The Big Picture: Tropes vs. MovieBob

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . . . 29 NEXT
 

Machine Man 1992:

itsthesheppy:

Machine Man 1992:

Well, if negative reinforcement doesn't work, how about positive reinforcement? Surely there are plenty of female game designers and producers out there, maybe instead of complaining, Anita could say, use the loads of money she has to finance a game? Just a thought.

You, like many others, are falling into the trap of suggesting that you have better ideas for this woman about how she could be spending her time. That perhaps she should be working directly with game developers rather than being all uppity and making noise you would rather not have to hear. You may or may not be aware that you're doing it, but it's known in the feminist parlance as 'mansplaining'.

Mansplaining is when a guy tells a woman (or anyone else, I suppose) that he has a better idea about what she is trying to do, or say. Putting himself in the automatic position of authority and talking down to that individual, educating them about the err of their ways or the superior way of going about something. Even if the intent is altruistic (I have no reason to believe you have anything but the best intentions in mind), it is condescending.

There is a place in the world for commentary, negative and positive. Pointing out the negative aspects of a thing promotes a cultural conversation about it, and this is a conversation that we all should be having. It's a conversation people want to hear. She only asked for $6k to produce the series, and given what little I know about the costs involved in producing videos, it didn't seem entirely unreasonable. That she's had more than $150k donated is indicative of the fact that people want to hear what she has to say and it is not my place, or yours, to tell her what she should and should not do. That's up to her.

If you feel your idea is vastly superior to hers, and if you care enough about it, back up your own rhetoric and start a fund of your own, and then you can do whatever you like with it.

Oh, so just because I have dick that automatically makes my suggestions invalid? The woman makes roughly 400% more money than she needs to make her little video series, I'm offering a means for which the extra 144K can be used to fix the problems she sees. I mean god forbid she displays some agency besides bitching about on the internet and waiting for someone else to fix these problems.

See, what you're doing is exactly what detractors of the feminists use to strawperson the movement: someone who happens to be a man makes a suggestion on how they could accomplish their goal, and people like you jump down their throats for "mansplaining".

Don't post shit on the internet and expect people to refrain from criticizing it.

I went ahead and bolded for you the parts where you're doing that thing I said you were doing that you claim you're not doing.

There's a few critical points where you're not really getting it. First of all is the supposition that your suggestions are necessary or even wanted. Why exactly do you think you have a better idea than she does? Not that you respect her at all, of course, or her "little" video series, which you are so far above and wiser than, of course. She has nothing to teach you, no. Nothing she could want to say would be of any interested to you because, haha, silly girl, you get it already. You're thinking two, three steps ahead!

See, you're not a bad guy. You're just helping her. She needs your help; and not just yours, everyone's! $150k+ is a lot of money and we certainly expect that she will know what to do with it! So of course you and so many others jump in with your helpful solutions; utterly unsolicited, completely spontaneous, dripping with condescension.

Nobody said your dick makes you opinions invalid. What I'm saying is that because you are male, society has been telling us, largely through the bullhorn of pop culture but through other sources as well, that we are more capable. We are smarter, bigger, stronger, faster, more capable, more reliable, more emotionally secure. Better leaders, better critical thinkers, more solid decision-makers... than women. This has been hammered home throughout childhood, adolescence, and adulthood, bombarded from every angle. And the end result is, a woman asks for $6k to make a video series about a subject she is passionate for, recieves a lot more than that amount from her supporters and fans, and the legions of men all across the internet, among whom you are a card-carrying member, rise up in resistance because of course she can't be trusted with all that money, she's going to screw it all up and waste everyone's time!

And the best part is you are so fully indoctrinated to the idea of male primacy, as it is the very soup you and I both swim in, that at the very moment you are reading these words, they sound like absolute madness to you. And that's why we need videos like the one she's going to be producing. Lot's more. Because the "men are superior" message is still out there, in force, and it's deafening. Whatever noise can challenge it is sorely needed.

itsthesheppy:

Machine Man 1992:

itsthesheppy:

Video series like the one there is so much resistance to are very much in line with what you are suggesting 'they' do. Raise their voices about the inequality.

Well, if negative reinforcement doesn't work, how about positive reinforcement? Surely there are plenty of female game designers and producers out there, maybe instead of complaining, Anita could say, use the loads of money she has to finance a game? Just a thought.

You, like many others, are falling into the trap of suggesting that you have better ideas for this woman about how she could be spending her time. That perhaps she should be working directly with game developers rather than being all uppity and making noise you would rather not have to hear. You may or may not be aware that you're doing it, but it's known in the feminist parlance as 'mansplaining'.

Mansplaining is when a guy tells a woman (or anyone else, I suppose) that he has a better idea about what she is trying to do, or say. Putting himself in the automatic position of authority and talking down to that individual, educating them about the err of their ways or the superior way of going about something. Even if the intent is altruistic (I have no reason to believe you have anything but the best intentions in mind), it is condescending.

There is a place in the world for commentary, negative and positive. Pointing out the negative aspects of a thing promotes a cultural conversation about it, and this is a conversation that we all should be having. It's a conversation people want to hear. She only asked for $6k to produce the series, and given what little I know about the costs involved in producing videos, it didn't seem entirely unreasonable. That she's had more than $150k donated is indicative of the fact that people want to hear what she has to say and it is not my place, or yours, to tell her what she should and should not do. That's up to her.

If you feel your idea is vastly superior to hers, and if you care enough about it, back up your own rhetoric and start a fund of your own, and then you can do whatever you like with it.

Machine Man 1992:

Oh, so just because I have dick that automatically makes my suggestions invalid? The woman makes roughly 400% more money than she needs to make her little video series, I'm offering a means for which the extra 144K can be used to fix the problems she sees. I mean god forbid she displays some agency besides bitching about on the internet and waiting for someone else to fix these problems.

