Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Whose Definition of Feminism Is It Anyway? (With New Improved and Expanded Conversations!)
Posts
Yeah I tend to enjoy Stoicism, and I like the idea of recognizing that bad things can be reacted to in a proper manner. But like, _J_'s using it as a little Immunity Vest rather than the actual point of the idea.
Like "Do unto others" well I choose to like being stabbed! SO HA
like man don't try to game the fucking system, that's not the point.
http://troublethinking.wordpress.com (Updated Wed) http://twitter.com/#!/Durandal4532
At this poing you're just saying, "Yes it was sexist, your explanation did not satisfy me." Which is apparently what you hate me doing in reverse.
We had this exact conversation in PM. That is what I am referencing.
That wasn't a commentary on that specific comment, I was obviously talking about our general disagreements. No, of course I can't say, "You believe in a genderless world, therefore that was not sexist." I did not do that.
I explained many times how the comment is not sexist. It must have been a pretty boring read to just see "It just isnt!" repeated hundreds of times, no? Unless, of course, I didn't do that and you just don't agree with my conclusions.
Which is the fundamental difference between the two of us here. You acting as if all this is concrete: there is a right, there is a wrong, and you are right. It's as if it never occurs to you that a lot of this is subjective.
I like this excerpt actually, and is something similar to what I, and I assume others, do quite a bit. The helping part I mean. I am more likely to help a woman than I am a man. That's a sexist behaviour, I own that.
But it's one of those ones that I'm comfortable having, because I feel the level that I do it at is to low to constitute harm.
I don't force my help on them, or help because I feel they are incapable. I offer my help, or agree when asked because I was taught that it was a nice thing to do. I like being nice, and being seen as nice. I also help men sometimes for the same reasons, but I care less whether they think of me as nice, and society awards less "nice points" for helping men than women.
While I can see why that's sexist, I fail to see that the harm caused is great enough for me to try and change that behaviour. I probably also hold doors open for women more often/from further away than men.
http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/user/Mort-ZA/
@MortNZ
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
You're misrepresenting my argument. Completely. Not that I'm even surprised anymore.
I am saying attempting to skirt consent is a stupid idea that allows people to do shit they don't actually feel ready to do.
I think it's a decent rule that if you cannot deal with ever saying the words "I want to have sex with you", you are not ready to sex people yet.
http://troublethinking.wordpress.com (Updated Wed) http://twitter.com/#!/Durandal4532
No one is attempting to skirt consent. You're attempting to narrowly define consent to fit your very narrow view of consent in the face of a massively complex and subjective subject (read: sex).
I'd also venture to say that you do not get to demand that everyone say the words you want them to say before they have sex. Again, there is nothing wrong with doing any of the things you've mentioned: the only thing wrong is you saying that this is what people should do. You're discounting the millions of people who have healthy, awesome sex lives and don't follow your narrow rules.
Again, only if you insist there be sexist intent for something to be sexist. Which is still patently ridiculous. People can say and do sexist things without meaning to.
Again, that is not my argument. No matter how many times Cambiata claims it is, it isn't. Cambiata, concerning me, is Fox News. No offense meant to you Cam, but you seriously misrepresent me at every turn. I'm sure you're much more fantastic than Fox News in real life.
I suggest you go back to where we were discussing the topic and read my posts there before assuming that this is my viewpoint.
I'm deeply amused that you think Quid needed me to be able to come to that conclusion. Like that your own words didn't lead him there. Cute.
Origin ID: jazzmess
Amazon Wishlist
All I see is you claiming to avoid saying who's right or wrong and that people who say he's saying something sexist don't understand that he's totally not being sexist.
Saying a dumbed down version of a game is for women, and that is what he said, is sexist. Full stop. You've not once demonstrated how saying that isn't sexist.
I guess it is. Bah.
Except that's not what was said. Full stop. You can only come to this conclusion if you utterly ignore all context.
How many girlfriends are not women?
Origin ID: jazzmess
Amazon Wishlist
When being interviewed, he used the scenario of a gamer guy and his girlfriend who doesn't play games as a scenario of where the mode would work. In this analogy, he is presuming that most of the people using the mode will be "gamer guy with non-gamer girlfriend". So, the sexism is in the presumption that the girlfriend will not be a gamer because she's a girl?
