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

CheezePavilion wrote:

I'd also be interested to see if people think "you're just arguing semantics" or "you just like to argue" are a sub-type of bringing the other person's emotional state into it, and if not, why?

The former, no. The latter, yes. The former discusses the actual content of their argument, the latter is dismissing what they're saying and applying motivations to it outside of the actual content.

Jonman:

Demyx nailed it. I'll expand on that - telling anyone to "calm down" is attempting to assert intellectual superiority over them. You're saying that you know better than them how they ought to be responding, and that they're Doing It Wrong. It's dismissing their response, and telling them that they can do better. It's condescending and arrogant.

My usual alternatives are to just tell them that they're Appealing to Emotion as a method of argument, which is logically fallacious, or Begging the Question. Most often, the statements are just nonsense. Would that be more polite?

The Conformist:

It's a case to case basis, I find. I have had positive reactions to when I point out that a person is being overly emotional and could stand to reconstruct their argument in better form. The incident with momgamer was the first instance I've had where it was considered gendered. This is the only forum I comment on where I can't point it out politely. It's very strange.

SixteenBlue wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

I'd also be interested to see if people think "you're just arguing semantics" or "you just like to argue" are a sub-type of bringing the other person's emotional state into it, and if not, why?

The former, no. The latter, yes. The former discusses the actual content of their argument, the latter is dismissing what they're saying and applying motivations to it outside of the actual content.

Sort of the horns of the dilemma there. That means getting mad at someone for arguing semantics is getting mad at them for being dumb. And that's not nice.

SixteenBlue wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

I'd also be interested to see if people think "you're just arguing semantics" or "you just like to argue" are a sub-type of bringing the other person's emotional state into it, and if not, why?

The former, no. The latter, yes. The former discusses the actual content of their argument, the latter is dismissing what they're saying and applying motivations to it outside of the actual content.

YOU'RE A GODDAMN f*ckING STUPIDHEAD!

Pretend that I've been acting increasingly agitated over this topic for some pages now and this is my latest response. How would you proceed in discussing the content of that argument and how would you make headway?

Demyx:

Same. How would you point out what's irrational about the capitalized statement in a polite and acceptable manner?

It's incredibly easy to be unemotional and detached in an argument you have no particular stake in. This is one reason why it's considered gendered to tell a woman she's being overemotional in an argument about feminism: We live this stuff. Day in, day out. And a lot of us have been denied opportunity, suffered abuse, been harassed, etc.

Appeal to emotion is logically fallacious if you're talking about a purely logical argument. But emotion has EVERYTHING to do with how people want to be treated, which is what this thread is about.

Larry: I'm pretty sure I remember that conversation and there was a hell of a lot more of it than simply calling you a stupidhead.

My rational response is that you should stop constructing strawmen.

LarryC wrote:
Demyx wrote:

Considering strong emotions as "temporary weakness" and as a barrier to "a more reasoned response" is part of the issue, I'd say.

It's a common enough phenomenon, not isolated to any person. When it becomes an issue, then it's an issue. Some very impassioned people still make very logical statements. So long as the response is not rendered nearly incoherent with pointless emotional remarks, it's good. When it's not good is when emotional remarks edge out logic.

I have had frequent occasions to note that strong emotion often leads to impaired logic. It's a generalization based on purely empirical observations; which I only expect, not assume.

gore:

More's the pity. It actually annoys me a lot that I have to differentiate between men and women at all. I'd rather that I didn't have to. Cultural context, too. Apparently, it offends certain men to be ascribed qualities that THEY think are feminine (how in the nine hells can I be expected to know that?).

In a bit of a twist, I'd say some of the dislike of pointing out someone is acting emotional even when it's a man is ascribing qualities that THEY think--or at least, society thinks--are feminine to them. Part of the issue with calling a woman emotional is that calling something emotional is how society de-legitimizes women in general. Calling a man emotional is in some sense winning by emasculating him. Often the way people put down men being emotional is to say "quit being a (insert other word for feline here)" or "quit crying like a girl."

Just maybe something that helps give the discussion context and ties into clover's diagram.

Demyx:

I'm not very familiar with the meaning of "argument" that's not one of these senses:

a discussion involving differing points of view; debate

an oral disagreement; verbal opposition; contention; altercation: a violent argument

I'm not particularly interested in the latter, and I don't see how anything other than logic should govern the former. I find it easy to be unemotional and perfectly logical in arguments where I have a personal stake. In fact, I'm frequently advised that I could benefit from making my delivery a bit more emotional so as to be "believable," for reasons I do not fully understand. I frequently find it more expedient to assess my opponent's emotional state and prey on that when I have a personal stake in the outcome and want the debate to end in my favor. I do not consider this completely above-table, which is why I point out when the opportunity is presented and I decline it.

