The Big Picture: Not Okay

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT
 

You're really missing the big picture here.
You pick on the small gaming nerd community for being sexist, yet again again, but have nothing to say about our society as a whole, which is just as much if not more sexist.
Sexism is not limited to just women.
nether is rape as it's imply in this video, men can and do fall victim to rape, and I'm not just talking about prison rape.
I knew a handicapped guy who was raped by a women, and when he tried to contact the police about it, they told him not to make prank calls and only call them for real problems.

Bob says these small communities act like it's normal and it's just how things are, but this is exactly what society at large does with sexism directed at men.
I'm not going to defend the guy for what he said in that stream, it was clearly disgusting behavior, but my problem is that no one cares when women or society are sexist to men.
It's not right to objectify women as men's sex objects, yet it's okay to paint men as woman's servants and generally worthless in all regards.

But I don't expect any of these videos to ever talk about this, since any guy who brings this up will most likely be hated for it and or viewed as some sort of wussy or pansy crybaby.

I could go on and on about sexism towards men in our society, but I doubt anyone here would care.
I just had to voice my complaint about these videos.

More information on the matter can be found here.
http://www.manwomanmyth.com/
http://www.youtube.com/user/manwomanmyth

TRG2000:
[snip]

I get what you're saying; sexism certainly cuts both ways.

However, even a relatively quick perusal of that site tells me that it's...well, I'm going to be polite and say "itself missing the point." As an alternative, I'd suggest checking out these guys, who argue many of the same points without lashing out.

cobra_ky:

captainfluoxetine:

dyre:

o_O

Sorry, just thought that was a pretty weird line. I'd better go support some rape victims...wouldn't want people to think I support rapists.

If you're not against them you're with them!

Here's a question to John 'the authority on sexual violence' Funk.

My friend who was a victim of rape finds me the only person she can talk to about it BECAUSE of my blunt insensitive and fun making attitude. Everyone else goes all serious on her when she needs to talk and she can't deal with it. So she finds talking to me therapeutic.

An example of my assholery would be if we're out having a drink I'll make a comment like 'Oh no one REALLY gets their drink spiked, rapes just a myth.'

Yet because of this when she DOES need a serious conversation she feels she can talk to me.

I make fun of rape but also do my utmost to support a victim of it. Where do I fit into your black and white spectrum of 'People who are rapists' and 'people who would never use the word rape inappropriately'?

You're supporting a rape victim, so you're on the side of supporting rape victims, at least in that regard.

Now if another rape victim, who you did not have a longstanding friendship with, overheard your comments, they would probably take it much more negatively. So that's something you should consider if you're making these comments in a public place.

Really this isn't about controlling what people can or can't say, it's about getting people to think about what their words actually mean and how they affect others. You're clearly well aware that you're helping your friend here, and that is admirable.

Abandon4093:

dyre:

I've never heard ANYONE say "s/he deserved it" about rape, and if I did, I'd punch them in the face. On the other hand, I've heard PLENTY of "s/he deserved it" regarding murder. Just a few weeks back, people on this very site were claiming that high school bullies deserved to be murdered.

BAM!

And that ladies and gentlemen, underlines the exact hypocrisy with Johns argument.

Case closed, the end.

Can I get a drink to go?

Cpatcha: genghis khan

I find it's relevance disturbing.

...

Google "She deserved it" and "rape". You'll find results. I'm not going to link them here for the sake of common decency.

You and dyre may also want to stop celebrating your argument from ignorance.

While I would never say 'She deserved it'. I think there are levels of rape which have to be judged on their own merits (terrible wording but can't think of a better one!)

A woman gets drunk enough to impair her judgement. She CHOOSES to impair her judgement, she then chats to a guy and agrees to go back to his place. Anyone who lives in the real world realizes when someone says 'Back to mine for coffee' there is rarely coffee involved. Now if they get back to his place and she sobers up and says 'No, no I'm leaving.' and attempts to leave, if the guy THEN forces sex on her, its unequivocally rape. If they start getting a bit physical and she pulls the 'um, i'm not so sure...' but makes NO effort to leave or to physically disengage herself, I don't consider that rape. In fact if I did then I'd be a rapist.

Like it or not, in the real world. Sometimes when a woman or girl says 'No' they do ACTUALLY mean yes. Obviously not always, and obviously its entirely situational.

A woman in walking down a street, is physically attacked beaten into submission and then forced into penetrative sex. That is rape, fully removing the woman's choice in the matter, this is one of the most horrific and degrading crimes.

EDIT: The rambling point i'm getting at is choice. If the woman is free to physically remove herself from the situation then it's not rape.

I really liked this episode.
I have been wondering lately why we avoid these conversations.

We ARE responsible for ourselves, and if we truly want to paint ourselves as a community for people who may not exactly fit in, marginalising people is just making us as bad as every bully out there.

I'll be glad when me being a girl is not a big deal in this community, when I'm just another player.

We're not there yet but hopefully with more cool male gamers willing to say its not okay (being sexist), we can move forward. :)

I'm really glad he called out the use of the word rape. I've always thought it was a disgusting and tasteless use of a word that represents one of the worst crimes out there. It is nice to see some people claiming they will make an effort to not use it as a synonym for losing anymore.

