I'm beginning to wonder if _J_ is talking about outward reactions versus internal thought. IE, you can't control your personal feelings of anger/offense but you can control how you manifest them to others?
That's the only way I can see it making sense to me.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to say you can suppress or manage your reactions to your environment.
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.
No, it really hasn't been explained adequately how it isn't sexist. In fact, most people (aside from, apparently you) agree that it WAS sexist...they just don't think it was a big deal!
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.
I mean, I agree that we do have wildly divergent viewpoints in that you do see things as moral and equal that myself (and many others) see as sexist and promoters of inequality but goddam the parenthetical here is confusing.
I don't know that "protected class" is how I would describe my views towards women, and if you are implying that there hasn't been a large amount of history (and current events) that oppress women directly...
I don't know what to say.
We had this exact conversation in PM. That is what I am referencing.
My view of a genderless world has nothing to do on whether or not a comment was sexist, also. You don't get to use that in lieu of an argument.
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.
So far the arguments against this comment being sexist have been "It just isn't!" or "He meant it a different way!"
Those don't count dude, and I shouldn't have to explain why
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.
0
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
@Arch than you so much for posting all those scholarly articles!
Just going to post a passage here that I liked from that first one for the rest of the thread, as it kind of seems relevant to the discussion previously.
Although the content of stereotypes for women are subjectively positive, they are low in status. In a workplace situation, this means that women are favored for low-status, feminine jobs, which include support positions that serve, mainly, male superiors (eg. secretary) or paid versions of women's traditional domestic role (eg. daycare worker). When BS [benevolent sexism] spills over in to the workplace, women may be seen as warmer, but are presumed to be less competent than men, so that women are confined to feminine and low-status roles. Additionally, BS in the workplace may elicit patronizing discrimination (Glick & Fiske, 2007) which includes but is not limited to handicapping via overhelping, taking over, and limiting the responsibilities of targets.
Patronizing discrimination, which is embedded in BS, maintains the dominant group's higher status. It is not overtly hostile and, in many cases, is seemingly beneficial to the recipient. Furthermore the perpetrator may think he is helping the recipient. Women may accept paternalistic gestures either because they are not aware they reinforce the notion that women are suitable only for low-status roles, or because they understand that to cooperate and accept benevolent gestures is a better alternative to enduring overt hostility.
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.
We have not been talking nearly as long nor as deep about feminism. Nor, do we have the size and obviousness of the response. People did not give the developers bad looks for their talk, it got through the entire development process as an in joke that no one objected to. It was so innocuous to them that they were willing to publicly name the tree "BFF" and talk about their sexist in-joke to the press.
The reason no one got bad looks for it was because it was not sexist.
Who has to give the bad looks for it to be sexist?
Looks have nothing to do with it. It would have to be sexist to be sexist.
We've discussed this quite a lot already, but the thing your missing is that "sexist" doesn't mean "That thing that Frankie defines as what he, personally, dislikes." Something that is sexist can still be something you like. It's a narrowly defined word that has nothing to do with how you feel about the person saying the word, or how you feel about the person saying the sexism. Defining words based on how you personally feel about them is a shit way to communicate.
You're misrepresenting my argument. Completely. Not that I'm even surprised anymore.
I think we've moved beyond the point where people are being openly sexist (obviously there will always be some exceptions to this rule, but sadly this is the case with everything). So there are very very few people openly saying "women should shut up and get back into the kitchen!". Maybe they whisper it to their like-minded friends, but rarely will it be public.
Who are you talking about? Everyone in your neighborhood? Your city? Your social circle? People who have taken post-high school courses? People on the TV? Everyone in the country you live in? The world? Blatant sexism is rampant in many places still, as has been said many times in the thread, even in "highly developed" countries like the US or Sweden. It's not a matter of "very very few people". I understand what you're trying to say, but we shouldn't forget that even though there ARE groups of people who have come a very far way regarding feminism, there are many who haven't and we shouldn't assume that everyone should just get on with "the next step".
Well, yeah. I did say "there will always be exceptions to that rule". I guess that applies both to a) geographical boundaries, and b) people inside the geographical boundaries.
