hyalapterouslemur-What feminists claim they are trying to ban and what I have seen targeted for removal are two very different things. Infographics challenging statistics feminists use in their campaigns hardly strikes me as pornographic.
Yeah, but there is a lot of porn on Facebook. Plus, there were all the usual ******-based insults.
Whatever the case is, Facebook is a publisher. As a publisher, they have the right to refuse to publish you.
I didn't call women "****ty" i was actually referring to "**** walk" which is feminists teaching women to be proud of being "****s" their word not mine.
I don't agree with everything about ****walk, but I understand it. One of the faux-justifications for rape is "she dressed like a ****". Which is rather curious: A girl can be wearing a burqa and sleep with ten different men every night, while her sister might be totally naked and still a virgin.
I didn't blame feminism for the crime. I blamed them for ignoring male victims of crime because they're male. One way they do this is to say their perpetrator was a man. You know like you did. Bashed men for what some men have done. Kinda like bashing German Americans who fought in WW2 against Hitler, for Hitler being German.
No, poisoning the well is a form of Ad hom, in which someone says something bad about a speaker in attempt to impugn their character before the speaker has a chance to say anything about a topic. For example this is poisoning the well. My comment was part of a critique of why that particular policy is wrong.
I find someone who has created the neologism "date fraud" (meaning going on a date and not sleeping with the man involved) and arguing it's just as bad as date rape...interesting.
They're actually more likely to be "teenage" mothers. About 4 times more likely actually. Since no fault divorce, the sexual revolution and 2nd wave feminism came about. The divorce rate has more then doubled, out of wedlock birth and teen mothers have quadrupled. All those things played a major role in this happening.
You're conflating OWL births and teen mothers, forgettinig the whole part about shotgun weddings.
Not an Ad hominem. Nor do i think all leftist movements are bad. I think this particular leftist movement is. This non-individualist ideology will always fall on the left.
No, it's an argument against me. Not against the things i said.
Also, it's more like this
Me "Republicans did X"
Them "Feminists called X feminism"
Me "But the ideology behind that movement is nothing like Feminism, if they existed today they would likely be called anti-feminists"
Them "But Brawndo got what plants crave"
Me
The reality is that, political parties only do what we want if we extort them into doing so by saying "Well then, we'll take our votes elsewhere."
Oh, so that is why you're so delusional about the topic. You're ***** whipped KK.
******-based insult, confusing feminism with pop culture bull****, talking about the First Amendment where it doesn't apply (practically free space), misusing the term "ad hominem", citing Farrell...BINGO!
Talk about being a hypocrite. It's okay for women to fight for their rights, but if men do they are scum and worse than most men?
I'm not gonna be on the next Men's Rights float or marching in their parade, but my god, they are entitled to the same freedoms as women are...
Yeah, the r/ should've given away part of it.
But when you read men's rights blogs, they're just so...entitled. "How dare those women date alphas [sic] and leave us betas [sic] high and dry and then come back to us when they know no one else wants their old shriveled ****?" (They say "****" a lot, by the way.)
It's like how the women on Jezebel would be scum even if they called their website "The Women's Rights Forum". Just because it's in the name doesn't mean it's actually what they're all about.
Your man doesn't want to go down on you? That means he's gay!
My experience with MRAs has been as the victim of guilt by association with them. I was molested as a child and basically had to engage in major "autopsychotherapy", and, due to issues of jurisdiction wrt: white-on-Indian crime, I couldn't very easily go to the cops. They troll groups for abuse victims trying to find a double standard. The double standard indeed does exist in the popular mind, but they're a major factor in why it's difficult to abolish it.
I've also found non-medically trained political appointees to the World Health Organization opposing the use of condoms and declaring those of us who advocate sending more condoms to sub-Saharan Africa to be "male sexists".
So men should ignore the grossly unbalanced laws in areas like... divorce, custody, rape (especially statutory rape), and other sexual crimes (hey 18 year old, your 17 year old gf sent you a sexual text? have fun on the child molester list)
The divorce one isn't quite what you think. Actually, if you're unemployed and your wife's employed, you can get alimony in the divorce. Also, a major reason men don't get custody is because they don't try for it.
In the case of sexual abuse, it's more that people think it can't happen. And again, MRAs trolling abuse hotlines...doesn't help.
(By the way, it's "sext", which is stupid because it's not really a text. It's a binary, usually a JPEG.)
"The Frontman Fallacy?" A Google search only reveals this "fallacy" to be associated with Men's Rights Activists (perhaps you'll consider this poisoning the well). Made up by Men's Rights Activists for Men's Rights Activists to go "Hurr durr, Frontman." Okay. Proud. Of. You.
What's funny is, feminists don't even assume that men ruled the world for their own benefit. It's more that men didn't even notice women. Hell, in some cases (The first thing I can think of here is genital mutilation.), you have it traditionally being men abusing boys, women abusing girls. (Though of course pop culture feminism avoids these complexities.)