Thank you mr. chipman for being a voice of reason, i couldn't agree more with you

A woman gets drunk enough to impair her judgement. She CHOOSES to impair her judgement,

So, you agree that a guy that "agrees" to get his money stolen from while being drunk CHOOSES to impair his judgement and can therefore be robbed unless he specifically tells everyone he does not want to be robbed, right?

Because that's your argument for rape here.

'No' they do ACTUALLY mean yes

Sometimes, guys want to be kicked into the balls and them saying no, they don't, actually means yes. I'm not saying all guys do, but some do, so it's very understandable that a woman would get confused and kick a guy in the balls who said no or said nothing since she reasonably assumed he meant yes. I mean, some guys want it.

Oh, that's different now, is it. WHy, though? Because it affects [i]you[/I].

Bob says these small communities act like it's normal and it's just how things are, but this is exactly what society at large does with sexism directed at men.

That's because sexism aimed at men does not exist in society at large. The fun part is that even the things that tend to affect a few men negatively tend to be because of misogyny, not misandry.

I knew a handicapped guy who was raped by a women, and when he tried to contact the police about it, they told him not to make prank calls and only call them for real problems.

Guess what policemen tell handicapped women who were raped by men? Pretty much the same thing, in fact - I know several women that had this happen to them, the police didn't give a flying fuck despite video evidence because the women were disabled.
See, you are suffering from the delusion that rape is somehow a thing the police immediately accepts as a crime when a woman is the victim, which is factually wrong. Rape is one of the most underreported crimes precisely because the police tends to ignore any charge of rape that does not fit very limited narratives (as in, pretty white girl raped by violent stranger). Any case not fitting that is usually ignored unless it's a super public case and/or involves celebrities, cause that furthers the career of the persecutor. Normal people tho? Completely ignored.

This is especially true if the rape victim is of a minority, like a PoC or a handicapped person. Handicapped women have it INCREDIBLY hard to report rapes, because the police will usually assume that she lied because men "wouldn't hit it". Heck, even an ugly woman will have that happen to them, even though rape has literally nothing to do with attractiveness of the victim.

The problem here isn't sexism against men, it's rape culture. Notice how you see no issue with sexism against women, immediately to jump to make it all about men when we have a factual case of sexism against women, then attempt to pretend men have it harder by ignoring that men face the same issue with reporting rape as women do? Pretty typical mental gymnastics for rape culture. You're a pretty big part of it.

You're precisely part of the group of people that caused your friend to suffer like this. Precisely because of people like you, we never really do much about rape. There's always people like you dismissing it like you are right now. So good work.

I for one am busy in real life to push rape legislation and rape awareness, which helps both genders, since both genders can be raped, and both genders suffer from rape culture. You seem to only be busy denying that sexism or rape is a big deal unless it affects men.

You are the problem. So thanks for posting here to the thread, you illustrate perfectly why these attitudes are still around, and how people use arguments such as yours to protect these attitudes.

zefiris:
[snip]

I came in here, read that other post, and was preparing a reply. But it looks like you've already covered it better than I could have. Thank you.

Father Time:

Farseer Lolotea:

Father Time:
You're the one that needs to prove they are fighting words.

So...I have to "prove" that there is no value in making light of people's massively traumatic lived experiences

Nice dodge attempt, but no. You have to prove that rape jokes fall under the fighting words exception of the first amendment which is what you claimed.

Farseer Lolotea:

Or that trying to justify doing so, in the name of "freedom of speech" or anything else, is a sign of unexamined privilege?

We do have a right in the U.S. to tell rape jokes, and that right is covered under free speech. That's all I said, and those are facts.

sounds like someone needs to watch the last part of Bob's video again, particularly the part about free speech. Yes, you have the legal right to say rape jokes, in that teh government cannot stop you. And that is all.

It's really cute how you don't understand the concept of "privilege" in this case. Like, at all.

Keep up your ignorance, bro. You're making it easier for rapists to rape people because you want to tell jokes about a horribly traumatic event. Hope you feel good about that.

zefiris:

A woman gets drunk enough to impair her judgement. She CHOOSES to impair her judgement,

So, you agree that a guy that "agrees" to get his money stolen from while being drunk CHOOSES to impair his judgement and can therefore be robbed unless he specifically tells everyone he does not want to be robbed, right?

Because that's your argument for rape here.

'No' they do ACTUALLY mean yes

Sometimes, guys want to be kicked into the balls and them saying no, they don't, actually means yes. I'm not saying all guys do, but some do, so it's very understandable that a woman would get confused and kick a guy in the balls who said no or said nothing since she reasonably assumed he meant yes. I mean, some guys want it.

Oh, that's different now, is it. WHy, though? Because it affects [i]you[/I].

Bob says these small communities act like it's normal and it's just how things are, but this is exactly what society at large does with sexism directed at men.

That's because sexism aimed at men does not exist in society at large. The fun part is that even the things that tend to affect a few men negatively tend to be because of misogyny, not misandry.

I knew a handicapped guy who was raped by a women, and when he tried to contact the police about it, they told him not to make prank calls and only call them for real problems.

