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.
It doesn't really answer what I asked, no, so please clarify that. Would you say that "girlfriend mode" does not promote stereotyping of girlfriends, ie of persons based on gender, among players/fans of the game?
By the way, while agree with the larger point (statement was sexist), I again have to point out that none of the analogies about "x" mode brought up here work.
I say this because it can be argued that you are overstating what he did through your choice of analogy.
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.
No one wants to think that they're a bad person and as soon as you start discussing consent or lack thereof they start thinking about all the times they've coerced someone into sex that the other party wasn't really into. Lord knows I've done it before. That's the best I got.
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.
Again, you've said that the idea of making sure you have explicit consent before having sex and doing otherwise is rape (fucking someone without their consent) is literally the formation of a malfunctioning brain.
That you have said this not once but twice makes me seriously concerned for the well-being of those in contact with you.
By the way, while agree with the larger point (statement was sexist), I again have to point out that none of the analogies about "x" mode brought up here work.
I say this because it can be argued that you are overstating what he did through your choice of analogy.
I kind of agree with you, but I think they can be used as examples
Someone posted something about how many people immediately grasp the concept of "that was racist" even when it is innocuous racism, but miss it when it comes to sexism
I think that is wholly accurate, and while I won't defend the analogies to race to the death, it is still a useful pedagogical tool if the target is inclined to think about it for more then a few seconds and not reflexively dismiss it for being too hyperbolic etc
By the way, while agree with the larger point (statement was sexist), I again have to point out that none of the analogies about "x" mode brought up here work.
I say this because it can be argued that you are overstating what he did through your choice of analogy.
How so?
I see no difference between calling drums Filipino mode because my Filipino friend's extremely good at them and him calling BFF mode girlfriend mode because his girlfriend is bad at Borderlands.
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
.
Well, it must be so if you say so.
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.
Except that's not what was implied, this is what you are inferring. There is a very stark difference between using well-known, humorous shorthand to personally describe the gaming mode and implying that this is an actual truth that you agree with.
That is, there's a huge gap between "girlfriend mode" and "this is a mode for girlfriends, and by extension, all women". The gap only closes if you close your eyes and wish really really hard that it would.
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.
Like I said, it definitely could have been phrased better. I don't think his phrasing is sexist, but I do think it leaves room for a sexist interpretation (if you ignore context). This comes back, unfortunately, to people looking for something to get upset about and never giving the benefit of the doubt.
I think I understand the arguments perfectly well, and they are poor arguments.
By the way, while agree with the larger point (statement was sexist), I again have to point out that none of the analogies about "x" mode brought up here work.
I say this because it can be argued that you are overstating what he did through your choice of analogy.
How so?
I see no difference between calling drums Filipino mode because my Filipino friend's extremely good at them and him calling BFF mode girlfriend mode because his girlfriend is bad at Borderlands.
No, see, it's different because none of those other examples have the weight of cultural stereotypes behind them.
Wait, hold on, that just emphasizes that the actual statement was sexist....
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.
The quoted passage was meant as a response to this:
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.
We tell people how they should have sex all the time, we just move the goalposts regarding what is and is not allowed, and the reason we're having discussions about consent is to iron out the details of where those goalposts should be.
In any case, I don't think the enthusiastic consent model is a panacea for rape, or any of the other consent issues I brought up... largely because rape is known to be a predatory action more than a miscommunication between well-meaning adults. I do think it will reduce rape, because it will reduce the amount of shielding rapists get from non-rapist peers who have less sophisticated attitudes about sex. I think it would reduce the occurrence of some of the other troublesome situations I brought up.
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.
Again, you've said that the idea of making sure you have explicit consent before having sex and doing otherwise is rape (fucking someone without their consent) is literally the formation of a malfunctioning brain.
That you have said this not once but twice makes me seriously concerned for the well-being of those in contact with you.
Except, your idea of Enthusiastic Consent does not equal Consent in its entirety. I do not need to conform to your model or be a rapist. Framing it that way is stupid. Really stupid. As is your implication that I'm a rapist. Really stupid.
0
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
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.
There is a fantastic story to illustrate this, in the comments of that Captain Awkward link I like so much, so I'm going to post it here.