A more nuanced approach can be found in Rebecca Watson's review of Game of Thrones (Spoilers and trigger warnings for EVERYTHING) The point being, society largely causes people to do things, though if they didn't, society would collapse, or at least change. It's a self-perpetuating process.
(Also this might explain why anyone would think peasants live longer than nobles.)
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
If you think that feminism is an echo chamber you have negative knowledge of it. Well, I suppose it's an echo chamber when it comes to repeating that "women are also people"...
Recall that ljossberir's compaint was that he couldn't get on board with feminism because it combined the individualist "women are also people" message with a Marxist or Marxist-like social analysis. He agrees with the "women are also people" message. In fact, not one person here has actually disagreed with it - not even the transparent crypto-misogynists. And yet you are blithely assuming that feminists are the only people who can espouse that message, insinuating that anyone who criticizes feminism for its method of social analysis must be denying the message. In other words, you are asserting, in the absence of any argumentation whatsoever, that feminism is an "intellectual powerhouse", while at the same time demonizing, again in the absence of any argumentation whatsoever, anyone who does not repeat back to you the doctrine you find acceptable. I could not ask for a better illustration of the echo chamber.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You don't need groups to fight for "Men's Rights" in America. We control every part of the government. We dominate Hollywood and popular media. We've created barriers to stop women from joining scientific and political communities. "Men's Rights" is the history of America, if not Western civilization.
I think you're being too generous with your "we." Yes, the large majority of power-holders in American society are men, but they're also majority white, rich, and Christian. It's that neat intersection that you'd better fall into, otherwise you'll have a tough time gaining power.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Feel like i have discussed a few of these and your just trying to troll me into going on a rant. I'd appreciate it if you didn't do that.
This seems like a "no u" kind of argument.
Most may have actually been a strong statement in that spot. But i feel some if not most of the vocal feminists today exhibit a Narcissistic personality disorder of sorts and have a deep seeded hatred of men and women alike that freely conform to the "heteronormative" way of doing things. They should be addressing the Narcissistic wound instead of trying to make the world conform to their view, just my opinion though.
Men are overwhelmingly in possession of economic power, in Sweden as everywhere else. Laws aimed at giving support to victims of crimes that have historically been ignored on a social level and still are does nothing to change this. Neither does citizenship laws that reflect the more pressing physical need that an infant has of its mother. I wouldn't mind changing these to be more open, not because of men or w/e, but because I want a more open and accommodating society.
Every single thing you say about feminism not actually being necessary or women being somehow equal with men is factually incorrect. There are people to turn to for criticism of feminist tactics and goals but you are not one of them.
Equal rights =/= equitable. I believe equality= equal rights. You seem to believe it means equitability. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
Children also need their father's to grow up into healthy functional adults much more then your giving credit for. This is well back by studies in neurobiology, psychology and statistical analysis.
63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census) – 5 times the average.
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average.
85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)
80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes –14 times the average. (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (National Principals Association Report)
75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes – 10 times the average. (Rainbows for All God’s Children)
70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Sept. 1988)
85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Fulton Co. Georgia, Texas Dept. of Correction)
Also to find a group of women that make more than men you have to do a great effort of cherry picked data. Notice that for all women in America they make on average 80% of there male counter parts, but if you decide to restrict the date to "unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities." (from the article linked below) then you find one example of women making more than men.
Why is that small sliver more important than the overall trend. This is again the another problem with the MRM twisting their date like a contortionists until they find some data to support their narrative.
Why is the MRM so afraid to look at overall trends?
Your use of statistics is misleading. Yes men still are more likely to have jobs then women. However the women make 80% number is the misleading stat. The 76%(i believe is the current %) number includes all men and all women. It doesn't take into account hours worked and type of job worked. Women who have the same credentials, work the same job and hours make 107-8% what men make in the USA.
Apparently very few feminists are "true feminists". This definition of what a true feminist is changes regularly like a rotating/adapting shield of sorts. What MRA's criticize though are underlying currents visible in all 32 flavors of feminism however.
Yggy-If men did what was best for society (more appropriately what they viewed as best for society) then western history is most certainly NOT ALL ABOUT MEN'S RIGHTS. Since our society is based on male disposibility and this is now only being changed somewhat due to various factors (and only challenged by feminists in a very backhanded way to those men whose sacrifices made the modern world possible because we live in a much safer world and there is now lots of money and power to be gained). Your analysis also ignores those women who held power and what most women thought about women's role in society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-suffragism). It never has been or ever was Men just decided women had no place in politics.
Yggy-Your analysis of the frontman fallacy fails to actually refute the claim that your arguments are fallacious.
hylapthwhatever-The MRM is by its very nature as a group advocating for men's rights and challenging feminist governance going to attract some misogynists. I can't remember but have you commented on the many misandrists within the feminist movement. How they obtained positions at its' highest most echelons and continue to advocate for attacks on men's rights and even their humanity (see Michael Kimmel for a male example, Andrea Dworkin one of the most celebrated female ones). When an MRA calls for the extermination of all women and is applauded in academia then maybe I can take you seriously.