Guess what policemen tell handicapped women who were raped by men? Pretty much the same thing, in fact - I know several women that had this happen to them, the police didn't give a flying fuck despite video evidence because the women were disabled.
See, you are suffering from the delusion that rape is somehow a thing the police immediately accepts as a crime when a woman is the victim, which is factually wrong. Rape is one of the most underreported crimes precisely because the police tends to ignore any charge of rape that does not fit very limited narratives (as in, pretty white girl raped by violent stranger). Any case not fitting that is usually ignored unless it's a super public case and/or involves celebrities, cause that furthers the career of the persecutor. Normal people tho? Completely ignored.

This is especially true if the rape victim is of a minority, like a PoC or a handicapped person. Handicapped women have it INCREDIBLY hard to report rapes, because the police will usually assume that she lied because men "wouldn't hit it". Heck, even an ugly woman will have that happen to them, even though rape has literally nothing to do with attractiveness of the victim.

The problem here isn't sexism against men, it's rape culture. Notice how you see no issue with sexism against women, immediately to jump to make it all about men when we have a factual case of sexism against women, then attempt to pretend men have it harder by ignoring that men face the same issue with reporting rape as women do? Pretty typical mental gymnastics for rape culture. You're a pretty big part of it.

You're precisely part of the group of people that caused your friend to suffer like this. Precisely because of people like you, we never really do much about rape. There's always people like you dismissing it like you are right now. So good work.

I for one am busy in real life to push rape legislation and rape awareness, which helps both genders, since both genders can be raped, and both genders suffer from rape culture. You seem to only be busy denying that sexism or rape is a big deal unless it affects men.

You are the problem. So thanks for posting here to the thread, you illustrate perfectly why these attitudes are still around, and how people use arguments such as yours to protect these attitudes.

Thanks for this. You've said everythign I've been trying to say in a much more clear way.

captainfluoxetine:

Like it or not, in the real world. Sometimes when a woman or girl says 'No' they do ACTUALLY mean yes. Obviously not always, and obviously its entirely situational.

A woman in walking down a street, is physically attacked beaten into submission and then forced into penetrative sex. That is rape, fully removing the woman's choice in the matter, this is one of the most horrific and degrading crimes.

EDIT: The rambling point i'm getting at is choice. If the woman is free to physically remove herself from the situation then it's not rape.

No, when they say no, they mean no.

And "free to physically remove herself?" I think you're ignoring the impact of culture and preconditioning, friend. If a woman thinks "Oh, if I leave he might hurt me me," "He's my boyfriend, I *should* be giving him my body to make him happy," or whatever... then she might not leave. Maybe she'll just lie there like a corpse and let you do your thing.

Even if she really, really doesn't want to.

Welcome to rape culture.

The only time you should have sex, is after an enthusiastic "yes, I want to do this." That is what enthusiastic consent means.

In the past, I haven't always sought complete and enthusiastic consent myself. And that's meant I've hurt people without ever meaning to, because that's what rape culture *does*. It means that well-meaning guys who don't know any better but who sure don't want to hurt anybody... do. Which is why seeking enthusiastic consent is superior in every way.

Edit: This isn't to say that enthusiastic consent is the ONLY consent. There are many couples, or people, who aren't good at verbalizing that "yes, I want to do this." Nonverbal communication is critical... as is recognizing "Hey, the other person really isn't into this, we should stop." It's important to recognize a sighed "Okay, all right" isn't a "Yeah, let's do this," and maybe you should stop to think about if you're impressing your desires on someone else.

There is no point during intimacy - the buildup, the act, even right before you're ready to finish - that is too late to stop, if the other person wants to stop.

John Funk:
It's really cute how you don't understand the concept of "privilege" in this case. Like, at all.

Ehh, some people hear the word "privilege" and interpret it as meaning that they've led a charmed life. (Hence, "unexamined.")

John Funk:

Father Time:

Farseer Lolotea:
So...I have to "prove" that there is no value in making light of people's massively traumatic lived experiences

Nice dodge attempt, but no. You have to prove that rape jokes fall under the fighting words exception of the first amendment which is what you claimed.

Farseer Lolotea:

Or that trying to justify doing so, in the name of "freedom of speech" or anything else, is a sign of unexamined privilege?

We do have a right in the U.S. to tell rape jokes, and that right is covered under free speech. That's all I said, and those are facts.

sounds like someone needs to watch the last part of Bob's video again, particularly the part about free speech. Yes, you have the legal right to say rape jokes, in that teh government cannot stop you. And that is all.

It's really cute how you don't understand the concept of "privilege" in this case. Like, at all.

No I understand it, it just doesn't apply to a discussion of what's legal and what isn't.

Although it is cute how you just use that as a catchall so you don't have to bother having a point.

John Funk:

Keep up your ignorance, bro. You're making it easier for rapists to rape people because you want to tell jokes about a horribly traumatic event.

You keep repeating that won't make it true.

John Funk:

Hope you feel good about that.

And I hope your self righteousness keeps you warm at night.

Keep fighting the non-existent rape culture. I heard those windmills over there are part of it.

It's sad that all these discussions inevitably get weighed down by two sides. The "Misandry doesn't exist and it's all Men's fault side", and the "woman are just as sexist so it's ok" side.

