[Morgoth]

"Why doesn't she focus on men too" is a nonsensical objection. Why should she? Is her focus on a problem somehow lessened because she doesn't simoultaneously focus on another problem? Of course it isn't.

[MTS]

Besides, her main focus in the first video was not the objectification of women in video games (although that entered into it), but the disempowerment of women in video games. There's no need to discuss that for men because, well, it's not a problem.

[Silencer]

MTS, on 12 April 2013 - 01:06 PM, said:

Besides, her main focus in the first video was not the objectification of women in video games (although that entered into it), but the disempowerment of women in video games. There's no need to discuss that for men because, well, it's not a problem.

And while it would be interesting to 1) see more of this theme in games (as generally speaking the image of a dis-empowered male, and even more rarely, male lead, can be quite powerful, though likely *because* of the social/video game stereotypes it defies) and 2) see such examples analysed a bit more in depth with consideration to the topic at hand (as it does tie in, through the previous bracket), it's hardly fair to expect all such things to be covered, given you don't want the video to be a year long. >.>

[LinearPhilosopher]

Morgoth, on 12 April 2013 - 08:19 AM, said:

"Why doesn't she focus on men too" is a nonsensical objection. Why should she? Is her focus on a problem somehow lessened because she doesn't simoultaneously focus on another problem? Of course it isn't.

it wasn't an objection, it was an observation. I am am aware of the reason her channel exists, however that doesn't mean we should limit our discussion there.

This post has been edited by BalrogLord: 12 April 2013 - 03:35 PM

[blackzoid]

Very interesting BalrogLord. Very interesting.
I was not aware of this schism in Feminism as regards pro-sex appeal of women Feminism versus anti-sex appeal of women Feminism (I've probably garbled what teh video said). Or that it was that major. The money thing was interesting too. Everyone has to make a living though. And nobody is perfect.

This post has been edited by blackzoid: 12 April 2013 - 05:59 PM

[LinearPhilosopher]

I agree with you good sir, but indeed this schism of sex positive/ negative does have some interesting connotations For example i recall earlier in the thread discussions about Miranda Lawson from mass effect series. On one hand you could argue she is super sexuality/objectified. At the same time shes aware of her sexuality and uses it to her advantage It's not the case of her being an object, but rather a fully conscientious, self aware subject. She is active not passive, which is by definition empowering.

Not that sarkeesian's critiques do not have value, they certainly do, however we should be aware of her flaws. I recall watching her video on the straw feminist video, one her examples was a character from family guy. You know the one show that brands itself as making fun of everything and everyone. If family guy were to make fun of feminists to the exclusion of all others, then yes family guy could be considered as a valid example in her video. But since family guy doesn't do that, it ridicules all, everyone is on the same level, as such there is no discrimination. Discrimination by the very nature of the word implies putting apart, to segregate. No such thing in family guy.

[King Lear]

blackzoid, on 12 April 2013 - 05:59 PM, said:

Very interesting BalrogLord. Very interesting.
I was not aware of this schism in Feminism as regards pro-sex appeal of women Feminism versus anti-sex appeal of women Feminism (I've probably garbled what teh video said). Or that it was that major. The money thing was interesting too. Everyone has to make a living though. And nobody is perfect.

Lol@ the concept of a schism in "Feminism". Feminism is not a monolithic set of beliefs, it's a hydra. Actually, it's probably a couple of hydras. That's kinda like saying there's schism in Christianity over theological disputes. It's true but it's not quite accurate.

[LinearPhilosopher]

King Lear, on 13 April 2013 - 12:59 AM, said:

blackzoid, on 12 April 2013 - 05:59 PM, said:

Very interesting BalrogLord. Very interesting.
I was not aware of this schism in Feminism as regards pro-sex appeal of women Feminism versus anti-sex appeal of women Feminism (I've probably garbled what teh video said). Or that it was that major. The money thing was interesting too. Everyone has to make a living though. And nobody is perfect.

Lol@ the concept of a schism in "Feminism". Feminism is not a monolithic set of beliefs, it's a hydra. Actually, it's probably a couple of hydras. That's kinda like saying there's schism in Christianity over theological disputes. It's true but it's not quite accurate.

what word would you employ?

[King Lear]

I wouldn't. Lack of consensus in a movement as diverse and fragmentary as feminism doesn't surprise me.

[Silencer]

BalrogLord, on 13 April 2013 - 01:12 AM, said:

King Lear, on 13 April 2013 - 12:59 AM, said:

blackzoid, on 12 April 2013 - 05:59 PM, said:

Very interesting BalrogLord. Very interesting.
I was not aware of this schism in Feminism as regards pro-sex appeal of women Feminism versus anti-sex appeal of women Feminism (I've probably garbled what teh video said). Or that it was that major. The money thing was interesting too. Everyone has to make a living though. And nobody is perfect.

Lol@ the concept of a schism in "Feminism". Feminism is not a monolithic set of beliefs, it's a hydra. Actually, it's probably a couple of hydras. That's kinda like saying there's schism in Christianity over theological disputes. It's true but it's not quite accurate.

what word would you employ?