Yggy-I'm sorry, what? You don't think women (of all ages) are told that?
I doubt they are told it by the same people if at all. A cruel adolescent on twitter saying something like this to upset someone because they have no sense of shame or empathy is hardly the same thing as the majority of adults saying it and believing it.
As for the kings dying younger then peasants I believe that is taking all the men who were in the running into account not just the victors FYI. Not just the Genghis Khans but the mountains of dead advesaries.
My great grandmother lived to be over a hundred years old, she had a long happy life and many children. She told my mother about how her brothers were required to work all day out in the fields so the family could survive. They would return home at the end of the day bright red vomiting and convulsing, they both died of wasting "skin cancer" in their late 30s.. Women escaping their traditional roles had a lot less to do with rising up against male oppression (in fact next to nothing to do with that) and more to do with "Men's work" no longer being a death sentence.
It seems like every day there's a new reason not to take feminism seriously. Here's the latest one: a Microsoft employee was accused of sexism by the Atlantic Wire for beating a female employee in a fighting game (???), part of the idea being, I guess, that they purposefully used a woman who knew nothing about video games for the demonstration to poke fun at female gamers or something? Only, the woman is basically a professional gamer, so.... whatever.
The author of the article then decides that he was telling "a rape joke", 10 or however-many feminists on twitter agree and Microsoft is forced to issue an apology. Only, the man never uses the word rape, nor any crude sexual remark, the comments are not provided with the proper context and as you'll see in the comments, most people don't think it was a rape joke at all. But due to clever feminist "reinterpretation," it is possible to invent misogyny where it probably doesn't exist---and feminists such as the author believe they OWN the language, they OWN the right to determine what is offensive and what is not, without respect to reality--and THAT, I find "offensive."
Quote posted below for those who can't be bothered clicking links:
"Here we go. Just let it happen. It'll be over soon," he says
That does sound fairly dodgy to me. (but I guess that makes me part of the feminist conspiracy so whatever :D)
Also, the comments on that article are amusing in the sense of "these people don't really think about what they're saying before they say it".
Quote from jo »
As for the kings dying younger then peasants I believe that is taking all the men who were in the running into account not just the victors FYI. Not just the Genghis Khans but the mountains of dead advesaries.
I'd prefer it if you posted a source. The roman stuff I posted made an average, which included everyone who died of misadventure.
Only, the man never uses the word rape, nor any crude sexual remark, the comments are not provided with the proper context and as you'll see in the comments, most people don't think it was a rape joke at all.
If you checked out the video, I hope you agree that it's at least an uncomfortable situation. I don't know why Microsoft set up such a one-sided match, except maybe to sell their "FightStick" as something to dominate all teh n00bs with. It would have been just as bad if the woman was male, because he'd probably be presented as some loser newbie too. What adds that special sour note is the bullying factor, and the implication that it's somehow fun to just totally wail on someone so far below your skill level. (It would also have been just as bad if the producer were female and wailing on some poor victim.)
Microsoft's presentation condoned crappy sportsmanship, and was just sort of mean-spirited. Is it sexist specifically? I think it's arguable either way, but it certainly reflects a bad attitude in gaming that feminists and others can have something to say about.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Quote posted below for those who can't be bothered clicking links:
"Here we go. Just let it happen. It'll be over soon," he says
That does sound fairly dodgy to me. (but I guess that makes me part of the feminist conspiracy so whatever :D)
The "It" he was obviously talking about is the fight in a video game... You're not part of a conspiracy and there is no feminists conspiracy. You're seriously incapable of have a conversation with another human being on the most basic level without misunderstanding what they're saying.
"I have no idea what it's like not to be a straight white male, and the experiences of others are irrelevant." -Conservative Motto
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
The "It" he was obviously talking about is the fight in a video game.
I do agree that these kinds of things are an illustration of a problem with certain branches of feminism, and that contrary to what is often asserted, those branches are mainstream enough now where Microsoft has to issue an apology for this kind of thing in order to save face.
Newbie hazing and in-game dominance are a part of gamer culture, and they aren't what I would call "bad" things in themselves. I have had exactly these kinds of interactions with other (heterosexual) men in gaming-related situations, and although it is a dominance metaphor, it is an appropriate dominance metaphor, because dominance is no more or less than what is happening in the game at the time. It is not in any way connected to an actual act of real-world sexual harassment.
In short, this girl was being treated as if she were "one of the guys" -- that's equal treatment! It's exactly what feminists should want -- a woman being integrated into a traditionally male social structure exactly as if she were a male.
But no, we actually want special and/or exceptional treatment, don't we. Now that there's a (gasp) woman in the proverbial room, we can't use any more uncouth language or dominance metaphors or newbie hazing or any of that. How is this any different than holding open doors, pulling out chairs, white knighting, or any other assumption that women are weak and need special protection or shelter or help to insulate them from the world?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
The "It" he was obviously talking about is the fight in a video game.
