That doesn't answer my question. Are you surprised by that or not?
Not really.
Bah, please. I'm an econ student, this classifies as smart behavior in my mind.
What you call smart, I call weak. It does sadden me that historically the damage may be irrepairable.
I generally find it a little less on the respectable side too. But I'm one of those people that thinks glory should still be a term that carries true weight.
However we don't live in that kind of world anymore (thank goodness for that) but instead reside in a time where the most commonly held highest attainable goal is personal happiness and not something a little...bigger.
You know, I think it's kind of funny that Sterling brought this up in his last video. According to him, threads like this don't actually discuss the problems with Anita's method of making her series or the problems with her conclusions being the result of 5-10 minutes of game play. This thread is actually about how we hate her because she is a woman. But you know whats funnier? The fact that he made a video saying it's impossible to detract from her without being accused of hating women when he 1.) wrote a piece on gamefront about how the "tropes vs women" parody is pointless then compared the people working on that project to white supremacists (thus saying if you disagree with her, you hate women). 2.) The fact that she has been asking her bakers do HER WORK (Proving that she will not be doing a lot of research like her detractors said) a week before Jim made that video. He even said you can't make valid criticism now since there is so much hate for her because she is a woman (Which is a lie He, Bob Chipman, and the rest of the gaming press perpetuated) this is probably him trying to keep his audience from calling him out on his bullshit.
I'm not at all saying it should happen overnight; I was just responding to his post where he basically said women don't have it so bad because at least they don't have to be cannon fodder (my response being no, because they aren't allowed to be even when they want to be, thus his argument makes no sense).
Do you have any historical perspective at all? Are you seriously arguing that denying lower to middle class women the chance to be victims of things like the Battle of the Somme is/was oppressing them? WTF is wrong with people these days?
Oh noes, you're so fucking oppressed for not being able to get butchered horribly by the thousands a day! Have a tissue, you had it so bad by being forced to stay away from the high velocity shards of metal and mustard gas, I don't know how men could ever make it up to you, denying you the opportunity to die as terribly as humans ever have.
Yet it was so often the men who got to be the rulers and the takers of the spoils of war.
Again, failing to see the perks of such hazardous lots in life.
So out of ~100,000,000,000 humans ever born, ~51,000,000,000 have been male, and out of those ~51,000,000,000, how many have been "rulers and takers of the spoils of war"? Maybe 100,000? I'll be generous, and give you 1,000,000. So maybe 0.00001% of men have been the beneficiaries of this supposed "male privilege" that comes from being a member of the "warrior caste", and this is supposed to matter compared to the amount of men who have been killed or maimed in war, which certainly goes into whole percentage points, why?
This is the whole problem with the female supremacist viewpoint, that it ignores that for most of history, most men, AND most women, have had a firm grasp on shitty end of the stick. The fact that a tiny crust of men has held a life of privilege does not counterbalance all the men who lived, toiled their whole lives for a pittance and died, any more than Marie Antoinette counterbalances all the women who were chattel. THE WORLD IS NOT MAKING A SPECIAL EFFORT TO OPPRESS WOMEN. YOU ARE NOT THAT FUCKING SPECIAL THAT PEOPLE WHO DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO YOU ARE, ARE TRYING TO BRING YOU DOWN. LIFE HAS HARDSHIPS FOR MOST PEOPLE, JUST LIKE IT ALWAYS HAS. GET OVER YOURSELVES.
Do you have any historical perspective at all? Are you seriously arguing that denying lower to middle class women the chance to be victims of things like the Battle of the Somme is/was oppressing them? WTF is wrong with people these days?
It is denying them the chance to be war heroes, and also the chance to shut up the men who hold the fact that women don't fight on the frontlines is a sign of their inferiority.
Oh noes, you're so fucking oppressed for not being able to get butchered horribly by the thousands a day! Have a tissue, you had it so bad by being forced to stay away from the high velocity shards of metal and mustard gas, I don't know how men could ever make it up to you, denying you the opportunity to die as terribly as humans ever have.
Again, I'd agree with you were it not that so many people love to hold up the man's role to do such things as proof that he is the worthier and superior gender.
So shall we make up our minds, guys? Either being made to fight sucks rocks and is a disadvantage, OR, it's living proof that men are the superior beings. I want one side to shut up about it already.
So out of ~100,000,000,000 humans ever born, ~51,000,000,000 have been male, and out of those ~51,000,000,000, how many have been "rulers and takers of the spoils of war"? Maybe 100,000? I'll be generous, and give you 1,000,000. So maybe 0.00001% of men have been the beneficiaries of this supposed "male privilege" that comes from being a member of the "warrior caste", and this is supposed to matter compared to the amount of men who have been killed or maimed in war, which certainly goes into whole percentage points, why?
Firstly, I'd contest that number since it wasn't just the grand poobah's of the military world that got those perks. Successful nobles of several levels, as well as a host of tribal warlords got to reap such delicious perks as well. Hell, even the foot soldiers of a conquering army got to live it up for a day while in the throes of conquest via looting and pillaging. All the stuff they could grab and, in turning the "disposable male" trope on it's ear, all the women they could handle in a night.
This is the whole problem with the female supremacist viewpoint
Radfems have a lot of problems, but I'm not sure this one of them.....
The fact that a tiny crust of men has held a life of privilege does not counterbalance all the men who lived, toiled their whole lives for a pittance and died, any more than Marie Antoinette counterbalances all the women who were chattel.