See, what you're doing is exactly what detractors of the feminists use to strawperson the movement: someone who happens to be a man makes a suggestion on how they could accomplish their goal, and people like you jump down their throats for "mansplaining".

Don't post shit on the internet and expect people to refrain from criticizing it.

DOWN WITH THE MANOCENTRIC MALEOCRACY!

image

"Mansplaining" LMFAO. That has to be one of the dumbest things I've heard in quite some time.

Apparently these neofeminists have never heard of an ad hominem fallacy. Then again maybe logic is just another tool of the oppressive patriarchy. LOL. OH GOD, MY SIDES HURT FROM THE LAUGHTER.

I think Nietzsche explained my sentiment best when he said that "at times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid."

SonOfVoorhees:
Forget games, they are not the issue. Aim your guns at magazines and models that are airbrushed to perfection and cause real woman problems with there bodies. Games are unreal and i dont know of any woman that feel insecure due to Lara or beat em up person. Magazines on the other hand cause woman to have eating disorders and problems with there figures and trying to be like that airbrushed unrealistic bimbo. Atleast in games they are obviously unrealistic. Magazine models look like reality to woman.

This escapee speaks the truth....

Now watch it buried in the inevitable flamewar.

ReiverCorrupter:
Apparently these neofeminists have never heard of an ad hominem fallacy. Then again maybe logic is just another tool of the oppressive patriarchy. LOL. OH GOD, MY SIDES HURT FROM THE LAUGHTER.

Apparently neither have you.

ReiverCorrupter:

"Mansplaining" LMFAO. That has to be one of the dumbest things I've heard in quite some time.

Apparently these neofeminists have never heard of an ad hominem fallacy. Then again maybe logic is just another tool of the oppressive patriarchy. LOL. OH GOD, MY SIDES HURT FROM THE LAUGHTER.

I think Nietzsche explained my sentiment best when he said that "at times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid."

I cannot thank you enough for the support you're giving my case. I am not even being the least bit sarcastic or tongue-in-cheek. It can be difficult, sometimes, to give examples or talk about the 'problem' if it's not sitting right there for people to see. If you would be so kind, please continue posting so that I can use you as an example of the problem I'm talking about.

DrVornoff:

ReiverCorrupter:
Apparently these neofeminists have never heard of an ad hominem fallacy. Then again maybe logic is just another tool of the oppressive patriarchy. LOL. OH GOD, MY SIDES HURT FROM THE LAUGHTER.

Apparently neither have you.

Lol. If I said said feminists were wrong because they're feminists that would be an argument ad hominem. Pointing out that someone is using an argument ad hominem, however, is not itself an ad hominem argument.

itsthesheppy:
I cannot thank you enough for the support you're giving my case. I am not even being the least bit sarcastic or tongue-in-cheek. It can be difficult, sometimes, to give examples or talk about the 'problem' if it's not sitting right there for people to see. If you would be so kind, please continue posting so that I can use you as an example of the problem I'm talking about.

If it's any help, I appreciate the presence of another media-literate person in this argument. If we ever meet in real life, remind me to buy you a beer.

It just astounds me how many guys are so weak in their masculinity that they feel threatened by feminism. Then they go and make utterly boilerplate, pedestrian observations about mass media that the rest of us were making over a decade ago and think they're the fucking George Gerbner.

ReiverCorrupter:
Lol. If I said said feminists were wrong because they're feminists that would be an argument ad hominem.

Which you more or less keep doing. Every other sentence out of you can basically be boiled down to, "Chicks, amirite?" I haven't once seen you display any significant insight.

Tell me: have you actually read any books on feminist theory? Do you know any feminists personally? Perhaps name them among your friends?

DrVornoff:

itsthesheppy:
I cannot thank you enough for the support you're giving my case. I am not even being the least bit sarcastic or tongue-in-cheek. It can be difficult, sometimes, to give examples or talk about the 'problem' if it's not sitting right there for people to see. If you would be so kind, please continue posting so that I can use you as an example of the problem I'm talking about.

If it's any help, I appreciate the presence of another media-literate person in this argument. If we ever meet in real life, remind me to buy you a beer.

It just astounds me how many guys are so weak in their masculinity that they feel threatened by feminism. Then they go and make utterly boilerplate, pedestrian observations about mass media that the rest of us were making over a decade ago and think they're the fucking George Gerbner.

I'm not sure it's a problem of being insecure in their masculinity. In fact, I think it may be the opposite; they are way too secure in it.

Not just in their self-identity as a male, but rather in the identity of 'masculine' that our society has built. The image of the pitch-perfect father figure, the King of the Castle gentleman who Knows Best. The king of the hill, master-of-the-household, alpha dog superior being. Our culture knows that these identities sell. We want to be that. We like to hear it, and we'll pay through the nose to hear it again and again.

The problem is, by and large we believe it. We buy into it, the image that we are superior, that we deserve better, and we weave it into our world. Feminine qualities are demonized and made to be synonymous with 'weak' and 'inferior'. Effeminate men are disrespected, emotions and deemed unmanly, a man who follows the directions of a women is whipped, or made a fool of; something to pity. And this message is everywhere and fed to us in a constant loop very nearly from birth.

So I don't think the problem is insecurity; it's over-security. Men who have bought in so fully to the fantasy their culture has given them that they've made it reality, or at least their reality. A little insecurity might actually go a long way to making things better for everyone.

itsthesheppy:
The problem is, by and large we believe it. We buy into it, the image that we are superior, that we deserve better, and we weave it into our world. Feminine qualities are demonized and made to be synonymous with 'weak' and 'inferior'. Effeminate men are disrespected, emotions and deemed unmanly, a man who follows the directions of a women is whipped, or made a fool of; something to pity. And this message is everywhere and fed to us in a constant loop very nearly from birth.