I tend to tie this issue back the concept of empathy. The stronger your ability to imagine oneself in the shoes of another person, the less likely you are to buy into an abusive system. So far the narrative is that people are generally empathetic and just need it explained on some level, but I think it's more accurate to say there are undoubtedly unempathetic people or people for whom the system has worked to the advantage to and so have embraced a system of cognitive dissonance that allows them to avoid using empathy altogether. I do not think this is issue for minorities solely, only that the most obvious abuses are heaped on those with less ability to resist that abuse.
It seems perfectly obvious to me that a woman is just as capable of behaving sexistly (since this thread has politically corrected "being sexist" back out of the vocabulary to avoid hurting the feelings of sexists) as much as a black/asian/other-ethnic-minority is capable of behaving racistly. I also believe that there are legitimate abuses that society heaps on plain old white men. Those abuses are substantively created by other white men to keep those white men in line, but they can be perpetuated by anyone who feels like it. The difference here is (in the oppression olympics) white men have the power to do something about it. White men have never been legislated against (1) and have always had the capacity to go wherever they want, whenever they want in society without molestation (2).
The ultimate problem is how to encourage empathy in other people and the ultimate answer to that one has been "you can't, really." All you can really do is hope their children grow up consuming progressive media that encourage the challenge of authorities, of society and most importantly challenging yourself in your beliefs and values. There's a great sign up a few places in town here (New Orleans) that says very simply "think that you might be wrong." It's a form of brainwashing, certainly. It's the exact sort of thing hard-line atheists shit their pants about when it comes to accepting anything that doesn't fit into a psuedo-rational objectivist world-view, but it's how we (humans) function and change culture.
But that progressive media isn't going to make itself. It needs people tirelessly arguing, exhaustively studying, relentlessly demonstrating those abuses that are inherent to the current society. We need (even if imperfect) heroes like MLK and Ghandi and martyrs like Malcolm X and Jimmy Carter to show us constantly that there is always another way, always something else you can do besides falling into the narrative that people are going to hand you (3). Jesus Christ might not have been the son of god, but he was a model for revolutionary social change based on a system of empathy.
I'm not really arguing with anyone here, I just needed some catharsis after all the nonsense I've read this morning.
______________
(1): unless you buy the idea that giving more people more social power reduces your own, which in a system that assumes scarcity of social power is entirely true. It's probably a result of a capitalist system, which is arguably a result of patriarchy which is arguably a result of agriculture. Fucked from the ground up, really.
(2): It's an interesting sort of perversion of empathy (iirc this is the definition of sympathy, putting them in your shoes, rather than you in theirs) that leads to a white person imagining that black people are going to kick them out of their neighborhood violently or subtly or in general just make them feel unwelcome, since that's exactly what white people do to black people in this country. Similarly men assume that feminists are going to make them into grotesque mockeries of themselves since that's what they do to women. I'm sure the guy who made the "beat up sarkeesian" game genuinely believes that there's a game out there that all feminazis are playing that involves castration or something.
(3): You crazy idealists kids who don't even know what you want and are too angry and can't organize effectively and will probably change your minds once you've had enough experience to inevitably become archie bunker.
It depressed me that this is your conclusion. A nastily biased view of the conversation, to say the least.
Ok. Looks like we're going to have the debate again. That's so 5 pages ago, man. Anyways, here we go again (again).
There are two possible options that I can see here. Option 1:
Back in the days when gaming was seen as primarily a dorky thing to do, there arose quite a few situations where guys could not get their girlfriends into gaming. This arose into something of a meme overtime, an inside joke. Note that this is not a sexist theory, this is something actually happened to many people due to the stigmas and culture of the time.
A reference to girlfriend-mode is not an attempt to say that all girlfriends (and thereby all women) are bad at computer games and need a dumbed-down version in order to get involved. This mode is meant for all genders as an easy entry to games that are otherwise intended for those with a background in gaming. The reference to "girlfriend mode" is very apt for this, as it discribes the particulars of the situation in a funny way that most people in the gaming community can identify with.
It can certainly be said that this was not the best thing he could have said, but it's far from sexist. It's a reference to a specific occurrence that became a joke/meme and using that joke/meme as shorthand to describe the particulars of the project.
Option 2: I believe this was actually brought up by the company, who said that this is a reference to the devs' girlfriends who they could not get into gaming. A reference to their inability to get their girlfriends into gaming is not sexism.
The problem comes from him deciding to give it a poor name.
If it was the gamer and their black friend, it would be racist to call it black person mode.
If it was him and his dad it would be ageist to call it old person mode.
If it was him and a poorer friend it would be classist to all it poor person mode.