It's more an unfortunate side-effect of generalising the label and using it too broadly. I guess you could say that the movement is multifaceted/fragmented/of various denominations but really that is beside the point, as there are very few broad political/social/religious/movement/belief systems that are truly monolithic in nature, if any. At best the labels refer to the underlying, unitary essence of the belief/movement but even that is a dodgy proposition. XD

[D'iversify]

Diversity and fragmentation is, as far as I'm concerned, often a sign of health in an intellectual movement. Monolithic dogmatism usually either characterises the early stages of a movement or else its slipping into terminal decline. It can also be a symptom of excessive political interference stifling debate, e.g. Moscow-centric communism in both Eastern and Western Europe during the Cold War.

[blackzoid]

King Lear, on 13 April 2013 - 12:59 AM, said:

blackzoid, on 12 April 2013 - 05:59 PM, said:

Very interesting BalrogLord. Very interesting.
I was not aware of this schism in Feminism as regards pro-sex appeal of women Feminism versus anti-sex appeal of women Feminism (I've probably garbled what teh video said). Or that it was that major. The money thing was interesting too. Everyone has to make a living though. And nobody is perfect.

Lol@ the concept of a schism in "Feminism". Feminism is not a monolithic set of beliefs, it's a hydra. Actually, it's probably a couple of hydras. That's kinda like saying there's schism in Christianity over theological disputes. It's true but it's not quite accurate.

Well, maybe shcism is too strong a word then. And I presume there are more sides to the various strands of feminism than just pro-sex appeal versus anti-sex appeal. Whichever word works to describe that I guess.

Edit: Off-topic but if I remember my history, there was the "Great Schism" in Christianity which led to the Orthodox Church breaking away from Rome. Pretty major dispute that one was.

This post has been edited by blackzoid: 13 April 2013 - 04:17 PM

[King Lear]

blackzoid, on 13 April 2013 - 04:14 PM, said:

King Lear, on 13 April 2013 - 12:59 AM, said:

blackzoid, on 12 April 2013 - 05:59 PM, said:

Very interesting BalrogLord. Very interesting.
I was not aware of this schism in Feminism as regards pro-sex appeal of women Feminism versus anti-sex appeal of women Feminism (I've probably garbled what teh video said). Or that it was that major. The money thing was interesting too. Everyone has to make a living though. And nobody is perfect.

Lol@ the concept of a schism in "Feminism". Feminism is not a monolithic set of beliefs, it's a hydra. Actually, it's probably a couple of hydras. That's kinda like saying there's schism in Christianity over theological disputes. It's true but it's not quite accurate.

Well, maybe shcism is too strong a word then. And I presume there are more sides to the various strands of feminism than just pro-sex appeal versus anti-sex appeal. Whichever word works to describe that I guess.

Edit: Off-topic but if I remember my history, there was the "Great Schism" in Christianity which led to the Orthodox Church breaking away from Rome. Pretty major dispute that one was.

Um yes, that's kinda my point. While feminism hasn't broken into separate groups the way the church has (partly because in Christianity to there was geographical and even nationalistic components to a lot of the major (and minor) schisms, whereas feminism doesn't have that to the same extent, also when people talk about feminism they mostly mean western (white feminism) and also hasn't been around for quite the same length of time) there are a number of different groups who think about feminism in different ways. In terms of the history of feminism there are the successive 'waves' (which I always think of as being similar to artistic movements, where lots of people are doing similar things, but a couple of people are doing something different, but usually there's a couple of people from the similar things group who get all of the attention, but maybe the different things people are just as interesting if not more so?). And then within those waves there are people doing and talking about different things, and actually there's not whole lot of agreement with feminism about a lot of things. The baseline is 'equality' and that's approached from a number of different ways.

As a minor related tangent, it seems to me that when people say 'Christian' they're able to think of a number of different facet that make up person X being 'a Christian' and recognise differences in context of someone saying 'I'm/They're a Christian' but with feminism mostly all you get is oh a whiny man-hater with hairy armpits as if that's a the sum total of feminist lived experience. It's lazy, inarticulate and a bit sad. There are a lot of problems with (Western) feminism, but the only one that's ever brought up, generally, is the man hating thing which is a joke. At the risk of No True Scotsman-ing feminism, radfems are a tiny, gross minority who have very limited capacity to ever achieve their stated goals and are given far too much attention, possibly because gender inequality makes a lot of people uncomfortable and they'd rather ignore/laugh at a fringe-loony complaint than actually address real inequality in our society.

Hopefully the rambling above makes sense, I am feverish and sick and bored out of my skull

[Tsundoku]

http://www.avoicefor...onymous-letter/

Adequately describes the shit sandwich most western men have to eat these days, and sums up our feelings about it. Written by a woman too!

Luckily for me, I feel damn privileged I've been able to largely recognise and avoid the women described in the article. Then again, the women described in the article don't exactly hang out in the same places that I do. Real and virtual.