STORY
I actually did spot it and I was like "what?" - I think a fair amount of other penis-owners would do too, I think the "Goggles of Feminine Intuition" is a pretty weird thing to talk about when writing something feminism-related. It was very well written though, thanks for bringing it here!
When I read that part, I found it extra creepy, but just another example of him being creepy. I didn't register the danger, perceived or real.
I'd guess that it's part "I wouldn't be really afraid in that situation" and part "Dr Glass was there, big man make everything okay". But yeah, after the last part I was just wtf.
Except that's not what was implied, this is what you are inferring. There is a very stark difference between using well-known, humorous shorthand to personally describe the gaming mode and implying that this is an actual truth that you agree with.
Sexist things being well known and found to be humorous with a select group are still sexist.
That is, there's a huge gap between "girlfriend mode" and "this is a mode for girlfriends, and by extension, all women". The gap only closes if you close your eyes and wish really really hard that it would.
I'm still waiting for you to show me which girlfriends aren't women. Or is it only women who have boyfriends that are bad at video games? Is that why my wife is good at them, because we married?
Like I said, it definitely could have been phrased better.
Yes, it could have been phrased in a way that wasn't sexist. But it wasn't and you admit this by pointing out there's something wrong with it without specifying what exactly.
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.
It doesn't really answer what I asked, no, so please clarify that. Would you say that "girlfriend mode" does not promote stereotyping of girlfriends, ie of persons based on gender, among players/fans of the game?
Only if you ignore the context of the situation. If you understand where he's coming from, you realize he's not talking about girlfriends (or women) at all. If you take "girlfriend mode" as literally meaning "a mode for girlfriends" then yes, it would be sexist.
The term was used as shorthand for "not being able to get someone into gaming".
@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 assumption was twofold, one that the non-gamer would be a girl, two that they would be dragged to the game and not want to play.
It also goes a bit beyond that, though i am not sure that the context has been mentioned [and it should have been]. A "less skilled mode for women" carries with it our understanding of gender. When a man calls another man a "little bitch" its a sexist comment and insult because the negative connotation is "being a woman". It is a comment that continues to keep down women even though in that situation it is enforcing gender norms on a male. It is a comment only given power by the system of privilege that we live in. It is, in a word, sexist.
What we have in this situation is very similar. By labeling the "a mode for those unfamiliar with the game or less skilled in first person shooters" as "for women" gender norms are cemented and enforced.
edit: I am not sure how a "girlfriend mode" can be construed to be anything but a genderized reference. If you don't think so then could you imagine how a "black person mode" or "homosexual mode" would be construed as racist or homophobic?
Only if you ignore the context of the situation. If you understand where he's coming from, you realize he's not talking about girlfriends (or women) at all. If you take "girlfriend mode" as literally meaning "a mode for girlfriends" then yes, it would be sexist.
The term was used as shorthand for "not being able to get someone into gaming".
The term girlfriend was used as shorthand for "not being able to get someone into gaming".
That is sexist.
He is not the only person with a girlfriend. The word girlfriend does not describe just his girlfriend. When he uses the word girlfriend to describe something that description applies to all girlfriends, not just his.
If it wasn't sexist, it should have been phrased fine?
I am le confused
I am not inferring anything
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.
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?
The presumption is where this is sexist, which is where I am getting that pesky thing you say I "imply" without it being there....
@Turkey gets it, and it really isn't difficult or horrible to say "this thing was sexist."
It really isn't!
I mean your defense as to how this isn't sexism is, literally "because the community is, itself, divided by sex."
Calling it girlfriend mode is apt, because most people playing it will have girlfriends who suck at FPS games. That is what you are saying. This is why it is alright, and not sexist?
So my 15 year old neighbor was called a whore today by some 10 year old kids. This makes me very not happy.
What you're missing here is the context.
Context is she just moved here, isn't white, and walks around a lot because school's not in session and she has nothing else to do because her family is broke. God damned punk kids. Get off my lawn!
@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 assumption was twofold, one that the non-gamer would be a girl, two that they would be dragged to the game and not want to play.
