Yeah about that. Is this anything like how if a man and woman have sex, both drunk, that counts as the man raping the woman like on that one survey? Or how a man invoking pity guilts a woman into having sex with him and that counts as rape even though she could have said no? I have a big problem with the growing definition of the word. Its not good behavior but I don't want anything like this lumped in with the horrible trauma of actual rape.
I think this is straying from the topic of the thread, but you don't have to look very hard to find stories about women who "agreed" to have sex with a guy or whatever because they were legitimately afraid of what would happen if they said no. Whether that meets the legal definition of rape isn't a question I'm equipped to answer, but it's definitely something to be aware of concerning this stuff.
Gremlin wrote:That's part of what "toxic masculinity" means, by the way. It doesn't mean that males are toxic, it means that a particular framework that has been established to perform masculinity is harmful, particularly to the men who are trapped in it. You can have a non-toxic masculinity.
I know, and I'm not a big fan of chest thumping bros myself. The guys I hang out with are very much not like that. But I've still heard the term enough for several lifetimes.
I think this applies to nearly as many socially maladjusted nerds as it does bros. Masculinity doesn't stop at muscles and sports.
WideAndNerdy wrote:Gremlin wrote:That's part of what "toxic masculinity" means, by the way. It doesn't mean that males are toxic, it means that a particular framework that has been established to perform masculinity is harmful, particularly to the men who are trapped in it. You can have a non-toxic masculinity.
I know, and I'm not a big fan of chest thumping bros myself. The guys I hang out with are very much not like that. But I've still heard the term enough for several lifetimes.
I think this applies to nearly as many socially maladjusted nerds as it does bros. Masculinity doesn't stop at muscles and sports.
Toxic masculinity can include:
That the worth of a man is defined by his success (whether in a career, with women, etc.)
That showing too much sexual attention to women is wrong and you should try to be as non-sexual as possible around them
That not showing enough sexual attention to women makes you a failure of a man
That being deferential to women in all things shows proper respect to them
The idea that women are worth more than you as a man
The idea that women are worth less than you as a man
That real men don't cry, or express emotions
That real men do cry
That being good at sports or trucks or beer makes you a real man
The being smart and good at computers makes you a good man
That being too nice makes you a loser
That not being a jerk is enough to make you a good man
That no one desires you
Are these contradictory? Yes, they are. That's part of the problem.
complexmath wrote:I think this applies to nearly as many socially maladjusted nerds as it does bros. Masculinity doesn't stop at muscles and sports.
I can't think of how it would apply to my group of nerds. They're a thoughtful and sensitive bunch.
I think it actually doesn't apply to a lot of bros either. It's easy to "other" people you don't identify with.
complexmath wrote:WideAndNerdy wrote:Gremlin wrote:That's part of what "toxic masculinity" means, by the way. It doesn't mean that males are toxic, it means that a particular framework that has been established to perform masculinity is harmful, particularly to the men who are trapped in it. You can have a non-toxic masculinity.
I know, and I'm not a big fan of chest thumping bros myself. The guys I hang out with are very much not like that. But I've still heard the term enough for several lifetimes.
I think this applies to nearly as many socially maladjusted nerds as it does bros. Masculinity doesn't stop at muscles and sports.
Toxic masculinity can include:
That the worth of a man is defined by his success (whether in a career, with women, etc.)
That showing too much sexual attention to women is wrong and you should try to be as non-sexual as possible around them
That not showing enough sexual attention to women makes you a failure of a man
That being deferential to women in all things shows proper respect to them
The idea that women are worth more than you as a man
The idea that women are worth less than you as a man
That real men don't cry, or express emotions
That real men do cry
That being good at sports or trucks or beer makes you a real man
The being smart and good at computers makes you a good man
That being too nice makes you a loser
That not being a jerk is enough to make you a good man
That no one desires youAre these contradictory? Yes, they are. That's part of the problem.
That article linked a few weeks back in the Feminism thread helped give me a really concise way of presenting this to people - "There's a difference between what we label a good man and a real man."
In general, male protagonists in video games are almost always in the negative "real man" category, with a few checks in the "good man" category.
The idea of something coming from a male leader is not exclusive to it coming from feminism, unless you subscribe to the definition of feminism as something that only promotes women and men be damned.
Also I really don't think CHS is the person you want to talk about "getting" men. She has a very deep, firmly held "boys will be boys, hah hah!" attitude that is a large part of the problem.