Well now this is a switch. A refreshing one, I'll grant, but I thought, especially according to MRA's, we had it so much easier than you guys. After all, we're valuable little snowflakes that could have anything we wanted, not like you disposable males. We were invaluable and NEVER killed off!
THE WORLD IS NOT MAKING A SPECIAL EFFORT TO OPPRESS WOMEN.
Eh, a few pockets here and there, but mostly right.
YOU ARE NOT THAT FUCKING SPECIAL THAT PEOPLE WHO DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO YOU ARE, ARE TRYING TO BRING YOU DOWN.
Well, they are, but that has more to do with my sexuality than my gender most of the time.
LIFE HAS HARDSHIPS FOR MOST PEOPLE, JUST LIKE IT ALWAYS HAS. GET OVER YOURSELVES.
Ah, yes, the "people elsewhere have it worse than you, therefore you have no problems you need to address" crap. That stopped working on me when I was six and got told to eat my peas because of starving children in Africa.
I'm not at all saying it should happen overnight; I was just responding to his post where he basically said women don't have it so bad because at least they don't have to be cannon fodder (my response being no, because they aren't allowed to be even when they want to be, thus his argument makes no sense).
Do you have any historical perspective at all? Are you seriously arguing that denying lower to middle class women the chance to be victims of things like the Battle of the Somme is/was oppressing them? WTF is wrong with people these days?
I do, do you? Do you recall those long, long lines of men waiting at the recruitment office in England to volounteer to go fight Germany in 1914? War has always been considered a noble pursuit, something that makes men into real men and requires such strength and fortitude that only men can do it. From the 17th century and up until the great wars of the industrial era (The american civil war for the USA, WW1 for most of the rest of the world) war was glorious and being a participant was something that was considered a great boon. On top of that there was also the chance of grabbing spoils of war from the civilian population you defeated. Sure, it was a hard and dangerous job but...
Oh noes, you're so fucking oppressed for not being able to get butchered horribly by the thousands a day! Have a tissue, you had it so bad by being forced to stay away from the high velocity shards of metal and mustard gas, I don't know how men could ever make it up to you, denying you the opportunity to die as terribly as humans ever have.
... it wasn't much better being a woman in a country were war was raging. "Wars are fought over womens bodies" as the UN has concluded. Rape and plunder is what just about every victorious army in history has been doing (a few examples exist that hasn't, but they are very, very rare) and you can bet that those being raped and plundered weren't the opposing army. It was the women who were staying at home to take care of it. In the Democratic Republic of Congo there was a total of 15,996 reports of rape last year, which is an incomplete number since most women can never report it, and it is estimated that 400,000 women in Congo have been the victims of rape. Ask yourself: Would you rather be one of the soldiers fighting for one of the warlords in the region or one of the women?
Because that is the imperative question. Soldiers have never had an easy life, but it has been a line of work with high status and with chances for great rewards if you win (spoils of war). Compared to the women in war, who have always been the victims, soldiers have at least had the chance to defend themselves and get something from war. Bringing up the one example where men have suffered a lot and women got away fairly scot free is dishonest, because most wars have not been fought like World War 1 or the American Civil War. They have been fought like the civil war in Congo or the 30 year war in Europe, where marching armies have taken a great toll on the civilian population.
Frankster: Advantages on being a guy: you get to join the army and rape wimmin! :D
....*bangs head on wall*
Plus (keep in mind that these are all historically true, contemporary society has done away with many of them): * You get to be treated as an individual * You get to own property * You get to have legal protection * You get to inherit * You get to have your own job and income * You get the chance to have your voice heard * You get to have social status based in-part on your gender. * You get to have access to education, if your economy permits.
We are not saying that all men have had it great historically, but that compared to women of the same social class men have had it significantly better. This still carries over today, albeit in quite a diminished form.
Thanks, made it with the finest straw. Also got no idea why you answered with that list, if that was an attempt to show me your own field of strawmen i'm afraid i'm afraid it flew over me. Oh wait, right, male privilege and stuff, okies gotcha.
This whole pissing contest of who has it worst diminishes both "sides", especially as each side is rather gleefully twisting things to suit their views. But I won't be drawn in the debate, I couldn't resist mentionning my facepalmin cos yeh, some of the things said here...
Firstly, I'd contest that number since it wasn't just the grand poobah's of the military world that got those perks. Successful nobles of several levels, as well as a host of tribal warlords got to reap such delicious perks as well. Hell, even the foot soldiers of a conquering army got to live it up for a day while in the throes of conquest via looting and pillaging. All the stuff they could grab and, in turning the "disposable male" trope on it's ear, all the women they could handle in a night.
First of all, looting and pillaging wasn't simply run in there and rape all the women and take all you want. If the looters and pillagers wanted to loot and pillage, they had for fight with their lives on the line for it. And what the hell ever stopped women from taking up a sword and a burning torch to loot and pillage, if they desired so, anyway?
And about the nobles living it up, their wives lived it up alongside them, often doing none of the work required to reach the status of noble. Which often required years of putting their lives on the line in battle to receive knighthood or to find a way to become educated in a world where education was by no means an easy thing to come across.
You're just focusing your own problems, your entire post shows how narrow-minded you are. You don't seem to understand that anyone who wants to get anywhere will have it hard on the way there. Stop playing the victim.