I do agree that these kinds of things are an illustration of a problem with certain branches of feminism, and that contrary to what is often asserted, those branches are mainstream enough now where Microsoft has to issue an apology for this kind of thing in order to save face.
Newbie hazing and in-game dominance are a part of gamer culture, and they aren't what I would call "bad" things in themselves. I have had exactly these kinds of interactions with other (heterosexual) men in gaming-related situations, and although it is a dominance metaphor, it is an appropriate dominance metaphor, because dominance is no more or less than what is happening in the game at the time. It is not in any way connected to an actual act of real-world sexual harassment.
In short, this girl was being treated as if she were "one of the guys" -- that's equal treatment! It's exactly what feminists should want -- a woman being integrated into a traditionally male social structure exactly as if she were a male.
But no, we actually want special and/or exceptional treatment, don't we. Now that there's a (gasp) woman in the proverbial room, we can't use any more uncouth language or dominance metaphors or newbie hazing or any of that. How is this any different than holding open doors, pulling out chairs, white knighting, or any other assumption that women are weak and need special protection or shelter or help to insulate them from the world?
You raise a good point: while this is overzealous and at least IMO, completely ridiculous, it is still mainstream enough that M$ has to apologize.
-Samsung explicitly refuses to apologize,
-The Huff Post's "Women" writer [original article] ludicrously interprets it as being sexist against women, because:
Who really wants to be married to a robot?
-Jezebel finds the sound effects more offensive than the sexism angle of it,
-Feminist Gail Dines issues this inflammatory diatribe about how it's actually offensive to women, not men, and of course, women cannot be sexist:
Gail Dines, an expert on sexist images in the media and a professor of sociology and women’s studies at Wheelock College in Boston, agrees. “It’s not funny because it normalizes masculine behavior and makes a joke of it,” she told Yahoo! Shine in a phone interview. “It’s the reality of many women’s lives, who get dinner ready, take care of the children, help with homework and do the housework, while the husbands are, in fact, sloth-like.”
Further, she argues, men, who are in power in our society, cannot legitimately cry sexism. “You can say [this ad is] prejudiced, in bad taste, insulting, not funny,” she said. “But it can’t be sexist. Just like a black person can’t be racist. Sexism is a word with a very specific meaning, which is a certain group having more access than another group to the things that make life worth living, such as high wages and good housing.”
So, this is the reality we're presented with. We're being told that men cannot be the victims of sexism (not just by Dines, but by certain feminists in this thread as well), we're assured that feminism is very interested in the problems of men, yet it is silent in the face of an ad campaign like this, and actually does it's damndest to re-interpret the misandry as a kind of hidden misogyny.
We're told to shut up because our "privilege" blinds us, therefore, what we say, as men, does not have the worth of what a feminist says and finally, we're told that that kind of statement is not sexist, which is perhaps the most offensive thing of all.
For those of us that are trying to take feminism seriously, tell us how. How are we supposed to take it seriously?
The question of whether this particular woman was sexually harassed cannot be answered by an appeal to the fact that other women have been sexually harassed.
When gaming culture treats women worse than it treats men (as it very often does, regrettably) then it is, in fact, sexist. But is it sexist when gaming culture treats a woman exactly the same as it would treat a man? That is the question.
Many people like to call out the use of any dominance metaphor whatsoever as sexist. But is it still sexist if the dominance metaphor is being used in a state of affairs that can rightly be described as one of dominance? Or more to the point, is it sexist if it doesn't refer to a real-life power relation at all, but rather to a fictitious, in-game power relation created solely by the arbitrary and made-up game rules?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
When gaming culture treats women worse than it treats men (as it very often does, regrettably) then it is, in fact, sexist. But is it sexist when gaming culture treats a woman exactly the same as it would treat a man? That is the question.
It depends on if they're starting from the same point or not, I suppose.
The problem with culture is that it's almost impossible to be completely free of the culture you grew up with, even online. (The fact that gaming culture has previously been particularly insular and mysogynistic means that women aren't starting at the same point as men, so treating them equally doesn't give the same result.)
In this particular case, I'm not sure how reasonable the backlash is (mainly because I don't get harassed online that much) but I'm pointing out why I think the backlash occured.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
this is no different from two friends joking with each other about "man better tighten up your game" or "you need to start running laps" when playing basketball.
i guess there is just no way to have men and women participate in an activity together without the interpretation being considered sexist by somebody. if he treats her nicely he is being sexist for being too easy on her just for being a girl. if he makes some playful banter about how he is beating her at a game, he is sexist because it is a rape joke. if he is a total ******* the obvious implications will start rolling in.
there is no right answer so long as we have thin-skinned people ready to take offense at something so minor as mock competitive chit-chat.
this is no different from two friends joking with each other about "man better tighten up your game" or "you need to start running laps" when playing basketball.
i guess there is just no way to have men and women participate in an activity together without the interpretation being considered sexist by somebody. if he treats her nicely he is being sexist for being too easy on her just for being a girl. if he makes some playful banter about how he is beating her at a game, he is sexist because it is a rape joke. if he is a total ******* the obvious implications will start rolling in.
there is no right answer so long as we have thin-skinned people ready to take offense at something so minor as mock competitive chit-chat.
