Just because the mainstream is currently looting nerd culture for entertainment IP doesn't mean anything has changed. We're not the new arbiters of culture, we're the people who liked Disco before it was popular and soon will be the ones seen as living in the past because we still like it when it isn't cool anymore.
The clue is in the media used; superhero movies are huge business, but comic sales aren't up. People are watching Grimm and The Hobbit, they aren't turning to Dungeons and Dragons.
I have one major issue with Mrs. Sarkeesian's arguments. Namely, she argues that strong female characters in video games are simply male characters in a female body, but she misses the fact that gender/sexuality does not matter when describing a story or a character unless said story or character is defined by a conflict that involves gender, gender roles or sexuality, i.e. a book about a young man coming out during an era when homosexuality was considered either a crime or a disease. However, a story as ubiquitous as "Hamlet" can be easily rewritten to feature a female main character or even complete gender-swapped cast. (which we did in high school and surprisingly, all we needed were a few tweaks)
While she makes a correct statement that we should re-evaluate the role of female characters (or, by that measure: any non-straight cismale character (which I think is her main issue, because, who says that a "damsel in distress" can't be a man in a homosexual relationship)) in games, that is one flaw that her entire argumentation has which makes me doubt her scientific aspiration. Also... why is she against people commenting on her YouTube channel? That is something that can signal "my determination is not so strong that I am willing to discuss my p.o.v." to the viewers, a bit of an awkward move for someone who has graduated in communication studies.
I have one major issue with Mrs. Sarkeesian's arguments. Namely, she argues that strong female characters in video games are simply male characters in a female body, but she misses the fact that gender/sexuality does not matter when describing a story or a character unless said story or character is defined by a conflict that involves gender, gender roles or sexuality, i.e. a book about a young man coming out during an era when homosexuality was considered either a crime or a disease. However, a story as ubiquitous as "Hamlet" can be easily rewritten to feature a female main character or even complete gender-swapped cast. (which we did in high school and surprisingly, all we needed were a few tweaks)
If her thesis paper is still online somewhere that'll help shed light on her position in regards to 'strong female characters'. It's been awhile since I read it but I remember her having a chart dividing positive and negative character traits via gender. Ultimately it came down to traits being strictly within gender identification lines, so a well-developed female character who is, say, violent, is expressing a male character trait and is therefore not really a 'strong female'. Female characters that do embrace gender traits that Sarkeesian considers female however, such as being nurturing, are acceptable.
I'll try to avoid a strawman here (no promises) but I think Sarkeesian's response to Hamlet would be that of course you can't just gender-swap the characters, as Hamlet is specifically about male relationships driven by negative male character traits, so putting women in that position is 'masculinizing' them.
Hey Bob... I'm sure someone else thought of it before I did, and I really hate to be "that guy", but...
This is more or less the opposite of what you said a few years ago, specifically that Magneto was Right [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/2709-Magneto-Was-Right]. Not really significant enough to call out "objection!", but an interesting contrast nonetheless.
Nice conspiracy theory bro. Sure is convenient how she was asking for all those rape threats all along, yeah? (ps: it's not nice at all and your argument sort of makes me sick.)
What conspiracy theory? Where did I say "she asked for it"? Are you sure you didn't mean to reply to someone else's post?
deathjavu said:
Like I said before, too many people aren't willing to put in the time and effort to challenge what they already believe. They'll throw out meaningless buzzwords like "white knight" and "feminazi" and "misogynist" and "liberal" without any cohesive meaning to the terms, without attempting to understand what their actual argument is or what their opponents are saying.
The whole effect is rather like throwing a bunch of chimps in an echoing room. Tons of noise, no listening, no changing of opinions.
I know what all the words mean and there's no point trying to file me under "too many people" because if you're going to quote me, might as well say it to me directly.
Opinions aren't something that change very easily, it's like trying to convince Anita to change her opinion about everything she's done and listen to her feedback - i.e. it's not going to happen. There's a reason she has turned off all forms of feedback on her work, it's because it could not stand up to public scrutiny and criticism (regardless of form).
deathjavu said:
Really, for serious, ask yourself this question: are you willing to change your mind on this topic, and what would it take for you to do so?
Change my mind about this topic? What? I haven't even stated how I feel about Anita's work. So far I've only talked about the happenings around Anita and how she has used those happenings to her advantage, exaggerating things, faking emotions and putting on a show.