I do, do you? Do you recall those long, long lines of men waiting at the recruitment office in England to volounteer to go fight Germany in 1914? War has always been considered a noble pursuit, something that makes men into real men and requires such strength and fortitude that only men can do it. From the 17th century and up until the great wars of the industrial era (The american civil war for the USA, WW1 for most of the rest of the world) war was glorious and being a participant was something that was considered a great boon. On top of that there was also the chance of grabbing spoils of war from the civilian population you defeated. Sure, it was a hard and dangerous job but...
...those significant rates of desertion that every army based on conscription(and not a few that weren't) has had to deal with are just signs of the "male privilege" inherent in the "warrior caste", being free to leave at will without being shot or anything, and have nothing to do with the fact that war doesn't have many opportunities for gain for a poor farmer on the front lines(i.e. the bulk of the people who fought in wars prior to the last 75 years or so), and, you know, those little things like being maimed or killed to argue against it. In the very wars you cite, desertion played a significant role in deciding battles(to the point where enough men were doing it that pointed examples had to be made), but I guess they were only deserting so they could live it up. Reading the words of the people who start wars and glamorize them for propaganda purposes in order to keep their forces keyed up, and accepting it as the way the average conscript viewed the situation, is a very flawed way of approaching what war was like for the bulk of the men fighting it. Most peasants went to war because unpleasant things were guaranteed to happen to them if they didn't(rather than being only probable if they did), not because getting dragged off of their land was a glorious path to ill-gotten riches.
... it wasn't much better being a woman in a country were war was raging. "Wars are fought over womens bodies" as the UN has concluded. Rape and plunder is what just about every victorious army in history has been doing (a few examples exist that hasn't, but they are very, very rare) and you can bet that those being raped and plundered weren't the opposing army. It was the women who were staying at home to take care of it. In the Democratic Republic of Congo there was a total of 15,996 reports of rape last year, which is an incomplete number since most women can never report it, and it is estimated that 400,000 women in Congo have been the victims of rape. Ask yourself: Would you rather be one of the soldiers fighting for one of the warlords in the region or one of the women?
Because that is the imperative question. Soldiers have never had an easy life, but it has been a line of work with high status and with chances for great rewards if you win (spoils of war). Compared to the women in war, who have always been the victims, soldiers have at least had the chance to defend themselves and get something from war. Bringing up the one example where men have suffered a lot and women got away fairly scot free is dishonest, because most wars have not been fought like World War 1 or the American Civil War. They have been fought like the civil war in Congo or the 30 year war in Europe, where marching armies have taken a great toll on the civilian population.
Ah, the UN, those great scholars of war, who stand by during the butchery and watch, probably not the greatest choice for an explanation of the political causes of war. You seem to be ignoring the fact that for every victorious army, there is a defeated army that has to deal with retribution, and the scorn of their people. There wasn't any glory to be had for Tom Confederate after the War of Secession, of Heinrich Boche after WWI, many of them were treated with contempt when they returned home.
Given my druthers, I'd rather be neither man or woman in war, which is my entire point. It's not a lark that is done for fun, for most people throughout history it was terror and suffering that they only participated in because they lacked the choice not to. Trying to play war off as some kind of good ol' boys club that women were excluded from to oppress them is nothing short of completely absurd. Also, the bolded is very true, and included men, women, and children, so I'm not sure what you're getting at with it.
Frankster: Advantages on being a guy: you get to join the army and rape wimmin! :D
....*bangs head on wall*
Plus (keep in mind that these are all historically true, contemporary society has done away with many of them): * You get to be treated as an individual * You get to own property * You get to have legal protection * You get to inherit * You get to have your own job and income * You get the chance to have your voice heard * You get to have social status based in-part on your gender. * You get to have access to education, if your economy permits.
We are not saying that all men have had it great historically, but that compared to women of the same social class men have had it significantly better. This still carries over today, albeit in quite a diminished form.
But really, nice strawman you did there.
What history are you deriving this from? A Short History of the Life of Aristocrats? Most of those things were equally inapplicable non-ruling class men as they were to non-ruling class women in most societies. Pointing at Greece and saying this is how things were everywhere is cherry-picking just like pointing at the the Choqtaw as proof that matriarchy was how society was structured.
First of all, looting and pillaging wasn't simply run in there and rape all the women and take all you want. If the looters and pillagers wanted to loot and pillage, they had for fight with their lives on the line for it. And what the hell ever stopped women from taking up a sword and a burning torch to loot and pillage, if they desired so, anyway?
Sometimes, they did. They usually lost because, well, peasants vs. trained army usually turns out that way. Not to mention that many civilians weren't even allowed to own meaningful weapons.
And about the nobles living it up, their wives lived it up alongside them, often doing none of the work required to reach the status of noble.Which often required years of putting their lives on the line in battle to receive knighthood or to find a way to become educated in a world where education was by no means an easy thing to come across.
And THIS is why I said every time Lolwut gave me some sob story about the horrors of war that men went through, that the fact that women didn't have to do it gets thrown in our faces. Thank you for exemplifying the point for me.
You're just focusing your own problems, your entire post shows how narrow-minded you are. You don't seem to understand that anyone who wants to get anywhere will have it hard on the way there. Stop playing the victim.
Only when your side stops portraying me as the inferior leech.
