On this thing called "rape culture"

I would think a pokemon becomes "yours" is in the sense a pet dog or cat becomes "yours". It still has autonomy but you are taking on the responsibility of caring for it in exchange for its companionship and aid. Then again we don't exactly promote or encourage people to let or force their pets to fight each other..so it kinda falls apart there. Perhaps then instead it becomes an important conversation about the differences between the virtual and the real, the imagined and the acted, etc?

krev82 wrote:

I would think a pokemon becomes "yours" is in the sense a pet dog or cat becomes "yours". It still has autonomy but you are taking on the responsibility of caring for it in exchange for its companionship and aid. Then again we don't exactly promote or encourage people to let or force their pets to fight each other..so it kinda falls apart there. Perhaps then instead it becomes an important conversation about the differences between the virtual and the real, the imagined and the acted, etc?

A tough concept to explain to a four-year-old.

I think that traditions of fighting animals still survive in parts of Asia, don't they?

It's not exactly an unheard-of activity in the United States. Cockfighting even has its own lobbying effort.

Animal fighting has always been, to me, the pokeparrallel, but you've raised some interesting points on body autonomy, Maq.

Two Texas A&M football coaches suspended after ‘chalk talk’ for women turns sexist

In an attempt to appeal to female fans, the Texas A&M football program hosted a “Chalk Talk For Women” event Thursday. During a presentation, Aggies assistant coaches Jim Turner and Jeff Banks offered both coaching tips and a few alternate lyrics to the school fight song, titled “Aggie War Hymn,” that the women found so offensive the coaches wound up suspended for two weeks. Talk about not knowing your audience. The offending lyrics can be seen here:

-

We are Aggie women
We are filled with estrogen
Hullabaloo, canek, canek, and back again

Maroon & white are the colors we love
We are putting down our dish towels
And taking off our gloves

No more lysol or cascade
We want to score Touchdowns
And walk in the parade

We are Aggie women & this is our song
Come on…bring it on…no more thong
Hullabaloo..caneck..caneck..and so on

Beyond just the reworded song, though, were the previously mentioned coaching tips, which contained a variety of sexually suggestive material. Texas Longhorns beat writer Anwar Richardson of Rivals.com and OrangeBloods.com tweeted out images from a slideshow of the “instructional” material.
IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Coj19quUEAA2ffQ.jpg)
IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Coj2DmwUsAAL21k.jpg)
IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Coj2LMaUEAAECvw.jpg)
IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Coj2Z6JVUAAYIpy.jpg)

I'm not sure how I see that these guys get off with just a two week suspension. You have two douche bags explicitly promoting rape culture at an event targeted at female fans, and I assume students. I mean, if it was just the song, I could see it. But when you have an entire Power Point dedicated to letting women know their "role" I think you have to eliminate that from the team altogether.

Worse, one of the coaches was hired after being fired from Miami as, "a central figure in the Miami Dolphins bullying scandal of 2012."

Turner was aware of the running "joke" that Player A was gay, and on at least one occasion, he participated in the taunting. Around Christmas 2012, Coach Turner gave the offensive linemen gift bags that included a variety of stocking stuffers. The gifts included inflatable female dolls for all of the offensive linemen except Player A, who received a male "blow-up" doll. [Jonathan] Martin and another player reported that they were surprised Coach Turner did this; Martin further said that he was offended that Turner had endorsed the humiliating treatment of Player A by participating in it. Incognito and others agreed that this incident with Coach Turner occurred. When interviewed, Turner was asked if he gave Player A a male blow-up doll. He replied, ‘I can’t remember.’

It's a pretty crappy message they are sending to the team and their fans, in my opinion. i don't know, maybe they are trying to recruit players that were considering Baylor.

Is there honestly anything redeeming about football?

It involves physical activity for the players.

Those images... just... Jesus tap-dancing Christ, what the hell is wrong with people? How did ANYONE create that and think it would be ok?

OG_slinger wrote:

Is there honestly anything redeeming about football?

Honestly? I know plenty of folks who had themselves turn around and made to fly right by their coaches (the potential to be off the team does that). That said, that could be taken up by any sport... the problem being, we're still primates who love bashing into and hurting other primates... or watching it.

That's just... Appalling. I honestly believes it classifies as hate speech, and they should just be perma-banned. Just revolting...

As for American football... Considering how many medical conditions stems from bashing one guy with another... I'm pretty sure the risks outweigh the benefits of the physical activity, LarryC.

I watch a lot of football, but it gets harder to defend everyday.

Eleima wrote:

As for American football... Considering how many medical conditions stems from bashing one guy with another... I'm pretty sure the risks outweigh the benefits of the physical activity, LarryC.

