"I know how to end misogyny. Ban women!" Fucking genius (I can't make a title facepalm)

[ms_sunlight]

More astonishing fail from PowersGaming. [http://www.powersgaming.com/showthread.php?789-The-quot-Misogyny-quot-Statement..-The-Truth-About-What-Really-Happene] It turns out that the males-only policy was implemented after an event where a particular male attendee was so unpleasant to a particular female attendee that he had to be kicked out! It's not just about trash talking or straw-woman feminists getting "offended" - and they really don't seem to get why people might take issue with this.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

Well at least they have dropped all pretense of wanting female gamers to play their game.

I certainly won't be buying it now.

They shouldn't exclude women just becuase some men don't know how to control themselves.

 

[automatron]

Well to be fair, it would work.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

Well to be fair, it would work.

And sexist men will carry on thinking their views are okay becuase its backed up by their peers

nice.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

Males are their main audience and apparently due to the immaturity of their audience they would rather not have to deal with the problem of misogyny. I personally see no problem with that since it's a private party but let me remind you folks that no one is stopping any person from hosting their own, women only LAN party.

 

[Takumashii]

Edit: I have thought "How would society get rid of discriminating scholarships. Like Black or Women only ones. I figured the easiest way would be to get tons of white male only ones then when rest of society complains about it they will have to agree that black or women only ones need to be taken away too.

Edit 2: But also there is that quote "The only way to get rid of racism is to stop talking about it" Perhaps that doesn't imply here since feminist will not stop until they are superior although they can learn from the quote.

Those scholarships exist to combat past and present inequalities. In the past women and non-whites were discriminated against to the point of not being able to attend school, get certain jobs, and so on. Specific scholarships for them today seeks to close the gap created in the past. Think of it this way, in a race the white male got a head start and the "other" was held behind. Equality cannot be attained by expecting the other to move faster to catch up, so they get a boost.

I have never liked that quote about racism, there is subtle racism as well, and it's easy enough to never talk about, but it will never change if it is not addressed. It is your luxury to believe not talking about it means it doesn't exist. And feminists are not women seeking superiority over men, they are seeking equality; there are quite a few male feminists as well.

 

[agrajagthetesty]

Whites are their main audience and apparently due to the immaturity of their audience they would rather not have to deal with the problem of racism. I personally see no problem with that since it's a private party but let me remind you folks that no one is stopping any person from hosting their own, black only LAN party.

I've altered the content of your post to accord with a different (fictional) situation. Do you think you would still use this sort of argument to defend the organisers if they had banned black people from the event?

 

[AndyFromMonday]

Whites are their main audience and apparently due to the immaturity of their audience they would rather not have to deal with the problem of racism. I personally see no problem with that since it's a private party but let me remind you folks that no one is stopping any person from hosting their own, black only LAN party.

I've altered the content of your post to accord with a different (fictional) situation. Do you think you would still use this sort of argument to defend the organisers if they had banned black people from the event?

That depends. Do black/white people harass each other in such a way that it's impossible for them to congregate? If that was so then the organizers have the right to host a lan party where only black/white people are invited to participate.

 

[Ac30]

This calls for something special...

. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-??. . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .?-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ?:,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:?. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .?~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ?~,_. . . ..?~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .?=,_. . . .?-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~?; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .?=-._. . .?;,,./`. . /? . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..?~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-?
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`

Is it wrong that, for the past 3 years that I've seen this meme, I've always thought it was someone raising a baby in the air? It finally makes sense! I always wondered why people were posting new-born babies as replies...

 

[agrajagthetesty]

Whites are their main audience and apparently due to the immaturity of their audience they would rather not have to deal with the problem of racism. I personally see no problem with that since it's a private party but let me remind you folks that no one is stopping any person from hosting their own, black only LAN party.

I've altered the content of your post to accord with a different (fictional) situation. Do you think you would still use this sort of argument to defend the organisers if they had banned black people from the event?

That depends. Do black/white people harass each other in such a way that it's impossible for them to congregate? If that was so then the organizers have the right to host a lan party where only black/white people are invited to participate.

I don't think the organisers do have that right. Because even though the event is private, it's against the law to operate discriminatory policies. There's also the fact that it's quite simply a lazy, misguided decision which perpetuates bigotry and segregationism and which punishes the victims, and so is ethically wrong even if not definitely illegal.

Additionally, from what I read on the organiser's website, it was hardly "impossible for men and women to congregate" at the original event. What happened to spark the decision was that one man harassed one woman, and was subsequently kicked out. Why was it too hard for the organisers to continue that quite reasonable policy of punishing any troublemakers?