First of all, looting and pillaging wasn't simply run in there and rape all the women and take all you want. If the looters and pillagers wanted to loot and pillage, they had for fight with their lives on the line for it. And what the hell ever stopped women from taking up a sword and a burning torch to loot and pillage, if they desired so, anyway?
Sometimes, they did. They usually lost because, well, peasants vs. trained army usually turns out that way. Not to mention that many civilians weren't even allowed to own meaningful weapons.
And about the nobles living it up, their wives lived it up alongside them, often doing none of the work required to reach the status of noble.Which often required years of putting their lives on the line in battle to receive knighthood or to find a way to become educated in a world where education was by no means an easy thing to come across.
And THIS is why I said every time Lolwut gave me some sob story about the horrors of war that men went through, that the fact that women didn't have to do it gets thrown in our faces. Thank you for exemplifying the point for me.
You're just focusing your own problems, your entire post shows how narrow-minded you are. You don't seem to understand that anyone who wants to get anywhere will have it hard on the way there. Stop playing the victim.
Only when your side stops portraying me as the inferior leech.
so do you have interest in being a soldier or some pirate reaver or something?
First of all, looting and pillaging wasn't simply run in there and rape all the women and take all you want. If the looters and pillagers wanted to loot and pillage, they had for fight with their lives on the line for it. And what the hell ever stopped women from taking up a sword and a burning torch to loot and pillage, if they desired so, anyway?
Sometimes, they did. They usually lost because, well, peasants vs. trained army usually turns out that way. Not to mention that many civilians weren't even allowed to own meaningful weapons.
And about the nobles living it up, their wives lived it up alongside them, often doing none of the work required to reach the status of noble.Which often required years of putting their lives on the line in battle to receive knighthood or to find a way to become educated in a world where education was by no means an easy thing to come across.
And THIS is why I said every time Lolwut gave me some sob story about the horrors of war that men went through, that the fact that women didn't have to do it gets thrown in our faces. Thank you for exemplifying the point for me.
You're just focusing your own problems, your entire post shows how narrow-minded you are. You don't seem to understand that anyone who wants to get anywhere will have it hard on the way there. Stop playing the victim.
Only when your side stops portraying me as the inferior leech.
so do you have interest in being a soldier or some pirate reaver or something?
Yep. Live fast, die young, leave a beautiful corpse if you can.
Hollyday: EDIT: The post I quoted here has been taken down and the author suspended, plus it's been brought to my attention that my original post was pretty offensive itself so I've taken it down. Sorry if I offended anyone - was just really annoyed by the original post!
See the problem I have with this is that if she were a man I would've made the exact same criticism. However, since she is a woman she is above being criticized on something everyone notices, her physical appearance?
You can call me shallow it doesn't really matter but I notice how people look I think Sarkeesian is ugly that doesn't make me a sexist. If she happened to be a man I'd say "he is an unattractive con artist".
The thing that upsets me is that these people will donate 150k to a non-issue something that will not bring about any radical change rather than putting money towards a cause that would bring some actual benefit to humanity.
Is human suffering being reduced by this? Is someone standard of life being made better by this? Is meaningful discrimination being diminished by this? Is any change being brought about to the gaming industry by this?
The answer to all of these is a strong resounding no.
It disgust me to know that instead of putting money towards some poor girl in the middle of nowhere's educational fund people will put it towards "ending sexist portrayal of women in video games".
Sorry but I find this type of faux activism revolting. I also find the type of people who participate in this faux activism revolting. If you really want to make some change in the world it won't be done by donating money to this kid to play video games.
Just accept that if you did donate to this woman you've been duped, scammed, and taken for a ride. Probably due to lack of life experience and naivete. Chalk it up as a loss and move on, I know you gotta defend your investment but it's plainly obvious the people who put money towards this have been successfully conned.
Let me just say I don't come down on either side of this subject. Well that's not true. I lean slightly more towards Sandra. My point was Rush made a vulgar and far too personal attack which was aimed at Sandra. Not at all women. There was a valid argument against Sandra which couldn't be voiced after Rush made Sandra, and by extension all women, victims. Women have more control over their own bodies than ever before. That's a fact. Some people may object but they are certainly not in the majority.
I never compared being expected to pay the bill to women being allowed contraception, I was referring to a supposed lack of decency towards women, which is simply not true. Biology is the framework that society was born of. Nowadays society isn't dictated by biology as much as in the past. But it's still there. Globally the majority of men find women with neotenous facial features more attractive. So men find women who look like they need looking after more attractive. Men are wired to want to look after women. To believe that men malevolently created a societal structure in their favour is as ridiculous as saying the moon landings are fake or the American government perpetrated the 9/11 attacks. It ignores all evidence and focuses on a feeling, a feeling that women are always the victims. That's all it is, a feeling, with no evidence to back it up.
Actually, it was aimed at all women. Reason? Because he attacked Sandra on the false basis that she wanted contraception to be covered by insurance companies because she wanted free sex. The very notion falls within' the stereotypical ideas that women who have sex are whores. But he went beyond mere harassment, Rush even went as so far as to say:
So, Ms. Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here's the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it, and I'll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch
Yeah, he attacked all women.
I was not trying to imply that men malevolently created the structure, but they are the ones who control it, and what they do can be malevolent.
Even in your quote itself he only used the term 'feminazi'. You read into it as an attack on women if you must, but it's not. Anyway that's enough of Rush and Sandra.