Feminism as a movement is spending less time against openly/publicly sexist people, and more of its time against people who either don't even realize they are being sexist, or who are limiting their sexism to the "grey area" where it may or may not be sexist and expect the benefit of the doubt, and I think the discussion in this thread is a good example of this.
Sorry if that wasn't clear.
The problem with that assessment is that feminist have always operated In the grey area Of their respective times.
A man in the 20s didn't think that they hated women just because they didn't want them to vote and don draper didn't think anything was wrong with slapping his secretary on the ass.
Anyway, so. I've been reading about David Lisaks studies on sexual predators.
Brief summary, Lasik did a bunch of surveys of college students on rape, his conclusions are interesting because he's firmly against the idea that the majority of rape is being a one-time-mistake-offence. What he found is that the majority of rapes, acquaintance, date rape ect are done by a relatively small subset of repeat offenders.
Now heres the creepy part, among these repeat offenders certain patterns come up, and one is that they know how to exploit societies bias against women. That is to say, they know how to pick victims who wont speak out, they overwhelmingly use manipulation and general nice guy (up to a point) tactics rather than violence, and they know to ingratiate themselves in a crowd where they have "social license" to operate.
Essentially in order to get away with being a rapey dude, you've got to be in a crowd where men are the dominant voice, where you can say rapey things and pass it off as "just a joke", and where if it comes down to a he said/she said situation people will at worst, charitably assume it was a matter of simple miscommunication.
Rapists and general misogynists are well aware that as long as you operate in societies "grey area" no one will really call you it. As long as you surround yourself with people who will say "haha thats our frank, don't be so uptight he doesn't really mean anything by it" you can do or say pretty much whatever you want.
Socially saavy and manipulative people are good at getting away with lots of crimes. This is hardly a revelation.
The point, though, is they need that gray space to operate in. This is the whole point about the enthusiastic consent consent - if the idea that intimate contact has as a key element that all parties involved were openly and enthusiastically engaged was the norms, then it's near impossible to make the "miscommunication" argument as a defense.
If I remember correctly, we already had a discussion on enthusiastic consent. The way I see it, it's all well and good for those who want to interact that way, but that's hardly a universally shared conclusion.
So, what is wrong with making sure that when it comes to intimacy, every person involved is clearly into what is going on? I want to know what you specifically think will be lost by going that route.
This shit happened in college, when people talked about how you can't 'spoil the mood' by addressing consent.
Like someone saying "man I really want to fuck you you sexy dang person" is going to make you all sad.
I find it rather disturbing that you're attempting to tell people how they should have sex, and shaming those who don't employ or agree with your approved methods. It's a massively personal thing, people are fucking complicated.
Man, consent is pretty important!
In fact, it's basically a requirement, man. Consenting is actually definitely a requirement. Trying to skirt it is a pretty bad plan!
Are you seriously equating lack of Enthusiastic Consent to rape? Seriously?
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.
I think we've moved beyond the point where people are being openly sexist (obviously there will always be some exceptions to this rule, but sadly this is the case with everything). So there are very very few people openly saying "women should shut up and get back into the kitchen!". Maybe they whisper it to their like-minded friends, but rarely will it be public.
Who are you talking about? Everyone in your neighborhood? Your city? Your social circle? People who have taken post-high school courses? People on the TV? Everyone in the country you live in? The world? Blatant sexism is rampant in many places still, as has been said many times in the thread, even in "highly developed" countries like the US or Sweden. It's not a matter of "very very few people". I understand what you're trying to say, but we shouldn't forget that even though there ARE groups of people who have come a very far way regarding feminism, there are many who haven't and we shouldn't assume that everyone should just get on with "the next step".
Well, yeah. I did say "there will always be exceptions to that rule". I guess that applies both to a) geographical boundaries, and b) people inside the geographical boundaries.
Feminism as a movement is spending less time against openly/publicly sexist people, and more of its time against people who either don't even realize they are being sexist, or who are limiting their sexism to the "grey area" where it may or may not be sexist and expect the benefit of the doubt, and I think the discussion in this thread is a good example of this.
Sorry if that wasn't clear.
The problem with that assessment is that feminist have always operated In the grey area Of their respective times.
A man in the 20s didn't think that they hated women just because they didn't want them to vote and don draper didn't think anything was wrong with slapping his secretary on the ass.