Yeah, there are plenty of sports that involve physical risk, but I haven't heard of anything with the level of long term brain injury that football has. Partly because the protective gear is so good at what it does that there is not need for circumspection by the players when it comes to taking an impact.

MrDeVil909 wrote:
Eleima wrote:

As for American football... Considering how many medical conditions stems from bashing one guy with another... I'm pretty sure the risks outweigh the benefits of the physical activity, LarryC.

Yeah, there are plenty of sports that involve physical risk, but I haven't heard of anything with the level of long term brain injury that football has. Partly because the protective gear is so good at what it does that there is not need for circumspection by the players when it comes to taking an impact.

It calls to mind boxing and the evidence that boxing gloves have made the sport more dangerous instead of less.

Eleima wrote:

That's just... Appalling. I honestly believes it classifies as hate speech, and they should just be perma-banned. Just revolting...

As for American football... Considering how many medical conditions stems from bashing one guy with another... I'm pretty sure the risks outweigh the benefits of the physical activity, LarryC.

I was kind of scraping the bottom of the barrel for anything. That was the best I could come up with. I don't understand why it's still a thing. Granted, I'm not American or anything, nor am I fascinated with spectator sports in general.

OG_slinger wrote:

Is there honestly anything redeeming about football?

I have pretty much hated American football since around my middle school years when I became familiar with the toxic bullying and tribalist culture that surrounds it (I just didn't have the words to explain it that way). Ever since then, I have been unable to separate the sport itself from the toxicity that surrounds and immerses it. I would be quite happy to see the sport and its surrounding culture simply go away.

Which makes the repugnant "with us or against us" style accusations flung my way a while back in the thread about the Paterno mess that much more ridiculous.

Worse -- that's a "12 month good behavior bond". No jail time, he just has to put up money that he'll get back if he behaves himself for a year. (And considering the judge, that's probably a pretty low threshold.)

Jolly Bill wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:
Eleima wrote:

As for American football... Considering how many medical conditions stems from bashing one guy with another... I'm pretty sure the risks outweigh the benefits of the physical activity, LarryC.

Yeah, there are plenty of sports that involve physical risk, but I haven't heard of anything with the level of long term brain injury that football has. Partly because the protective gear is so good at what it does that there is not need for circumspection by the players when it comes to taking an impact.

It calls to mind boxing and the evidence that boxing gloves have made the sport more dangerous instead of less.

Makes sense.

Katie Nolan had a pretty great response to A&M Chalk Talk story and casual sexism carried out by the PR departments of sports teams.

Just in case you thought that us gay dudes don't know about rape culture: the fact that this shirt A) needed to be made, and B) has actually engendered some SERIOUSLY screwed-up threads on Facebook...

At least it's let me know that there are certain people who maybe I need to un-know.

Based on my personal experience, there are some gropy-ass motherf*ckers in gay bars.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/iUTnqOv.jpg)

NSMike wrote:

Based on my personal experience, there are some gropy-ass motherf*ckers in gay bars.

Ain't that the damn truth.

..

Maq wrote:

I don't think a younger child is going to draw a distinction between pokemon, human, and animal. They're all "friends" and are portrayed as much in the show. The first time Stellan (4) saw a pokémon battle he asked "what are they doing". I said they're having a fight and that they like having play fights together. Then Ash captured said pokémon and it became "his". I had to explain that as well. I was not at all happy with that. It felt contrary to everything I'm trying to teach him about violence and consent. You don't make someone "yours" through violence.

Genuinely curious, where do you stand on claims by legislators and media folks that "video games cause X", and have regularly been shown to not have a causal relationship to X?

X being violence/crime/boogeyman du jour.

nel e nel wrote:
Maq wrote:

I don't think a younger child is going to draw a distinction between pokemon, human, and animal. They're all "friends" and are portrayed as much in the show. The first time Stellan (4) saw a pokémon battle he asked "what are they doing". I said they're having a fight and that they like having play fights together. Then Ash captured said pokémon and it became "his". I had to explain that as well. I was not at all happy with that. It felt contrary to everything I'm trying to teach him about violence and consent. You don't make someone "yours" through violence.

Genuinely curious, where do you stand on claims by legislators and media folks that "video games cause X", and have regularly been shown to not have a causal relationship to X?

X being violence/crime/boogeyman du jour.

One lack of causation is not lack of causation for any future societal ills. Studies proving video games don't cause violent behavior doesn't mean that video games do not also cause sexist behavior (or normalization of either behavior).

