WideAndNerdy wrote:TheHarpoMarxist wrote:WideAndNerdy wrote:I don't don't see the essence of what's wrong with them to be different from objectification.
There are tools you can use to learn what "Objectification" actually means.
Don't get me wrong - "Neckbeard" is a derogatory term. It is dismissive and insulting. But it isn't objectification.
I get how they're technically different but to me those differences are irrelevant.
Cheeze, you are needed. Stat!
What bothers me is the hypocrisy. Those terms don't insult me*. As I value function far above style, those terms only insult the people who use them because they've revealed how shallow they are.
*helps that I have neither a neckbeard nor a fedora but still.
Dr.Ghastly wrote:WideAndNerdy wrote:TheHarpoMarxist wrote:WideAndNerdy wrote:I don't don't see the essence of what's wrong with them to be different from objectification.
There are tools you can use to learn what "Objectification" actually means.
Don't get me wrong - "Neckbeard" is a derogatory term. It is dismissive and insulting. But it isn't objectification.
I get how they're technically different but to me those differences are irrelevant.
Cheeze, you are needed. Stat!
What bothers me is the hypocrisy. Those terms don't insult me*. As I value function far above style, those terms only insult the people who use them because they've revealed how shallow they are.
*helps that I have neither a neckbeard nor a fedora but still.
Yeah, your hypocrisy also deeply bothers me. The media is hurting women with images of their "ideals", people talking about those ideals is what hurts people. Also... people are posting images of dudes in fedoras which is insulting to them, THAT'S DEEPLY OFFENSIVE AND SHOULD BE CHANGED!
WideAndNerdy wrote:Demosthenes wrote:WideAndNerdy wrote:I watched the first few videos in whole. Am I obligated to continue? No.
True, but you are obligated to mention you have no idea what she's said in those videos or the arguments she's making and should probably bow out of discussions about those topics and her arguments.
WideAndNerdy wrote:I want more of everything and freedom for people to create without shame or pressure bound only by the practical limits of the real world (you need to eat).
So... if someone made a game about women surviving a night of "neckbeards" harassing them in a zombie apocolypse-genre game, you'd enthusiastically support them doing what the think they should without shame or pressure from your feelings on the subject?
WideAndNerdy wrote:I think women are as harmed by being told that they are harmed as by anything media could actually be doing. When you go about thinking patriarchy is everywhere and it's harming you whether you feel it or not, thats going to cause distress.
For the first sentence, do you have sociological evidence to back that up other than your feelings?
For the second sentence, you assume despair in the face of something holding you back, but that's not the only reaction possible. You're projecting here. I see examples of patriarchal culture holding us back (the toxic masculinity responses to #MasculinitySoFragile today are a wonderful example of how the patriarchal norms we've established hurt males) and think of ways we could improve that. I do despair when I see sexism in action, but it also gives me a reason to work to fix it and be happy when things improve. It also makes me happy to realize how much I've grown to get away from so many of those things I used to think (while I've always been a feminist, I would have fit right in with the 'nice guys' so many years ago, as you can even see in very old threads on this forum).
To answer the only part of this that interests me, I'll gladly take stuff poking at neckbeards, fedoras, fat people, Christians, etc, if it means everyone is free.
If feminists are going to continue to dog every creator they don't like, I'm going to complain about fedora, neckbeard, male tears mugs, and #KillAllMen, among other things.
While ignoring the massive harassment, protection of privilege, and inequality that spawned them?
But thanks for ignoring all my other questions that required you to... you know... back up your claims and your feelings presented as facts. Really makes this statement from you...
WideAndNerdy wrote:Or alternately she expects us to accept those statements on some imaginary authority she has.
...all the more hilarious as something you hold against someone else with an opposing viewpoint. :)
I'll get right on that as soon as someone pays me 150,000 dollars to write these forum posts.
WideAndNerdy wrote:Dr.Ghastly wrote:WideAndNerdy wrote:TheHarpoMarxist wrote:WideAndNerdy wrote:I don't don't see the essence of what's wrong with them to be different from objectification.
There are tools you can use to learn what "Objectification" actually means.
Don't get me wrong - "Neckbeard" is a derogatory term. It is dismissive and insulting. But it isn't objectification.
I get how they're technically different but to me those differences are irrelevant.
Cheeze, you are needed. Stat!
What bothers me is the hypocrisy. Those terms don't insult me*. As I value function far above style, those terms only insult the people who use them because they've revealed how shallow they are.
*helps that I have neither a neckbeard nor a fedora but still.
Yeah, your hypocrisy also deeply bothers me. The media is hurting women with images of their "ideals", people talking about those ideals is what hurts people. Also... people are posting images of dudes in fedoras which is insulting to them, THAT'S DEEPLY OFFENSIVE AND SHOULD BE CHANGED!