Sexism does exist, and is very wrong, but it's wrong against BOTH sexes. And I think until everyone figures out that we need to work on this as a human issue, instead of a "gender wars" issue, it will never be solved.

WoW, I just had an epiphany there.

Darkmantle:
It's sad that all these discussions inevitably get weighed down by two sides. The "Misandry doesn't exist and it's all Men's fault side", and the "woman are just as sexist so it's ok" side.

Sexism does exist, and is very wrong, but it's wrong against BOTH sexes. And I think until everyone figures out that we need to work on this as a human issue, instead of a "gender wars" issue, it will never be solved.

WoW, I just had an epiphany there.

Yeah, but those things do generally stop us from having conversations about the behaviour in our community, which is what this was supposed to be about.

Don't get me wrong, I've seen great things in this community, and I love being in it.
But as a female player, I've also seen the ugliest side of it, and I do think that if we chose to, we could do more to stop it.

Unfortunately, we just let it happen usually. We should be better than this.

Phasmal:

Darkmantle:
It's sad that all these discussions inevitably get weighed down by two sides. The "Misandry doesn't exist and it's all Men's fault side", and the "woman are just as sexist so it's ok" side.

Sexism does exist, and is very wrong, but it's wrong against BOTH sexes. And I think until everyone figures out that we need to work on this as a human issue, instead of a "gender wars" issue, it will never be solved.

WoW, I just had an epiphany there.

Yeah, but those things do generally stop us from having conversations about the behaviour in our community, which is what this was supposed to be about.

Don't get me wrong, I've seen great things in this community, and I love being in it.
But as a female player, I've also seen the ugliest side of it, and I do think that if we chose to, we could do more to stop it.

Unfortunately, we just let it happen usually. We should be better than this.

We put pressure on that guy to apologize, so that's something, I guess.

I like Bob's suggestion (that he made in a different video), that if you ever hear someone spewing crap like that on voice chat or whatever you immediately exit the game.

I know this solution won't work in tournaments but for regular play it's a start. *shrug*

Father Time:

We put pressure on that guy to apologize, so that's something, I guess.

I like Bob's suggestion (that he made in a different video), that if you ever hear someone spewing crap like that on voice chat or whatever you immediately exit the game.

I know this solution won't work in tournaments but for regular play it's a start. *shrug*

Yeah, I also think more male players standing up for people they see getting harrassed would be a really good thing, too. Most people do it to look big or cool, another dude calling them out on it would be really good.

Honestly, with some of the crap I've had, for example in WoW groups when it came out that I was female and I got shit for it*, I would have loved for somebody other than me to say it wasn't okay. Everybody usually just either ignores it or tells me to shut up. :P

*A lot of people ask `Well why do you bring it up?` as if I should keep being female a secret, but its usually something harmless like:
Dude: Never seen [mount] drop.
Me: No, neither have I but my boyfriend has [mount]

Of course, I dont always get shit for it, there are loads of great players out there.

EDIT: Reworded it to be a bit more readable, hopefully.

It's sad to see someone above the age of 14 still acting like a child when they see a girl playing a video game.

zefiris:

A woman gets drunk enough to impair her judgement. She CHOOSES to impair her judgement,

So, you agree that a guy that "agrees" to get his money stolen from while being drunk CHOOSES to impair his judgement and can therefore be robbed unless he specifically tells everyone he does not want to be robbed, right?

Because that's your argument for rape here.

well it wouldn't be stolen if they asked for it, now would it? It's not like the dude is going to rape her or ask if he can rape her. He's gonna be like "you want to have sex?" or some other phrasing which explicitly indicates having sex. If he just forces himself onto her or never really gets "consent" and she's too drunk to do much, than it's undoubtedly intentional rape, but I doubt that's what he's talking about. What's more, you're under the assumption that the guy is intentionally preying on the woman who's drunk, when that's not at all always the case (he might not even realize she's blasted or be a little drunk himself). It's also not at all an equivocal comparison, as sex and money are two very different concepts. If the guy was drunk and the girl was drunk, no one got raped. How are the emotional consequences on the woman's part different if he wasn't drunk? It's not as though she'd know if he was sober. It's a potentially complicated situation with variable consequences. Yet in your example the guy lost all his money no matter what. There's a simple and concrete consequence to his actions and the actions of others. Now if a guy had an STD then, yeah, he's being criminally irresponsible, regardless ('course, isn't the woman being irresponsible for not informing others if she has an STD and the guy she's sleeping with is also drunk?). The point is, it's a complicated situation with tons of variables that no simple, crappy analogy is going to encapsulate perfectly. I'm not even introducing my own personal feelings here, your example just bugged me.

zefiris:

Sometimes, guys want to be kicked into the balls and them saying no, they don't, actually means yes. I'm not saying all guys do, but some do, so it's very understandable that a woman would get confused and kick a guy in the balls who said no or said nothing since she reasonably assumed he meant yes. I mean, some guys want it.