I'm really not interested in diving into a "defining feminism" discussion here, since it's kind of a derail of the "toxic masculinity" derail. Unless that's really what we want the thread to go full bore into.
So I'm not particularly going to engage with feminism-from-your-point-of-view. I disagree with what you've presented, and we can get into that down the line, but I think going into that now would be a distraction. I will say that I think that a holistic feminism does have some answers to this for men, but that they're not very accessible at the level at which you have likely encountered feminism, so I'm not particularly surprised at your reaction.
As for toxic masculinity and the performance thereof, I contend that it's one of the major problems in geekdom these days. But, again, a derail from the original topic unless you're really prepared to discuss it now.
Yeah my bad, there's a whole feminism thread that this is treading over. While it's germane to the general idea that the video is about, I think moving further than pointing out how GamerGate's "feminist" supporters are anything but actually feminists gets into odd territory. The only thing I'll add to this is that there is a very large, very lucrative reason to jump into the reactionary politics that intersect here, and folks like that have a vested financial interest in distorting and lying about reality in order to sound contrary. It's worth looking into the claims they make rather than being comforted by this notion that a woman is saying it's ok.
It's worth looking into the claims they make rather than being comforted by this notion that a woman is saying it's ok.
We cross-posted, so it wasn't you I was disagreeing with, Bloo. I do think it's a de-rail that's just going to be a time sink unless we're actually prepared to hash out the basics of what feminism is in this thread. Which I'll try and give it my best shot if everyone really wants to go there (because the poor people in the feminism thread shouldn't have to suffer through starting from the beginning again) but I'm under the impression that isn't the conversation we're having here, even if it might have some bearing on it.
Certainly, CHS is plenty proof that just about anyone can call themselves a feminist, since I'm pretty sure Camille Paglia and Sarah Palin have called themselves one too (which, in a certain way, they are!). But again, this is a derail.
EDIT: And CHS is quoted in support of Ms. Paglia on her wikipedia page. Go figure.
Which is what I'm saying. Again, she and Sarah Palin are completely free to call themselves feminists. Which I feel, to a certain extent, they are! My major point, again, is that there's not exactly a barrier, wall, or qualification to "feminism", so anyone can happily use it, and go happily. This ain't the Marines or something.
Now, whether I believe that their particular brand of self-identified feminism is actually positive for women or not simply co-signing old-school patriarchal stuff is a whole other thing.
But again, derail. Sorry.
What do you say to the woman who (and I just raise this as an example) actually wants to be a homemaker?
Uh, "Congrats on the kids, can I buy you this copy of 'Reasons Mommy Drinks'"?
Seems like feminism has been a lot of places.
A shedload. First-wave. Second-wave. Third-wave. Ongoing battles over pornography, transgender women, sex work. Black feminism, Islamic feminism, radical feminism, anarcho-feminism (all their own distinct branch of feminism, no less!) and so on, and so on, and so on, and so on.
Some feminists try to be just like guys. Others passionately defend femininity and girly things. Some see freedom in exposing their bodies and expressing their sexuality openly (where they hadn't been allowed to in the past), others think this is harmful and we get into things like boob-shaming (something Liana has brought up because she has naturally large breasts herself and has to fight the perception of being a bimbo).
Yeah. There's, uh... a lot of different feminism out there. Christ, look at the battles that have erupted over the aforementioned transwomen. Hell, even Anita Sarkeesian's gotten flack for her stances on sex work.
No.
The burden is on the proponent to sell their own case.
Sommers comes off as caring. Liana comes off as caring. Other feminists come off as snide bitter dismissive condescending misandrists.
Well, if you said "Sommers comes off as caring to me," and "other feminists come off as snide bitter dismissive condescending misandrists to me" you'd have something there. Again, there's not a big easy us/them division here, and it goes more into seeing why you happen to be more receptive to one message than the other. This idea that universally, women who don't agree with CHS "come off" as misandrists is really just more tribal thinking that serves to further the division than actually do anything to examine and combat it.
You know, I didn't "expect" you to listen to any particular feminist. I don't endorse certain kinds of behavior. I'm really sorry to disappoint you in all that, but I respect your right to construct that strawman rather than treating people here like actual complete people. You seem to be pretty intent on shoehorning people here into a very narrow mindset, a particular set of responses, and a specific viewpoint. The fact you seem to have anticipated that response doesn't really negate it, I'm afraid.