I'm not disagreeing with this assessment, but I do think it's insecurity because of how defensive they are. If they truly believed they were superior, they would probably be more dismissive. Instead, they're being panicky and hostile, quick to shoot down anyone who says the issue of objectification is real or that games are somehow part of it. They come up with the flimsiest excuses imaginable, and half of them don't even seem to believe the crap they're saying. They fold the instant they're challenged directly by someone more knowledgeable than them.

A person who is secure in their position wouldn't be seeing threats were none exist so consistently.

Wow. Nineteen pages in less than 24 hours.

Umm... I'm sorry. I agree with the vast majority of what Bob says here. But I do have to raise a point. Body dysmorphia, though more common in women, does exist in men and is worsened by the media and societal pressures.
My scales read 220lb. The electodes say 10% body fat. The weights at the gym say I can bench press about 220lb. The mirror shows me Dr Robotnic. A sphere of flab with 4 matchsticks poking out the side. Every male character in any game or TV programme I've seen that doesn't have a sixpack is either an idiot, an embarrassment, evil or Mario (YMMV on whether he's an idiot, an embarrassment or evil).
I know that women are SORELY damaged by the video game industry. I know that we do still live in a disgustingly male dominated world. I'm trying to do my part to fix that wherever I can.
But I really don't like it when I'm told that my problem doesn't exist because someone else has it worse.
I'm sorry. I'll go away now.

DrVornoff:

itsthesheppy:
The problem is, by and large we believe it. We buy into it, the image that we are superior, that we deserve better, and we weave it into our world. Feminine qualities are demonized and made to be synonymous with 'weak' and 'inferior'. Effeminate men are disrespected, emotions and deemed unmanly, a man who follows the directions of a women is whipped, or made a fool of; something to pity. And this message is everywhere and fed to us in a constant loop very nearly from birth.

I'm not disagreeing with this assessment, but I do think it's insecurity because of how defensive they are. If they truly believed they were superior, they would probably be more dismissive. Instead, they're being panicky and hostile, quick to shoot down anyone who says the issue of objectification is real or that games are somehow part of it. They come up with the flimsiest excuses imaginable, and half of them don't even seem to believe the crap they're saying. They fold the instant they're challenged directly by someone more knowledgeable than them.

A person who is secure in their position wouldn't be seeing threats were none exist so consistently.

Entirely possible. I just feel that what I've been personally seeing is a lot of dudes acting superior and dismissive, as you say. Talking down about the project, saying how she's wasting time and money, and how their ideas are better. curiously, all of their ideas involve her shutting up.

BTw: You might find this video enriching-

http://vimeo.com/44117178

Well fuck, a Bob video I can't dispute or disagree with in any way. Does this mean Bob is going back to his old days of not sucking as opposed to spewing his arrogant, ignorant bullshit anymore?

Is it to much to say I'm crossing my fingers? I mean, I'm a Sonic fan, and everytime a new game is announced I allow myself to hope, and every time I'm crushed. So don't do this to me like they do, Bob. Don't raise me up only to push me back down ='c

Also, to remain ontopic I guess, I kinda like when people comment with stuff like "well sure, but still this!" like as if pointing out an exception to what was stated completely disproves it. Yes, men have body dismorphic issues too. That doesn't mean dick, sorry. This isn't a science, it's sociology: showing one example of how this doesn't apply doesn't make it untrue.

itsthesheppy:
Entirely possible. I just feel that what I've been personally seeing is a lot of dudes acting superior and dismissive, as you say. Talking down about the project, saying how she's wasting time and money, and how their ideas are better. curiously, all of their ideas involve her shutting up.

Well none of them are really interested in debating the fact or objective criteria or trying to understand how and why different feel about this. They just want their side to win. They've dug their heels in, and at this point giving so much as an inch of ground would be a sign of weakness and a failure because they didn't get 100% of the what they wanted.

BTw: You might find this video enriching-

http://vimeo.com/44117178

I'm pleased to see other men standing up and saying that this kind of behavior is not okay.

... Why does no one like Mileena? Why? I just... I don't understand!

I fail to see why saying video games are sexist against woman merits 6,000 dollars and 3 hours, when this problem is just the branch of the tree called "Writing in Video games." See my arguments are:

a) Most of the issues sexism, racism and stereotypes that video games have are in fighting games, you know, the games with the least writing besides sports and racing games.
b) Games with plenty of writing in them have better characters and better female ones. Dragon Age, Portal, Mass Effect are examples.
c) The problem is video game designers are lazy and don't take the risk to make a female or black characters since it is just as easy to make it Nathan Drake and possibly get more money from it.
d) There are no wrong tropes, just tropes that are used badly.
e) Women can like playing with pretty ladies, it's just that they may have different standards for what a pretty lady is from what games offer them.

I feel many gamers feel threatened by feminists ruining their enjoyment by changing things, or telling them they hate women when they don't necessarily do.

ex275w:
I fail to see why saying video games are sexist against woman merits 6,000 dollars and 3 hours, when this problem is just the branch of the tree called "Writing in Video games." See my arguments are:

a) Most of the issues sexism, racism and stereotypes that video games have are in fighting games, you know, the games with the least writing besides sports and racing games.
b) Games with plenty of writing in them have better characters and better female ones. Dragon Age, Portal, Mass Effect are examples.
c) The problem is video game designers are lazy and don't take the risk to make a female or black characters since it is just as easy to make it Nathan Drake and possibly get more money from it.
d) There are no wrong tropes, just tropes that are used badly.
e) Women can like playing with pretty ladies, it's just that they may have different standards for what a pretty lady is from what games offer them.