"Emotional" value in an argument can often be restated as a value-added assumption. Is it better not to do so? It's clearer when everything is quite explicit, IMO.

I'm pretty sure I remember that conversation and there was a hell of a lot more of it than simply calling you a stupidhead.

My rational response is that you should stop constructing strawmen.

I did not mean to imply that. I simply referenced that interaction as an example. I have provided a more clear-cut example that is not meant to represent the earlier example. Please indicate how you would respond to the capitalized reply.

Larry:

No, not everyone "finds it easy" to remain unemotional when, say, discussing rape threats when they themselves have been raped. Just to give a potential example. That does not mean that their arguments are less important than yours or easy to dismiss.

In a discussion of how women are treated, etc., how people feel is EVERYTHING. That's the entire discussion.

Your repeated insistence that I figure out how to reply to your silly "stupidhead" comment is derailing and dismissive. People get emotional with you in these arguments because your manner of speaking is extremely dismissive to their points of view.

Yes, that upsets me, and I have every right to be upset by that. Insisting that people should remain unemotional in discussions of extremely sensitive topics is borderline sociopathic.

Jonman wrote:
gore wrote:

Honestly I'm having trouble fully understanding Jonman's position. Is the position that boys should be able to interact with women effectively regardless of their upbringing?

My position is that "interacting with people" is a skill that is equally applied to both genders. My point is that there is no such thing as "knowing how to talk to women", there's just knowing how to talk to people. My point is that to suggest that there is such a difference, further builds upon the "Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus" myth.

Well, thanks for clarifying.

I think I disagree with you, though, because 1) boys and girls still generally grow up with strong reinforcements of gender stereotypes (which in turn subtly influences their perceptions of appropriate behavior in any given context), and 2) sex, which just makes everything weird.

Demyx:

Ignores previous point about detailing emotional value in logical format.

Appeal to emotion.

Ad hominem fallacies.

Better?

No, not everyone "finds it easy" to remain unemotional when, say, discussing rape threats when they themselves have been raped. Just to give a potential example. That does not mean that their arguments are less important than yours or easy to dismiss.

I sense that you're using "arguments" here in a sense more consistent with "statements." An illogical or badly formed argument IRL is, unfortunately, incredibly easy to dismiss. I know from experience on both sides of that. The cause is not less just, but illogical, weak arguments weaken the cause in the public square. Their importance, unfortunately, does not merit public attention. Just because something is important doesn't mean that people pay attention. You gotta make them pay attention. That is also a lesson I learned quite harshly.

My arguing with Larry is just derailing the thread and adding nothing of worth. Sorry, everyone.

gore wrote:
Jonman wrote:

My position is that "interacting with people" is a skill that is equally applied to both genders. My point is that there is no such thing as "knowing how to talk to women", there's just knowing how to talk to people. My point is that to suggest that there is such a difference, further builds upon the "Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus" myth.

Well, thanks for clarifying.

I think I disagree with you, though, because 1) boys and girls still generally grow up with strong reinforcements of gender stereotypes (which in turn subtly influences their perceptions of appropriate behavior in any given context), and 2) sex, which just makes everything weird.

Yup. Both are good points.

1) I think we might be tackling subtly different issues here. Cultural and societal archetypes certainly do influence all of us, especially as kids. My take is that mastering the skill of interacting with people includes being aware of those influences and how they affect us and how we act - being able to recognize and mitigate those influences. Obviously, that's a little out of scope when we're talking about kids, but that's the kind of thing that differentiates how kids interact from how adults interact, right? That's part of aging, of learning those skills.

2) Sex does make everything weird. It's where everything I've said in the last couple of pages pretty much goes out of the window, because all of us react differently to those we're strongly attracted to. But again, that's not a gender-wide issue. It's a rare person that is strongly attracted to every member of their preferred gender, right? That's not about interacting with women, it's about interacting with people who make your bits go all woogelly.

Jonman:

1) I think we might be tackling subtly different issues here. Cultural and societal archetypes certainly do influence all of us, especially as kids. My take is that mastering the skill of interacting with people includes being aware of those influences and how they affect us and how we act - being able to recognize and mitigate those influences. Obviously, that's a little out of scope when we're talking about kids, but that's the kind of thing that differentiates how kids interact from how adults interact, right? That's part of aging, of learning those skills.