I'm not going to talk about my stance on her work here since that is something reserved for the consolidated Tropes vs Women threads, it's best to keep all that noise contained within those threads.
I've wanted to do a Top 20 Worst Things Moviebob has said list and put it on Youtube. Do you think I should? I've listened to just about all of his videos.
And yes, his commentary is usually very interesting, and his personality IS very engaging and addictive, partially because of how pretentious and bitter it is.
Hammer I think me and the rest of the guys who wrote Bob's TVtropes reviews would love you forever for that, 'Pretentious and Bitter' is basically the subtitle for that page.
2. If all you have to do to be a "white knight" is say Anita's name, then I think that covers everyone on the internet.(side note: That explains why some people are trying to not say her name though. ;p)
To be frank anyone who acts like Anita only got slack because she was a women (or because she was a feminist) is either highly delusional or a 'white knight' desperate to seem as feminist and social justicey as possible.
Edit: Oh wait he said it was because she dared to speak out against those issues.
Still BS and he's probably trolling. Seriously how many people have touched upon the Damsel and Distress and scantily clad women in fighting games (her next topic).
Indeed, MANY people have talked about these issues in gaming, and other media. Yet you don't see quite the hate that Anita got when she said she was going to talk about it(keep in mind, she had not even started talking about games at that point, but said she was going to).
No. She's made a few including one on Bayonetta that she deleted.
That and she already did a series on tropes in movies and TV.
Imp Emissary said:
[/spoiler=More stuff.]
One would think(and some would say) that is because Anita says radical things all the time in her videos. I watched those videos to see what all the fuss was about for myself, and I've yet to find any valid examples of this complaint.[/spoiler]
She took the song all I want for christmas is you and claimed it reinforces stereotypes that all women need is a man. This was a song sung by Mariah Carey and she only sings about what she wants, not what other women might want (and if you listen carefully she never identifies her lover as a man).
Imp Emissary said:
So, she isn't "radical", and she has been saying things most of the gaming community have been talking about(and even joking about) for years, but yet she gets this much hate. That said, I don't think Anita gets this much negative attention because she is female. More likely it is because she presents herself as a feminist. Which brings up another complaint I hear about her. That she only talks about how these kinds of things affect women, and not men.
Again, something that is false.
Point one: The Bayonetta video: Fair enough, I remember that one. Liked Bob's more positive take on the game.
Though if I recall, her problem was more with the marketing. The whole strip Bayonetta in the subway thing.
Point two: The Song episode: Yeah, I too thought that the first 4 she talked about in that one were a bit on the weak side. xD That number one though was creepy. Kind of like the very upbeat songs about shootings(Janie's Got a Gun, Pumped Up Kicks, ect)
While you can argue that her interpretation may be a bit off, I don't see how saying a song has a bad message is "radical".
Point three: Other people not saying tropes casues harm/sexism in real life: Funny enough, she hasn't said that in her video either. She did say;
"One of the really insidious things about systemic & institutional sexism is that most often regressive attitudes and harmful gender stereotypes are perpetuated and maintained unintentionally.
Likewise engaging with these games is not going to magically transform players into raging sexists. We typically don't have a monkey-see monkey-do, direct cause and effect relationship with the media we consume. Cultural influence works in much more subtle and complicated ways, however media narratives do have a powerful cultivation effect helping to shape cultural attitudes and opinions."
Well it does kind of back up the idea that she gets offended at trivial things.
That last statement just seems like making a statement then sort of backpedaling by making vague qualifications. Oh it's not going to turn people sexist it's more subtle but still very powerful. What exactly will it do?
And then there's her heavy implication that there's a connection between video games and real world domestic abuse.
Edit: My point was that people thought the tropes were harmless cliches that were just annoying and maybe offputting to some people. That's it. Nobody argued they had a bad influence.
To backpedal, one would first have to say/do something bad.
Also, the tropes existing, and even being used in some games is not bad. Overusing them however is a bad thing as it can lead to stagnation in video game writing, or even worse, lazy writing.
As for what overusing tropes does that's bad?
Well, it continues the practice of using women put in danger(or women being hurt/killed) being used as a lazy reason for the player/protagonist to motivated to go further into the game.
Jim actually covered a similar topic with children in media(including games), and how they too are often made to be more plot prop than character. You are expected to care that they are in danger just because they are kids(or is some cases, because they are women), and because of that they don't actually try to make you care by, you know, making them into a good character you want to save because you like them(not that some don't at least do that, or better).