I feel many gamers feel threatened by feminists ruining their enjoyment by changing things, or telling them they hate women when they don't necessarily do.

Agreed.

Use_Imagination_here:
Yeah about that...

http://www.livescience.com/9038-attractive-women-hired.html

Hey a case of discrimination against women MEN have NOTHING to do with.
Hurray.

Lieju:
So now you're saying that men do not care about what women look like?
Okay, let's say men will be sexually aroused by anything with breasts.
Fine. Doesn't have anything to do with the fact that it would be nice having wellrounded, diverse female characters.

BTW, I need to ask; do you know what 'objectification' means?
That's the problem, not that some people find them attractive.

Actually, I don't care. This discussion is going around in circles, so I'm rapidly losing interest. I'll admit you're right: men don't care what women look like, and if we start to worry about how women are protrayed in media it will just lead to a world where women are just forced to be hidden away and treated like objects. Of course, then you'd have the people who have a fetish for totally covered women, so I guess we'll be better off shipping all women to Mars.

Then we can reach an understanding.

I'll agree that many games could use better character development in their stories, and the end result of that would be a diverse female cast. I wont go as far as saying Princess Peach needs more depth and meaning, but games that are more story driven certainly do.

Yes, objectification is the core of the problem, but I don't see how that can ever be meaningfully addressed outside of ensuring women have basic right, education, and freedom that everyone else has. My own brother is nothing but a sexist pig who views women as not much more than things, and he's extremely intelligent having graduated from nuke school (3rd hardest school in the country), and is currently working on his graduate degree in psychology. Even my wife who has a heavy math, cs and language background, and can talk circles around him on subtle philosophy topics, but can't convince him that women are for more than sex. And he's the one who doesn't really play video games, and views his computers as a glorified word processor.

It's not even breasts that men are after when they are just running on auto. I have a friend, Dorian, who really didn't like her chest. Practiced extreme binding until her mastectomy. One day when I was out with her and some friend an acquaintance of mine asked me if she was available and said some pretty lurid things as well. Men like that are after something, but breasts aren't the part that is required.

You understand my main point which is that this is a slippery slop that doesn't have a desirable conclusion when we argue about how women look.

itsthesheppy:

Sexual Harassment Panda:

BNguyen:

there are times in our society where the continued allowance of free speech to just anyone and harm society and culture if not moderated, such as this woman's videos. She continues to talk of "bad character design or sexist character design" while mentioning nothing of why it is that way or that its by someone's RIGHT to FREE SPEECH to allow it to exist at all. She is condemning one form of free speech, in this case a man of group of males' right to create sexy female characters while promoting every female needs to be perfect and anything else is wrong because I don't see value in any character that doesn't meet my criteria.

You're giving her too much credit. She's not an important political figure, she makes youtube videos. She is just another opinionated person on the internet, really, she doesn't need to be silenced. Freedom of speech is really non-negotiable here.

150k does feel like an inordinate amount of pay-off for what is being produced, especially if you're like me and don't think there is much substance in anything she has done as of yet(not a big fan of the tone either, tbh...horses for courses)...I could see how that could rub someone the wrong way.

At the same time though...it's half of what Wayne Rooney makes in a frickin' week...it's a crazy world.

Off to see Prometheus, peace.

Also, let's never forget she only asked for $6k, and the other 97-98% of what she's made was freely donated by people who want to support her. Not like you can blame her for that. Even if there was something to blame her for, which there is not.

Urm, blameless might be strong. Has it not been established that certain sites were spammed with this in an attempt to gain attention and stir up some contraversy?

I don't think the reason a lot of people don't like her is because she gots paid, and I don't think that most of the men criticising her are just jumping on a feminist because they must be silenced. I really doubt that it's because she's a feminist, it seems likely to me that it's because she has a generally shitty disposition...which she does.

She really could explore whatever issues she needs to without the bile, and without the judgemental and superior attitude. She could also stand to acknowledge when she's making guesses as to reasons and motivations, because it seems that she feels she knows everything there is to know.

Point being. I reckon a different approach(or woman at the helm) would have garnered a very different reaction. Think more Louis Theroux, rather than Michael Moore.

DrVornoff:

BNguyen:
so apparently you haven't seen even one of her videos

Yes I have. Which is why I think you're overreacting.

And yes, anyone who tries to promote their own brand of self-righteousness in order to limit the scope of others

Like you.

She's basically telling people that any character format that includes even the smallest hint of sex appeal is wrong.

In which video does she explicitly say that? Because all I got out of her arguments was, "This is getting really tiresome. Could we have some variety please?"

Sexual Harassment Panda:
You're giving her too much credit. She's not an important political figure, she makes youtube videos. She is just another opinionated person on the internet, really, she doesn't need to be silenced. Freedom of speech is really non-negotiable here.

Ah, another sane person, thank you. Isn't it great being secure enough as a man that you don't feel threatened by things that have no impact on you?

Paradoxrifts:
I'm ashamed that I left Isaiah Mustafa off the list of sexually objectified male figures in popular media outside video games. A great example of a female sexual fantasy being re-appropriated and used to sell something to men and their female partners. Thanks for reminding me.

Oh hey, you're back. Have you given any thought to my question? You know, who told you what feminism is about, because you obviously didn't do any homework yourself?

Also, the Old Spice commercial guy... You're among friends here, you can admit it: You want to fuck the guy just as much as we do.

Uh...ok.