It also goes a bit beyond that, though i am not sure that the context has been mentioned [and it should have been]. A "less skilled mode for women" carries with it our understanding of gender. When a man calls another man a "little bitch" its a sexist comment and insult because the negative connotation is "being a woman". It is a comment that continues to keep down women even though in that situation it is enforcing gender norms on a male. It is a comment only given power by the system of privilege that we live in. It is, in a word, sexist.
What we have in this situation is very similar. By labeling the "a mode for those unfamiliar with the game or less skilled in first person shooters" as "for women" gender norms are cemented and enforced.
It was brought up, but many pages ago. It deserves repeating, although I know some people will have trouble with it because they can't get past the first bit.
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.
We tell people how they should have sex all the time, we just move the goalposts regarding what is and is not allowed, and the reason we're having discussions about consent is to iron out the details of where those goalposts should be.
Ah, ok, thank you.
Personally, I'm really against restricting people in regards to their sex lives. As long as it's legal, it's fair game. When you start to try to tell people how they should and should not have sex (outside of the boundaries of the law), you're basically forcing your moral opinions on them, and you have no business doing that.
Like, the way people have been describing Enthusiastic Consent means BDSM is essentially out of the question, as is any kind of kink. I don't like that.
Of course, the term is now being used to everything from micro "Do you want me to spank you again?" to "Obey my Enthusiastic Consent laws or I imply you're a rapist", so I'm open to the idea that there's forms of it that do allow for kink and such. I just don't see them being displayed here.
In any case, I don't think the enthusiastic consent model is a panacea for rape, or any of the other consent issues I brought up... largely because rape is known to be a predatory action more than a miscommunication between well-meaning adults. I do think it will reduce rape, because it will reduce the amount of shielding rapists get from non-rapist peers who have less sophisticated attitudes about sex. I think it would reduce the occurrence of some of the other troublesome situations I brought up.
Like I said, I wouldn't have any problem with people doing it. I just have a problem with others telling them they should do it. Your opinions about how I should have sex end where the law ends, as far as I'm concerned.
Again, you've said that the idea of making sure you have explicit consent before having sex and doing otherwise is rape (fucking someone without their consent) is literally the formation of a malfunctioning brain.
That you have said this not once but twice makes me seriously concerned for the well-being of those in contact with you.
Except, your idea of Enthusiastic Consent does not equal Consent in its entirety. I do not need to conform to your model or be a rapist. Framing it that way is stupid. Really stupid. As is your implication that I'm a rapist. Really stupid.
So your invisible implied consent is sufficient for you? You know that's the number one defense for rapists, right? "She wanted it." "She was asking for it" "The way she was dressed showed she wanted it" "if she didn't want to have sex she wouldn't have gotten so drunk." "She didn't fight back, so I thought she wanted it." "She's my girlfriend, of course she wanted to have sex."
Not only that but that's the most common theme in that reddit thread linked earlier about rapists stories, where the rapist just assumes that they were doing the right thing and only find out later they weren't.
Only explicit, obvious consent ("Hey you wanna fuck?" "Yes") is unequivocally Not rape. Everything else is in that shitty grey area that rapists use to excuse their actions, sure maybe some of it isn't rape, but who fucking cares that grey area shouldn't exist or be an excuse for rapists to get out of it. The only way to solve that is to make it all rape unless you spend the ten fucking seconds to say "hey would you like to fuck?" and respect that person's answer.
Seriously this is not a debate. This is not up in the air for argument. The legal definition of rape is “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."
I think there is a positive side to people being so defensive when accused of making a sexist comment. It means they acknowledge that sexism is a bad thing, and either they disagree with the claim or are embarrassed about being caught messing up.
The presumption is where this is sexist, which is where I am getting that pesky thing you say I "imply" without it being there....
I know you well enough to know you're not deliberately misunderstanding... but damn, man.
It's shorthand. It isn't being used literally. In the context it means, "a situation where someone can't get someone else into games". It arose from a boyfriend/girlfriend situation (this its name) but that's not how it's being used.
What it means is very simple, but you don't get that because you're hung up on the "girlfriend" label, which doesn't actually effect what it means.
@Turkey gets it, and it really isn't difficult or horrible to say "this thing was sexist."
It really isn't!