Demosthenes wrote:
nel e nel wrote:

Genuinely curious, where do you stand on claims by legislators and media folks that "video games cause X", and have regularly been shown to not have a causal relationship to X?

X being violence/crime/boogeyman du jour.

One lack of causation is not lack of causation for any future societal ills. Studies proving video games don't cause violent behavior doesn't mean that video games do not also cause sexist behavior (or normalization of either behavior).

Furthermore, those studies you reference show that videogames do not have a causal relationship to violent behavior. They say nothing about the game's causal relationship to response to violence.

It's not about how media changes how you act as it is about how media changes how you think.

Jonman wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
nel e nel wrote:

Genuinely curious, where do you stand on claims by legislators and media folks that "video games cause X", and have regularly been shown to not have a causal relationship to X?

X being violence/crime/boogeyman du jour.

One lack of causation is not lack of causation for any future societal ills. Studies proving video games don't cause violent behavior doesn't mean that video games do not also cause sexist behavior (or normalization of either behavior).

Furthermore, those studies you reference show that videogames do not have a causal relationship to violent behavior. They say nothing about the game's causal relationship to response to violence.

It's not about how media changes how you act as it is about how media changes how you think.

I feel that picking and choosing which societal ills are or aren't influenced by media comes across as moving the goal posts in my opinion.

To Jon's point, that's a totally fair distinction to make, and one that I'm inclined to agree with. There are recent studies that show how too much exposure to news - in particular "bad news" (crime, war, etc) - elicits PTSD like symptoms in not only the viewer, but the reporters as well. Does that translate into violent behavior? I haven't seen any studies on that, but I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the implication that we need to police people's thoughts as a preventative measure against bad behavior. We all have sh*tty thoughts from time to time, it's how we choose to act - or not act - that defines us. (For a more on topic example, do extreme kink or BDSM communities contribute to rape culture, even if it's between consenting adults and may veer into role play that simulates sexual violence? And the Stanford swimmer, it kinda doesn't matter what he thinks, his actions will forever define/haunt him.)

Ultimately, I think it's a bit of chicken and egg question: do societal attitudes influence our media or vice versa? And which direction of that influence has more impact? I think this also steers back around to the "liking things that have problematic elements" philosophy.

Anyways, sorry for the rambly post, these are some of the questions that have been brought up thinking about this most recent exchange the past day or so.

The breakdown comes in the assumption that the relationship is causal. Catching Pokemon isn't going to turn kids into rapists any more than shooting looters in the Division is going to turn anyone into George Zimmerman. But they can contribute to a broader culture in which these actions are somewhat normalized.

do societal attitudes influence our media or vice versa? And which direction of that influence has more impact? I think this also steers back around to the "liking things that have problematic elements" philosophy.

Both. Society has pushed back against casual racism in media and casual racism is less acceptable in most of society. A whole movement has grown up as a response to this to try reclaim public racism, but it's a fight against the tide. Does it matter which is the cause and which is the effect? As long as society at large is moving in a better direction.

*edit* oh and despite the continued existence of rape culture, just look at how sexual violence has been demonized in much of media. Revenge of the Nerds couldn't get made today. It's pretty much pure sexual violence, culminating in the hero raping a woman.

nel e nel wrote:

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the implication that we need to police people's thoughts as a preventative measure against bad behavior.

But societies do that constantly. Raising children is exactly that; shaping thought patterns to prevent unwanted behaviour. Why should that change just because people are older? It's also a whole lot more effective than, well, any other measure I can think of.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
nel e nel wrote:

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the implication that we need to police people's thoughts as a preventative measure against bad behavior.

But societies do that constantly. Raising children is exactly that; shaping thought patterns to prevent unwanted behaviour. Why should that change just because people are older? It's also a whole lot more effective than, well, any other measure I can think of.

I think there used to be an idea that adults could handle certain media better than kids. That we kept kids away from certain media because they were just too immature to deal with it. This is a different idea. This is the idea that society--neither adults nor children--can handle certain media.

(and nel e nel is right: the goalposts are getting moved. Not that that's a bad thing, but it does change whether these are really answers to the original question about letting your kid play Pokemon Go. The question now is about whether we should discourage the playing of Pokemon Go by anyone.)

edit: I'll spoiler this as Space Is An Issue:

Spoiler:
nel e nel wrote:

(For a more on topic example, do extreme kink or BDSM communities contribute to rape culture, even if it's between consenting adults and may veer into role play that simulates sexual violence? And the Stanford swimmer, it kinda doesn't matter what he thinks, his actions will forever define/haunt him.)

It does feel like this is a topic most fully explored in the conversations between pro-sex and sex-negative branches of feminism.