You basically just said the opposite of what I was saying.
Dr.Ghastly wrote:WideAndNerdy wrote:TheHarpoMarxist wrote:WideAndNerdy wrote:I don't don't see the essence of what's wrong with them to be different from objectification.
There are tools you can use to learn what "Objectification" actually means.
Don't get me wrong - "Neckbeard" is a derogatory term. It is dismissive and insulting. But it isn't objectification.
I get how they're technically different but to me those differences are irrelevant.
Cheeze, you are needed. Stat!
What bothers me is the hypocrisy. Those terms don't insult me*. As I value function far above style, those terms only insult the people who use them because they've revealed how shallow they are.
*helps that I have neither a neckbeard nor a fedora but still.
Well, neither do the "fedora brigade". They have trilbies, and think they're fedoras.
So I guess the stated goal of this thread is complete. Harpo, it's your thread, are we done here?
So I guess the stated goal of this thread is complete. Harpo, it's your thread, are we done here?
Please, PLEEEEEASE say yes. I'd love to cover the next in the series, but this is excruciating.
Demosthenes wrote:WideAndNerdy wrote:Demosthenes wrote:WideAndNerdy wrote:I watched the first few videos in whole. Am I obligated to continue? No.
True, but you are obligated to mention you have no idea what she's said in those videos or the arguments she's making and should probably bow out of discussions about those topics and her arguments.
WideAndNerdy wrote:I want more of everything and freedom for people to create without shame or pressure bound only by the practical limits of the real world (you need to eat).
So... if someone made a game about women surviving a night of "neckbeards" harassing them in a zombie apocolypse-genre game, you'd enthusiastically support them doing what the think they should without shame or pressure from your feelings on the subject?
WideAndNerdy wrote:I think women are as harmed by being told that they are harmed as by anything media could actually be doing. When you go about thinking patriarchy is everywhere and it's harming you whether you feel it or not, thats going to cause distress.
For the first sentence, do you have sociological evidence to back that up other than your feelings?
For the second sentence, you assume despair in the face of something holding you back, but that's not the only reaction possible. You're projecting here. I see examples of patriarchal culture holding us back (the toxic masculinity responses to #MasculinitySoFragile today are a wonderful example of how the patriarchal norms we've established hurt males) and think of ways we could improve that. I do despair when I see sexism in action, but it also gives me a reason to work to fix it and be happy when things improve. It also makes me happy to realize how much I've grown to get away from so many of those things I used to think (while I've always been a feminist, I would have fit right in with the 'nice guys' so many years ago, as you can even see in very old threads on this forum).
To answer the only part of this that interests me, I'll gladly take stuff poking at neckbeards, fedoras, fat people, Christians, etc, if it means everyone is free.
If feminists are going to continue to dog every creator they don't like, I'm going to complain about fedora, neckbeard, male tears mugs, and #KillAllMen, among other things.
While ignoring the massive harassment, protection of privilege, and inequality that spawned them?
But thanks for ignoring all my other questions that required you to... you know... back up your claims and your feelings presented as facts. Really makes this statement from you...
WideAndNerdy wrote:Or alternately she expects us to accept those statements on some imaginary authority she has.
...all the more hilarious as something you hold against someone else with an opposing viewpoint. :)
I'll get right on that as soon as someone pays me 150,000 dollars to write these forum posts.
Suuuuuch a cop out, and you know it, man. We deconstruct your arguments against Anita and your personal and unsubstantiated feelings as facts, and you fall back on the money she raised. Want to talk about how she could be defrauding the feds with her 501 (c)(3) status next?
We're done Certis. Anything that could be productive can only come after the remaining two thirds of this video.
WideAndNerdy wrote:TheHarpoMarxist wrote:WideAndNerdy wrote:I don't don't see the essence of what's wrong with them to be different from objectification.
There are tools you can use to learn what "Objectification" actually means.
Don't get me wrong - "Neckbeard" is a derogatory term. It is dismissive and insulting. But it isn't objectification.
I get how they're technically different but to me those differences are irrelevant.
Cheeze, you are needed. Stat!
: D
WideAndNerdy wrote:Demosthenes wrote:WideAndNerdy wrote:Demosthenes wrote:WideAndNerdy wrote:I watched the first few videos in whole. Am I obligated to continue? No.
True, but you are obligated to mention you have no idea what she's said in those videos or the arguments she's making and should probably bow out of discussions about those topics and her arguments.
WideAndNerdy wrote:I want more of everything and freedom for people to create without shame or pressure bound only by the practical limits of the real world (you need to eat).