It has nothing to do with it being difficult or horrible, and everything to do with annoyance at people tacking their "sexist" labels willynilly on everything they can reach. So, an extension of anti-PC if you will. I know you do not like that term as applied to feminists, but it applies.
I mean your defense as to how this isn't sexism is, literally "because the community is, itself, divided by sex."
Calling it girlfriend mode is apt, because most people playing it will have girlfriends who suck at FPS games. That is what you are saying. This is why it is alright, and not sexist?
If you think Enthusiastic Consent removes BDSM and any kink, I think you don't understand the concept
or maybe I don't
A sub can positively consent to specific activities ahead of time, and has the power to revoke consent at any time via the use of a safeword.
The enthusiastic consent model works very well with 'mainstream' BDSM.
It has problems with fringe stuff like no-safeword BDSM or no-boundary BDSM, but those things aren't typically condoned by prominent kink organizations or authors.
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.
It doesn't really answer what I asked, no, so please clarify that. Would you say that "girlfriend mode" does not promote stereotyping of girlfriends, ie of persons based on gender, among players/fans of the game?
Only if you ignore the context of the situation. If you understand where he's coming from, you realize he's not talking about girlfriends (or women) at all. If you take "girlfriend mode" as literally meaning "a mode for girlfriends" then yes, it would be sexist.
The term was used as shorthand for "not being able to get someone into gaming".
It's a shame that the "girlfriend mode" part from my pre-edit post hung around since that term was supposedly a false quote, but let's look at the original quote of what Hemingway actually said:
“The design team was looking at the concept art and thought, you know what, this is actually the cutest character we’ve ever had,” said Hemingway. “I want to make, for the lack of a better term, the girlfriend skill tree. This is, I love Borderlands and I want to share it with someone, but they suck at first-person shooters. Can we make a skill tree that actually allows them to understand the game and to play the game? That’s what our attempt with the Best Friends Forever skill tree is.”
We can infer that he is calling the "girlfriend skill tree" because he thinks of "girlfriend" as someone who "suck[ s ] at first-person shooters". To me, that does promote stereotyping of "gilfriends" as "suck[ing] at first-person shooters", even within context. Remember we're not talking about intent here. I liked this article on the incident over at PCGamer (I haven't read them in 7+ years but it seems they're still rocking)
By the way, while agree with the larger point (statement was sexist), I again have to point out that none of the analogies about "x" mode brought up here work.
I say this because it can be argued that you are overstating what he did through your choice of analogy.
How so?
I see no difference between calling drums Filipino mode because my Filipino friend's extremely good at them and him calling BFF mode girlfriend mode because his girlfriend is bad at Borderlands.
How about I do this for future reference if people want to keep making analogies:
"Girlfriend" is a largely value-neutralsubset of a group of people (women). Any analogy needs to consider both of those points to work (ie no "misogynist mode", no "black mode", no "mexi-mode").
Secondly, the qualities ascribed to the skill tree are for ease of access and allowing contribution to co-operative gameplay with less dependence on dexterity (and probably more emphasis on support or tactics - I don't know that for sure but that's usually where this sort of thing goes). It does not change the game whole cloth, only the game's expectations for playing successfully (ie your analogized mode shouldn't alter the entire game into a parade of stereotypes).
The closest analogy I could arrive at using my template is something like an "Asian Kid" mode/skill tree that would allow extra damage for being able to input high-level button combos or keeping your APM above a certain threshold - because maybe you have that Asian friend who is totally better at that sort of thing or you've heard Koreans are beasts at Starcraft or something, and maybe the experience is generalizable across enough gamers that referencing it makes some sort of sense. Even this analogy is pretty shaky, though, since "Asian kid" doesn't connote the emphasis on the relationship that "girlfriend" does, and far more people are familiar with the experience of having a girlfriend with diverse interests of their own.
A closer analogy yet might be "Dad" Mode/Skill tree. Which would still be sexist, and also possibly ageist. But when put in that context, I'm not sure people would react very strongly, if at all.
SteamID : same as my PA forum name
+1
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered 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.
Option 1 doesn't make anything better, good grief.