You give me too much credit, 'cause I'm terrified of getting cervix cancer.

itsthesheppy:

Machine Man 1992:

itsthesheppy:

You, like many others, are falling into the trap of suggesting that you have better ideas for this woman about how she could be spending her time. That perhaps she should be working directly with game developers rather than being all uppity and making noise you would rather not have to hear. You may or may not be aware that you're doing it, but it's known in the feminist parlance as 'mansplaining'.

Mansplaining is when a guy tells a woman (or anyone else, I suppose) that he has a better idea about what she is trying to do, or say. Putting himself in the automatic position of authority and talking down to that individual, educating them about the err of their ways or the superior way of going about something. Even if the intent is altruistic (I have no reason to believe you have anything but the best intentions in mind), it is condescending.

There is a place in the world for commentary, negative and positive. Pointing out the negative aspects of a thing promotes a cultural conversation about it, and this is a conversation that we all should be having. It's a conversation people want to hear. She only asked for $6k to produce the series, and given what little I know about the costs involved in producing videos, it didn't seem entirely unreasonable. That she's had more than $150k donated is indicative of the fact that people want to hear what she has to say and it is not my place, or yours, to tell her what she should and should not do. That's up to her.

If you feel your idea is vastly superior to hers, and if you care enough about it, back up your own rhetoric and start a fund of your own, and then you can do whatever you like with it.

Oh, so just because I have dick that automatically makes my suggestions invalid? The woman makes roughly 400% more money than she needs to make her little video series, I'm offering a means for which the extra 144K can be used to fix the problems she sees. I mean god forbid she displays some agency besides bitching about on the internet and waiting for someone else to fix these problems.

See, what you're doing is exactly what detractors of the feminists use to strawperson the movement: someone who happens to be a man makes a suggestion on how they could accomplish their goal, and people like you jump down their throats for "mansplaining".

Don't post shit on the internet and expect people to refrain from criticizing it.

I went ahead and bolded for you the parts where you're doing that thing I said you were doing that you claim you're not doing.

There's a few critical points where you're not really getting it. First of all is the supposition that your suggestions are necessary or even wanted. Why exactly do you think you have a better idea than she does? Not that you respect her at all, of course, or her "little" video series, which you are so far above and wiser than, of course. She has nothing to teach you, no. Nothing she could want to say would be of any interested to you because, haha, silly girl, you get it already. You're thinking two, three steps ahead!

See, you're not a bad guy. You're just helping her. She needs your help; and not just yours, everyone's! $150k+ is a lot of money and we certainly expect that she will know what to do with it! So of course you and so many others jump in with your helpful solutions; utterly unsolicited, completely spontaneous, dripping with condescension.

Nobody said your dick makes you opinions invalid. What I'm saying is that because you are male, society has been telling us, largely through the bullhorn of pop culture but through other sources as well, that we are more capable. We are smarter, bigger, stronger, faster, more capable, more reliable, more emotionally secure. Better leaders, better critical thinkers, more solid decision-makers... than women. This has been hammered home throughout childhood, adolescence, and adulthood, bombarded from every angle. And the end result is, a woman asks for $6k to make a video series about a subject she is passionate for, recieves a lot more than that amount from her supporters and fans, and the legions of men all across the internet, among whom you are a card-carrying member, rise up in resistance because of course she can't be trusted with all that money, she's going to screw it all up and waste everyone's time!

And the best part is you are so fully indoctrinated to the idea of male primacy, as it is the very soup you and I both swim in, that at the very moment you are reading these words, they sound like absolute madness to you. And that's why we need videos like the one she's going to be producing. Lot's more. Because the "men are superior" message is still out there, in force, and it's deafening. Whatever noise can challenge it is sorely needed.

Ahem:
You imbecile:
He never told her WHAT to do, he merely suggested, that, since she made a lot more money than she said she needed, that maybe she could use that money to further the cause she claims to support.

It's not because she is a weak and brittle women with a gaping vagina that hinders her from thinking, it's because she came in a shitload of money and using at least some of that money to finance female game developpers would not only make for good PR, but also make her seem legit.
And do her "cause" some FUCKING GOOD
BUT he suggested that she do that IN ADDITION to her videos.

Personally, I want this video to be made, if only, because it will be interesting to see, if she manages to come up with new material that has not been seen before, which, based on the videos I have seen of her, I am not counting on. Not because she is a woman or because she has a vagina, but because experience tells me, that she rarely provides new insight and sometimes sees problems where there are none, and her Bayonetta review seemed to indicate that she doesn't really know a whole lot about video games, however, this does not mean that I do not believe that donating some of that money would be a good idea, since it would be good PR and give her more legitimacy.

But I guess that this is ALL just fucking mansplaining.

He wasn't patronizing, he didn't insist that doing what he suggested was the only correct thing she could do, he merely said that it was in fact something she should consider.
And he is right about that.

And you are, in fact, saying, that HIS suggestion is not wanted nor needed and that he shouldn't even be allowed to voice it, simply because he has a PENIS, which is exactly what you accuse HIM of doing (you accused him as dismissing HER on the grounds of her having a vagina and an XX-configuration).
Hypocrisy much?

Also, it appears you are incredibly sexist. You dismiss others on the grounds that they are born with a y-chromosome, and nothing else. You did not counter his argument, or his suggestion but rather went straight for the balls.
And then you went on to generalize all men in existance, accusing them of being to weak, too strong, too insecure etc.

You attribute a certain gender in general with certain characteristics.
So, based on nothing but their sex, you see it fit to dismiss them all, call them weak, insecure and evil.
Kind of a text-book example of sexism, right?

Sexual Harassment Panda:
Uh...ok.

You give me too much credit, 'cause I'm terrified of getting cervix cancer.

Oops. Sorry about that. It's getting hard to keep track of who's who in this whole goatfuck.

