Liana Kerzner on the rift in gaming.

Gremlin wrote:
WideAndNerdy wrote:

A very large portion of the most popular video games out there are violent to varying degrees (even games like Super Mario) so its a pretty widespread attack.

Who said violence was a problem?

Thats one of FemFreq's problems with games and with other media. If you go on her Twitter feed or that of her writer you can find them commenting on that regularly. It also shows up in Anita's thesis on media if I recall. She wants to completely invert the portrayal of violence in media. Wants to promote pacificist ideals which she characterizes as feminine.

WideAndNerdy wrote:

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.

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.

complexmath wrote:
WideAndNerdy wrote:

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.

I will agree, that is definitely something to be aware of and concerned about. I myself when I have a woman over will sit far from the door and let her sit closer. I also stoop and act conciliatory and even play up my awkwardness a bit on purpose because I'm a six foot 350 pound guy and I figure some women are going to be worried so I want to seem less threatening.

I ironically scared a younger guy once in an argument. I thought of him as a peer because he was part of a group I hung out with but he was 19 and I was 26 and I was about 50% extra weight on him. I wasn't aware until after that he felt like a kid being yelled at by an adult. I've been careful about that since then.

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.

I can't think of how it would apply to my group of nerds. They're a thoughtful and sensitive bunch.

Not to say any of you aren't worth my time. But I think I've hit my quota for this for a Saturday (I've decided today that I'm going to try to impose a limit on myself for this sort of thing). I'll be back later for any further responses. Thank you for your time.

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 you

Are these contradictory? Yes, they are. That's part of the problem.

WideAndNerdy wrote:
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.

Gremlin wrote:
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 you

Are 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.

Gremlin wrote:
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 you

Are these contradictory? Yes, they are. That's part of the problem.

I've seen it defined before, never quite like that (and the real man good man thing is yet another definition). I can certainly see some stuff on that long broad list that is problematic but what I don't see is a reason to put a list that broad under the label of toxic masculinity, and so I don't see a reason to buy into the concept as a given for the sake of further extrapolation.

I mean I get the idea that men have expectations placed on us that steer us towards acting like jerks. I too would like to see a better positive male concept defined. A restrained thoughtful gentleman who is strong and sticks up for his friends but has mastered himself. The idea of self mastery (and the use of the term "master" in that phrase) is something I'd like to see. As also the idea of freedom through self mastery (not being slave to your emotions, urges, desires). The idea that an violent or domineering man is weak because he lacks the strength to control himself.

I think this idea has to come from outside of feminism. Ideally this would come from a male leader who embodies it in himself that is appealing to what men already value. I don't know the proper terms for the different camps. I know there are waves, I know there are choice feminists (Liana I think calls herself that) and neo marxist feminists (I think Liana was trying to describe what I, for lack of a better term, would call Tumblr feminism). And its this latter more extreme camp that will never connect with the men they would hope to influence.

Someone like Liana, I'd be on board with her being at the table when this standard of positive masculinity is defined. Also someone like Christina Hoff Sommers. These are feminists who get men and who clearly show they sympathize. These are not the women drinking their coffee from a "Male Tears" mug (ironically or otherwise).

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.

Bloo Driver wrote:

It's worth looking into the claims they make rather than being comforted by this notion that a woman is saying it's ok.

Spoiler:

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.

Bloo Driver wrote:

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.

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. The kind who complain about generalizations and judging appearances then turn around and invent terms like "fedora culture."

Because now even your choice of hat says very deeply disturbing things about you and hey you'd better examine yourself and try to figure out whats wrong with you that you would think this way.

The whole "you need to examine your own head" line gets used a lot and is rhetorically useless.

"I like Cheez Its"

"Wow. Thats very problematic, obviously. I won't get into why but you should do some soul searching and try to figure out how you got to this place where you like Cheez Its."

Prederick wrote:

Certainly, CHS is plenty proof that just about anyone can call themselves a feminist, since I'm pretty sure Camille Paglia calls herself one too. But again, this is a derail.

EDIT: And CHS is quoted in support of Ms. Paglia on her wikipedia page. Go figure.

As long as she believes in equality of the sexes or that line some feminists like to use "Feminism is that simple notion that women are people too" then CHS doesn't have to subscribe wholesale to your flavor of feminism to be a feminist.

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.

Prederick wrote:

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.

Ok. That's fair.

Curious now. What do you say to the woman who (and I just raise this as an example) actually wants to be a homemaker? Do you try to convince her that she's been programmed to want that and that she should want something else or applaud her making her own choices and doing what she wants? Something in between?

Its just your line about "co-signing patriarchy" got be thinking.

Seems like feminism has been a lot of places. 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).

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.

WideAndNerdy wrote:

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.

Bloo Driver wrote:
WideAndNerdy wrote:

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.

I did not say that. I said that Sommers does come off as caring and that other feminists, the ones you would expect me to listen to, do not. They think shaming is valid. They use the "KillAllMen" hashtag and drink from mugs of Male Tears. And you may say "you don't get it, its supposed to be a joke" when feminists never forgive jokes about things they dislike.

And I'll apologize for generalizing just as soon as terms like "neckbeard", "Fedora Culture" and "Sea Lion" are retired. Just as soon as people stop declaring the word "gamer" to be distasteful or damaged. Progressives are supposed to lead the way on not generalizing or labeling and yet will gladly do so when it amuses them.