Because neither sex, race, or age, etc have to do with why they would be having trouble with the game. It would be that they are new/unpracticed with it. That he's using a noun that accurately describes the girl in this scenario does not make the other noun he creates not sexist.
Here's a definition of sexist from thefreedictionary.com
1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.
Would you say that "girlfriend
modeskill tree" does not promote stereotyping of girlfriends, ie of persons based on gender, among players/fans of the game?If you think the definition is too broad/narrow/strict, then please specify in what way you think it is.
By the way, I also think that making everyone everywhere have to ask for consent explicitly instead of doing it by more subtle mutual communication is ridiculous, not leastly because it simply won't happen.
Again, I' having trouble squaring these "faux pas" arguments with the narrative.
Smoking overall has gone down (but I would seriously argue the fact that it is taxed quite a bit more than it has in previous years is a significant factor here as well), but it hasn't gone away. There are even cigar bars and hookah clubs for like-minded people to engage in some real heavy duty shit. And anecdotally speaking, some kids still smoke like furnaces in high school. The public perception around smoking isn't that it is always wrong, just that it is situationally so, and that changed only through tons of study that showed that even bystanders are directly harmed by it in easily-measured, quantifiable, and largely value-neutral ways.
When we say pointing out some types of sexism is like pointing out a faux pas and we are all just gently correcting each other (and thus people shouldn't get defensive), it ignores that faux pas are considered minor transgressions of social expectations, are a constant source and vehicle of humor, and that if anything they have become more situationally acceptable. In fact, exhibiting relaxed social expectations at this point often indicates familiarity and friendliness, and for many that relaxed attitude seems to be appreciated more now than keeping up social graces. If some types of sexism are like this, then the conclusion isn't necessarily more vigilance, and the counter-arguments that are often made about circumstance and situation become more persuasive.
However, if sexism is harmful in any form (or so many forms as to make it effectively so) and deserves constant vigilance, then there's less space to say that there is such a thing as a "minor transgression" - and it becomes more difficult to divorce the stronger moralizing required to maintain that view. Thus, people should be rightly stern-to-outraged when pointing it out, and the accused should understandably take accusations seriously (and if they disagree, up to the point where they can be stern-to-outraged as well). In that case, I'm not sure we can reasonably fall back on the "I'm just pointing it out, you're not a monster or anything" line of argument to try to defuse impassioned defenses.
Yes, sexual intercourse in the absence of consent is rape. However, there are gray areas. Non-penetrative sexual touching without consent (like grabbing a stranger's ass). Sex with consent that was gained via emotional blackmail or financial manipulation (as with workplace harassment). Sex that was engaged in out of fear of social consequences without any overt threat (as with a subordinate housewife in a highly sexist culture). Sex based on false pretenses (as when an HIV positive person lies about their status) may be legally considered rape in some jurisdictions, but not in others. These things do not universally strictly adhere to the scary R-word but I don't think it's particularly troublesome to say that they're wrong.
I really doubt that you have a blanket principle of sexual relativism in all situations except those that involve penetrative rape. If you do, yours is a fringe position that would condone some forms of sexual behavior that I think most people in this thread would find repugnant.
I just made a post refreshing my view on the situation, hopefully the answer is in there. If not, please feel free to ask for more clarification.
Thank you, I think we agree here.
You are arguing based on intent. "Here is a possible intent." We are telling you that intent has no bearing on whether the statement is sexist or not.
To take a line from Quid's post, "Black person mode" would be racist, even if it were based on a real statistical trend of black people not being very much in to FPS games, or of guys having problems getting their black friends to play this specific type of game and using that anecdotally to explain the name.
Origin ID: jazzmess
Amazon Wishlist
[/quote]Option 2: I believe this was actually brought up by the company, who said that this is a reference to the devs' girlfriends who they could not get into gaming. A reference to their inability to get their girlfriends into gaming is not sexism. [/quote]
They are not the only people with girlfriends. Girlfriend does not describe only their girlfriends. Had it been called "Hemingway's Girlfriend Mode" this would have a leg to stand on. It was not.
Thank you. Now I know the concept is literally retarded.
Which is why we call it Filipino mode.
Oh ho. I am a cut up.
I see, you think the concept of consent is literally spawned from the developmentally disabled. All feminists are Down's syndrome sufferers.
Lovely.