Option 2 is my stance on what he said. I think it was an in joke that he didn't translate, it happens, but it was still a mistake. Of course then they made the character that had that skill tree "the cutest one ever", so there's that.
I think there is a positive side to people being so defensive when accused of making a sexist comment. It means they acknowledge that sexism is a bad thing, and either they disagree with the claim or are embarrassed about being caught messing up.
They at least understand it's unpopular, sort of like the republicans who feel the need to preface all of their racism with "I'm not a racist I just don't like Owebama's Kenyan policies"
I mean, my point is frankie that I am not making things up out of whole cloth
I and others have worked through in multiple ways from the simple to the complex as to how this was sexist, and the arguments against it being so are incredibly poor.
I still remain confused as to what criteria you use to determine if something was sexist or not, because everytime something has come up that is pretty much undeniably sexist, you deny it was.
And any time one edges into using this argument, it makes your arguments that much weaker
It has nothing to do with it being difficult or horrible, and everything to do with annoyance at people tacking their "sexist" labels willynilly on everything they can reach. So, an extension of anti-PC if you will. I know you do not like that term as applied to feminists, but it applies.
Again, you've said that the idea of making sure you have explicit consent before having sex and doing otherwise is rape (fucking someone without their consent) is literally the formation of a malfunctioning brain.
That you have said this not once but twice makes me seriously concerned for the well-being of those in contact with you.
Except, your idea of Enthusiastic Consent does not equal Consent in its entirety. I do not need to conform to your model or be a rapist. Framing it that way is stupid. Really stupid. As is your implication that I'm a rapist. Really stupid.
So your invisible implied consent is sufficient for you? You know that's the number one defense for rapists, right? "She wanted it." "She was asking for it" "The way she was dressed showed she wanted it" "if she didn't want to have sex she wouldn't have gotten so drunk." "She didn't fight back, so I thought she wanted it." "She's my girlfriend, of course she wanted to have sex."
Not only that but that's the most common theme in that reddit thread linked earlier about rapists stories, where the rapist just assumes that they were doing the right thing and only find out later they weren't.
Only explicit, obvious consent ("Hey you wanna fuck?" "Yes") is unequivocally Not rape. Everything else is in that shitty grey area that rapists use to excuse their actions, sure maybe some of it isn't rape, but who fucking cares that grey area shouldn't exist or be an excuse for rapists to get out of it. The only way to solve that is to make it all rape unless you spend the ten fucking seconds to say "hey would you like to fuck?" and respect that person's answer.
Seriously this is not a debate. This is not up in the air for argument. The legal definition of rape is “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."
Consent is not the issue. The issue is your narrow definition of consent. The idea that anyone who does not verbally ask to penetrate and receive a verbal "please put your penis in my body" is a rapist is retarded. God, all those poor married couples who were raping each other all these years because they didn't know that all other ways of showing consent were invalid in the face of Jakeman's ultimatum.
The funny thing is, I'm not opposed to the idea. There's definitely times where I've felt it was necessary to ask out loud, and there's definitely times where it wasn't. The only problem I have is you demanding that everyone do exactly as you say or be labeled rapists, and honestly, fuck that.
Being shorthand doesn't make it not sexist. Being a metaphor does not make it not sexist.
Being a joke does not make it not sexist. Not being intended to be sexist does not make it not sexist.
I know @ultimanecat hates the "race" analogy but look at Uncle Joe Biden's latest gaffe- that was racist as fuck, even if he meant it with all good intentions and probably isn't, himself, a racist.
Seriously this is not a debate. This is not up in the air for argument. The legal definition of rape is “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."
Just to regulate this a bit, a couple of wrinkles:
1) As I mentioned, there's plenty of things that are consent violations (and creepy, and rape-ish) without involving penetration.
2) Many jurisdictions still define consent negatively - consent is a thing that must be explicitly revoked, not a thing that must be explicitly given. This is still reflected in a lot of people's attitudes - that doing X action (going on a date with somebody, having a drink with somebody, going into a private room with somebody) implies consent until it is explicitly revoked.
The enthusiastic consent model was borne from the positive consent model, which was a deliberate attempt to reverse the latter notion, which is called "implied consent" in sex geek circles. But positive consent alone is not sufficient, because plenty of people in sex work / kink / anti-abuse / feminist / etc. communities have pointed out times when they "consented" to sex reluctantly out of fear of some kind of reprisal if they didn't.