Anyway, so. I've been reading about David Lisaks studies on sexual predators.
Brief summary, Lasik did a bunch of surveys of college students on rape, his conclusions are interesting because he's firmly against the idea that the majority of rape is being a one-time-mistake-offence. What he found is that the majority of rapes, acquaintance, date rape ect are done by a relatively small subset of repeat offenders.
Now heres the creepy part, among these repeat offenders certain patterns come up, and one is that they know how to exploit societies bias against women. That is to say, they know how to pick victims who wont speak out, they overwhelmingly use manipulation and general nice guy (up to a point) tactics rather than violence, and they know to ingratiate themselves in a crowd where they have "social license" to operate.
Essentially in order to get away with being a rapey dude, you've got to be in a crowd where men are the dominant voice, where you can say rapey things and pass it off as "just a joke", and where if it comes down to a he said/she said situation people will at worst, charitably assume it was a matter of simple miscommunication.
Rapists and general misogynists are well aware that as long as you operate in societies "grey area" no one will really call you it. As long as you surround yourself with people who will say "haha thats our frank, don't be so uptight he doesn't really mean anything by it" you can do or say pretty much whatever you want.
Socially saavy and manipulative people are good at getting away with lots of crimes. This is hardly a revelation.
The point, though, is they need that gray space to operate in. This is the whole point about the enthusiastic consent consent - if the idea that intimate contact has as a key element that all parties involved were openly and enthusiastically engaged was the norms, then it's near impossible to make the "miscommunication" argument as a defense.
If I remember correctly, we already had a discussion on enthusiastic consent. The way I see it, it's all well and good for those who want to interact that way, but that's hardly a universally shared conclusion.
So, what is wrong with making sure that when it comes to intimacy, every person involved is clearly into what is going on? I want to know what you specifically think will be lost by going that route.
This shit happened in college, when people talked about how you can't 'spoil the mood' by addressing consent.
Like someone saying "man I really want to fuck you you sexy dang person" is going to make you all sad.
I find it rather disturbing that you're attempting to tell people how they should have sex, and shaming those who don't employ or agree with your approved methods. It's a massively personal thing, people are fucking complicated.
Man, consent is pretty important!
In fact, it's basically a requirement, man. Consenting is actually definitely a requirement. Trying to skirt it is a pretty bad plan!
Are you seriously equating lack of Enthusiastic Consent to rape? Seriously?
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.
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.
I explained many times how the comment is not sexist.
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.
I explained many times how the comment is not sexist.
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.
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
I explained many times how the comment is not sexist.
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.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
I explained many times how the comment is not sexist.
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.
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.
In some ways it kind of depresses me that this topic can go on for 72 pages. Is it really so complex to assert that women are people like men are people, and we shouldn't treat vagina-havin' people differently from penis-havin' people, and that it's a damb shame that the vagina-havin' people were (and sometimes still are) treated badly just for the vagina-havin', and we should be careful not to do that any more?
I explained many times how the comment is not sexist.
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.
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.
Except that's not what was said. Full stop. You can only come to this conclusion if you utterly ignore all context.
I explained many times how the comment is not sexist.
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.
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.
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?
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
edited August 2012
Perhaps, Frankie, you wouldn't mind repeating the totally compelling argument that the statements weren't sexist? I honestly haven't seen you argue anything of the kind, aside from the "nuh-uhs" referenced by Arch. Care to share your reasoning?
Cambiata on
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
@Quid - I've been reading the discussion, trying to understand the sexism in what he said. I might need some clarification on this:
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?
Man, the last ten pages of this thread have been an emotional rollercoaster.
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.
In some ways it kind of depresses me that this topic can go on for 72 pages. Is it really so complex to assert that women are people like men are people, and we shouldn't treat vagina-havin' people differently from penis-havin' people, and that it's a damb shame that the vagina-havin' people were (and sometimes still are) treated badly just for the vagina-havin', and we should be careful not to do that any more?
I guess it is. Bah.
It depressed me that this is your conclusion. A nastily biased view of the conversation, to say the least.
I explained many times how the comment is not sexist.
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.
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.
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?
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.
@Quid - I've been reading the discussion, trying to understand the sexism in what he said. I might need some clarification on this:
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?