Remove the cultural issues you can bring up about overused tropes, and you still have the problems they can cause to a game's writhing/characters.
Also, I would argue that games do have influence, as do the types of stories they tell(even the tropes). Just like any stories from other media. And I am not anywhere near the first to say so. Neither is Anita.
Did Star Trek actually appeal to black people because there was a black woman in it (Uhura was pretty much a background character)? Did having Worf in Star Trek Generations and having the Klingons be an all black race make it more appealing to black people (Worf and the Klingons were an important part of the overall story)?
If not then it wasn't changed to make it more appealing to black people. There's a difference between including minorities and making a show more appealing to minorities.
Do you mind if I jump in? There are some points I wouldn't mind addressing if that's alright.
To this first point, I wholeheartedly agree. Having a character on a show to spit out latin words and catch phrases while just getting into trouble, but being so adorable because he or she is clueless on how other, normal people behave is not progressive. It's insulting.
But I don't think a lot of people create those characters to be insulting. I think a lot of writers believe since they don't know the background of these different people, they can not write for them. So they just end up throwing all the stereotypes they have in a blender and pouring it out. Uhura never fell into that trap because no one really explored her 'background'. She was just apart of the crew. Like Sulu.
However, to your Klingon point, the Klingons were meant to be an analog to Russians, really. The dark skin was just the only alien defining characteristic they could come up with. Most of the Klingons were actually played by white actors. Look up some of these names and add 'klingon' to them
John Colicos, JG Hertzler, Suzie Plakson, Robert O'Reilly, Michael Ansara, Christopher Plummer, Christopher Lloyd, David Warner
Either you want more females and non-whites in the media, or you want highest quality possible. You cannot make something high quality while trying to conform to some arbitrary gender and radical quota. Seriously such quota would have ruined Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and Game of Thrones.
Again, this is true to a point. But it only takes into mind if the writer is just a shitty writer. If a writer is creating a character for effect instead of being integral to the story. I assure you, if the writer does that, it doesn't matter if he or she is focusing just on a men's prison. Any other man he or she writes will be just an empty, shallow piece to move the plot along, and would lack any interest. It wouldn't matter his religious, sexual, or racial background.
How would the Lord of the Rings be diminished? On the face value, it's people of different background who have no reason to trust each other putting their feelings aside to unite and defeat an evil. Would the story be any different if the dwarfs were purple? The elves translucent (... you know, more so)? It would have fit right in the world flawlessly if Tolkien decided to do that.
Harry Potter takes place in the modern world. Mainly modern england. One of the most diverse places on earth. In fact there are a few important characters of non white background, and it's never really mentioned other than their descriptors and they are off and running in the story.
Same with Game of Thrones, where the races are used quite well for tension. They aren't there to propagandize, they are there for the story and happened to be X, Y, and Z. That's doing it right.
MooShoo said:
I hope Bob is going to do a follow up addressing the issues that many here in the comments have said already, as it stands now I have lost some respect for him.
...
I am not too involved with geek culture, I like to play MMO's and card/board games and that is where it ends but I do see what the outside influences is doing and I don't like what I see and it is mostly the dumbing down to appeal to the masses that I despise. If that is what "accepting the mainstream" is then please find those greedy profiteers some other sub-culture to rape.
What confuses me is the first part of the first sentence in that second paragraph. To me, this was a call to arms of people who consider themselves geeks and the precusion they felt and how they shouldn't put it on others. If you reon'd teven consider yourself a geek, or not really into the world as much... yeah, this really wouldn't appeal to you, I think. So why did he lose respect in your mind if you yourself kind of say you're not the target?
Helmholtz Watson said:
1.First off the words are ****** and Cracker(?), not N***** and C*****. Second off, I must repeat the question that Stephen Fry has proposed above, so what if a person finds those words offensive? They can just mute the person or say something back that is equally offensive.
2. True, the social problem is that people are overly concerned about the consequences of being demonized for voicing an dissenting thought/form of humor/ect.
3.Almost got it, but it goes "Sticks and Stones can break my bones, but WORDS CAN NEVER HURT ME", and while that may not always be the case, fortunately people can just mute those who they don't care to listen to. As for the rest of your comment, lol. You truly give Xboxlive more credit than it deserves if you seriously think that people trash talking on COD could ever amount to the passing of racist/misogynistic federal laws in the United States or any country for that matter.