I'll say that women have a large amount of control in society. You can't make a joke about a woman without being called sexist and risking losing your job. Men are generally in the top jobs not because women are kept out but because women don't want the top jobs. Women often stay home to raise children, so how would they run a company for example. These are choices women make, not choices men in society made for them. When it comes to politics more women vote on average than men. Less women go into politics than men. Many women who go into politics do so to further feminist goals, which most see right through. For example Harriet Harman in the UK falsifying statistics on rape and being reprimanded for doing so.
Saying men are better off because they're men ignores society as it exists today. Women have every door open to them, even more so than men.
That is not what I meant. There is systemic differences in the way men and women are treated that are not readily acknowledged. When such differences are pointed out and explained why they are actually harmful, people for some reason people make the mistake of saying "its the natural order of things!" as some kind of counter argument. When in reality its more along the lines of "Its the most commonly accepted form of things!"
Hollyday: EDIT: The post I quoted here has been taken down and the author suspended, plus it's been brought to my attention that my original post was pretty offensive itself so I've taken it down. Sorry if I offended anyone - was just really annoyed by the original post!
See the problem I have with this is that if she were a man I would've made the exact same criticism. However, since she is a woman she is above being criticized on something everyone notices, her physical appearance?
You can call me shallow it doesn't really matter but I notice how people look I think Sarkeesian is ugly that doesn't make me a sexist. If she happened to be a man I'd say "he is an unattractive con artist".
The thing that upsets me is that these people will donate 150k to a non-issue something that will not bring about any radical change rather than putting money towards a cause that would bring some actual benefit to humanity.
Is human suffering being reduced by this? Is someone standard of life being made better by this? Is meaningful discrimination being diminished by this? Is any change being brought about to the gaming industry by this?
The answer to all of these is a strong resounding no.
It disgust me to know that instead of putting money towards some poor girl in the middle of nowhere's educational fund people will put it towards "ending sexist portrayal of women in video games".
Sorry but I find this type of faux activism revolting. I also find the type of people who participate in this faux activism revolting. If you really want to make some change in the world it won't be done by donating money to this kid to play video games.
Just accept that if you did donate to this woman you've been duped, scammed, and taken for a ride. Probably due to lack of life experience and naivete. Chalk it up as a loss and move on, I know you gotta defend your investment but it's plainly obvious the people who put money towards this have been successfully conned.
Yep, Women can be con artist too!
Pretending that cultural concepts like a woman's value being judged on the basis of their beauty doesn't exist then calling a person who is not even remotely ugly, ugly is just dumb. For example, people do attack Nancy Pelosi on her looks in a way to judge her quality as a woman.
Calling an ugly man ugly has no where near the impact because as a culture men are not judged on the basis of beauty. One would be considered a jerk for doing so in either case because its rude to judge someone on appearance alone. Technically more-so for a woman because you are unintentionally promoting the idea that we should judge someone on the basis of beauty when in historical context, people have used such to demean all sorts of women, such as the suffragettes.
The whole thing about the project and its worth is another subject entirely. It more or less speaks to the broader sense that "Are these issues worth talking about because worse things are going on?" I've seen this happen before in context to debate over the US Debt. Basically "OH why are we talking about civil rights when the debt is over 11 trillion dollars!! obviously civil rights are less important!"
Secret is: No it doesn't make an argument less valid just because something else that is not even related to the current subject is happening and or could be perceived as worse.
What Anita is doing is not activism anyway, its cultural commentary. Much like.. what.. many... people... do... on... the... escapist. Movie Bob for example, he does loads of this, but he is paid to do so. Anita asked for donations instead as a way to fund this project.
Overall I find your portrayal of the entire situation unnecessarily antagonizing.
Hollyday: EDIT: The post I quoted here has been taken down and the author suspended, plus it's been brought to my attention that my original post was pretty offensive itself so I've taken it down. Sorry if I offended anyone - was just really annoyed by the original post!
See the problem I have with this is that if she were a man I would've made the exact same criticism. However, since she is a woman she is above being criticized on something everyone notices, her physical appearance?
You can call me shallow it doesn't really matter but I notice how people look I think Sarkeesian is ugly that doesn't make me a sexist. If she happened to be a man I'd say "he is an unattractive con artist".
The thing that upsets me is that these people will donate 150k to a non-issue something that will not bring about any radical change rather than putting money towards a cause that would bring some actual benefit to humanity.
Is human suffering being reduced by this? Is someone standard of life being made better by this? Is meaningful discrimination being diminished by this? Is any change being brought about to the gaming industry by this?
The answer to all of these is a strong resounding no.
It disgust me to know that instead of putting money towards some poor girl in the middle of nowhere's educational fund people will put it towards "ending sexist portrayal of women in video games".
Sorry but I find this type of faux activism revolting. I also find the type of people who participate in this faux activism revolting. If you really want to make some change in the world it won't be done by donating money to this kid to play video games.
Just accept that if you did donate to this woman you've been duped, scammed, and taken for a ride. Probably due to lack of life experience and naivete. Chalk it up as a loss and move on, I know you gotta defend your investment but it's plainly obvious the people who put money towards this have been successfully conned.
Yep, Women can be con artist too!
Pretending that cultural concepts like a woman's value being judged on the basis of their beauty doesn't exist then calling a person who is not even remotely ugly, ugly is just dumb. For example, people do attack Nancy Pelosi on her looks in a way to judge her quality as a woman.