Are you serious right now? Another completely idiotic point. A LOT of woman will say "no" when they're entirely reciprocating your feelings. It's just the reality of how some people communicate during or before sex. There's a complete and total difference between a "yes" no and a "no" no and anyone with a brain and an ounce of experience can tell the difference. come on. The body will be obviously willing and aroused, the "no" will usually be playing or lasciviously spoken, she'll probably be smiling and seem happy, she'll undoubtedly not be showing any signs of nervousness or fear, she'll most likely reciprocate your physical gestures and at no time will she ever forcibly try and resist or squirm. A "no" no. Her voice will be flat, serious. That alone should be enough to tell.

btw, there are some woman who will legitimately try to resist your advances and yet still want you to have sex with them. They're the "hold me down and fuck me" types. That's not what I'm talking about here, since in those cases it's far too hard to distinguish and not at all worth the risk of you being wrong about what they really want.

Sorry for posting twice to reply to the same comment, btw, I just didn't think that second part of your comment would get to me too. I'm not even reading past that because I'm afraid of what I'll find.

axlryder:
A LOT of woman will say "no" when they're entirely reciprocating your feelings. It's just the reality of how some people communicate during or before sex. There's a complete and total difference between a "yes" no and a "no" no and anyone with a brain and an ounce of experience can tell the difference. come on. The body will be obviously willing and aroused, the "no" will usually be playing or lasciviously spoken, she'll probably be smiling and seem happy, she'll undoubtedly not be showing any signs of nervousness or fear, she'll most likely reciprocate your physical gestures and at no time will she ever forcibly try and resist or squirm. A "no" no. Her voice will be flat, serious. That alone should be enough to tell.

I know I'm going to regret getting involved in a discussion that's been going for days, but I felt a powerful urge to respond to this comment and inform you that real life is not a porno.

Seriously, what the fuck. If someone says "no", female or male, then always, ALWAYS assume that they mean "no", because you are neither a mind reader nor the protagonist of a hentai. And if you are ever in a sexual situation with someone who does want to behave that way, then it needs to be thoroughly discussed before anything starts, so that everything is, in industry parlance, safe, sane and consensual.

You don't seem to be outright malicious, but neither do you seem to understand exactly what rape is, nor how rape culture skews perceptions of both victims and how otherwise decent people can become rapists unknowingly. You should really read the second part of zefiris' comment, because it explains such things in more detail than I ever could.

I will simply post what I put in response to his video:

"It's not okay to use terms, but I will be the last person in the world to try to police people into what to say or not say. Honestly, people may say what they want, and continue to say as they please. But sooner or later, they will see the downside to what they say and face the consequences for what is said. At the same time, we shouldn't be so sensitive to be upset over someone saying: "Yeah... you got raped in Street fighter X Tekken."

What if someone who was raped was not effected by the use of the word. What if I were and I were not offended by the use of it? Or for that matter, it not digging up any traumatic memories? What then? Are you speaking from experience or from assumption of how someone who has been raped would feel about it? My point in this is that playing this from a point of "This hurts people this really happened to" is dangerous waters to tred in."

But neither I nor you can state if this would bother those who -have- gone through it. It may, or it may not. Maybe those who feel pity for those who have gone through rape are bothered by it more than people who have gone through it. Why not let people who have gone through it speak up against it rather than risk becoming a Champion of a cause that victims decide to not make their voices widely known?

Bob means well, but sometimes he can come off as offensive himself. I feel offended that he thinks that people should be angry at RE5's presentation and delivery of shooting at Africans. I'm African American and I am completely fine with it. How fair would it have been if I weren't upset about RE4 blowing away Spaniards, but when they start shooting Africans, I toss my oatmeal at the tv and yell for blood?"

No, seriously. I mean it about Bob's RE5 "Capcom is racist" bull. It really -really- offends me when he does that.

Darkmantle:
It's sad that all these discussions inevitably get weighed down by two sides. The "Misandry doesn't exist and it's all Men's fault side", and the "woman are just as sexist so it's ok" side.

Sexism does exist, and is very wrong, but it's wrong against BOTH sexes. And I think until everyone figures out that we need to work on this as a human issue, instead of a "gender wars" issue, it will never be solved.

WoW, I just had an epiphany there.

Misandry exists for sure, but... "sexism against men," er, not really. Part of any "ism" is that it needs to come from the party with institutional power. Otherwise, it's just prejudice or bigotry, since it's not being enforced via societal pressures. A woman being misandrist is not sexist, it's prejudiced.

Father Time:

No I understand it, it just doesn't apply to a discussion of what's legal and what isn't.

Although it is cute how you just use that as a catchall so you don't have to bother having a point.

...yes, it does. That is by DEFINITION what it means. Here, let me quote it for you:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress cannot make laws against it. You legally have the right to say whatever you want.

This does not give you the right to have people listen to you.

This does not give you freedom from consequences from said speech. Nor does this give you the freedom to ignore consequences of what you say. (Like yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater).

You're sure right that I legally cannot stop anyone from making rape jokes, or trivializing the concept of rape because they're terrible at games. But I can sure as hell think you're a rape-culture-engendering douchebag for it.

You keep repeating that won't make it true.

And your sticking your head in the sand and refusing to acknowledge that your desperate clinging to being able to say *one terrible word* is actually *hurting people* doesn't make it any less true.

And I hope your self righteousness keeps you warm at night.