Sorry, I would like to jump in here as well as I'd like to address some things. If you would like to ignore it, it's fine. I just felt the need to say a few things.
1.) Stephen Fry finds things offensive. Things offend him. Watch any of his shows long enough, and someone will stumble on a topic that gets his dander up, and he'll go on a rant about it. Because it's important to him. Because he has an opinion about a subject that he is willing to defend. That's laudable. I do the same thing. So does xaszatm by blurring out words he knows other will find offensive and he wishes to respect that.
If Fry and I differ on opinions of what's important to defend, that's fine. But he must not try to convince me nor anyone else that certain words that others might not like are completely acceptable. If so, he must then retroactively apologize and pull his opinion and his rants (which are there a few) and admit that no one is able to find offense in anything because everyone's opinions are valid. One might not agree with said opinions, but they are valid nonetheless.
2.) I always took it as people are afraid of not being able to say what they want without facing the consequences. I'm a big believer in free speech. I'm also a big believer in the human ability to react. My right to free speech does not circumvent a person's right to react to it.
A dissenting thought is as valid as an agreeing one. But all those descriptor words (Dissenting and Agreeing) are the ebb and flow of time and humanity. You could literally be put to the outskirts of the social circle just 20 years ago saying you don't believe in God. Now, saying that you do is tantamount of saying you're Mentally Retarded.
If you are an atheist, times are right now. It is as they should be. People are waking up and letting go of folklore and stupid myths. If you are religious, it's scary times now. People are becoming heathens are an alarming rate. What was Dissenting and Agreeing completely flipped it's page.
HOWEVER.
It doesn't mean that you have to be lambasted just for having a different opinion. If you were the atheist and I was the religious person, and we had a calm discussion about our different opinions, truth be told you might not change my opinion, but I'd get where you were coming from. I'd accept you more.
Most people nowadays, however, go to curses, insults, derogatory speech and generally are not someone that a person would want to listen to. That's not how a civilized person communicates. Internet forums are rife with people laying down the insults and really aren't caring about the subject, but getting their barbs in. Then hold up the free speech card when they aren't doing anything to actually facilitate speech. Just insult, talk down to, and then try to get away scot-free.
3.) Many disgusting and horrible movements and organizations were founded on words of victimization ("your life is horrible") and then the words of the causes ("because the Jews/Blacks/Women/White Males/Gays/Foreigners came in and changed your way of being"). Usually, they put those people with a negative term that is supposed to group them all and make it clear that it's them vs us. And they are so not like us, they don't deserve a term as normal as us.
Is your complaint that he didn't provide you a list of specific actions to take by which to examine and change yourself? Because unless he knows you personally, I'm not sure how he could provide such a list. You are going to have to do some of the work yourself, you know.
Father Time said:
If you want to say a culture is racist/sexist, it helps to list off valid examples rather than being really vague about it.
Has he not provided those examples in past videos? You can't trust my memory very far, but I feel pretty sure he has.
Yuuki said:
Someone says "i hope u get raped" to you on the internet, you are 100% sure it has no possibility of happening, you are 100% sure it's nothing more than some angry kid who disagrees with your stuff and can't formulate a proper argument.
How can you be sure neither you nor the woman you're talking to are or will be one of the one in six? [http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims] And how is your certainty at all related to external facts?
NeedsaBetterName22 said:
Actually, see, you don't own the term geek. Neither does some vague, mushy, self-constructed arbitrary culture.
I'm confused as to your point, because I never said either of those things. I talked about you, a hypothetical yet specific person, claiming the title for yourself, and for the actions another hypothetical yet specific person takes in the name the title you've claimed for yourself.
NeedsaBetterName22 said:
If I am a Canadian, and part of Canadian culture, my fellow Canadian murdering someone is not partially my responsibility for [not, I assume] preventing it. That act did not occur with my 'silent support;' it occurred as an action of an individual.
Unless that fellow committed murder as part of a Canadian culture that believes murder is okay, I'm not sure how this comparison is relevant.
NeedsaBetterName22 said:
I mean, with nonsense collectivist arguments like that 'geek culture' still needs to defend itself from the accusations of practicing Satanism via D&D and causing school shootings via violent media from the arbitrary cultural perceptions of outsiders.