The fear is still there though, that one day my partner can just decide she's had enough and can up and leave with our boy, take half or more of our stuff and a healthy dose of my future earnings, leaving me to be pathetically grateful for any time she lets me spend with our son. I know (or am pretty sure) she's not one of those women, but you know ... that little tiny fear of "what if?" still exists. Maybe it says something about me, but I think it's more to do with the way things are set up for western men these days.

A little tangential to the topic, for which I apologise, but I thought it was an interesting read.

EDIT: I should add that I came to that article via the comments section for this one:

http://www.news.com....3-1226614764417

Indeed one comment (Derrick, #58) links it to the increasing isolationism contributed to by the increasing rate of single-occupancy dwellings. I hadn't thought of that before. We are the most connected, information-rich people in history, but we know even less about our neighbours. We know what strangers had for lunch on Fakebook though. Weird, no?

This post has been edited by Sombra: 14 April 2013 - 02:28 AM

[LinearPhilosopher]

Sombra, on 14 April 2013 - 01:37 AM, said:

http://www.avoicefor...onymous-letter/

Adequately describes the shit sandwich most western men have to eat these days, and sums up our feelings about it. Written by a woman too!

Luckily for me, I feel damn privileged I've been able to largely recognise and avoid the women described in the article. Then again, the women described in the article don't exactly hang out in the same places that I do. Real and virtual.

The fear is still there though, that one day my partner can just decide she's had enough and can up and leave with our boy, take half or more of our stuff and a healthy dose of my future earnings, leaving me to be pathetically grateful for any time she lets me spend with our son. I know (or am pretty sure) she's not one of those women, but you know ... that little tiny fear of "what if?" still exists. Maybe it says something about me, but I think it's more to do with the way things are set up for western men these days.

A little tangential to the topic, for which I apologise, but I thought it was an interesting read.

EDIT: I should add that I came to that article via the comments section for this one:

http://www.news.com....3-1226614764417

Indeed one comment (Derrick, #58) links it to the increasing isolationism contributed to by the increasing rate of single-occupancy dwellings. I hadn't thought of that before. We are the most connected, information-rich people in history, but we know even less about our neighbours. We know what strangers had for lunch on Fakebook though. Weird, no?

somehow i don't think that paper you brought isn't the most accurate of pieces. Just saying.

[Tsundoku]

BalrogLord, on 14 April 2013 - 03:41 AM, said:

Sombra, on 14 April 2013 - 01:37 AM, said:

http://www.avoicefor...onymous-letter/

Adequately describes the shit sandwich most western men have to eat these days, and sums up our feelings about it. Written by a woman too!

Luckily for me, I feel damn privileged I've been able to largely recognise and avoid the women described in the article. Then again, the women described in the article don't exactly hang out in the same places that I do. Real and virtual.

The fear is still there though, that one day my partner can just decide she's had enough and can up and leave with our boy, take half or more of our stuff and a healthy dose of my future earnings, leaving me to be pathetically grateful for any time she lets me spend with our son. I know (or am pretty sure) she's not one of those women, but you know ... that little tiny fear of "what if?" still exists. Maybe it says something about me, but I think it's more to do with the way things are set up for western men these days.

A little tangential to the topic, for which I apologise, but I thought it was an interesting read.

EDIT: I should add that I came to that article via the comments section for this one:

http://www.news.com....3-1226614764417

Indeed one comment (Derrick, #58) links it to the increasing isolationism contributed to by the increasing rate of single-occupancy dwellings. I hadn't thought of that before. We are the most connected, information-rich people in history, but we know even less about our neighbours. We know what strangers had for lunch on Fakebook though. Weird, no?

somehow i don't think that paper you brought isn't the most accurate of pieces. Just saying.

Of course not, it's a media outlet. Duh.

And it's not supposed to be an objective, scientific piece - it's subjective. Just well-expressed.

[Illuyankas]

Jesus fucking Christ, Sombra, that article is a reeking mass of dribbling excrement. I'm frankly embarassed for you having a positive opinion on it.

And holy shit the news piece is fucking terrible too. It's biotruths and 'women should stick to what they're good at, raising our kids' and 'fuck having your own life, go marry a rich dude' and aaaaaaaaaaaaaargh it's awful, MRAs and the MRA movement are awful

[Tsundoku]

They're not saying "don't have your own life", they're saying be aware what the consequences of it may be and stop blaming everyone but yourself for your own decisions.

And the "letter from a mom" was just an expression of what a lot of guys feel, nicely put. That's all.

Frankly, when it comes to -isms that are BAD, radical feminism is streets ahead of any MRA-type stuff I've read.
Not that I'm a particular scholar or a devotee.

Oh, and as far as the topic goes ... if you want empowered women in video games - write them and sell them. If you don't like the games the way they're written these days, it's pretty fucking easy - don't buy them.

All this just reminds me of the Malibu Stacey episode(s) on The Simpsons.

This post has been edited by Sombra: 14 April 2013 - 07:51 AM

[King Lear]

Wow you really don't know much about MRAs, do you?

[Tsundoku]

King Lear, on 14 April 2013 - 08:14 AM, said:

Wow you really don't know much about MRAs, do you?

To whom is this addressed?