So... if someone made a game about women surviving a night of "neckbeards" harassing them in a zombie apocolypse-genre game, you'd enthusiastically support them doing what the think they should without shame or pressure from your feelings on the subject?
WideAndNerdy wrote:I think women are as harmed by being told that they are harmed as by anything media could actually be doing. When you go about thinking patriarchy is everywhere and it's harming you whether you feel it or not, thats going to cause distress.
For the first sentence, do you have sociological evidence to back that up other than your feelings?
For the second sentence, you assume despair in the face of something holding you back, but that's not the only reaction possible. You're projecting here. I see examples of patriarchal culture holding us back (the toxic masculinity responses to #MasculinitySoFragile today are a wonderful example of how the patriarchal norms we've established hurt males) and think of ways we could improve that. I do despair when I see sexism in action, but it also gives me a reason to work to fix it and be happy when things improve. It also makes me happy to realize how much I've grown to get away from so many of those things I used to think (while I've always been a feminist, I would have fit right in with the 'nice guys' so many years ago, as you can even see in very old threads on this forum).
To answer the only part of this that interests me, I'll gladly take stuff poking at neckbeards, fedoras, fat people, Christians, etc, if it means everyone is free.
If feminists are going to continue to dog every creator they don't like, I'm going to complain about fedora, neckbeard, male tears mugs, and #KillAllMen, among other things.
While ignoring the massive harassment, protection of privilege, and inequality that spawned them?
But thanks for ignoring all my other questions that required you to... you know... back up your claims and your feelings presented as facts. Really makes this statement from you...
WideAndNerdy wrote:Or alternately she expects us to accept those statements on some imaginary authority she has.
...all the more hilarious as something you hold against someone else with an opposing viewpoint. :)
I'll get right on that as soon as someone pays me 150,000 dollars to write these forum posts.
Suuuuuch a cop out, and you know it, man. We deconstruct your arguments against Anita and your personal and unsubstantiated feelings as facts, and you fall back on the money she raised. Want to talk about how she could be defrauding the feds with her 501 (c)(3) status next?
I don't see the point. Any time I have posted support its become clear that we see reality differently.
EDIT: Also. Nope not a cop out. You're calling me a hypocrite for holding her series, which was funded on the promise of being "well researched," to a higher standard than my forum posts.
Certis wrote:So I guess the stated goal of this thread is complete. Harpo, it's your thread, are we done here?
I'm making one more attempt to have it settle and requesting that anyone who posts something here back up what they post with a textual reference to show how it applies.
If you can't do that, then post your claim in a different thread (we do have others.) I'm also still curious to hear reactions to the questions from more folks who might want to, but might feel a bit silenced at the moment. Thanks Certis!
My thoughts pretty much follow what Farscry said. Onwards and upwards, or downwards, or sidewards, or wherever the next videos take us.
Certis wrote:So I guess the stated goal of this thread is complete. Harpo, it's your thread, are we done here?
I'm making one more attempt to have it settle and requesting that anyone who posts something here back up what they post with a textual reference to show how it applies.
If you can't do that, then post your claim in a different thread (we do have others.) I'm also still curious to hear reactions to the questions from more folks who might want to, but might feel a bit silenced at the moment. Thanks Certis!
Why now? This is only part one of three for this topic. We're already reacting point by point. I withhold anything further and concede nothing till we proceed.
I'm sure I'll end up skimming and occasionally reading further discussion/threads trying to stick to this topic, but I'd really prefer to avoid it. I think three weeks and eighteen pages, when there were simultaneously two separate threads in which to handle the meta-dialogue we said we wanted to excise from here, is sufficient evidence that we can't stick to the intended purpose of this exercise.
The fact that I can go teach a 3-hour CPR class, come back, and find 30+ new posts pretty much vindicates what I said here.
Farscry wrote:I'm sure I'll end up skimming and occasionally reading further discussion/threads trying to stick to this topic, but I'd really prefer to avoid it. I think three weeks and eighteen pages, when there were simultaneously two separate threads in which to handle the meta-dialogue we said we wanted to excise from here, is sufficient evidence that we can't stick to the intended purpose of this exercise.
The fact that I can go teach a 3-hour CPR class, come back, and find 30+ new posts pretty much vindicates what I said here. ;)
Entertaining tangent: correct CPR timing can be found in both "Stayin' Alive" and "Another One Bites The Dust".
Farscry wrote:Farscry wrote:I'm sure I'll end up skimming and occasionally reading further discussion/threads trying to stick to this topic, but I'd really prefer to avoid it. I think three weeks and eighteen pages, when there were simultaneously two separate threads in which to handle the meta-dialogue we said we wanted to excise from here, is sufficient evidence that we can't stick to the intended purpose of this exercise.