Oh hey look I guess I understood the arguments pretty well then
I am not just being snide to be snide- both of your options are literally handwaving it away. The first is essentially saying "this injoke developed years ago when women generally didn't play video games, and he was making fun of a way that is relateable to most people in the gaming community!" Which is basically an argument that this isn't sexism, because the gaming community is mostly male? It makes no sense, honestly. Your option one is not so much an argument as to why it isn't sexist, it is an argument for why it was said.
WE all understand that this is referencing back to Ye Olde Days of gaming when it was even more of a boys club than it is now. The problem is that Ye Olde Days were sexist as fuck, and they still are, and implying that the majority of people who need help playing this game are "girlfriends" is sexist.
Or we take option 2 and assume that he was referencing his own particular experiences trying to get his girlfriend into gaming. If that is the case, he choose his words poorly, and they came out as sexist. If he was talking about his own experiences, why make it a blanket generalization? Why not say- t"his mode is for people like my girlfriend who want to play games, but aren't good." Poor word choice, and given the context, it comes off as the first situation, as reinforcing the "boy's club" attitude of gaming.
And, like quid said, you can be sexist without intending to be sexist, or without being a raging misogynist.
I think I understand the arguments perfectly well, and they are poor arguments.
That's a very interesting observation. I've had similar observations, and even indulged in it myself (But not related to sexism/rapiness).
You can get around quite a lot of "normal" social convention by doing something like this, and when your social group interacts with another, that idea of "frank just being frank" actually spreads. It's weird how you can tolerate behaviour from one person, that you wouldn't from another one just because "that's who he is"
http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/user/Mort-ZA/
@MortNZ
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Craw's post completely refutes your argument before Craw ever saw it. So I think you need to address Craw's specific post about how stereotyping girlfriends is not sexism? Your argument seems to be, "well a lot of guys girlfriends fit the stereotype", but you're actually giving support that the statement was gender based stereotyping, rather than giving a support against it.
Origin ID: jazzmess
Amazon Wishlist
I think I'm starting to get it. So, if for example he'd said "I came up with this idea as a way to get my girlfriend into the game", but not used the "girlfriend mode" term it would've been ok. One is giving a scenario that a lot of people would sympathize with, while the other one presumes that everyone's in the same boat?
Yes, exactly!
Why is it that when that when you talk about consent/rape it always puts people on the defensive?
Like I was thinking about this. If we were talking about guns and I said "make sure no one is down range when you fire a gun" the next post wouldn't be someone saying "so I am supposed to check downrange everytime I fire a gun?" or "so it's MY fault if I shoot someone?". People just automatically grasp the concept that if you shoot a gun you are responsible for what it hits but when you talk about sex it becomes something else.
I'd say most first-time sex is based on false pretenses. It's basically called "putting your best foot forward" in attempt to conceal things that would detract from sex appeal and play up aspects that would want a person to have sex with you. By your logic, not admitting you live with your parents falls in that grey area if that girl at the bar wouldn't have slept with you had she known. I'm a little iffy on how problematic that sort of thing is.
Now, many parts of what you're saying are definitely true. It's not cool to sleep with someone without telling them you have HIV, but that has nothing to do with some concept of Enthusiastic Consent and everything to do with avoiding actual consent issues and, coincidentally, you being a total asshole. Ditto with the other examples. Blackmail via financial manipulation doesn't have anything to do with Enthusiastic Consent, it has to do with fucking blackmail (and again, being an asshole).
It just seems there's some very different applications of the term Enthusiastic Consent. Perhaps it's broader than I thought, that's definitely a possibility. The way you're presenting it, it seems to have a micro clause for actual sexual interactions and a macro clause for pre-sex consent that works in with larger societal issues and actual crime.
I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here. Would you mind clarifying for me? I would appreciate that, before I go and put forth an opinion that will probably bring down another dogpile on my head.
I think it's a really stupid notion, if it is as you described it. The idea that anyone not conforming to your model of Enthusiastic Consent is a rapist is literally retarded.
And that boat has a big sign that looks like this
Yep. I don't care that his girlfriend has trouble with FPS games and he wanted to help create an easier mode for her and others like her. We care that his chosen description for that mode is one that describes women and only women.
Wow _J_, you might not be failing the Turing Test, but you're getting a solid C- so far.
Edit: Actually that came across as a bit snarky, sorry.
That comment just seemed a bit out there to be real.
http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/user/Mort-ZA/
@MortNZ
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
When I saw that I even ribbed her for being new at it because I knew my audience and knew she'd take it well. And even then I did not tease her for having game debilitating boobs because that makes no sense.