To some or all of this you may say "Thats not me/us. Stop lumping me/us in with them." To which I say "That sounds familiar"

And let me type your responses in advance.
1) Wow, you have some real issues to work out.
2) Where's all this hostility coming from?
3) You just don't get it.
4) Well if you're going to type our responses for us, there's no need for us to participate. I'll be back when you're done playing with yourself.
5) I just want to thank you for taking the time to type our responses in advance for us. Things have been tough for me since I jammed my finger and every little bit helps.

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. You talk about coding and social programming and subtle effects when its baked into so much of the terminology feminists use. Surely it must affect their thinking as much as all those less than ideal male heroes in video games supposedly affect men.

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.

Bloo Driver wrote:

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.

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."

Well its like that with Anita's videos. She can pay lip service to the idea that she's totally cool with games if we'd just change a few things in a few games and we can all enjoy what we want but if you actually read all her work, and not just her videos, you can see that she'd never be happy with the state of video games without a huge shift in their focus. She'd pretty much want shooters and brawlers of all kinds shut down completely. She'd want women dressed puritanically and sporting indistinct bodies (you'll note her first choice for "positive female character in gaming" was literally a featureless pixellated blob with a blank slate personality and I like to think its because thats the only sort of character you can't assign any tropes to.) She'd be against even the ironic treatment of any of the tropes she's complained about, the only subversion of damseling she found acceptable was Braid and specifically because it portrayed the male as a stalker.

@Seth - I rarely drink and when I do its never more than a beer or two. Never enough to get a guy as big as I am drunk. I've gotten ranty because people are twisting my words around and trying to psychoanalyze me.

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.

WideAndNerdy wrote:

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.

WideAndNerdy wrote:

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

Spoiler:

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.

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 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.

Gremlin wrote:

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.

Actually, its a habit I developed to head off typical tiresome forum responses ("Well, that's your perspective" for example, which is often regurgitated reflexively and contributes nothing) though thats not exactly how I was using it here (the last two in particular were meant to be jokes).

Gremlin wrote:

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.

Ok, if I haven't been clear enough. Modern feminism, the kind I encounter on the internet these days, is no way forward. Its too angry and too myopic in its focus. Its too academic to be accessible and it thinks that being so academic gives it a position of superiority and authority which cannot be challenged, when in fact the theories are convoluted enough to put this strain of feminism somewhat at a remove from the world.

A man can't have an opinion because he is not a woman. He needs to check his privilege (which, while I know it doesn't mean "sit down and shut up" is still used that way all too often).

Modern feminism teaches that women need to stop being nice and stop apologizing ostensibly because men are rude and do not apologize. I've seen the commercial that encourages women to stop saying "sorry" in situations where everybody, men and women, should be saying sorry (like hogging all the blankets).

This gets extended to being dirty and personal such as the Oberlin feminists who made posters identifying individual people by name as rape apologists because they had the audacity to belong to the Young Republicans club. Or the ones who pulled the fire alarm to shut down a speech on their campus they didn't like and then were proudly cheering about it as the fire department had to direct men away from potential real emergencies to respond.

They're interested in subverting process. If they can't get enough rape convictions in actual courts of law, they'll set up fake rape courts with much lowers standards in order to properly ruin the academic careers of men on the flimsiest of evidence at a time when men are already less enrolled in school than women are. They certainly aren't concerned at all with reversing that.

Emma Watson has her work cut out for her if I can take that speech of hers at face value (and I'd like to).

So there. Said some things. Whether you agree or not, hopefully I didn't bore you too much.

Gremlin wrote:
WideAndNerdy wrote:

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 wish I were better organized but those were only two of the most examples. I recall encountering more but I can never recall it all fast enough for discussions like this.

Suffice to say, I know that "patriarchy" doesn't mean all men are evil and they like to say that men are a victim of patriarchy as well (which I'm sure has a lot to do with the points someone made earlier in this thread about toxic masculinity).

Gremlin wrote:
WideAndNerdy wrote:

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.

You may have said the opposite. Maybe some clarification is in order. People were saying "sure TB says he's tolerant but his actions prove otherwise." Likewise I say "Sure Anita says she just wants to change these few things but her actions say otherwise." I'll expand below.

Gremlin wrote:

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.)

I agree, Anita isn't going to ruin gaming primarily because she doesn't have that much influence.

As for quotes, lets start here (Its a 45 second video).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afgt...

She says "I'd love to play video games but I don't want to rip people's heads off." Well, if she's been really doing her research, there are quite a lot of games that don't involve shooting and ripping people's heads off so the violence shouldn't stop her from playing games unless she can abide the violence nowhere within gaming at all.

Then there's her thesis http://www.scribd.com/doc/130661629/...

Which is essentially about objecting to the idea of strong women who can kick butt because it buys into male paradigms of value.

On her writer's Twitter feed (I'd post from it but the guy's name is escaping me) he complains about violence in summer blockbusters. But why complain if you think violence in moderation is fine. There are plenty of non violent movies. Surely its ok for some to be violent.

This would be particularly problematic for video games as by their nature, if we abandon violence, we're failing to explore a lot of the potential of the medium for reasons essentially similar to what Errant Signal brings up in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSBn... (Its twelve and a half minutes)

Gremlin wrote:

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

I wonder how she'd feel about those fan pics.