Smilomaniac said:
Well, for one thing she's tired of the damsels in distress trope but acts as one against the "barrage" of threats and negative comments.
It's simply, if you're set on delivering a message that challenges a wide audience, on the internet no less, you have to take it in stride, take the bad with the good and at least accept that when you're fighting for more open content, people should have their say.
Instead she goes to TED to deliver a speech about all the hate against her while disabling all comments on her videos.
If you're looking for signs of hypocrisy in her videos, I can't point to anything specific, since nothing really struck me as directly hypocritical(nor was I looking for it), but there is the part about Double Dragon where she spends a fair amount of time talking about the woman in the beginning getting punched and abducted, but completely neglects to mention the same woman hyperpunching a dude in the balls.
I'm not saying this part is conclusive proof that she's a hypocrite, but it's convinient how it's not mentioned. If she didn't know, she did not do her research and is blatantly only looking for negative examples.
I'm not entirely sure I follow. So she's a hypocrite for informing people of the abuse she's been put through, and refusing to make it easy for that hate to repeat itself?
It doesn't conform to the Damsel trope in the first place, but that aside, do you really think she should suck it up and stay quiet about it, whilst providing an easy platform for even more threats of violence and rape?
Personally I'd argue there isn't really any reasonable way she can be accused of hypocrisy for wishing not to be treated like some kind of subhuman creature. And while it's true she's disabled the comments on her videos (which makes perfect sense if you had ever seen the kind of things people wrote), it's not like she's silencing her dissenters. People are perfectly free to discuss her work on forums, in news articles, in youtube responses...hell, the latter have generated a whole series in its own right.
I don't think her TED talk was very good at all, in fact that's more or less been my impression of her work in general. But I think the creeps who decided to go after her like rabid dogs can stand to see their vile behaviour aired in public.
And as for the Double Dragon point, Thunderf00t's video (which I'm assuming is where you found out about it, pardon if it isn't) takes that 20 second sight-gag and tries to argue that it somehow contradicts the hours of gameplay prior to it wherein the female character is very much reduced to a reward for the player to attain. It doesn't really work that way.
Maybe it's because I live in a country where "systemic hardships of women" hardly exists anymore(Denmark), or maybe I don't exactly agree with the definition of these hardships, but I don't see that mens issues aren't as important.
The fact that you're even considering that they can't be compared tells me something about little people care or how genderbiased we(all) are.
Note: I never said they aren't as important. Or at least I didn't mean to. I said they aren't equivalent in magnitude. I absolutely believe issues of human rights should be treated on equal terms, but I also think it's important to acknowledge which way the scales tip.
Feminism is a thing of the past here, there's no need for an active movement and there's very little for them to go on or fight for(in terms of law). The remainders are pretty much pushing for superiority and my honest and sincere opinion on this is because they're bored. It happens to the best of us, things are going well and we start focusing on the little things and blow them out of proportions, because we have nothing else to occupy our mind.
Here, it's not always overt; Such as teachers being primarily women and having changed the way things work(Haven't researched this part yet, but basically there's preferential treatment, boys aren't challenged at all to improve, overactive boys are instantly assumed to suffer ADD and there's a lot of coddling going on. It's my impression that school has become somewhat a neutering institution that removes identities. Again, no facts, just my impression.)
Then there's the parts that are overt, but in the guise of equality, such as implementing laws that will force companies to have equal amount of men and women(but more women than men is just fine) on boards and top positions. Obviously, this is a bad idea because it let's women get something for nothing, putting them in a tough position that they first of all didn't earn, and second might not be qualified for, in practice. Important to note that I'm not saying women can't handle it, I'm saying there will be instances where this happens.
Being Scandinavian myself, I can definitely agree that women's rights have progressed farther here than in a lot of other places. At the same time, I believe it's dangerous to become complacent. Just because something is comparatively good doesn't mean it's as good as can be. I certainly still encounter rather damning prejudices against women on an almost daily basis. (Although I think the rampant misogyny of the internet has kind of desensitised me to it, so I don't always register it anymore...)
I will agree 100% that outright tokenist policies are doomed to fail, but affirmative action is a more deliberate effort which comes from a legitimate place of wishing to even the playing field with a historical context in mind, looking at how opportunities have been limited or outright nonexistent.
I hadn't heard the term "radscum", but that's pretty funny. I think I'll avoid using it though
It's a fun word!