 

[AndyFromMonday]

I don't think the organisers do have that right. Because even though the event is private, it's against the law to operate discriminatory policies.

But they're not saying you can't come to the LAN party because you're a woman. They're saying that because of the misogyny associated with their main audience they would rather not deal with all the backlash from the women when those assholes start behaving like assholes.

Additionally, from what I read on the organiser's website, it was hardly "impossible for men and women to congregate" at the original event. What happened to spark the decision was that one man harassed one woman, and was subsequently kicked out. Why was it too hard for the organisers to continue that quite reasonable policy of punishing any troublemakers?

Hmm. This does seem weird since it was only one case. Still, I don't believe their intentions were inherently sexist.

 

[agrajagthetesty]

But they're not saying you can't come to the LAN party because you're a woman. They're saying that because of the misogyny associated with their main audience they would rather not deal with all the backlash from the women when those assholes start behaving like assholes.

"Though we've done our best to avoid these situations in years past, we've certainly had our share of problems. As a result, we no longer allow women to attend this event."

If they're banning all women, then they're saying people can't come if and because they are women.

And don't you see any problems with that reasoning of theirs which you paraphrased? Don't you think it's extremely suspect to ban women because they don't want to deal with backlash? That's basically saying "We don't really care about the harassment and abuse that these women might receive at our event, just about the problems that they cause when they complain about their treatment." You may not think that's sexist, but I do.

I don't believe their intentions were inherently sexist.

Surprisingly, given what I've said above, I actually agree - that is, that I don't think their intentions were sexist. Last time I looked, even after all the scandal and people calling them out, they still hadn't realised the problems with their actions. However, I still think that the effect of their decision was to bow to misogynists, dismiss women's problems and exclude people based on gender. They didn't intend to be sexist, but they were anyway.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

If they're banning all women, then they're saying people can't come if and because they are women.

"Though we've done our best to avoid these situations in years past, we've certainly had our share of problems. As a result, we no longer allow women to attend this event."

They obviously had problems in the past and instead of dealing with them they would much rather appeal to their main audience, the males. Whilst this might seem sexist, they really aren't. They just want less problems and more money. The less shit they have to deal with the more they can concentrate on what they believe really matters.

And don't you see any problems with that reasoning of theirs which you paraphrased? Don't you think it's extremely suspect to ban women because they don't want to deal with backlash? That's basically saying "We don't really care about the harassment and abuse that these women might receive at our event, just about the problems that they cause when they complain about their treatment." You may not think that's sexist, but I do.

It's more like "We aknowledge that sexism and bigotry exists at our event and we'd rather not deal with that." In fact, I believe not allowing women is more sexist to men since they're basically saying men are sexist bigots who can't be trusted to be around women without abusing/insulting them.

However, I still think that the effect of their decision was to bow to misogynists, dismiss women's problems and exclude people based on gender. They didn't intend to be sexist, but they were anyway.

And what about men's problems? How can the organizers blame everything on men when clearly there were just a few isolated incidents? If you want to talk sexism, the organizers are basically stereotyping both men and women and being sexist towards both genders.

 

[agrajagthetesty]

"Though we've done our best to avoid these situations in years past, we've certainly had our share of problems. As a result, we no longer allow women to attend this event."

They obviously had problems in the past and instead of dealing with them they would much rather appeal to their main audience, the males. Whilst this might seem sexist, they really aren't. They just want less problems and more money. The less shit they have to deal with the more they can concentrate on what they believe really matters.

Okay then, so profit>equality, profit>morality, profit>fighting bigotry, profit>preventing harassment. I get that theirs is a commercial enterprise, but I still think their actions are despicable. If you don't have any issue with their mindset, there's probably no point in prolonging our debate.

It's more like "We aknowledge that sexism and bigotry exists at our event and we'd rather not deal with that." In fact, I believe not allowing women is more sexist to men since they're basically saying men are sexist bigots who can't be trusted to be around women without abusing/insulting them.

So they're also incredibly cowardly and lazy as well as ruthlessly profit-oriented, and choose to effectively punish women for being targets of abuse rather than actually keep control of their guests. I think this is worthy of condemnation. Additionally, they're rating their own comfort (through not "having to deal with" the results of sexism) as a more important motive than the well-being of all the women at their event (through not being victims of sexism in the first place). This dismissive attitude towards women's suffering is itself a symptom of sexism.