I don't think you're really here to discuss stuff, the more you post. I mean, for example, you were very adamant about equating Anita Sarkeesian's videos into saying "gaming is morally wrong" even though the videos talk about how the tropes in question are seen in many media, not just games, and that it's fine to enjoy something while criticizing things that aren't 100% good about that something. That really completely precludes the idea that she's morally judging "gamers" as deficient people.
So I guess I'll just go with #4, slightly varied - when you're done trying your hardest to make any response into a black-and-white "I'm a gamer, thus society's victim" situation, please come back.
Wide...was that a drunk post? Because it read like a drunk post.
No judgment. I've had plenty of those.
That's a lot of assumptions and assigned motivations for someone who seems to be irritated at even the most obvious analysis of what he's written. My assertion that you keep repeating that there's only one way to see everyone and everything isn't twisting or psychoanalysis. It's just reading what you're putting down here. You're free to guess at her motives and "real thoughts" from a distance, but don't expect anyone to agree with you as if it's immutable fact.
You're just talking about a caricature of a person, and you're making a caricature of the people on this forum with repeated assumptions and stereotyping. I just continue to find it odd, given the premise you started with.
Tu quoque again.
I'm really feeling like you're not talking to me, you're talking to the image of me that you've got in your head. Granted, there are a lot of people posting in this thread, so there's some cross-talk. But hanging a lampshade on it doesn't invalidate the criticism. I mean, you're so convinced that we're going to object to what you're saying that you've already typed up our responses to you. That comes across as a bit defensive.
I'm not going to tell you to go away or anything; you've been civil and the only people participating in this thread are those who chose to continue to do so. I'll keep listening to what you have to say. I would prefer that you actually say something, because it's kind of boring to read otherwise.
I also don't think that a movement that characterizes the source of all our problems as "patriarchy" (male) and the solution to all our problems as "feminism" (female) is ever going to have my best interest anywhere in mind.
If I thought feminism meant this, I'd object to feminism too.
Academic terms can be tricky when taken out of context. (And pop culture usually takes it out of context.) But it's an etymological fallacy to do so.
I believe it was in the TB thread that people were saying "it doesn't matter how he tries to present himself, it matters who he is."
I actually said the exact opposite of this. When it comes to other people, all we have to go on is how they present themselves and who they pretend to be.
Leaving aside Anita for the moment, I don't think that treating women with basic respect is going to result in shutting down all shooters and brawlers. Or even most. You can make a perfectly competent shooter with a woman as the protagonist. You can make a perfectly competent shooter without having the women in it objectified. Do many existing shooters have issues? Yes, partially because way too many of them think 'good story' means 'copying that action movie I liked'. Which, unexamined can port across misogynist story elements without thinking about them. (Among other issues. Games would be better in general if game developers had better taste in action movies. But I digress.)
Anita isn't going to ruin gaming. Not even close. (Feel free to point me to direct quotes that say otherwise, of course. I'm willing to listen, if the evidence is there.)
Also, characterizing the Scythian like that suggests to me that you haven't played Sword & Sworcery; she's actually better defined than, say, Gordon Freeman. Yes, she's enough of a blank-slate to let the player project themselves onto her, but the game is almost entirely narrated in her quirky second-person plural voice. Which Anita touches on1. And for pixel-art she's pretty much the opposite of 'featureless'.2
1. "The character’s quirky, often humorous thoughts, along with the sense of wonder in the world, make this journey magical, delightful and melancholy all at once."
2. Witness the fan art. Minimalist design, but loads and loads of character.
Gremlin wrote:That's part of what "toxic masculinity" means, by the way. It doesn't mean that males are toxic, it means that a particular framework that has been established to perform masculinity is harmful, particularly to the men who are trapped in it. You can have a non-toxic masculinity.
I know, and I'm not a big fan of chest thumping bros myself. The guys I hang out with are very much not like that. But I've still heard the term enough for several lifetimes.
I get where you're coming from, but I'm finding it hard to give any f*cks, particularly because women have had enough violence and objectification for several lifetimes, blacks and latinos have had enough racism and violence for several lifetimes, LGBTQ folks have had enough phobias and violence for several lifetimes....I think you see where I'm going here.
The conversation around toxic masculinity in the timeline of modern society is roughly equivalent to the lifespan of a human on the geologic timeline, whereas racism, phobias, violence, objectification has been the background radiation for people of color, LGBTQ folks and women for generations.
It doesn't cost me anything to sit back and let other folks have a chance to address their grievances, especially since culture and society has been catered to the default straight white male for so long.
Pages