The fact that I can go teach a 3-hour CPR class, come back, and find 30+ new posts pretty much vindicates what I said here. ;)
Entertaining tangent: correct CPR timing can be found in both "Stayin' Alive" and "Another One Bites The Dust". :lol:
The part of Stayin' Alive everyone knows, not the beginning.
Farscry wrote:Farscry wrote:I'm sure I'll end up skimming and occasionally reading further discussion/threads trying to stick to this topic, but I'd really prefer to avoid it. I think three weeks and eighteen pages, when there were simultaneously two separate threads in which to handle the meta-dialogue we said we wanted to excise from here, is sufficient evidence that we can't stick to the intended purpose of this exercise.
The fact that I can go teach a 3-hour CPR class, come back, and find 30+ new posts pretty much vindicates what I said here. ;)
Entertaining tangent: correct CPR timing can be found in both "Stayin' Alive" and "Another One Bites The Dust". :lol:
Yup, I always mention "Another One Bites The Dust" and get a lot of laughs, since health care workers usually have a morbid sense of humor.
I appreciate your hard work Harpo!
I hope this is reasonable, and if you feel it isn't then let me know. I'll post an episode 2 thread shortly and link it here.
I think you should do a better job of living up to your own guidelines. Like I said in another comment, I've gone to mostly just lurking as it is your thread and other people are still getting something productive out of the discussion, but if you truly want what you say you want, be aware of your own negative contributions.
I don't know if you'll take that criticism seriously or not, but I figure if there's other people who feel the same way to some extent, it's worth mentioning.
One thing in specific that quickly comes to mind: don't tell someone not to speak for another person. That comes off as trying to "win internet points." Sometimes a person has a general feeling they can't articulate in specific words. The process of debate and discussion can help them get a concrete handle on what they feel and how to express it. The interaction shouldn't be limited to people who disagree with them on a specific point, it should include anyone with something constructive to add.
Considering we've reached the end of the video and it seems the discussion I don't know what's being cluttered up, so...
In any case, to avoid cluttering up the other thread I'm going to put this here because it's about the disclaimer which is in every video, and I don't think it's been talked about yet along these lines: she says it's possible "enjoy" these things while simultaneously being critical of them. Just "enjoy" and enjoy the media, not specifically the problematic aspect itself. That disclaimer has sort of taken on a life of its own, but in taking a close look at what she actually says, what strikes me is how limited a concept it's expressing.
Eh, I have a hard time believing that. In any case, we're at the end so this won't be too disruptive, so these would be my answers:
Was there something in this video that surprised you, and if so what was it?Was there something absent from this video that surprised you, and if so what was it?
No, pretty much in line with what I expected based on watching one of her other videos in the series just to see what the big deal was. Maybe just an expectation that she'd mention how these tropes turn women off from gaming, but by the end I think it was clear she wanted to focus on the harm they do to society.
Compared to how you went into this exercise, do you find yourself more inclined to agree with Sarkeesian, less inclined, or about the same and why?If you were inclined to agree with Sarkeesian, did this close look reveal any nits to pick or major issues for you that you hadn't noticed of before?
If you were inclined to disagree with Sarkeesian, did this close look reveal anything that you agreed with her on?
I think part of the problem is I don't fit into either of those 'sides'. I'm pretty much left wing/progressive/liberal whatever you want to call it, I have confidence in sociology and even the softer social sciences to say something relevant to our world, I'm the last person to say the humanities have no value, etc. But I get the feeling I don't fit in too well with either side, even if I fit in much less poorly with one than with the other. Neither group of 'inclines' seems to fit me well.
How does this close look affect your take on the meta-dialogue?
The meta-dialogue seems like it was based on misunderstandings among those inclined to disagree with her. The response to me looks less like defending what she actually said and more about undercutting the arguments of those that disagree with her and/or substituting one's own arguments for hers.
My final conclusion would be that she does not call for a ban, but she also leaves vague the status of these games, as she leaves it at saying these games can have value and you can enjoy them. She identifies the problem as the DiD being a recurring trend and that the solution is to evolve gender representations.
I think at the very least that means she doesn't answer the question here of what she's calling for if not a ban, and I think leans towards her saying that we can value what's good in these games, but that doesn't mean she just wants balance. I think that means she wants *all* games to evolve, not just some percentage of them that reduces the regressive material down to some non-critical but still significant mass.
Any other general thoughts or questions you'd like to ask of the group?
Interpreting her in a way that avoids conceding any ground to her detractors is possibly playing Angel's Advocate. You can admit that people you disagree with have some truth in what they say while still arguing that they are wrong.
Pages