default the victim.

SixteenBlue wrote:

I know he wasn't her boss or anything direct like that, but I hate the idea that the guy with all the power is by default the victim.

If only men started thinking with their other head, am I right, ladies?

/1990standupcomedy

Also, I told Seth I probably wasn't going to link this today since tensions were running high, but in case we all need a good laugh at ourselves, I have that for you.

(Oglaf is entirely NSFW, thus linked)

Seth wrote:
complexmath wrote:
Seth wrote:

What about the women who love doing those things, whether it's expected of them or not? Most (not all, but most) of the females in my life enjoy doing things similar to that asda ad. Are they somehow wrong or not being well served by having their efforts recognized?

I think what it comes down to is that no one wants a particular gender/race/lifestyle to be portrayed as the preferred one, or event the standard one.

I agree! But (and since this is the fourth time I've said it, I'll go ahead and make this my last post on the topic) the Asda ad isn't doing that -- except through the unspoken suggestion that happens whenever you have a commercial that isn't 45 minutes long in order to caveat out everyone. The Asda ad is saying "we want to help hardworking women do what they love to do." Sure, they're not handing out medals, awards, or other hyperbole, but they're recognizing and appreciating those women who make up a significant portion of their customer base. Also they're trying to sell more stuff.

As I'm sure you're aware, the thing with targeted media is that the implications are exceedingly nuanced. The intent of the advertised may even have been completely harmless, but one tiny mistake in phrasing or scene presentation could make the ad objectionable. Ad firms would probably all do well to have someone on staff with formal training in semantics.

dejanzie wrote:
Seth wrote:
Garden Ninja wrote:

Can we please move on?

Yes. And my apologies for posting after I said I wouldn't. That's poor form and I judge people harshly for doing so.

I'm listening to coverage of the Petraeus affair debacle, and I admit being more than a little appalled that so far *every news outlet* I've tuned into has made mention of the fact that Petraeus's mistress was very beautiful and regularly wore tight outfits. I fail to see how that's in any way important to the narrative. Are they giving Patreus a pass because he was seduced? This is the type of double standard that is extremely frustrating.

It also seems that the default narrative is that she seduced him, as if that's the only possibility. Why not simply mutual attraction? It shouldn't matter of course who 'seduced' who, but still...

Trigger warning: FreeRepublic

From what I could decipher, Petraeus, who knew with 100% certainty that he was married, f*cked a woman who may not have known his marital status. But it's her fault, and she's the one who betrayed his wife.

Edit: Nevermind, the conversation moved on, and I was too slow to respond. No hard feelings, none intended, sorry to start a sh*tstorm, etc. My bad for posting a not-related-to-anyone-else's-opinions, stream-of-consciousness response to a video. Clearly this is neither the time or the place for that. Carry on : )

complexmath wrote:

As I'm sure you're aware, the thing with targeted media is that the implications are exceedingly nuanced. The intent of the advertised may even have been completely harmless, but one tiny mistake in phrasing or scene presentation could make the ad objectionable. Ad firms would probably all do well to have someone on staff with formal training in semantics.

IMAGE(http://i1094.photobucket.com/albums/i453/czpv/semantics.jpg)

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:

Trigger warning: FreeRepublic

From what I could decipher, Petraeus, who knew with 100% certainty that he was married, f*cked a woman who may not have known his marital status. But it's her fault, and she's the one who betrayed his wife.

Actually, even better, it appears the author is making the point that this is all the fault of feminism. And likely on purpose, as part of feminism's plan to take over all the things.

I like this article a lot, because I can hold it side-by-side with articles published by similar people but about rape. In the case of rape, the line is that the woman shouldn't have put themselves in that situation, personal responsibility is key, etc etc etc. In this case, though, the problem is the culture which sexuality and fidelity has to deal with. If our country and values were different, it seems, the man would have never had to fear for being... uh... preyed upon... by someone who said yes to having sex with him.

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:

Trigger warning: FreeRepublic

From what I could decipher, Petraeus, who knew with 100% certainty that he was married, f*cked a woman who may not have known his marital status. But it's her fault, and she's the one who betrayed his wife.

Ugh. I read the comments and now I feel filthy.