Calibanbutcher:

itsthesheppy:

Machine Man 1992:

Oh, so just because I have dick that automatically makes my suggestions invalid? The woman makes roughly 400% more money than she needs to make her little video series, I'm offering a means for which the extra 144K can be used to fix the problems she sees. I mean god forbid she displays some agency besides bitching about on the internet and waiting for someone else to fix these problems.

See, what you're doing is exactly what detractors of the feminists use to strawperson the movement: someone who happens to be a man makes a suggestion on how they could accomplish their goal, and people like you jump down their throats for "mansplaining".

Don't post shit on the internet and expect people to refrain from criticizing it.

I went ahead and bolded for you the parts where you're doing that thing I said you were doing that you claim you're not doing.

There's a few critical points where you're not really getting it. First of all is the supposition that your suggestions are necessary or even wanted. Why exactly do you think you have a better idea than she does? Not that you respect her at all, of course, or her "little" video series, which you are so far above and wiser than, of course. She has nothing to teach you, no. Nothing she could want to say would be of any interested to you because, haha, silly girl, you get it already. You're thinking two, three steps ahead!

See, you're not a bad guy. You're just helping her. She needs your help; and not just yours, everyone's! $150k+ is a lot of money and we certainly expect that she will know what to do with it! So of course you and so many others jump in with your helpful solutions; utterly unsolicited, completely spontaneous, dripping with condescension.

Nobody said your dick makes you opinions invalid. What I'm saying is that because you are male, society has been telling us, largely through the bullhorn of pop culture but through other sources as well, that we are more capable. We are smarter, bigger, stronger, faster, more capable, more reliable, more emotionally secure. Better leaders, better critical thinkers, more solid decision-makers... than women. This has been hammered home throughout childhood, adolescence, and adulthood, bombarded from every angle. And the end result is, a woman asks for $6k to make a video series about a subject she is passionate for, recieves a lot more than that amount from her supporters and fans, and the legions of men all across the internet, among whom you are a card-carrying member, rise up in resistance because of course she can't be trusted with all that money, she's going to screw it all up and waste everyone's time!

And the best part is you are so fully indoctrinated to the idea of male primacy, as it is the very soup you and I both swim in, that at the very moment you are reading these words, they sound like absolute madness to you. And that's why we need videos like the one she's going to be producing. Lot's more. Because the "men are superior" message is still out there, in force, and it's deafening. Whatever noise can challenge it is sorely needed.

Ahem:
You imbecile:

Just want to let you know I stopped reading right there. Sorry you went through all the effort to type that out but I'm not in the business of giving my time over to people who preface what they're saying with an insult. If you can't respect me enough to have a civil conversation, I shudder to think about how you treat the women you clearly have considerably less respect for.

Have a good one.

Can I ask everyone in this thread something:

Is there something inherently wrong with objectification? As long as its, umm... done in private or it doesn't cause you to treat the person you are objectifing as a lesser human being.

Sounds like a dumb question, but let's just say I don't do a lot of sexual objectification, so I don't know what exactly the concept entails.

ex275w:
Is there something inherently wrong with objectification? As long as its, umm... done in private or it doesn't cause you to treat the person you are objectifing as a lesser human being.

That's the thing though. Objectification results in a greater willingness to treat someone as less than human because that's how you come to see them.

Sexual Harassment Panda:

itsthesheppy:

Sexual Harassment Panda:

You're giving her too much credit. She's not an important political figure, she makes youtube videos. She is just another opinionated person on the internet, really, she doesn't need to be silenced. Freedom of speech is really non-negotiable here.

150k does feel like an inordinate amount of pay-off for what is being produced, especially if you're like me and don't think there is much substance in anything she has done as of yet(not a big fan of the tone either, tbh...horses for courses)...I could see how that could rub someone the wrong way.

At the same time though...it's half of what Wayne Rooney makes in a frickin' week...it's a crazy world.

Off to see Prometheus, peace.

Also, let's never forget she only asked for $6k, and the other 97-98% of what she's made was freely donated by people who want to support her. Not like you can blame her for that. Even if there was something to blame her for, which there is not.

Urm, blameless might be strong. Has it not been established that certain sites were spammed with this in an attempt to gain attention and stir up some contraversy?

I don't think the reason a lot of people don't like her is because she gots paid, and I don't think that most of the men criticising her are just jumping on a feminist because they must be silenced. I really doubt that it's because she's a feminist, it seems likely to me that it's because she has a generally shitty disposition...which she does.

She really could explore whatever issues she needs to without the bile, and without the judgemental and superior attitude. She could also stand to acknowledge when she's making guesses as to reasons and motivations, because it seems that she feels she knows everything there is to know.

Point being. I reckon a different approach(or woman at the helm) would have garnered a very different reaction. Think more Louis Theroux, rather than Michael Moore.

While I won't accuse you of such things, I want to make it clear that one could take away from what you say above to mean "It's not that she's a feminist, it's that she's uppity and saying things I don't like." Notably in the section I bolded above. To you, perhaps that sounds like a perfectly objective stance to take. And perhaps it is that you just don't like her style very much. That's all fine.

Suggesting that there's an ounce of injustice at work because someone you do not personally enjoy is being funded an amount of money by her supporters is simply wrongheaded. There is no problem, there. People are free to spend their money as they please; she will put out work you are free and in fact welcome to ignore at your leisure, whereupon you will in all likelihood to totally unaffected. A butterfly flapping its wings in Argentina will probably have more direct effect on your life.

So the question begs: why involve yourself? Movies are produced all the time with budgets that stagger the imagination, covering topics I myself find repulsive, written, acted and directed by individuals I disagree with. So Iavoid them. There is nothing wrong with the fact that they want to produce stuff that I personally consider shlock, and if people want to spend money to watch it, that's their problem, not mine.