Keep fighting the non-existent rape culture. I heard those windmills over there are part of it.

It does, actually! I feel pretty good knowing I'm doing what I can - even a little part - at fighting a culture that I know for a fact exists, and has demonstrably hurt people I care about in my life.

Because here's the funny part. If you're right, and there is no such thing as rape culture, I'm still doing something good. I'm still fighting for awareness of a terrible crime that effects hundreds of thousands of women in the USA and many more around the world every year. I'm still fighting to make people aware that sometimes language DOES have power.

So even if there's no such thing as rape culture, I'm doing good things.

But if I'M right, and there IS such a thing as rape culture, then you're making it easier for rapists to justify their decision. When it would be so easy to make one little change in the things you say to stop it.

So yeah, actually. I'm feeling pretty good about this one :)

Extraintrovert:

axlryder:
A LOT of woman will say "no" when they're entirely reciprocating your feelings. It's just the reality of how some people communicate during or before sex. There's a complete and total difference between a "yes" no and a "no" no and anyone with a brain and an ounce of experience can tell the difference. come on. The body will be obviously willing and aroused, the "no" will usually be playing or lasciviously spoken, she'll probably be smiling and seem happy, she'll undoubtedly not be showing any signs of nervousness or fear, she'll most likely reciprocate your physical gestures and at no time will she ever forcibly try and resist or squirm. A "no" no. Her voice will be flat, serious. That alone should be enough to tell.

I know I'm going to regret getting involved in a discussion that's been going for days, but I felt a powerful urge to respond to this comment and inform you that real life is not a porno.

Seriously, what the fuck. If someone says "no", female or male, then always, ALWAYS assume that they mean "no", because you are neither a mind reader nor the protagonist of a hentai. And if you are ever in a sexual situation with someone who does want to behave that way, then it needs to be thoroughly discussed before anything starts, so that everything is, in industry parlance, safe, sane and consensual.

You don't seem to be outright malicious, but neither do you seem to understand exactly what rape is, nor how rape culture skews perceptions of both victims and how otherwise decent people can become rapists unknowingly. You should really read the second part of zefiris' comment, because it explains such things in more detail than I ever could.

First off, obnoxiously bolding, cap-locking and underlining doesn't make your point anymore valid. You can do it, but it looks stupid.

Now, it would appear you don't seem outright malicious, but your self-righteous attitude has blinded you to the way some people just act and your ability to read their intentions. Just because you subscribe to a certain perspective doesn't mean you're objectively correct in it. The reality is that you're not, and you telling me what a previous girlfriend and my current GF really wanted when they undeniably would have been confused or even angry if I had actually stopped when they said "no", is presumptuous and rude. They certainly never felt raped (or maybe "oh god, that was amazing" means "oh god, I was just raped" to you). Even if you would consider it rape, it matters not to me, as I'm only concerned with actions that actually hurt people. Oh, but maybe now you're going to imply you knew my ex and gf better than I did/do because you've got a position that applies to all situations regardless of context. I myself have said "no" but carried on because my girlfriend kept going. I certainly didn't feel raped and I wouldn't call her a rapist based on the situation. It's because: context. She knew what I wanted in that situation because my body language and physical gestures were reciprocating and there was clearly no tension or resistance or indecision (emotional or otherwise). Don't try and apply your perspective as a moral catch-all to specific situations you haven't been in. Personally, I don't care about the definition of rape or how it applies here. I've lied, stolen and done various other "wrong" things without really doing anything I or anyone I've talked to would consider morally wrong outside of technically having committed the aforementioned actions (downloading a program I rightfully bought the first time around but got screwed over by adobe and told I was SOL, lying about not having more money when I got mugged, speeding to get my friend to the hospital because the ambulance was too far out and it only took me a couple minutes, etc.)

Also, if you're going to say "but reinforcing that mentality in your ex will only perpetuate the rape culture!" then you're insulting her intelligence. We already had a conversation sort of dealing with that, and she basically said she won't date or have sex with emotionally insensitive idiots, so she's not concerned about putting herself in a position where she could get forced upon (it took us about 8 months to have sex for the first time). My current GF I will most likely marry, so I don't think I have to worry about this happening with other guys. In other words, no one is doing or is going to do anything they don't want to do without someone literally forcing them. It's all mutual shit. You can hate or deny that all you want, but it's reality. Oh, but god forbid I kiss my girl on the neck when she's doing taxes and she playfully says "not now" and I keep going and we end up doing it without her verbalizing "okay let's do it" despite her giving me every other physical queue that says "okay let's do it". Oh good lord, that happened just the other week! Guess that makes me a scaaaaary rapist. *rolls eyes*

Also, Zefiris' comment is biased as shit and I'm not going to read the rest of it for fear of going off the handle.

Whatever happened to sticks and stones? Has the world really gotten to a point where being offended isn't ok?

John Funk:

Misandry exists for sure, but... "sexism against men," er, not really. Part of any "ism" is that it needs to come from the party with institutional power. Otherwise, it's just prejudice or bigotry, since it's not being enforced via societal pressures. A woman being misandrist is not sexist, it's prejudiced.

I hate that definition of sexism it seems so weasely. There are women who have power over men, and if they mistreat them because of them being men, wouldn't that be sexist?