As for being sexist to men, I'm not so sure about that. I think there's relevance in the fact that this was a response to a specific incident in which a man was, yes, a sexist bigot who abused/insulted a woman: the organisers are responding to a precedent set. I'm not someone who ignores the problems men face. But given that there was and is a history of men abusing women at the event, and given that the action taken (the ban) negatively affected only women, I don't think you can say that it was "more sexist" against men. A tiny bit, yes. But only so much as assuming that they would continue to behave in the way already demonstrated.

And what about men's problems? How can the organizers blame everything on men when clearly there were just a few isolated incidents? If you want to talk sexism, the organizers are basically stereotyping both men and women and being sexist towards both genders.

Well, they're not blaming everything on men, just the fact that their male guests have a history of harassing female guests - and in fact it's not even clear that they blame the men for that, given that their decision was to remove the female element. Again, while a certain assumption has been made about the men here (that they will continue to harass women in future), I really don't think that they have that much to complain about in this particular case. I'm not saying men don't face any problems relating to sexism, just that in this example they are minimal.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

Okay then, so profit>equality, profit>morality, profit>fighting bigotry, profit>preventing harassment. I get that theirs is a commercial enterprise, but I still think their actions are despicable. If you don't have any issue with their mindset, there's probably no point in prolonging our debate.

I don't see you protesting the fact that certain things are marketed towards women and other things are marketed towards males and neither do I see you protesting how companies, especially the ones that sell "beauty products" paint an unrealistic image of both males and females in order to sell their products. I don't see you protesting the fact that most games nowadays are marketed towards males. The fact of the matter is, companies appeal to the audience that makes them money. From the point of view of a company, ethics count for jack shit. They're out to make money not to uphold our sense of morality so yes, profit>equality/morality/fighting bigotry/preventing harassment.

So they're also incredibly cowardly and lazy as well as ruthlessly profit-oriented, and choose to effectively punish women for being targets of abuse rather than actually keep control of their guests.

You can call them whatever you want. The fact of the matter is, males are their main audience and they see no reason to allow a minority in when all it does is create more problems for them. You seem to have this childish idealization that everything should be politically correct and we should uphold morality and ethics in such a way that fit your world view. Sorry, that's not how the world works. Companies/corporations/enterprises whatever you want to call them are out to make money. They're not sexist nor are they racist and whether they are perceived as such is irrelevant. Their goal is to make money and if you find that despicable then good for you. The fact of the matter is at the end of the day they will have the bigger paycheck. We live in a capitalist world. You might not like it, I personally don't, but eventually you just have to deal with it.

Also, punishing women? How are they punishing women? Is anyone stopping them from having their own LAN party? Is anyone stopping them from doing the exact same thing?

As for being sexist to men, I'm not so sure about that. I think there's relevance in the fact that this was a response to a specific incident in which a man was, yes, a sexist bigot who abused/insulted a woman

Yes and they specifically stated that they don't want to deal with that, effectively painting all men as sexist bigots who cannot control their behavior around women.

I'm not someone who ignores the problems men face. But given that there was and is a history of men abusing women at the event, and given that the action taken (the ban) negatively affected only women, I don't think you can say that it was "more sexist" against men. A tiny bit, yes. But only so much as assuming that they would continue to behave in the way already demonstrated.

They would continue to behave? Was the entire crowd sexist or just one asshole? Way to go painting all the men there as sexist bigots. I CAN say it's more sexist against men. They're effectively saying we're sexist bigots which is entirely untrue. On the other hand they have never at one point directly insulted women. No, they insulted men, all men.

Also, how does this ban negatively affect women? It is well within anyone's power to organize a women's only LAN party or, if they wish, a LAN party that allows both men and women in the establishment.

Well, they're not blaming everything on men, just the fact that their male guests have a history of harassing female guests - and in fact it's not even clear that they blame the men for that, given that their decision was to remove the female element.

Yes they are. They are specifically saying that men are sexist bigots who cannot behave around women. How is that not sexist towards men? It's extremely clear who they blame for this ban. Hell, even if there WAS no blaming they specifically said that because of some isolated incidents in the previous gathering women are banned from attending due to the assumption that all men will behave like bigots.

I really don't think that they have that much to complain about in this particular case. I'm not saying men don't face any problems relating to sexism, just that in this example they are minimal.

They are minimal? How so? While they can attend the gathering it is quite clear that they are blaming men and their supposed inability to behave around women for the ban.

 

[repeating integers]

Aaaw, I thought this was a reply-thread to that "Free Speech should be banned" thread.

...Could I have a link to that, please?

Apologies if it's already been posted, I have no time to read through the whole thread...