I read that article and the *only* salient point I got out of it was: "I am pissed that Paula Broadwell acted the way I believe men - and only men - should act."

So who wants to take the over on 1 month for Patraeus pulling out the "Sex Addiction" card?

KingGorilla wrote:

So who wants to take the over on 1 month for Patraeus pulling out the "Sex Addiction" card?

Won't happen. Sex addiction is for when you're caught being the instigator. They're clearly blaming the slutty vixen, so no need for the sex addiction card....or at least until incriminating emails or texts come out.

Apparently she wrote threatening emails to people she considered competition for his affection - which is how they got caught in the first place.

So to roll it back. I find it hard to believe that she did not know he was married, being his biographer and all that. Given that highly political appointment he enjoyed, he would have his ring on and photos in his office.

Can they both be awful sexual miscreants?

So, that "Fake Geek Girl" nonsense is making rounds again. First, writer Dirk Manning post an image on his Facebook page which labels women who express their nerdiness as "whores who found glasses."

Yesterday, comic artist Tony Harris posted his lovely opinion of female cosplayers on his FaceBook page and the internet exploded. Here's a screencap of the post just in case it disappears.

This crap is very tiring.

If you read to the bottom, Manning and de Guzman finally work it around to him getting a clue. It reminded me of this thread's several flashpoint discussions.

Some thoughts:

1) wow Dirk uses a lot of smily faces. Note to self to excise all smileys from my online discourse.

2) What, exactly, is Dirk complaining about? The best I can distill it is "pretty girls who claim to be nerds [but aren't]." And I have to put "but aren't" in quotes because reading through that link I don't think he really explained that. And if I jump through 900 really bad and presumptive stereotypes about male gamers, I can sort of understand his frustration. Yes, it involves the victimization of the poor helpless sexless male gamer by the beautiful, busty succubus just trying to make money / humiliate nerds / other nefarious acts (told you it wasn't pretty). I think a few years ago this feeling was exemplified by Olivia Munn - a "non-nerd" moonlighting as one.

Of course, all those are guesses and even I'm close, we would have to slog through the dissertation's worth of inconsistencies, self absorptions, male-centric views, and general eyerolling boy's club nonsense.

3) I can't even get through Tony Harris's drivel.

4) ok I skimmed it. It's pretty much the same as Dirk's. Goddamn, these two guys seem scared to death of women in their hobbies/professions.

Seth wrote:

Some thoughts:

1) wow Dirk uses a lot of smily faces. Note to self to excise all smileys from my online discourse.

2) What, exactly, is Dirk complaining about? The best I can distill it is "pretty girls who claim to be nerds [but aren't]." And I have to put "but aren't" in quotes because reading through that link I don't think he really explained that. And if I jump through 900 really bad and presumptive stereotypes about male gamers, I can sort of understand his frustration. Yes, it involves the victimization of the poor helpless sexless male gamer by the beautiful, busty succubus just trying to make money / humiliate nerds / other nefarious acts (told you it wasn't pretty). I think a few years ago this feeling was exemplified by Olivia Munn - a "non-nerd" moonlighting as one.

I, for one, despise Munn's career just because she is one of a handful of examples of people (male and female) who get by on pandering and exploiting an image rather than having it. I think there's a definite complaint about Munn and the exploitation of "nerd culture" as a marketing label that is outside the bounds of the whole "nerd camwhore girl" thing.

In this particular case, though, Dirk is definitely on the wrong side, but there's some tiny Venn overlap with reasonable irritation. Fake nerdery is a real thing, but I think this is probably the worst way to express that at all.

3) I can't even get through Tony Harris's drivel.

4) ok I skimmed it. It's pretty much the same as Dirk's. Goddamn, these two guys seem scared to death of women in their hobbies/professions.

It's a really interesting backlash to watch. The hate is definitely focused on women, not just people co-opting nerd culture to sell stuff and get blog hits.

...

Regardless of who you're talking about (male, female, famous, hermit, whatever) it's really weird to call someone a fake nerd.

KingGorilla wrote:

So who wants to take the over on 1 month for Patraeus pulling out the "Sex Addiction" card?

For one affair? Unlikely. That one's reserved for repeat offenders.

Who gets to decide where the line for "real nerd" is?