I believe that when such accusations arise (though it's been decades since I've heard anyone associate D&D with Satanism; does that still happen?), yes, it is our responsibility to defend ourselves from them, because no one else is going to do it, and because those less capable than you or I may need a defense.
If her thesis paper is still online somewhere that'll help shed light on her position in regards to 'strong female characters'. It's been awhile since I read it but I remember her having a chart dividing positive and negative character traits via gender. Ultimately it came down to traits being strictly within gender identification lines, so a well-developed female character who is, say, violent, is expressing a male character trait and is therefore not really a 'strong female'. Female characters that do embrace gender traits that Sarkeesian considers female however, such as being nurturing, are acceptable.
I'll look that paper up, but for now I'll say this: There are characteristics that are inherent to men and women based on their sex (yes... "sex" as in "basic genetic code") and there are those based on "gender" and societal views. So, to take these two things into account... both a man being nurturing and a woman being violent makes them apparently not representative of their gender. I am inclined to call nonsense on that one. While it is true that, speaking from a strictly statistical point of view, these traits are more likely to be distributed vice versa, I personally consider them to be traits based on "gender" (including trans- and homosexuals) and society rather than on the actual sex. Well, maybe except the "nurturing" part, that is something in between...
Anyway... I deem it strange to assign certain traits beyond obvious biological differences to certain sexes. Especially in a world that has more or less accepted that homo-, bi-, pan- and transsexuality exist.
What I think your missing is that every group that has been oppressed when they gain power will turn around and seek revenge against those who oppressed them. This is the source of the sexism, women had ignored, dismissed and generally shit all over us. Thus when women start trying to get into what do and love, it is seen as an invasion because it is mainstream now, not that they like what we do but because they want to be part of the group. The strange part is that ugly women are given a free pass, but the good looking women(those who rejected us many times before) have it the worst. We really do want women to be with us but they have rejected us so much that we have been conditioned to hate them on sight. Much like how the jews were persecuted in WW2, and now they are doing the same thing to the Palestinians. A few words isn't going to override conditioning of years.
How can you be sure neither you nor the woman you're talking to are or will be one of the one in six? [http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims] And how is your certainty at all related to external facts?
If you're going to get into statistics, then I highly recommend you dig up the statistics of how often a rape/assault threat from an online anonymous/troll source translates to the threat actually getting carried-out in real life against that person. Especially when said person recently done something BIG on the internet and received a flood of criticism/disagreement for it.
What you linked has absolutely zero relevance to what I was getting at.
And within all the complaints planted to the sub-culture, one is missed: Obsession.
I enjoy geek culture, although I couldn't say with confidence I am of the sub-culture. I'm not nostalgic of video games, comic books don't interest me and in the last five years I can't do maths and hard sciences well (I can do soft-sciences, but that's a different story). Maybe this is why I'm looking at some parts of the "rise to power" with a strong sense of distaste? The greatest symbol of this is the film industry. It's hard to celebrate a film genre that is gaining growing strength and popularity like the comic book film, when they are growing more and more to have the same tired problems a good portion of mainstream film has. That they are about primarily white, middle-class, heterosexual cis-gendered individuals righting wrongs. If you want to be more cynical, you could even argue the films tend to promote a "you are born into success, or responsibility is put to you" mentality, something that differs from the generic gun-ho films of empowerment. That no amount of work will get you into a position of Spiderman or Superman, rather blind luck or a cast system.
The power of being able to put comic book stories into films are upon us, but our obsession with the genre blind us to the point where we can't stand the idea of sharing the centre-stage. I'd be surprised if we voluntarily cut back on comic book films so it'd be a twice-per-year release, something worked towards to be a summer blockbuster with a rare third. This would be hard to execute, I'll admit, but I can't help but sigh at the same generic comic book film being pumped out. However, this is what we can help: Stop expecting carbon copies of comics. The obsession of comics in films has gotten to a point where now we're given a chance to reinvent superheroes, we're not. Instead, we're nit picking about alterations. I wouldn't be surprised if the backlash of the Mandarin got a back lash so severe that we wouldn't be seeing people trying to project interesting stories into the comic book movie, because it couldn't fit as it is.
The Mandarin being just a random actor was a ham-handed thinly-veiled nudge at the "War Against Terrorism" thing that happened in Afghanistan. It wasn't incredibly well done, but it was an attempt that I do have to give credit for. Instead, the fixation of "oh WELL, THE MANDARIN WAS A RACIST STEREOTYPE IN THE COMICS, AND I EXPECT IT TO STAY THE SAME" is immature at best.