You would think so. I generally find the reverse phenomenon. Of course, we don't gender our children as strongly, from what I hear around here. I find that children often want acknowledgement that they're "girls" or "boys," and wish gender verification from purely superficial things like toy preference or clothes color. Beyond that, they all generally want to talk about Barney and other children-general topics.

Adult men and women often also want validation based on which topics you bring up, how you bring them up, personal spacing, tone of voice, innuendo or lack thereof in just the right places... ..gah! It drives me mad just thinking about all the specifics.

More Examples!

For some reason, talking about skin care products appears to be taboo for men. Sexually suggestive jokes appears to be taboo for men to tell women, but are ok for men to tell to other men, or women to other women. Asking a guy what his age is is fine, but asking a woman is not.

LarryC wrote:

More Examples!

For some reason, talking about skin care products appears to be taboo for men. Sexually suggestive jokes appears to be taboo for men to tell women, but are ok for men to tell to other men, or women to other women. Asking a guy what his age is is fine, but asking a woman is not.

Do you get all of this from TV? Because the reality on the ground is different.

Each rule was created from someone taking offense at what I said (for some rules, multiple instances) and reacting accordingly. My procedure for modifying both my online persona here and RL personas are broadly parallel.

Yeah I think Larry's being unfairly cornered here. I remember many of the instances to which he is referring, and honestly I think his conclusions were accurate.

Sadly, back on topic:
http://kotaku.com/5972869/faith-in-h...

New year, new cretins who hate women who dare to like video games. Here are a couple of videos by YouTube user ShrineNI where he tells people how to go about finding and harassing women gamers, particularly those who stream on services like TwitchTV and play World of Warcraft. His main gripe seems to be that they are attractive and are 'using' that against men who are too stupid to resist falling for them and then donating to them (his reasoning, not mine.)
LarryC wrote:

The Conformist:
It's a case to case basis, I find. I have had positive reactions to when I point out that a person is being overly emotional and could stand to reconstruct their argument in better form. The incident with momgamer was the first instance I've had where it was considered gendered. This is the only forum I comment on where I can't point it out politely. It's very strange.

I don't disagree. Something that I have learned over the years is the best way to handle someone (IRL) who's tone takes a more aggressive/hostile or "emotional" turn, I simply apologize for offending them and walk away. They can feel free to discuss the matter further once they calm down. But I myself for the most part, am able to keep my emotions in check for the sake of the discussion. And it doesn't matter whether or not I have a personal stake. I believe the best way to discuss a sensitive topic is to keep a level head, TRY not to take things personally, after all the person you are talking to isn't always out to offend you, they are simply trying to figure out where you are coming from.

However it could be a cultural thing. Most people whom I've tried to tell "calm down" usually get upset, and defensive. Like stated before, they take that as me being empathetic to their reasoning. I can see where they are coming from, I just don't view it in the same light.

DSGamer wrote:
LarryC wrote:

More Examples!

For some reason, talking about skin care products appears to be taboo for men. Sexually suggestive jokes appears to be taboo for men to tell women, but are ok for men to tell to other men, or women to other women. Asking a guy what his age is is fine, but asking a woman is not.

Do you get all of this from TV? Because the reality on the ground is different.

I think Larry's take on this is spot on. When I used to shave my head bald back in the day, I used to use lotion to keep my scalp from drying out. My fellow co-workers found out about this when they caught me lathering it on my head one day. And I was called a Certis is awesome/woman yada yada for doing so. I've also asked women their age before and I've had some very angry looks and rude responses (and some very polite "I'd rather not discuss that" I might add), men, not once.

The sexually suggestive jokes is VERY circumstantial. But the best rule of thumb is to just keep things like that to yourself unless you are absolutely sure of your surroundings. Guys seem to be WAY more lax on this. Women on the other hand can take extreme offense if they don't like you. For instance, at my workplace I have a great relationship with all the ladies up front, I'm polite, respectful and I talk to them often. It took a few years of getting to know these women before I realized that they were just as "brash" as us men in the back were, they were just more....tactful about it. And they only usually were that way amongst themselves and with a few select guys that they have grown to know over the years. But if they don't know you, or don't like you, you're going to be in some big trouble if your tongue slips around them. Granted these are just the people that I work with, and something I've noticed over the years.

**Edit** just noticed the sensor on the "f" word. Hah, made me chuckle. Certis you are a humorous fellow. And perhaps an awesome woman?