 

[agrajagthetesty]

I don't see you protesting the fact that certain things are marketed towards women and other things are marketed towards males and neither do I see you protesting how companies, especially the ones that sell "beauty products" paint an unrealistic image of both males and females in order to sell their products. I don't see you protesting the fact that most games nowadays are marketed towards males. The fact of the matter is, companies appeal to the audience that makes them money. From the point of view of a company, ethics count for jack shit. They're out to make money not to uphold our sense of morality so yes, profit>equality/morality/fighting bigotry/preventing harassment.

Not in this thread, because it would be irrelevant. But the fact is, I do object to all of those things, and have actually discussed my issues with the gender stereotyping in advertising (specifically advertising aimed at children, but it applies in general) in other threads on this site. More importantly, this is an entirely different situation, since this isn't an example of men merely being the targeted group in terms of marketing, but of women being actively banned from participation. And in my view, although it's natural for companies to prioritise moneymaking, it's the responsibility of regulation and, if necessary, public protest, to try and limit that urge and protect such things as equality, fairness and human decency. Sorry if money is more important to you than people.

You can call them whatever you want. The fact of the matter is, males are their main audience and they see no reason to allow a minority in when all it does is create more problems for them. You seem to have this childish idealization that everything should be politically correct and we should uphold morality and ethics in such a way that fit your world view. Sorry, that's not how the world works. Companies/corporations/enterprises whatever you want to call them are out to make money. They're not sexist nor are they racist and whether they are perceived as such is irrelevant. Their goal is to make money and if you find that despicable then good for you. The fact of the matter is at the end of the day they will have the bigger paycheck. We live in a capitalist world. You might not like it, I personally don't, but eventually you just have to deal with it.

Also, punishing women? How are they punishing women? Is anyone stopping them from having their own LAN party? Is anyone stopping them from doing the exact same thing?

I'm an idealist, yes. I have no shame in that. I do think that we should uphold morality and ethics, and when something is clearly unethical, I think it's more helpful to protest and point out the wrongdoing than to ignore it. I don't expect the world to be perfect, and I don't hope for the impossible (I'll probably have to resign myself to capitalism, for one) but I do hope for improvement where I see room for it. You seem bitter and jaded, frankly. Personally, I'd rather not just "deal with" things that I object to. Personally, I'd like to at least try to make things better. You can call me childish, I can call you apathetic and/or defeatist.

Oh, and this decision is sexist. After everything that I've said to you explaining why it is, you could at least address my arguments before outright contradicting me. It's a punishment because women are being prohibited from doing something that they have obviously wanted to do in the past, or no women would have been at the event in the first place. Try this on for size: "Nobody's stopping black people from using water fountains. They can just have their own, separate ones!"

Yes and they specifically stated that they don't want to deal with that, effectively painting all men as sexist bigots who cannot control their behavior around women.

Not at all. Only one sexist bigot would need to be at their event alongside women to create a problem. They never said that problems would be unavoidable or that every man who attended would cause them, just that they wanted to entirely eliminate the risk of there being a problem.

They would continue to behave? Was the entire crowd sexist or just one asshole? Way to go painting all the men there as sexist bigots. I CAN say it's more sexist against men. They're effectively saying we're sexist bigots which is entirely untrue. On the other hand they have never at one point directly insulted women. No, they insulted men, all men.

Also, how does this ban negatively affect women? It is well within anyone's power to organize a women's only LAN party or, if they wish, a LAN party that allows both men and women in the establishment.

That was poor wording on my part; what I meant was that there was enough of a history that the organisers perceived a continued risk of some men committing harassment. And why wouldn't the organisers fear that? Nothing in the situation had changed. They never claimed that all men at their event, let alone all men in general, were sexist bigots. They just had a bad experience with some that were, and decided to take action - action, might I again point out since it seems so hard for you to recognise, that did not negatively affect the bigots themselves but only legitimised them, and negatively affected their victims. The organisers never insulted women, but they instituted rules against them to restrict their movements, although admittedly on a very small scale. Nor did the organisers insult all men, and they didn't ban them either.

The freedom of others to set up their own LAN parties does not negate the unfairness of the original, exclusionary event existing.

Yes they are. They are specifically saying that men are sexist bigots who cannot behave around women. How is that not sexist towards men? It's extremely clear who they blame for this ban. Hell, even if there WAS no blaming they specifically said that because of some isolated incidents in the previous gathering women are banned from attending due to the assumption that all men will behave like bigots.

They are minimal? How so? While they can attend the gathering it is quite clear that they are blaming men and their supposed inability to behave around women for the ban.

I have addressed this above.