Concisely, where's the beef? Nobody is asking you to pay a dime. Nobody is asking you to watch anything. The existence or non-existence of this particular corner of the internet has only the affect on you that you choose it to have. So why are you here? Why are you involving yourself in this conversation? What stake do you have? Plant your flag and we'll have something substantial to talk about. Is it wrong that she got funded the money? Why? Is it wrong that she's voicing her criticism? Why?

ex275w:
Can I ask everyone in this thread something:

Is there something inherently wrong with objectification? As long as its, umm... done in private or it doesn't cause you to treat the person you are objectifing as a lesser human being.

Sounds like a dumb question, but let's just say I don't do a lot of sexual objectification, so I don't know what exactly the concept entails.

This is about the objectification of women in pop culture. It has nothing to do with what people do in the privacy in their own homes; nothing to limited in scope. It has to do with the depiction and perceptions of women in our popular media and, by extension, society as a whole.

If you and a consenting partner want to go that route, power to you. I hope you have a great time. The problem arises when those attitudes are presented in the public sector as normal, as they are reflections of, and indeed reflect on, society in general.

itsthesheppy:

ex275w:
Can I ask everyone in this thread something:

Is there something inherently wrong with objectification? As long as its, umm... done in private or it doesn't cause you to treat the person you are objectifing as a lesser human being.

Sounds like a dumb question, but let's just say I don't do a lot of sexual objectification, so I don't know what exactly the concept entails.

This is about the objectification of women in pop culture. It has nothing to do with what people do in the privacy in their own homes; nothing to limited in scope. It has to do with the depiction and perceptions of women in our popular media and, by extension, society as a whole.

If you and a consenting partner want to go that route, power to you. I hope you have a great time. The problem arises when those attitudes are presented in the public sector as normal, as they are reflections of, and indeed reflect on, society in general.

This is a issue of culture of course, I was just asking what exactly objectification entailed, since I wasn't too sure what it meant.

ex275w:

itsthesheppy:

ex275w:
Can I ask everyone in this thread something:

Is there something inherently wrong with objectification? As long as its, umm... done in private or it doesn't cause you to treat the person you are objectifing as a lesser human being.

Sounds like a dumb question, but let's just say I don't do a lot of sexual objectification, so I don't know what exactly the concept entails.

This is about the objectification of women in pop culture. It has nothing to do with what people do in the privacy in their own homes; nothing to limited in scope. It has to do with the depiction and perceptions of women in our popular media and, by extension, society as a whole.

If you and a consenting partner want to go that route, power to you. I hope you have a great time. The problem arises when those attitudes are presented in the public sector as normal, as they are reflections of, and indeed reflect on, society in general.

This is a issue of culture of course, I was just asking what exactly objectification entailed, since I wasn't too sure what it meant.

Oh! simply put, it means to dehumanize someone by turning them into a thing rather than a fully actualized individual.

An example of this would be a video game where the main character will have deep emotions, a complicated backstory, flaws and talents and friends and motivations all their own, but will interact with a (let's say female) character who walks around in a low-cut top, not saying much, with a weak backstory, not much personality, whose entire purpose in the story is to be either a victim or an object of desire.

That would be 'objectifying' that character. This tends to happen to female characters a lot in pop culture, so it's referred to as objectification of women. I might have mangled the definition a bit, but that's my take.

Monxeroth:
"Society judges women based on their appearence rather than their ability"
A valid argument yes and realistic enough to be taken seriously, but there's always two sides to a coin.

If you really want to get to the root of the problem, ie, why women have their general value based on the exterior, is to ask the right question.

Is it ONLY because society and heterosexual white males judge them by their appearence
OR
could it be the fact that some women really don't help that problem at all by simply, oh i dunno
PRESENTING THEMSELVES AS IF THAT IS ALL THEY HAVE TO OFFER

seriously, i don't see this argument as valid if it comes from someone who only posts cleavage pictures of themselves on facebook and tweets about all the money they spend on cosmetic bullshit, then you are not entitled to have this argument with me.
If women would like to be judged by their abilities, then show it, make me believe you would actually want that rather than spending countless hours and resources on perfecting your appearence, thats not going to help at all, thats just making it worse for the kind of women who already have it bad and are actually suffering from this problem.

Too often do women expect to get handed everything and not be judged by their ability, because they think their appearence is enough.
So both parts imo have to do their parts in the sense that

Some women need to stop focusing on their appearence and using that as an excuse to
get what they want, and also stop presenting themselves as if the appearence was the most important thing to them.

While some men and society and general needs to stop making these retarded demands from women and portray them in one specific way in media and so on.

This is not a problem to solely blame on society and the heterosexual male ;)

Thank you. Thank you very much. :)

itsthesheppy:

ex275w:

itsthesheppy:

This is about the objectification of women in pop culture. It has nothing to do with what people do in the privacy in their own homes; nothing to limited in scope. It has to do with the depiction and perceptions of women in our popular media and, by extension, society as a whole.

If you and a consenting partner want to go that route, power to you. I hope you have a great time. The problem arises when those attitudes are presented in the public sector as normal, as they are reflections of, and indeed reflect on, society in general.

This is a issue of culture of course, I was just asking what exactly objectification entailed, since I wasn't too sure what it meant.

Oh! simply put, it means to dehumanize someone by turning them into a thing rather than a fully actualized individual.

An example of this would be a video game where the main character will have deep emotions, a complicated backstory, flaws and talents and friends and motivations all their own, but will interact with a (let's say female) character who walks around in a low-cut top, not saying much, with a weak backstory, not much personality, whose entire purpose in the story is to be either a victim or an object of desire.