...yes, it does. That is by DEFINITION what it means.

What is legal and what isn't has nothing to do with the privilege of the person reading it, unless they're a judge, which I'm not.

John Funk:

Here, let me quote it for you:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress cannot make laws against it. You legally have the right to say whatever you want.

This does not give you the right to have people listen to you.

I never argued otherwise, you said people don't have the right to make such jokes (right here http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.353180-The-Big-Picture-Not-Okay?page=13#14032380 ), and that's not true. Although it looks like we're in agreement on that.

John Funk:

And your sticking your head in the sand and refusing to acknowledge that your desperate clinging to being able to say *one terrible word* is actually *hurting people* doesn't make it any less true.

No one has demonstrated that me telling rape jokes hurts people who don't hear them.

IankBailey:
Whatever happened to sticks and stones? Has the world really gotten to a point where being offended isn't ok?

This has nothing to do with being "offended."

Uber Waddles:
I'll tackle these both at once. Not at all, and I think I really miscommunicated what I wanted to get across with my message. First off, I don't stand for the use of those words. I dont use them, and I encourage everyone I know not to use them. But the funny thing about that is, when coupled up against strangers, most don't give a flying damn.

Like I go on to say later in the arguement, the community is fractured. People don't care how their actions make us look. You cant change people who are indignant. And this is part of a greater societal change. Most people have accepted that "words are words" (usually people who are not victims to them). And as such, freely spout off words that would not be acceptable. Imagine how many times you have seen the N word, C word, fag, gay, raped, and jew (as a derogatory word) in the last 5 years. The usage rate is alarming, but trending. Its a greater societal thing, and thats not going to change.

While you may be correct in pointing out that most strangers wouldn't care about what they're saying or how it effect how it makes us look, I don't think it is an insignificant thing for Bob (or you and I for that matter) to say that we disagree with the current status of our community. I do, however, think it is a bad thing to sit idly while these things go on, especially when these things are in the pulic eye. Our community already has a pretty bad public image, so when a story like what Aris did comes along we have to be vocal in saying that we disagree with this, we have to take to the forums, to the coments, to (and this pain me to say) our social networks, or to, say our opinion-based web shows that we may be fortunate enough to be paid to produce for a popular gaming website. I cannot think of any instance when speaking out against immorality was an insignificant act. Furthermore, I've seen a few posts that read something to the effect of "You know, I've been using these words. I should stop." Now, I will certainly yield that the entire population of video game enthusiests will not be effected by our efforts or by Bob's, but we will, and have, made a difference with SOME of them. And, while it may be like throwing a peble into the sea, at least, at the end of the day, we've thrown a peble. Our action will not change ALL of the community, our inaction, however, will not change ANY of it.

Now if you'll excuse me, I seem to be channeling Thomas Payne a little bit, a sure sign of my growing fatigue. Goodnight.

Overall it doesn't seem like moral or political issues and nerd culture are compatible, unless it has to do with government subservience or the threat of taking away piracy. I don't really know why I feel that way but it seems like people within the gaming community specially feels extremely uncomfortable when anything is to politically correct for them, whether it involves not being able to kill children in Skyrim or discussions about sexism for example.

mandalorian2298:
Snip

Thank you for posting this.

Dang, this video should be required viewing for anyone looking to create/renew an Xbox Live account.

axlryder:
well it wouldn't be stolen if they asked for it, now would it? It's not like the dude is going to rape her or ask if he can rape her. He's gonna be like "you want to have sex?" or some other phrasing which explicitly indicates having sex. If he just forces himself onto her or never really gets "consent" and she's too drunk to do much, than it's undoubtedly intentional rape, but I doubt that's what he's talking about.

So if you get really drunk and someone asks "Hey, can I borrow some change?" as she reaches for your wallet, then it's not stealing anymore? Or, if you're so drunk you can't even identify the person, and you happen to say yes simply because you don't understand what's going on, then if she takes your wallet, that's also not stealing, because you have provided (albeit obviously unintended) consent for her to do so? Also because if you get drunk, that means it's your fault if someone steals from you, as opposed to us faulting the one who stole from you (you know, because unlike getting drunk, stealing is actually a crime)?

What's more, you're under the assumption that the guy is intentionally preying on the woman who's drunk, when that's not at all always the case (he might not even realize she's blasted or be a little drunk himself).

Then he (or if the sexes are reversed, she) ought to figure that out BEFORE having sex. Also, if the person who later considers him/herself to be the victim is somehow liable for his/her actions because (s)he shouldn't have gotten drunk if (s)he didn't want sex, then shouldn't the person who is later considered the aggressor also be held liable for pressuring someone to have sex with him/her, even if (s)he's also drunk? Why argue that only one of the two parties involved should be expected to control his/her behavior?

How are the emotional consequences on the woman's part different if he wasn't drunk? It's not as though she'd know if he was sober.