Another example of our obsession which MovieBob touched upon is the backlash against Anita Sarkeese (I can't spell her name, sorry). While I'll admit that I don't agree with her views, I'll accept she did what she promised to do: To examine video-games from a feminist perspective. She is doing a series to propose a theory, one people can accept or reject. I firmly reject her views, but give her credit for doing what she has. However, the devotion of video games has gotten to the point where we are mounting crusades against those who say wrong about us. The Escapist news department has grown into a symbol of that, in the worst way possible. This is what I mean. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/122752-Cop-Blames-Videogames-For-Sandy-Hook-Massacre] A random police officer. Dubbed a "veteran police officer", which means even less because of the anonymous nature of it. 110 comments, and pretty much all of them are screaming the same retort we already know: "VIDYA GAYMS DON'T CAUSE VIOLENCE, UUURRRHHH!". We break apart any research that may show that the link between video games and violence to be nothing more but bad research, and celebrate research that disproves the link as we scream "YEAH, SCIENCE BITCHES!"
[
We don't consider the possibility that there might be somewhat of a link between video games and violence, and we don't consider that the research that doesn't find a link might be faulty. This is the worst method you can do in scientific research, where you start with an answer and find a method to prove that answer. The obsession blinds us to the possibility that video games might have elements of faults to them, and we do need to accept that. It also blinds us from examining who is saying what. A random police officer saying video games causes violence doesn't mean anything at all. It means absolutely zilch. His opinion, will not change anything. Just like if a 25 year old developer started saying "WELL, IT'S OBVIOUS VIDEO GAMES DON'T CAUSE VIOLENCE!", his opinion will not change anything and is therefore not noteworthy enough to make news on any form of website. Yet, the former did.
I really hope the "geek" community can pull back from their blind obsession. If they don't, then for all the work done to put "geek culture" into the limelight will be for naught since it'll be the same-bullshit of the "jock culture" (that's the flip-side right?) but with just a new layer of lead paint.
Are you seriously comparing overdone tropes, with the goddamned Holocaust?
No, I am using the most obvious (to this audience) example of how culture and media influenced real life abuses to illuminate a more subtle, but still real, every-day example.
The fact that the Holocaust is perhaps the exemplar for the worst that humanity has to offer does not mean that it is bereft of lessons for smaller scale wrongs.
Are you seriously comparing seeing stuff in a movie/game that is offensive to victimhood?
I am saying (and this is as basic to psychology as evolution is to biology) that our actions *are* influenced by the culture in which we interact, and that video games are part of that culture (and for young people, not a small part). So comparing it to victimhood. No. Saying it contributes to it - absolutely.
Another, less drastic, parallel - if you eat poison, you die. But you if you load up on salt, sugar and fat, no one meal, or even one year will kill you. Any changes to your body you can attribute to a dozen different causes. But let's face it, the changes are there. Some people it will kill quickly. Some will live to be 100. But we all know - it makes a real difference in many people's lives.
Except, because a lot of people like salt, sugar and fat, there will be a few people who insist that there's *no* connection between these and diabetes, high-blood pressure, etc. And how dare medical researchers try and dictate people's life. And it's all a big conspiracy! And I've been eating them for years, and I haven't dropped dead, so it's all a lie! And this salt-heavy dish also had broccoli, so that makes it all better. And putting lots of salt, fat and sugar sells more, so of course it's a good thing.
I'm not saying we should ban bad depictions of women in games, nor am I saying that we should ban sugar, salt and fat. What I am saying, is that we need to be aware of the effects of these on our minds and bodies and not to be afraid to call them out for it. Will this get rid of the phenomena? No. But in general, it *will* modify our behavior. Human beings are like that.
People need to grow up and understand that just because they like something doesn't mean it doesn't cause harm. There's way too much of the "I'm a good person, therefor *anything* that I do must be good as well".
We *all* cause harm with our actions. The responsibility of a *decent* human being is to take the steps one can to reduce that harm, not to pretend the harm doesn't exist, not to pretend that since one can never reduce it to zero, it doesn't matter how much harm one does. Those are both a child's attitude. As adults, we can do better.