You do understand the difference between "get better" "you suck" and "Let it happen. It'll be over soon" right?
It's not like "you suck" was misinterpreted as a rape comment. It was the one that has been explicitly associated with rape events in the past.
I'm not saying the outrage is accurate but it certainly has more merit than a lot of people here are giving it credit for. The theme of "stop struggling and it'll be over more quickly" certainly carries more sexual, rape, baggage than "I'm destroying you" or "get better"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
Why should rape be a sacred cow and other forms of violence get a green light again? This is the part where I point out that this is just a new form of chivalry. What if the person your playing just had a relative murdered why not freak out when people say "I killed you". A phrase I hear people use all the time while playing MTG.
Rape is a lot more common than murder, and I do think it would be largely insensitive to use those metaphors around someone who had to deal with a murder in the family. Again, the fact that other negative things exists does NOT greenlight others. The fact that people are racist doesn't mean it's okay to be sexist and saying "but you didn't say Y is bad when you said X is bad!" is a terrible distraction strategy.
The fact that there are other insensitive forms of violence metaphors in gaming does not justify the usage of rape metaphors.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
Rape is a lot more common than murder, and I do think it would be largely insensitive to use those metaphors around someone who had to deal with a murder in the family.
Rape is not so common though to automatically assume every woman has been raped. This sacred cow status rape has is the product of feminism and creates an absurd dynamic by which every man is a potential rapist and every woman a part of the "raped class". I am close friends with a rape victim who uses the word rape quite casually. When she cannot get her phone charger plug to go into her phone easily and struggles with it she states that she is raping her phone and laughs about it. Should I be appalled? Would it be wrong for a woman beating a man at a video game to make a rape joke?
Problems with surveys like this.
1. Science has shown women typically have better memories, which means they're more likely to remember bad experiences.
2. Sexism isn't defined. You can see from this thread people have very different definitions of sexism. So for example someone might consider calling someone a "*****" sexist against women, but at the same calling someone a "dick" isn't sexist.
3. Much of it is based on feelings and not reality
For a more legitimate approach on how each gender experiences sexism, harassment ect. One could role a WOW toon of each gender with a male and female name and play the game or start drama in trade chat.
5$ says you will be treated better as the female toon
"I have no idea what it's like not to be a straight white male, and the experiences of others are irrelevant." -Conservative Motto
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
I don't post links because I like the colour they make the text, I post them because I'm expecting people to read them.
1) Source your argument.
2) The linked study uses a consistent set of definitions. Also, males tended to be called "*****" because they weren't seeming manly enough, which is mysogynistic. Women got called "****s" and "whores".
3)
Quote from muh feelins »
“Have you ever experienced sex-based harassment that began while playing a video game and continued outside of the game?” Only 9.8% of all participants reported that they had experienced this sort of harassment. However, women were nearly 7 times more likely to experience this than men were (at 19.5% for women and 3.0% for men). This suggests that those who harass women are motivated to pursue the subject of their harassment once the game is finished in order to continue to harass them. Those who harass men don't experience this motivation to the same extent, and so women are more likely to experience sustained sexism than men are.
Similar numbers were reported in response to the question “Have you ever felt unsafe because of sex-based harassment while playing a video game?” 9.6% of all participants answered “yes.” 19.4% of women and 2.2% of men experienced this. This means that women are nine times more likely than men to feel unsafe in this situation. A handful of women commented further on this, and all of them expressed that their fears were rape or sexual-assault related, which is unsurprising considering that some studies report that as many as 1 in 4 college-aged women is sexually assaulted. Where rape is a real, common occurrence for women in the average gaming age group, it is not surprising that threats of rape made while gaming causes more concern for women than for men.
Quote from Directed at the author »
“Yoru[sic] survey is retarded and so are you. There's no sexism in the video game community, you stupid ****. All you *****es play cause you like the attention that nerds give you. You can't get it anywhere else cause you're fat disgusting whales. You ruin video games. Shut the **** up, tits or gtfo, and make me a sandwich. I'd say I hope you get raped, but you're such a **** you'd like it.”
As far as making a character and seeing how they're treated, the study points out that female characters tend to be asked for nude pics in exchange for help. So if "tits or gtfo" counts as better treatment, sure...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
Izuki-If gamers are looking to insult opponents aka smack talk then a gendered insult towards a women is going to be more effective then a gendered insult towards a man. Women in our society are taught to be offended by gendered insults and men are taught to simply laugh it off aka "throw rocks at boys because their stupid".
Newbie hazing and in-game dominance are a part of gamer culture, and they aren't what I would call "bad" things in themselves. I have had exactly these kinds of interactions with other (heterosexual) men in gaming-related situations, and although it is a dominance metaphor, it is an appropriate dominance metaphor, because dominance is no more or less than what is happening in the game at the time. It is not in any way connected to an actual act of real-world sexual harassment.