Calling an ugly man ugly has no where near the impact because as a culture men are not judged on the basis of beauty. One would be considered a jerk for doing so in either case because its rude to judge someone on appearance alone. Technically more-so for a woman because you are unintentionally promoting the idea that we should judge someone on the basis of beauty when in historical context, people have used such to demean all sorts of women, such as the suffragettes.
The whole thing about the project and its worth is another subject entirely. It more or less speaks to the broader sense that "Are these issues worth talking about because worse things are going on?" I've seen this happen before in context to debate over the US Debt. Basically "OH why are we talking about civil rights when the debt is over 11 trillion dollars!! obviously civil rights are less important!"
Secret is: No it doesn't make an argument less valid just because something else that is not even related to the current subject is happening and or could be perceived as worse.
What Anita is doing is not activism anyway, its cultural commentary. Much like.. what.. many... people... do... on... the... escapist. Movie Bob for example, he does loads of this, but he is paid to do so. Anita asked for donations instead as a way to fund this project.
Overall I find your portrayal of the entire situation unnecessarily antagonizing.
Her social commentary is irrelevant and pointless. I also find her and all of her supporters "antagonizing". It is a non-issue and it makes feminism look bad to be supporting something as trivial as this. Donating money to a woman to sit on her ass and play video games so she can make "social commentary"? Is that what feminism is about? Comparing "sexist portrayal of women in video games" to civil rights is "ambitious". I really don't think you can discuss any topic regarding this seriously if you can equivocate the two. You want to be a feminist? Donate that money to sending some girl in a Taiwanese sweatshop to college.
I couldn't disagree with you more - although, I'm sure that's not a shock! People seem to have such strong, deeply-entrenched views on this subject that I've yet to come across someone who was happy to be swayed one way or the other on this.
Personally, I find criticising someone based on their 'attractiveness' deeply repulsive. That goes for whether it's a man or woman, and that was my main problem with your comment. It's true, however, that women are judged more for their attractiveness than men are, so to focus on a woman's appearance in this way does have a more negative impact than if you'd said it about a man. That's just a sad fact. As people's views on the roles women play in society change, this will become less of an issue, but we're not there yet.
JeffBergGold: The thing that upsets me is that these people will donate 150k to a non-issue something that will not bring about any radical change rather than putting money towards a cause that would bring some actual benefit to humanity.
Is human suffering being reduced by this? Is someone standard of life being made better by this? Is meaningful discrimination being diminished by this? Is any change being brought about to the gaming industry by this?
The answer to all of these is a strong resounding no.
It disgust me to know that instead of putting money towards some poor girl in the middle of nowhere's educational fund people will put it towards "ending sexist portrayal of women in video games".
I didn't give any money towards this project, but I did support the Doublefine adventure kickstarter. That project doesn't reduce human suffering, make the standard of life better (well, it might make mine better!) or diminish discrimination - does that mean that my backing of this project revolts you? I bought some jeans yesterday, that also didn't do any of the above things. Does that make me a bad person? Yes, we could all give money to extremely worthy causes, where our money could make the difference between life or death, but sometimes we want to spend our money to get a video/game/film made that we quite fancy seeing. And sometimes that project will have the benefit of also being educational and bringing (what I believe to be) legitimate problems in our society to light. It's our money, and we can do what we like with it. 'Tropes versus women in video games' is not the charity of the year, but I for one am glad it got funded and is being made, because feminist interpretations of the media are really interesting (whether you agree with them or not). And I don't think she can be called a con-artist, because she never said she was going to eradicate sexism with the money, simply that she wanted to make some videos. She's lied to no one.
Obviously, our opposing views are coloured significantly by the fact that I see the portrayal of women in video games as a legitimate problem and you don't, but I think it helps to look at both sides of it.
Her social commentary is irrelevant and pointless. I also find her and all of her supporters "antagonizing". It is a non-issue and it makes feminism look bad to be supporting something as trivial as this. Donating money to a woman to sit on her ass and play video games so she can make "social commentary"? Is that what feminism is about? Comparing "sexist portrayal of women in video games" to civil rights is "ambitious". I really don't think you can discuss any topic regarding this seriously if you can equivocate the two. You want to be a feminist? Donate that money to sending some girl in a Taiwanese sweatshop to college.
Sometimes, they did. They usually lost because, well, peasants vs. trained army usually turns out that way. Not to mention that many civilians weren't even allowed to own meaningful weapons.
And THIS is why I said every time Lolwut gave me some sob story about the horrors of war that men went through, that the fact that women didn't have to do it gets thrown in our faces. Thank you for exemplifying the point for me.
Only when your side stops portraying me as the inferior leech.
so do you have interest in being a soldier or some pirate reaver or something?
Yep. Live fast, die young, leave a beautiful corpse if you can.
Another badass woman. call me crazy I always loved joan of arc myself she was an inspiration. not for being a badass female but for being a badass person.
well honestly luv you should fucking do that shit like for real. I mean a merc a bounty hunter that would be cool. any other ideas?
Another badass woman. call me crazy I always loved joan of arc myself she was an inspiration. not for being a badass female but for being a badass person.
well honestly luv you should fucking do that shit like for real. I mean a merc a bounty hunter that would be cool. any other ideas?
Physically, I'm not up to such work. I even mused about taking some actual training in bail bonds work, but immediately got shot down by the fact that...well, I'm a damn twig. Making and selling guns is about as close as I'll get.