I'm confused as to your point, because I never said either of those things. I talked about you, a hypothetical yet specific person, claiming the title for yourself, and for the actions another hypothetical yet specific person takes in the name the title you've claimed for yourself.
NeedsaBetterName22 said:
If I am a Canadian, and part of Canadian culture, my fellow Canadian murdering someone is not partially my responsibility for [not, I assume] preventing it. That act did not occur with my 'silent support;' it occurred as an action of an individual.
Unless that fellow committed murder as part of a Canadian culture that believes murder is okay, I'm not sure how this comparison is relevant.
NeedsaBetterName22 said:
I mean, with nonsense collectivist arguments like that 'geek culture' still needs to defend itself from the accusations of practicing Satanism via D&D and causing school shootings via violent media from the arbitrary cultural perceptions of outsiders.
I believe that when such accusations arise (though it's been decades since I've heard anyone associate D&D with Satanism; does that still happen?), yes, it is our responsibility to defend ourselves from them, because no one else is going to do it, and because those less capable than you or I may need a defense.
"No one else is going to do it" is a crap argument. That does not magically grant people who identify with the term 'geek' a responsibility. Provide an objective definition for geek, and geek culture. That's all I'm asking, and physically you are incapable of it, because it is a socially created construct based on arbitrary and subjective personal views on entertainment choices, i.e. YOUR definition is not MY definition. When you use the term 'geek' you're literally just crafting your own personal cultural concept and dumping whomever you want in, and in your case attaching some kind of nonsensical collectivism in with it. You keep using 'we' and 'us' for a purely arbitrary construct; of course we have no responsibility to it, it's a completely made-up identifier that means different things to different people. Attempting to subscribe a collective responsibility to a completely diverse group of people is at best being overly emotional. You can't argue for a collective responsibility for a concept that is purely based on your own personal perception and definition.
If her thesis paper is still online somewhere that'll help shed light on her position in regards to 'strong female characters'. It's been awhile since I read it but I remember her having a chart dividing positive and negative character traits via gender. Ultimately it came down to traits being strictly within gender identification lines, so a well-developed female character who is, say, violent, is expressing a male character trait and is therefore not really a 'strong female'. Female characters that do embrace gender traits that Sarkeesian considers female however, such as being nurturing, are acceptable.
I'll look that paper up, but for now I'll say this: There are characteristics that are inherent to men and women based on their sex (yes... "sex" as in "basic genetic code") and there are those based on "gender" and societal views. So, to take these two things into account... both a man being nurturing and a woman being violent makes them apparently not representative of their gender. I am inclined to call nonsense on that one. While it is true that, speaking from a strictly statistical point of view, these traits are more likely to be distributed vice versa, I personally consider them to be traits based on "gender" (including trans- and homosexuals) and society rather than on the actual sex. Well, maybe except the "nurturing" part, that is something in between...
Anyway... I deem it strange to assign certain traits beyond obvious biological differences to certain sexes. Especially in a world that has more or less accepted that homo-, bi-, pan- and transsexuality exist.
I'd say you're probably putting more thought into it than Sarkeesian did, to be honest her thesis paper isn't very good. I think her main problem is that she views media purely as a way to manipulate the population, rather then as an entertainment source, and thus believes in a strict rigidity of concepts in order to communicate 'good values' to the masses.
If you're going to get into statistics, then I highly recommend you dig up the statistics of how often a rape/assault threat from an online anonymous/troll source translates to the threat actually getting carried-out in real life against that person.
What does that have to do with it? You (the non-specific you, I mean) said "I hope you get raped;" if you say it to six women, chances are one of them has been or will be. How, then, can you claim one hundred percent certainty that none of those women have been or will be?
NeedsaBetterName22 said:
"No one else is going to do it" is a crap argument.
How so? If a situation exists that needs redress, and if you are aware of that situation, then how is it not your responsibility to act on the information you possess?
NeedsaBetterName22 said:
Provide an objective definition for geek, and geek culture.
For the purposes of this conversation, a geek is someone who self-identifies as one, and geek culture is the collective of such people, including the behavioral trends that group displays.
NeedsaBetterName22 said:
When you use the term 'geek' you're literally just crafting your own personal cultural concept and dumping whomever you want in, and in your case attaching some kind of nonsensical collectivism in with it.
I genuinely do not understand how I am doing that, since I've said--three times, as of this post--that I'm referring to people who choose to adopt the word for themselves.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