There are dominance metaphors that aren't about sexual violation. Perhaps one of those would have been more appropriate.
For those of us that are trying to take feminism seriously, tell us how. How are we supposed to take it seriously?
By not cherry-picking feminist viewpoints that most other feminists would find fault with? But if those links convince you that feminists can't be taken seriously, then these responses to a comment that the revealed games for XBox1 feature no female protagonists will clearly convince you that men can't be taken seriously. http://femfreq.tumblr.com/post/52673540142/twitter-vs-female-protagonists-in-video-games
Has it occurred to you that ALL such insults, gendered or otherwise, are juvenile, and better done without? There is a reason that such talk at a Magic event gets you an insta-Game Loss. (See IPG section on "Unsporting Conduct").
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yeah, but there is a lot of porn on Facebook. Plus, there were all the usual ******-based insults.
Whatever the case is, Facebook is a publisher. As a publisher, they have the right to refuse to publish you.
I don't agree with everything about ****walk, but I understand it. One of the faux-justifications for rape is "she dressed like a ****". Which is rather curious: A girl can be wearing a burqa and sleep with ten different men every night, while her sister might be totally naked and still a virgin.
Except Hitler was Austrian.
I find someone who has created the neologism "date fraud" (meaning going on a date and not sleeping with the man involved) and arguing it's just as bad as date rape...interesting.
Ah, but what if she's not happy about the marriage? What if her husband wants her to never see any of her friends out of fear she's cheating on him?
You're conflating OWL births and teen mothers, forgettinig the whole part about shotgun weddings.
Anyway, post hoc.
Actually, the term used now is "kyriarchy", which is admittedly redundant if you speak Greek, but still...
Unlike you, I don't have relationship problems right now. I have had them before. I also have the right to dump a girl who I no longer like.
In this case, Oprah is metonymous for pop culture "feminism" in general.
So it's not an argument then.
The reality is that, political parties only do what we want if we extort them into doing so by saying "Well then, we'll take our votes elsewhere."
******-based insult, confusing feminism with pop culture bull****, talking about the First Amendment where it doesn't apply (practically free space), misusing the term "ad hominem", citing Farrell...BINGO!
Yeah, the r/ should've given away part of it.
But when you read men's rights blogs, they're just so...entitled. "How dare those women date alphas [sic] and leave us betas [sic] high and dry and then come back to us when they know no one else wants their old shriveled ****?" (They say "****" a lot, by the way.)
Your man doesn't want to go down on you? That means he's gay!
My experience with MRAs has been as the victim of guilt by association with them. I was molested as a child and basically had to engage in major "autopsychotherapy", and, due to issues of jurisdiction wrt: white-on-Indian crime, I couldn't very easily go to the cops. They troll groups for abuse victims trying to find a double standard. The double standard indeed does exist in the popular mind, but they're a major factor in why it's difficult to abolish it.
I've also found non-medically trained political appointees to the World Health Organization opposing the use of condoms and declaring those of us who advocate sending more condoms to sub-Saharan Africa to be "male sexists".
The divorce one isn't quite what you think. Actually, if you're unemployed and your wife's employed, you can get alimony in the divorce. Also, a major reason men don't get custody is because they don't try for it.
In the case of sexual abuse, it's more that people think it can't happen. And again, MRAs trolling abuse hotlines...doesn't help.
(By the way, it's "sext", which is stupid because it's not really a text. It's a binary, usually a JPEG.)
What's funny is, feminists don't even assume that men ruled the world for their own benefit. It's more that men didn't even notice women. Hell, in some cases (The first thing I can think of here is genital mutilation.), you have it traditionally being men abusing boys, women abusing girls. (Though of course pop culture feminism avoids these complexities.)
A more nuanced approach can be found in Rebecca Watson's review of Game of Thrones (Spoilers and trigger warnings for EVERYTHING) The point being, society largely causes people to do things, though if they didn't, society would collapse, or at least change. It's a self-perpetuating process.
(Also this might explain why anyone would think peasants live longer than nobles.)
Modtext turned purple and warned.
On phasing:
Recall that ljossberir's compaint was that he couldn't get on board with feminism because it combined the individualist "women are also people" message with a Marxist or Marxist-like social analysis. He agrees with the "women are also people" message. In fact, not one person here has actually disagreed with it - not even the transparent crypto-misogynists. And yet you are blithely assuming that feminists are the only people who can espouse that message, insinuating that anyone who criticizes feminism for its method of social analysis must be denying the message. In other words, you are asserting, in the absence of any argumentation whatsoever, that feminism is an "intellectual powerhouse", while at the same time demonizing, again in the absence of any argumentation whatsoever, anyone who does not repeat back to you the doctrine you find acceptable. I could not ask for a better illustration of the echo chamber.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I think you're being too generous with your "we." Yes, the large majority of power-holders in American society are men, but they're also majority white, rich, and Christian. It's that neat intersection that you'd better fall into, otherwise you'll have a tough time gaining power.
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Art is life itself.
I realize that this is an old post, but I quoted it in my sig because of how clearly it explains a common misconception. Thanks!