Because it means he took advantage of her when she was too drunk to say no to his advances. Arguing that there wouldn't be any emotional consequences to being taken advantage of while in a compromised state is frankly the most ridiculous thing I've seen so far in this discussion.

minuialear:

So if you get really drunk and someone asks "Hey, can I borrow some change?" as she reaches for your wallet, then it's not stealing anymore? Or, if you're so drunk you can't even identify the person, and you happen to say yes simply because you don't understand what's going on, then if she takes your wallet, that's also not stealing, because you have provided (albeit obviously unintended) consent for her to do so? Also because if you get drunk, that means it's your fault if someone steals from you, as opposed to us faulting the one who stole from you (you know, because unlike getting drunk, stealing is actually a crime)?

no, because "borrowing change" doesn't translate to taking all your money. You don't say "can I feel your breast?" and then have sex with someone. You also have failed to properly equate the two situations. The proper example might be "hey can I have all your money?". Also, you're saying "IF" you're so drunk. That alone only serves to reinforce my point. Being drunk is a spectrum and not always a black and white "okay, they're clearly drunk right now and not in a good frame of mind". I never once said "this is okay". That wasn't the point of my comment (which clearly you were too busy trying to pick a fight to realize).

minuialear:

Then he (or if the sexes are reversed, she) ought to figure that out BEFORE having sex. Also, if the person who later considers him/herself to be the victim is somehow liable for his/her actions because (s)he shouldn't have gotten drunk if (s)he didn't want sex, then shouldn't the person who is later considered the aggressor also be held liable for pressuring someone to have sex with him/her, even if (s)he's also drunk? Why argue that only one of the two parties involved should be expected to control his/her behavior?

Have you ever worked in a bar? It's NOT easy to figure out how wasted some people are at all. Believe me, they trained us specifically to spot people who hide their intoxication well and it's still easy to miss. Point is, if you're drunk and horny yourself, you're not always going to be able to figure it out. Sure, it's the responsible thing to do, but that doesn't reflect reality and to simply call someone scum for not realizing how drunk someone was isn't always fair. Again, it's not a black and white issue. There are variables involved and you can't always just point the finger at one person. Also, "pressure?" You assume pressuring was involved. Another variable which you're inserting on your own. Simply propositioning isn't pressuring by default. What's more, no one said only one party involved should be responsible for their behavior. Though, if both parties are significantly intoxicated, it does essentially negate any rape charges that can be brought if the sex is "consensual". It's one of the reasons it's so difficult to pin an actual rape charge in a scenario like this (involving one party being sober). Anyone can simply say they were drunk.

minuialear:

Because it means he took advantage of her when she was too drunk to say no to his advances. Arguing that there wouldn't be any emotional consequences to being taken advantage of while in a compromised state is frankly the most ridiculous thing I've seen so far in this discussion.

That's completely idiotic. First of all, I never said there won't be consequences. You're putting words in my mouth again which instantly damages your credibility. My point is questioning how she's magically more damaged because he took advantage of her (and we're assuming this is a scenario where he DID take advantage of her). We're speaking of a sober guy approaching her in a bar and essentially propositioning her for sex without forcing(potentially not even realizing how drunk she is). How would she know!? He didn't announce he was sober. It's not like he's going to go up to her after and be like "oh babe, btw, I was sober when we fucked so I basically raped you, ttyl!" I wasn't arguing there WOULDN'T be any emotional consequences (she could find out, she could remember the sex or him being sober, he might have an STD, she might get preggers, etc. etc.). More to the point I was getting at: if she agrees to sex while under the influence (sex she potentially won't even remember) then said consequences most likely won't be nearly as severe as a dude ripping her clothes of, beating her into submission and then having penetrative sex with her all while she's screaming for him to stop. Arguing otherwise is basically saying "nope! Rape is rape! It's all the same shit!" Both actions are wrong (if he is indeed taking advantage) but it's not the same thing and the consequences can and most likely will be different. However, with taking someone's money, in that scenario their money all gets taken always. There are no variables in the consequences. They're left with an empty wallet. End of story.

Most importantly, you're missing the point of my comment entirely. The point was: his example is shit and doesn't effectively express the potential complexities of the situation he was trying to represent. I explicitly stated that. You've done nothing to refute that point so you're completely wasting my time. I even explicitly stated how I wasn't sharing my personal views on the situation, but, again, it looks like you were too busy seeing red to care. Go pick fights with someone else.

Two Words: Rush Limbaugh. 40+ sponsors have left him since he vomited his verbal sewage across the airwaves, and good for them. Sexual harassment in any context is not okay, but it is particularly disgusting in politics. We have a long way to go as gamers, but I sometimes wonder if politicians aren't trying to hit the bottom of the barrel instead of rising above it. And if our leaders are striving to hit bottom, who will protect us from hatemongering and verbal sewage attacks?

Dracondis:
Two Words: Rush Limbaugh. 40+ sponsors have left him since he vomited his verbal sewage across the airwaves, and good for them. Sexual harassment in any context is not okay, but it is particularly disgusting in politics. We have a long way to go as gamers, but I sometimes wonder if politicians aren't trying to hit the bottom of the barrel instead of rising above it. And if our leaders are striving to hit bottom, who will protect us from hatemongering and verbal sewage attacks?

Well...not to say that political debate hasn't sunk rather low.

But Limbaugh isn't really a politician; he's a pundit. Which is to say, a talking head with no real power beyond being loud.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here