Tanglebones wrote:

Sadly, back on topic:
http://kotaku.com/5972869/faith-in-h...

New year, new cretins who hate women who dare to like video games. Here are a couple of videos by YouTube user ShrineNI where he tells people how to go about finding and harassing women gamers, particularly those who stream on services like TwitchTV and play World of Warcraft. His main gripe seems to be that they are attractive and are 'using' that against men who are too stupid to resist falling for them and then donating to them (his reasoning, not mine.)

This made me say "what the f*ck" out loud.

Going back a couple pages...

KingGorilla wrote:

Pro tip for anyone who is fired for dressing in a distracting way in the office, try not to parlay that into a chance to get hundreds of glamour shots taken of you. And don't make it public that you had your breasts enlarged to "Look like tits on a stick" to attract a man like George Clooney.

This is slut shaming. Wanting to make the best of a bad situation by exploiting your infamy via some adult magazine doesn't make you a bad person. Wanting to have her breasts modified to (in her eyes) make herself more attractive shouldn't have any impact on her employability. For people not in customer-facing jobs, how they dress at work shouldn't ever be an excuse to fire them. Even if she was in a customer-facing job, her lawsuit asserted that she was not fired because she was too sexy for customers, but that she was too sexy for coworkers and supervisors. Citi could have covered themselves by saying she didn't meet their standards as a public representative of the company, but they never said that.

I think it is camera mugging shaming. And I think her own attorney probably advised against her looking at turning this incident into another shot at big time TV like when she did so with her breast augmentation. But not too smart as the firm filed a lawsuit, even though the woman in question had agreed to arbitration with Citi. She turned down Citi's arbitration settlement, and says she will head to court.

I do stand corrected in that she turned down Playboy, along with Justin Bieber's mother (shudder).

It really reminds me of the media circus that Monica Lewinski and her mother put on.

Kinda dug this:

I'm not generally listening to a lot of spoken word, but I've been listening to some of this guy's rap lately, and it's really just spoken word laid over a beat.

Tanglebones wrote:

Here we go again:
https://twitter.com/cwgabriel/status...

Ah, it's good to see those two reaffirm that I was right to bail on them for their handling of the dickwolves. Class acts.

Tanglebones wrote:

Here we go again:
https://twitter.com/cwgabriel/status...

Unsurprisingly, I laughed. I knew that this would get a wave of criticism, though. Here's hoping they deal with this better than they did when the Dickwolves thing came around - that is to say, they meant this as a joke and don't move into the righteously judgmental mode of mocking their detractors.

Bloo Driver wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Here we go again:
https://twitter.com/cwgabriel/status...

Unsurprisingly, I laughed. I knew that this would get a wave of criticism, though. Here's hoping they deal with this better than they did when the Dickwolves thing came around - that is to say, they meant this as a joke and don't move into the righteously judgmental mode of mocking their detractors.

Well considering Gabe just changed his twitter icon to an ass shot from his panel... I don't think they're going to handle it any better.

Between this and the Dickwolves stuff, I'm not sure I can support Penny Arcade anymore.

Mike and Jerry are a walking definition of "tone-deaf" at this point. Should be morbidly entertaining.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

Ah, it's good to see those two reaffirm that I was right to bail on them for their handling of the dickwolves. Class acts.

Yeah, I still enjoy the peripheral hoopla of the weekend, but I am long done with contributing toward their mortgages.

clover wrote:

Mike and Jerry are a walking definition of "tone-deaf" at this point. Should be morbidly entertaining.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

Ah, it's good to see those two reaffirm that I was right to bail on them for their handling of the dickwolves. Class acts.

Yeah, I still enjoy the peripheral hoopla of the weekend, but I am long done with contributing toward their mortgages.

It's mind boggling that they can do something as forward thinking as "no booth babes", but then make a comic that makes fun of women being sexually assaulted. Well, more specifically, making fun of women not wanting to be sexually assaulted.

Trachalio wrote:

It's mind boggling that they can do something as forward thinking as "no booth babes", but then make a comic that makes fun of women being sexually assaulted. Well, more specifically, making fun of women not wanting to be sexually assaulted.

I think it's fair game to make fun of the video itself without saying they're making fun of the problem it addresses. Personally, I found the original video somewhat condescending, not nearly as clever as it thought it was being, and overall irritating. That doesn't mean I see sexual assault the same way.

I think some people just get dumb when they get popular.

Bummer that they then, of course, have a huge platform to trumpet their higher-octane asshattery from.