2) Men who graduate college are more likely to select a high paying major then women http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/23/pf/c...gap/index.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/actua...th-2011-3?op=1 " -Commons
Yggy-If men did what was best for society (more appropriately what they viewed as best for society) then western history is most certainly NOT ALL ABOUT MEN'S RIGHTS. Since our society is based on male disposibility and this is now only being changed somewhat due to various factors (and only challenged by feminists in a very backhanded way to those men whose sacrifices made the modern world possible because we live in a much safer world and there is now lots of money and power to be gained). Your analysis also ignores those women who held power and what most women thought about women's role in society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-suffragism). It never has been or ever was Men just decided women had no place in politics.
Yggy-Your analysis of the frontman fallacy fails to actually refute the claim that your arguments are fallacious.
hylapthwhatever-The MRM is by its very nature as a group advocating for men's rights and challenging feminist governance going to attract some misogynists. I can't remember but have you commented on the many misandrists within the feminist movement. How they obtained positions at its' highest most echelons and continue to advocate for attacks on men's rights and even their humanity (see Michael Kimmel for a male example, Andrea Dworkin one of the most celebrated female ones). When an MRA calls for the extermination of all women and is applauded in academia then maybe I can take you seriously.
I doubt they are told it by the same people if at all. A cruel adolescent on twitter saying something like this to upset someone because they have no sense of shame or empathy is hardly the same thing as the majority of adults saying it and believing it.
As for the kings dying younger then peasants I believe that is taking all the men who were in the running into account not just the victors FYI. Not just the Genghis Khans but the mountains of dead advesaries.
My great grandmother lived to be over a hundred years old, she had a long happy life and many children. She told my mother about how her brothers were required to work all day out in the fields so the family could survive. They would return home at the end of the day bright red vomiting and convulsing, they both died of wasting "skin cancer" in their late 30s.. Women escaping their traditional roles had a lot less to do with rising up against male oppression (in fact next to nothing to do with that) and more to do with "Men's work" no longer being a death sentence.
The author of the article then decides that he was telling "a rape joke", 10 or however-many feminists on twitter agree and Microsoft is forced to issue an apology. Only, the man never uses the word rape, nor any crude sexual remark, the comments are not provided with the proper context and as you'll see in the comments, most people don't think it was a rape joke at all. But due to clever feminist "reinterpretation," it is possible to invent misogyny where it probably doesn't exist---and feminists such as the author believe they OWN the language, they OWN the right to determine what is offensive and what is not, without respect to reality--and THAT, I find "offensive."
That does sound fairly dodgy to me. (but I guess that makes me part of the feminist conspiracy so whatever :D)
Also, the comments on that article are amusing in the sense of "these people don't really think about what they're saying before they say it".
I'd prefer it if you posted a source. The roman stuff I posted made an average, which included everyone who died of misadventure.
Art is life itself.
If you checked out the video, I hope you agree that it's at least an uncomfortable situation. I don't know why Microsoft set up such a one-sided match, except maybe to sell their "FightStick" as something to dominate all teh n00bs with. It would have been just as bad if the woman was male, because he'd probably be presented as some loser newbie too. What adds that special sour note is the bullying factor, and the implication that it's somehow fun to just totally wail on someone so far below your skill level. (It would also have been just as bad if the producer were female and wailing on some poor victim.)
Microsoft's presentation condoned crappy sportsmanship, and was just sort of mean-spirited. Is it sexist specifically? I think it's arguable either way, but it certainly reflects a bad attitude in gaming that feminists and others can have something to say about.
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
The "It" he was obviously talking about is the fight in a video game... You're not part of a conspiracy and there is no feminists conspiracy. You're seriously incapable of have a conversation with another human being on the most basic level without misunderstanding what they're saying.
Flame infraction. - Blinking Spirit
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
I do agree that these kinds of things are an illustration of a problem with certain branches of feminism, and that contrary to what is often asserted, those branches are mainstream enough now where Microsoft has to issue an apology for this kind of thing in order to save face.
Newbie hazing and in-game dominance are a part of gamer culture, and they aren't what I would call "bad" things in themselves. I have had exactly these kinds of interactions with other (heterosexual) men in gaming-related situations, and although it is a dominance metaphor, it is an appropriate dominance metaphor, because dominance is no more or less than what is happening in the game at the time. It is not in any way connected to an actual act of real-world sexual harassment.
In short, this girl was being treated as if she were "one of the guys" -- that's equal treatment! It's exactly what feminists should want -- a woman being integrated into a traditionally male social structure exactly as if she were a male.
But no, we actually want special and/or exceptional treatment, don't we. Now that there's a (gasp) woman in the proverbial room, we can't use any more uncouth language or dominance metaphors or newbie hazing or any of that. How is this any different than holding open doors, pulling out chairs, white knighting, or any other assumption that women are weak and need special protection or shelter or help to insulate them from the world?
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
You raise a good point: while this is overzealous and at least IMO, completely ridiculous, it is still mainstream enough that M$ has to apologize.