Frankster: Advantages on being a guy: you get to join the army and rape wimmin! :D
....*bangs head on wall*
Plus (keep in mind that these are all historically true, contemporary society has done away with many of them):
Oh god, learn some actual history, because this is not what history tells us happened for about 99% of the population... Let me just correct those assumptions for you.
Gethsemani: * You get to be treated as an individual
Unless you were one of the 99% of people who were not upper class, in which case you were property
Not that you would ever be able to afford it, since you were a pig shit ignorant dirt farmer, scratching out a living & thats if you weren't a coal miner.
But significantly less then women. In fact if a woman did the wrong thing, do you know who got punished? Her husband or her father. He got publically made fun of usually bar tar & feathering, or being ridden around the town backwards on a donkey, as he was pelted by rotten fruit & vegetable matter... When people didn't throw cow pies. Because if we put him in jail for her legal transgressions, who will work so she can eat.
Yep. You must assuredly got to inherit... Usually the debt of your father & only if you were the oldest son. Otherwise you inherited nothing.
Gethsemani: * You get to have your own job and income
A job which was usually labour intensive, life shortening & taking 12 hours a day... For limited pay which you then used to eak out a living for your wife & family... But only until the boy children reached the age of nine, at whcih point they also had to go to work.
Gethsemani: * You get the chance to have your voice heard
Unless of course you were not the head of a house hold (since only one person in a household got to vote) & only if you were a property owner.
Gethsemani: * You get to have social status based in-part on your gender.
Its true a man was nothing but a work horse for someone else, but women had intrinsic value as the bearer of children.
Gethsemani: * You get to have access to education, if your economy permits.
Which it didn't. In fact young girls historically had a higher level of access to education then young boys did.
mayhap you want to pick up an actual history book, rather then trying to revise history, because its actually an interesting topic, when you know what you are talking about... Which you obviously do not.
Congratulations!You just made 150,000 dollars , that's money that could have gone to Africa,starving children,actual feminists trying to improve the situation in countrys with major sexism problems (all causes to witch I have donated money to several times) or even someone triying to make a game/movie/etc with a great female character witch is what you should be doing in the first place or even just actual art.But no instead it goes to some random chick on the internet claiming that games are sexist(after checking mi library one would dout that).
Hurray for faith in humanati going from 0 to minus 1. But unless she donates all that money to a good cause (unlikely) there's nothing we can do,I mean the kickstarter is over she as her money.
that's how kickstarter works really,you ask people to fund a project,quality be damned!
See I would've reserved judgment as well but I decided to watch the videos she has out now. Can't respect her. Not even a little. I share your apathy to those who gave her money though. Most of that money was knee jerk reaction money due to the harassment she got (and to an extent played).
I'm waiting to see her gaming web series. mostly because I have my own web series and my viewers have been asking for a video about this whole mess.
So I'm holding off for the sake of the lulz. If the show is bad, my video can take her down based on her merits as a game critic with real evidence. If the show is good or neutral, my video gets to call out gamers on hair trigger douchebaggery (which is a favorite pastime of mine).
Win-win for me :D
You could do a two parts video in witch the first part you for example examine the videos she already as and arrive to the realization that she obviously as done no fucking reaserch and is obviously just craving attention and posts no actual arguments( she just points at something and says that acording to her stupid and never clarifyed standerts it is sexist(whitch it ALWAYS isn't))and the fact that she DID NOT NEED THE KICKSTARTER AT ALL because she clearly already as a studio and all the games she needs and she doesn't need it for research do to the fact that she ask her stupid fanbase to do it for her and already as enough money from her youtube partnership. And point out the fact that she ( much like peta)is an attention craving bitch that deverts attention from actual people trying to do good (perhaps you could do a joke about how it is likely that she ,like peta, kills pupies(look it up)).
And for the second part you could talk about her game related vids (when they come out whitch is becoming unlikely).
Just suggesting!
Yeah, but that would require that I have the same opinion on Anita Sarkesian that every screaming dipshit has.
I don't. I know nothing about Anita Sarkesian. I have done no research, which is why I would wait to see her series.
As for the Kickstarter, neither you nor I get to decide if she needed the kickstarter or not. Kickstarter is a system where you put up a project and say "Hey wanna help fund my project?" and the users decide if it needs the kickstarter by making the decision to contribute or not.
That's how the decision get's made. Not by throwing up a screaming fit.
The hilarious thing is that she doesn't even need to make the series now. She wanted to see is misogyny existed in the video game industry. Since fans are considered part of an industry in an ideological sense, that would make the the answer a big
YES THERE IS
.
I concur with Jim Sterling. Any valid criticism against her was rendered void once people started threatening to rape her, and flash games were made about beating the shit out of her. Nothing involving kickstarter, video games, or feminism could possibly justify that. Anyone looking at this from the outside would take one look at the situation and think "Wow, these guys are beyond overreacting."
I have a habit of telling gamers "Get over it" whenever something comes up that makes them behave this way. The community has a serious problem with maturity. The community has a serious problem when it comes to screaming and throwing their tantrums.
This kind of behavior is not okay. It's not okay to scream like a child when someone makes plans to create a video series you don't like. It's not okay to threaten people with rape and claim it's justified. It's not okay to express desire to brutally assault someone. And I can't believe that anybody has to be TOLD this.