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.
I explained many times how the comment is not sexist.
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.
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 mode skill 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.
One thing that might help is trying to apply the same "every small thing is an important aspect of the culture" idea to other causes that are important.
What if every time you drove your car or turned on a light, someone called you out for contributing to global warming?
What if every time you played a violent game someone called you out for contributing to a culture that supports military might above all else?
What if every time you bought a product someone you knew pointed out that the product was likely made by poor people working in terrible conditions?
Would you have a positive reaction to those people? Would they make you reconsider your actions? Or would you just stop wanting to spend time with them?
What if people got sick of second hand smoke? And every time you lit up a cigarette in public, people tut tutted and rolled their eyes, and smoking got less cool?
Oh wait that happened, and yeah its annoying.
But people smoke less now too.
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.
I find it rather disturbing that you're attempting to tell people how they should have sex, and shaming those who don't employ or agree with your approved methods. It's a massively personal thing, people are fucking complicated.
"You should only have sex with people who consent" is, I hope, one of the basic principles we can agree on.
We disagree about the practical applications of that principle, but I really hope there's no fundamental moral disagreement about the principle itself.
In other words, I doubt you have any problem telling people how they should have sex.
Well, sex without consent is rape. I hardly see how that is relevant to the conversation unless one is claiming that sex without Enthusiastic Consent is rape. Which no one is, to my knowledge.
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.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Here's a definition of sexist from freedictionary.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 mode" 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.
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.
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.
Thank you, I think we agree here.
Frankiedarling on
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
In some ways it kind of depresses me that this topic can go on for 72 pages. Is it really so complex to assert that women are people like men are people, and we shouldn't treat vagina-havin' people differently from penis-havin' people, and that it's a damb shame that the vagina-havin' people were (and sometimes still are) treated badly just for the vagina-havin', and we should be careful not to do that any more?
I guess it is. Bah.
It depressed me that this is your conclusion. A nastily biased view of the conversation, to say the least.
I explained many times how the comment is not sexist.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
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.
That it's a meme or an inside joke doesn't make it not sexist. That a large portion of the gaming community might not find it sexist also doesn't make it not sexist. They do not exist in a vacuum. My wife is part of the gaming community. She does not identify with it. Neither do I. In fact, neither do a number of people posting in this very thread.
[/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.
In some ways it kind of depresses me that this topic can go on for 72 pages. Is it really so complex to assert that women are people like men are people, and we shouldn't treat vagina-havin' people differently from penis-havin' people, and that it's a damb shame that the vagina-havin' people were (and sometimes still are) treated badly just for the vagina-havin', and we should be careful not to do that any more?
I guess it is. Bah.
It depressed me that this is your conclusion. A nastily biased view of the conversation, to say the least.
I explained many times how the comment is not sexist.
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.
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.
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?
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.
So far the arguments against this comment being sexist have been "It just isn't!" or "He meant it a different way!"
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.
I think we've moved beyond the point where people are being openly sexist (obviously there will always be some exceptions to this rule, but sadly this is the case with everything). So there are very very few people openly saying "women should shut up and get back into the kitchen!". Maybe they whisper it to their like-minded friends, but rarely will it be public.
Who are you talking about? Everyone in your neighborhood? Your city? Your social circle? People who have taken post-high school courses? People on the TV? Everyone in the country you live in? The world? Blatant sexism is rampant in many places still, as has been said many times in the thread, even in "highly developed" countries like the US or Sweden. It's not a matter of "very very few people". I understand what you're trying to say, but we shouldn't forget that even though there ARE groups of people who have come a very far way regarding feminism, there are many who haven't and we shouldn't assume that everyone should just get on with "the next step".
Well, yeah. I did say "there will always be exceptions to that rule". I guess that applies both to a) geographical boundaries, and b) people inside the geographical boundaries.
Feminism as a movement is spending less time against openly/publicly sexist people, and more of its time against people who either don't even realize they are being sexist, or who are limiting their sexism to the "grey area" where it may or may not be sexist and expect the benefit of the doubt, and I think the discussion in this thread is a good example of this.
Sorry if that wasn't clear.
The problem with that assessment is that feminist have always operated In the grey area Of their respective times.