"Normal" feminist groups aren't much better, they just behave better in public. Basically, ignoring statistics and facts isn't the best way to achieve "empowerment of the agency of women and men alike". Girlwriteswhat has more on that topic and I'll find the link if you want it. Either way, there doesn't exist a single powerful group out there that doesn't skew the truth to their advantage and feminist organizations aren't any exception.
Oh, naturally there will always be agendas associated with ideology. It's kinda par for the course. I think it's important to note that 'agenda' isn't an inherently suspect notion, however. Increasingly people will conflate agenda with 'hidden agenda', and it's an important distinction to make.
Also, having looked through some of that vblogger's archives, while there are traces of potentially interesting commentary here and there, there is ample speculation and foundless claims to be found as well. (Like anyone else, she also has an agenda.
)
So I'm not certain I would consider her a go-to authority on the problematics of feminism. There definitely *are* problematics, I won't deny that for a second, but her stuff seems a tad too conjectural for my tastes. I think the best critiques of feminism I've read come from queer, trans and women of colour who are often left out of the feminist discourse entirely.
Yeah, feminists do suffer those comments, however I find it funny that you compare men in general with feminists who are pretty much sticking their neck out and inviting a measure of debate. No one deserves not to be taken seriously if there's an issue, but you'll have to take things like that in stride(we all do).
Who do you think suffers more comments comparatively, feminists or mens rights activists?
Fair point on the men/feminist dichotomy I constructed. That wasn't true to the issue, really.
As for feminists and MRA's, I think a lot of people in a public sense are less aware of the concept of organised MRA's, but sympathise with their cause more than they do the feminist. So I think feminists are referred to in disparaging terms more commonly by simple virtue of being a more recognised group. From what I have been able to tell, however, there is also more insular critique within feminist circles themselves. I won't claim any raw data on that point, but it's definitely an impression I've gotten.
Well social bias is the reason I mention it. I could call the police right now and report rape commited against me by a woman and I'd have to suffer a measure of questioning. If she called the police and reported me as her rapist, I'd be considered more likely to be guilty and be put in detention the second they found me(regardless of whether I did it or not). It's just easier to assume that men are potential scum and it's socially acceptable.
Like I've mentioned earlier, I agree entirely that male rape is woefully treated. It's either barely acknowledged or played for laughs in tasteless "prison shower" gags. I won't deny that for a second. As for the rest of your claims, however, I think there are important social factors to take into account. In a paper compiled in 1990 by the U.S Senate Judiciary Committee [http://mith.umd.edu/WomensStudies/GenderIssues/Violence+Women/facts], a plethora of troubling data on rape against women can be found. Perhaps some of the most depressing are the ones pointing to how less than 50% of rapes are ever reported, and out of the remaining 50%, barely 1/5 ever result in an arrest. To my knowledge this trend has not changed.
Furthermore, as for the matter of false allegations, they are
virtually unheard of according to the FBI's own data. [http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/1996/96sec2.pdf] Hell, even that figure is disputed, as many of the jurisdictions from which the FBI collects their data classifies the notion of "unfounded" claims of rape differently. Some demand the victim to physically fight back to qualify as "forcible rape", others that the perpetrator was armed with some kind if weapon, others ignore the accusations if the parties involved have previously had sexual relations. The
Forensic Examiner article which details this data is sadly not accessible anymore, but I'll put in a link if I can find it archived someplace.
My point is, there is ample suspicion put on women who report rape. Recent incidents like Steubenville makes for a perfect example. Troublemakers, liars, whores...these are all common accusations hurled at women who actually take that step to report their sexual assault. I have a close friend who only just recently was put under scrutiny for having been too shocked to ask for a rape kit the first thing she did at the time of reporting the incident.
Of all places(gaming wise) where I've debated any sort of gender equality, The Escapist forums have been the most pro-feminist and whiteknighting of all. It's not rampant, but there's a clear bunch of people who are fond of feminism or at least believes there's something to it. The post counts on these threads and amount of locked threads on the topic should be a sufficient indicator.
I rarely (if ever) see topics on the Escapist locked because a feminist took issue with it, but I'll concede I might not have been paying attention. That aside, how do you define "white knighting"? This isn't aimed at you specifically, but that term has become a very popular means of dismissing feminist commentary, I've noted.
Why?
I'm not challenging your stance on this, but why is this even a given? Why can't something be a male safe haven?
Do you see how this works?
"Oh, men think they can feel exclusive somewhere? We better challenge that ************ and bring some justice!"
I'm just explaining why people feel threatened. I'll admit, that I did at first. Now I just feel threatened because it's being pushed for the wrong reasons and it will eventually lead to some horrid examples that bring no progress at all.