If Ms Sarkesian's kickstarter project has you this angry, then here's some good advice for you.
Another badass woman. call me crazy I always loved joan of arc myself she was an inspiration. not for being a badass female but for being a badass person.
well honestly luv you should fucking do that shit like for real. I mean a merc a bounty hunter that would be cool. any other ideas?
Physically, I'm not up to such work. I even mused about taking some actual training in bail bonds work, but immediately got shot down by the fact that...well, I'm a damn twig. Making and selling guns is about as close as I'll get.
The "work" is 90% investigation 10% kicking ass. With the right self defense training, tasers, rubber bullets, sawd off with rocksalt, etc etc youd be good to go inspite of your size.
I thought about being a bounty hunter myself. I decided that I wouldnt be up to ripping some mom from her child because she couldnt make it to one of her drug court appointments.
Not to rub salt in old wounds, but whatever happened with this project? I tried to find the video, and I guess it still isn't finished. I tried to look up information about the progress on it, and Ms. Sarkeesian has been polite enough to block people who didn't hand her money. Can anyone let me in on what became of this?
I figured that it would probably be a better idea to just post in this thread instead of making ANOTHER thread about the same topic.
Anyone have any information? Aren't the backers angry at this point?
alphamalet: Not to rub salt in old wounds, but whatever happened with this project? I tried to find the video, and I guess it still isn't finished. I tried to look up information about the progress on it, and Ms. Sarkeesian has been polite enough to block people who didn't hand her money. Can anyone let me in on what became of this?
I figured that it would probably be a better idea to just post in this thread instead of making ANOTHER thread about the same topic.
Anyone have any information? Aren't the backers angry at this point?
Last I heard it was progressing/almost done, but the guy I asked is a known fabulist, so whether he was actually telling the truth or just making up a bullshit answer to my question is open to debate. She got hugely overfunded and expanded the scope of the project, so I'm guessing her release date got pushed way out.
Kickstarter backers are going to need to learn to be very, very patient. A lot of these things, especially the ones that greatly exceeded their requests and thus added a ton of features via stretch goals, are going to take a loooong time to arrive.
alphamalet: Not to rub salt in old wounds, but whatever happened with this project? I tried to find the video, and I guess it still isn't finished. I tried to look up information about the progress on it, and Ms. Sarkeesian has been polite enough to block people who didn't hand her money. Can anyone let me in on what became of this?
I figured that it would probably be a better idea to just post in this thread instead of making ANOTHER thread about the same topic.
Anyone have any information? Aren't the backers angry at this point?
Well, the backers obviously get info, if they aren't angry then the info seems to be good enough...
Kickstarter backers are going to need to learn to be very, very patient. A lot of these things, especially the ones that greatly exceeded their requests and thus added a ton of features via stretch goals, are going to take a loooong time to arrive.
Can they put a limit on the amount of cash they get though? Most people who know what they are doing would welcome extra cash to allocate toward expediting and enhancing a project. If you don't know what you are doing or how to manage a production (a camp Ms. Sarkeesain seems to be in), wouldn't putting a ceiling on the donations be the responsible thing to do? Does kickstarter allow that?
Well, the backers obviously get info, if they aren't angry then the info seems to be good enough...
Well, how would we know? There are posts earlier in this thread saying that Ms. Sarkeesian was deleting posts frustrated with her. What you say makes perfect sense, but the reason I still asked is because of potential censorship. Plus, I'm pretty sure some of the forum users backed her as well, so I wanted to get their opinion.
Well, how would we know? There are posts earlier in this thread saying that Ms. Sarkeesian was deleting posts frustrated with her. What you say makes perfect sense, but the reason I still asked is because of potential censorship. Plus, I'm pretty sure some of the forum users backed her as well, so I wanted to get their opinion.
Breaking news: Sarkeesian can only delete in her 'private' area: Her website and her yt channel. Everything else you can speak as you will and I'm sure as hell that in this case backers would be go out of their way to other means if they were not satisfied.
alphamalet: Can they put a limit on the amount of cash they get though? Most people who know what they are doing would welcome extra cash to allocate toward expediting and enhancing a project. If you don't know what you are doing or how to manage a production (a camp Ms. Sarkeesain seems to be in), wouldn't putting a ceiling on the donations be the responsible thing to do? Does kickstarter allow that?
It's more a question of not really being certain how long something is going to take. A lot of productions suffer from missed deadlines. As a fan of gaming I'm sure you're familiar with this. Missing a deadline does not in and of itself indicate that she doesn't know how to manage a production, merely that she overestimated how long it would take to get it done. Since I'm not a backer and don't get backer info, I have no idea what her projections were, or if they were realistic.
Regardless, Kickstarter is basically a very basic form of venture capitalism. Anything you kickstart should be seen as a huge risk. If people aren't prepared for delays...or for the project just never materializing at all...they shouldn't be investing.
TheKasp: Well, how would we know? There are posts earlier in this thread saying that Ms. Sarkeesian was deleting posts frustrated with her. What you say makes perfect sense, but the reason I still asked is because of potential censorship. Plus, I'm pretty sure some of the forum users backed her as well, so I wanted to get their opinion.
Backer-only info is pretty common. RPS did a big roundup on all the prominent kickstarted games a few months ago and openly lamented the huge percentage of them that restricted project updates to backers only.
Not really.
What you call smart, I call weak. It does sadden me that historically the damage may be irrepairable.