That would be 'objectifying' that character. This tends to happen to female characters a lot in pop culture, so it's referred to as objectification of women. I might have mangled the definition a bit, but that's my take.

If the female character had all those things, yet still dressed like that, would it still be considered objectification?

MrMan999:

itsthesheppy:

ex275w:

This is a issue of culture of course, I was just asking what exactly objectification entailed, since I wasn't too sure what it meant.

Oh! simply put, it means to dehumanize someone by turning them into a thing rather than a fully actualized individual.

An example of this would be a video game where the main character will have deep emotions, a complicated backstory, flaws and talents and friends and motivations all their own, but will interact with a (let's say female) character who walks around in a low-cut top, not saying much, with a weak backstory, not much personality, whose entire purpose in the story is to be either a victim or an object of desire.

That would be 'objectifying' that character. This tends to happen to female characters a lot in pop culture, so it's referred to as objectification of women. I might have mangled the definition a bit, but that's my take.

If the female character had all those things, yet still dressed like that, would it still be considered objectification?

The devil is in the details, but I'll assume for the sake of your post that you mean "The female character is deep, fully actualized, displays agency, and has a fully rounded character, but also looks really sexy" then I will say no, it is not objectifying.

It's a common misconception that feminists (or feminist sympathizers like myself; I do not presume to be one, as I am a white male and ergo, ever learning) don't like seeing women portrayed sexily. That would be like men saying they don't like their male protagonists being muscular, handsome, dashing and with a great head of hair. We all like seeing attractive people. There's nothing wrong with people being attractive.

It's when it gets to a point where you start to lose sight of the characters involved, when it becomes clear that the character is there as a prop to stimulate the audience and not to act as a fully realized character that you start wandering into questionable territory. I am sure that FF will go into greater detail, but that's my take on it.

A good example of objectification is how everyone looks at the Dead or Alive series. They just consider them a pair of boobs and omit the actual narrative of why they are fighting and their own backstory that connects them to said narrative. Of course this narrative due to how primitive fighting games are when it comes to narrative presentation was limited so much when it comes to the actual game leaving the backstory and narrative to be left inside instruction booklets.

It's a lot easier to simply gloss over these characters and simply use the fan works that parody them as canon instead of actually playing the game and reading the story that was made by the developers.

The characters are outright objectified.

A real life example would be the history of blacks in history as they weren't really considered people but merely property. You ignore their sentience and would treat them not unlike yourself. It really comes down to the thought process of thinking on the whole that a section of personhood is just considered to not be human. People often objectify celebrities for example for their own personal fantasies but that does not make them bad people but merely wish fulfillment.

itsthesheppy:

ex275w:

itsthesheppy:

This is about the objectification of women in pop culture. It has nothing to do with what people do in the privacy in their own homes; nothing to limited in scope. It has to do with the depiction and perceptions of women in our popular media and, by extension, society as a whole.

If you and a consenting partner want to go that route, power to you. I hope you have a great time. The problem arises when those attitudes are presented in the public sector as normal, as they are reflections of, and indeed reflect on, society in general.

This is a issue of culture of course, I was just asking what exactly objectification entailed, since I wasn't too sure what it meant.

Oh! simply put, it means to dehumanize someone by turning them into a thing rather than a fully actualized individual.

An example of this would be a video game where the main character will have deep emotions, a complicated backstory, flaws and talents and friends and motivations all their own, but will interact with a (let's say female) character who walks around in a low-cut top, not saying much, with a weak backstory, not much personality, whose entire purpose in the story is to be either a victim or an object of desire.

That would be 'objectifying' that character. This tends to happen to female characters a lot in pop culture, so it's referred to as objectification of women. I might have mangled the definition a bit, but that's my take.

Yeah that was a issue that occurred a lot in early videogames, since they were ripping Donkey Kong off, which was a ripoff of King Kong. (Funny how that works) The new female character seems to be Cortana Rip-offs which just exposit and encourage the main character to do manly stuff.

Generic female love interests in movies also irk me because they seem like accesories to the main characters goals. (Like objects OMG! I am getting it)

As I said in a previous post, I do guess the problem is bad, lazy writing. Characters in fighting games are basically move sets with no regard to personality or anything else, which is why they tend to have the most sexist, racist and stereotypical characters in videogames.

itsthesheppy:

MrMan999:

itsthesheppy:

Oh! simply put, it means to dehumanize someone by turning them into a thing rather than a fully actualized individual.

An example of this would be a video game where the main character will have deep emotions, a complicated backstory, flaws and talents and friends and motivations all their own, but will interact with a (let's say female) character who walks around in a low-cut top, not saying much, with a weak backstory, not much personality, whose entire purpose in the story is to be either a victim or an object of desire.

That would be 'objectifying' that character. This tends to happen to female characters a lot in pop culture, so it's referred to as objectification of women. I might have mangled the definition a bit, but that's my take.

If the female character had all those things, yet still dressed like that, would it still be considered objectification?

The devil is in the details, but I'll assume for the sake of your post that you mean "The female character is deep, fully actualized, displays agency, and has a fully rounded character, but also looks really sexy" then I will say no, it is not objectifying.

It's a common misconception that feminists (or feminist sympathizers like myself; I do not presume to be one, as I am a white male and ergo, ever learning) don't like seeing women portrayed sexily. That would be like men saying they don't like their male protagonists being muscular, handsome, dashing and with a great head of hair. We all like seeing attractive people. There's nothing wrong with people being attractive.

It's when it gets to a point where you start to lose sight of the characters involved, when it becomes clear that the character is there as a prop to stimulate the audience and not to act as a fully realized character that you start wandering into questionable territory. I am sure that FF will go into greater detail, but that's my take on it.

Thats more an issue of lazy writing. Not intentional mysogyny.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . . . 29 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