A man in the 20s didn't think that they hated women just because they didn't want them to vote and don draper didn't think anything was wrong with slapping his secretary on the ass.
Anyway, so. I've been reading about David Lisaks studies on sexual predators.
Brief summary, Lasik did a bunch of surveys of college students on rape, his conclusions are interesting because he's firmly against the idea that the majority of rape is being a one-time-mistake-offence. What he found is that the majority of rapes, acquaintance, date rape ect are done by a relatively small subset of repeat offenders.
Now heres the creepy part, among these repeat offenders certain patterns come up, and one is that they know how to exploit societies bias against women. That is to say, they know how to pick victims who wont speak out, they overwhelmingly use manipulation and general nice guy (up to a point) tactics rather than violence, and they know to ingratiate themselves in a crowd where they have "social license" to operate.
Essentially in order to get away with being a rapey dude, you've got to be in a crowd where men are the dominant voice, where you can say rapey things and pass it off as "just a joke", and where if it comes down to a he said/she said situation people will at worst, charitably assume it was a matter of simple miscommunication.
Rapists and general misogynists are well aware that as long as you operate in societies "grey area" no one will really call you it. As long as you surround yourself with people who will say "haha thats our frank, don't be so uptight he doesn't really mean anything by it" you can do or say pretty much whatever you want.
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"
Here's a definition of sexist from freedictionary.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 mode" 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.
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.
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.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
@Quid - I've been reading the discussion, trying to understand the sexism in what he said. I might need some clarification on this:
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?
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.
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?
@Quid - I've been reading the discussion, trying to understand the sexism in what he said. I might need some clarification on this:
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?
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.
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?
In fact, it's basically a requirement, man. Consenting is actually definitely a requirement. Trying to skirt it is a pretty bad plan!
Are you seriously equating lack of Enthusiastic Consent to rape? Seriously?
Thank you. Now I know the concept is literally retarded.
I see, you think the concept of consent is literally spawned from the developmentally disabled. All feminists are Down's syndrome sufferers.
Lovely.
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 find it rather disturbing that you're attempting to tell people how they should have sex, and shaming those who don't employ or agree with your approved methods. It's a massively personal thing, people are fucking complicated.
"You should only have sex with people who consent" is, I hope, one of the basic principles we can agree on.
We disagree about the practical applications of that principle, but I really hope there's no fundamental moral disagreement about the principle itself.
In other words, I doubt you have any problem telling people how they should have sex.
Well, sex without consent is rape. I hardly see how that is relevant to the conversation unless one is claiming that sex without Enthusiastic Consent is rape. Which no one is, to my knowledge.
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'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 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'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.
In fact, it's basically a requirement, man. Consenting is actually definitely a requirement. Trying to skirt it is a pretty bad plan!
Are you seriously equating lack of Enthusiastic Consent to rape? Seriously?
Thank you. Now I know the concept is literally retarded.
I see, you think the concept of consent is literally spawned from the developmentally disabled. All feminists are Down's syndrome sufferers.
Lovely.
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.
@Quid - I've been reading the discussion, trying to understand the sexism in what he said. I might need some clarification on this:
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?
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.
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?
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.
0
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
I think you're confusing actual harm with "feewings hurt", at least in the case of "Girlfriend Mode".
Other instances of "sexism" can be recast as "employment inequality" or something along those lines, so that we can clarify the issue to get to the actual problem.
1) Feelings affect health. Human emotional states are incredibly important for those individuals and for the world around them. This is a basic biological and social fact.
2) Sexism causes a large variety of different harms. Some are emotional, some are social, some are educational, some are political, some are economic, and usually more than one harm applies.
Persons have control over their feelings, and their own reactions.
Do they now?
That is one of the premises of psychotherapy, yes.
So if I, say, murdered your parents, your reaction is totally under your control?
I mean, it'd be your choice to be upset, right?
Yup.
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.
I mean, when my wife started playing Fallout 3 for the first time I believe she switched it to easy mode since it was her first time with a modern 3D game.
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.
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.
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.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
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.
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.
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?
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?
Twitter
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 mode skill 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.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
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.
[/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"
It’s not a very important country most of the time
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.
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?
Twitter
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.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
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.