Meanwhile, Samsung runs an ad campaign which portrays men as neanderthals and what happens?
-Samsung explicitly refuses to apologize,
-The Huff Post's "Women" writer [original article] ludicrously interprets it as being sexist against women, because:
-Jezebel finds the sound effects more offensive than the sexism angle of it,
-Feminist Gail Dines issues this inflammatory diatribe about how it's actually offensive to women, not men, and of course, women cannot be sexist:
So, this is the reality we're presented with. We're being told that men cannot be the victims of sexism (not just by Dines, but by certain feminists in this thread as well), we're assured that feminism is very interested in the problems of men, yet it is silent in the face of an ad campaign like this, and actually does it's damndest to re-interpret the misandry as a kind of hidden misogyny.
We're told to shut up because our "privilege" blinds us, therefore, what we say, as men, does not have the worth of what a feminist says and finally, we're told that that kind of statement is not sexist, which is perhaps the most offensive thing of all.
For those of us that are trying to take feminism seriously, tell us how. How are we supposed to take it seriously?
Also, what happened to calling people noobs?
Art is life itself.
The question of whether this particular woman was sexually harassed cannot be answered by an appeal to the fact that other women have been sexually harassed.
When gaming culture treats women worse than it treats men (as it very often does, regrettably) then it is, in fact, sexist. But is it sexist when gaming culture treats a woman exactly the same as it would treat a man? That is the question.
Many people like to call out the use of any dominance metaphor whatsoever as sexist. But is it still sexist if the dominance metaphor is being used in a state of affairs that can rightly be described as one of dominance? Or more to the point, is it sexist if it doesn't refer to a real-life power relation at all, but rather to a fictitious, in-game power relation created solely by the arbitrary and made-up game rules?
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
The problem with culture is that it's almost impossible to be completely free of the culture you grew up with, even online. (The fact that gaming culture has previously been particularly insular and mysogynistic means that women aren't starting at the same point as men, so treating them equally doesn't give the same result.)
In this particular case, I'm not sure how reasonable the backlash is (mainly because I don't get harassed online that much) but I'm pointing out why I think the backlash occured.
Art is life itself.
i guess there is just no way to have men and women participate in an activity together without the interpretation being considered sexist by somebody. if he treats her nicely he is being sexist for being too easy on her just for being a girl. if he makes some playful banter about how he is beating her at a game, he is sexist because it is a rape joke. if he is a total ******* the obvious implications will start rolling in.
there is no right answer so long as we have thin-skinned people ready to take offense at something so minor as mock competitive chit-chat.
You do understand the difference between "get better" "you suck" and "Let it happen. It'll be over soon" right?
It's not like "you suck" was misinterpreted as a rape comment. It was the one that has been explicitly associated with rape events in the past.
I'm not saying the outrage is accurate but it certainly has more merit than a lot of people here are giving it credit for. The theme of "stop struggling and it'll be over more quickly" certainly carries more sexual, rape, baggage than "I'm destroying you" or "get better"
The fact that there are other insensitive forms of violence metaphors in gaming does not justify the usage of rape metaphors.
Rape is not so common though to automatically assume every woman has been raped. This sacred cow status rape has is the product of feminism and creates an absurd dynamic by which every man is a potential rapist and every woman a part of the "raped class". I am close friends with a rape victim who uses the word rape quite casually. When she cannot get her phone charger plug to go into her phone easily and struggles with it she states that she is raping her phone and laughs about it. Should I be appalled? Would it be wrong for a woman beating a man at a video game to make a rape joke?
Besides what Crash responded with.
Problems with surveys like this.
1. Science has shown women typically have better memories, which means they're more likely to remember bad experiences.
2. Sexism isn't defined. You can see from this thread people have very different definitions of sexism. So for example someone might consider calling someone a "*****" sexist against women, but at the same calling someone a "dick" isn't sexist.
3. Much of it is based on feelings and not reality
For a more legitimate approach on how each gender experiences sexism, harassment ect. One could role a WOW toon of each gender with a male and female name and play the game or start drama in trade chat.
5$ says you will be treated better as the female toon
Flame infraction. - Blinking Spirit
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
1) Source your argument.
2) The linked study uses a consistent set of definitions. Also, males tended to be called "*****" because they weren't seeming manly enough, which is mysogynistic. Women got called "****s" and "whores".
3)
As far as making a character and seeing how they're treated, the study points out that female characters tend to be asked for nude pics in exchange for help. So if "tits or gtfo" counts as better treatment, sure...
Art is life itself.
There are dominance metaphors that aren't about sexual violation. Perhaps one of those would have been more appropriate.
By not cherry-picking feminist viewpoints that most other feminists would find fault with? But if those links convince you that feminists can't be taken seriously, then these responses to a comment that the revealed games for XBox1 feature no female protagonists will clearly convince you that men can't be taken seriously. http://femfreq.tumblr.com/post/52673540142/twitter-vs-female-protagonists-in-video-games
Yes. Rape isn't funny.