Your assumption that people propagate an idea by wanting to keep what they're comfortable with, seems a bit unfair. People enjoy what they have and are understandably loathe at someone trying to change that with a fairly aggressive attitude(read: Anita Sarkeesian).
Now, I don't think she is a real "threat" in the sense that "she'll take my garmes from meee", but I think she's a threat to any calm debate on the topic and any potential beginning for better game experiences that include more female protagonists.
It's because the notion of games as a "male space" is absolutely laughable. It isn't a club. There are no prerequisites. Although gaming culture has been making a valiant attempt at introducing some, judging by how often women are demanded to legitimise their interests in games, lest they be painted as "fake geek girls" or similar.
And I still don't understand these claims of Sarkeesian allegedly being an aggressive commentator. Trust me, I have seen aggressive commentary on the matter.
I keep forgetting that USA is pretty rigid on this in some states. We've had free abortion rights since '73 here.
Prolifers aren't exclusively men though, nor is it an agenda against women or an opression tactic. It's one of religion and "ethics". It's a mess and not one that I support.
On the same topic, no one considers circumcision as "men not having any rights of their body". Well, obviously some do, it is controversial, but in comparison it only takes a few examples of female circumcision in a third world country to start a ragefest, while they happily accept the male version in their own "developed" country. I know, I know, it's not the same, but cutting a part of any babies body for no other reason than religion or "preference" is bullshit.
Oh, I'm not fond of circumcision either, but like you say, they really aren't comparable. The penis is perfectly functional even without the foreskin, and not only that, it's a common practice for consenting adults. Female genital mutilation is...a very different thing. So the emphasis laid on women's concerns in this area is 100% legitimate.
Alimony would be an example of being on the side of women and is still one that heavily favors women. I know that feminists are officially against the genderbias, but it is nonetheless still something that can be forced on men easily.
Women are exempt from conscription and going to the front lines and have been... forever.
They're old arguments, but it doesn't make it any less true
You asked how the law can "possibly be considered on the side of women", when you know it often is.
There are some hiccups with regard to alimony law, I agree. Although ironically, this is mostly due to an aged perception of parental and gender roles. Women have traditionally been considered the naturally nurturing half of the relationship, so as a result they have been granted certain privileges in the eyes of the law in this particular area. If there was a truly feminist reform enacted of these policies, I believe you'd find something a lot more agreeable at the end of the day. Regarding military service, it's likewise important to note that women have historically been
prevented from fighting at the front lines. Not by choice, but by military policy. But that's changing, thankfully. The U.S is finally going to allow women to fight at the front lines same as the men, and this is hailed as a very positive egalitarian development.
It's not as much perspective as broad social acceptance of weighing one genders worth over another, that I'm concerned about.
I honestly haven't had the same experiences you did. I do have some that are fairly opposite, though minor.
I've written off Patriarchy as completely nonsense. Every post or argument I hear with it is stuffed with vile accusations and has no room for anyone else but the person who uses this excuse as a convinient tool to shut down any opposition.
Well, I made my case on what the patriarchy is in feminist theory. Whether you agree with or not is really not my concern, but people generally tend to misunderstand or presume it as feminists going "all men are evil".
The thing is that the whole premise just got off on a wrong foot. I can't see that there's an issue that needs to be addressed, because gaming is already evolving and has more female protagonists than before anyone even complained.
So is quantity the determining factor of equality? The fact that female protagonists are still a comparative rarity and the recent Remember Me debacle aside [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/122787-Prospective-Publishers-Wanted-a-Male-Centric-Remember-Me], what about qualitative representation? Does the (far from rare) existence of games such as X-Blades [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/27/X-Blades_Cover.jpg] negate the issue of women's portrayal in games?
The problem is that people see it as a problem, instead of an opportunity to evolve gaming even further than it already has. If you start doing it for the notion of equality, you've already taken a wrong step and made the whole situation uncomfortable and awkward.
The problem isn't the problem. It's the people who perceive it as a problem, who are the problem.
The question may be raised, there should be room for that, but accusations are pointless.
See, I'm not sure I understand this angle. On the one hand you seem to concede that people should be allowed to raise the issue, but at the same time, accusations of perceived problems are meaningless? How can anything hope to change or evolve without meaningful commentary? I'm not saying Sarkeesian is The One to provide that, but she's one of many people who feel the potential of this medium is being limited by its exclusionary sexual politics.
It wasn't that quiet
Shush.