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.
The idea that anyone who does not verbally ask to penetrate and receive a verbal "please put your penis in my body" is a rapist is retarded. God, all those poor married couples who were raping each other all these years because they didn't know that all other ways of showing consent were invalid in the face of Jakeman's ultimatum.
The EC model does not require this and I'm pretty sure I already covered this upthread.
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.
Again, you've said that the idea of making sure you have explicit consent before having sex and doing otherwise is rape (fucking someone without their consent) is literally the formation of a malfunctioning brain.
That you have said this not once but twice makes me seriously concerned for the well-being of those in contact with you.
Except, your idea of Enthusiastic Consent does not equal Consent in its entirety. I do not need to conform to your model or be a rapist. Framing it that way is stupid. Really stupid. As is your implication that I'm a rapist. Really stupid.
"She's my girlfriend, of course she wanted to have sex."
This is the thing that makes it sound the most weird to me. My imagination may be too limited, but I have a very hard time picturing a world in which everyone always, even if they've been together for a year, are asking each other "do you wanna have sex?" instead of doing things like waking up, starting to kiss each other and then going at it. I understand why it could make it harder for rapists to get away with their crimes, but it seems so bizarre.
Edit: @Ultimanecat "A closer analogy yet might be "Dad" Mode/Skill tree. Which would still be sexist, and also possibly ageist. But when put in that context, I'm not sure people would react very strongly, if at all. "
I did that analogy earlier actually. Like two posts before your first "okay everybody check your analogies" post, that puzzled me.
If you think Enthusiastic Consent removes BDSM and any kink, I think you don't understand the concept
or maybe I don't
A sub can positively consent to specific activities ahead of time, and has the power to revoke consent at any time via the use of a safeword.
The enthusiastic consent model works very well with 'mainstream' BDSM.
It has problems with fringe stuff like no-safeword BDSM or no-boundary BDSM, but those things aren't typically condoned by prominent kink organizations or authors.
How would Enthusiastic Consent apply? I mean, what makes it different here from normal consent in the BDSM context?
"“Look at what they [Republicans] value, and look at their budget. And look what they're proposing. [Romney] said in the first 100 days, he's going to let the big banks write their own rules -- unchain Wall Street. They're going to put y'all back in chains."
“The design team was looking at the concept art and thought, you know what, this is actually the cutest character we’ve ever had. I want to make, for the lack of a better term, the girlfriend skill tree. This is, I love Borderlands and I want to share it with someone, but they suck at first-person shooters. Can we make a skill tree that actually allows them to understand the game and to play the game? That’s what our attempt with the Best Friends Forever skill tree is.
Both statements are intended to be positive things. Both people probably aren't racist, or sexist.
Both statements are either racist or sexist because they draw on popular stereotypes about each group.
The first draws on the stereotype that all african americans were once enslaved (which A. isn't necessarily true and B. is not something you should really joke about because of the context)
the second draws on the stereotype that most people playing Borderlands 2 are males, and that they have girlfriends who are not good at shooters (which A. isn't necessarily true and B. is not really something you should joke about, because of context)
In the first the context is that there was and still is a large culture of either outright slavery, open hostility, or subtle barriers to advancement for this group.
In the second the context is that there was and still is a large culture of either outright oppression, open hostility, or subtle barriers to advancement for this group.
Again, you've said that the idea of making sure you have explicit consent before having sex and doing otherwise is rape (fucking someone without their consent) is literally the formation of a malfunctioning brain.
That you have said this not once but twice makes me seriously concerned for the well-being of those in contact with you.
Except, your idea of Enthusiastic Consent does not equal Consent in its entirety. I do not need to conform to your model or be a rapist. Framing it that way is stupid. Really stupid. As is your implication that I'm a rapist. Really stupid.
"She's my girlfriend, of course she wanted to have sex."
This is the thing that makes it sound the most weird to me. My imagination may be too limited, but I have a very hard time picturing a world in which everyone always, even if they've been together for a year, are asking each other "do you wanna have sex?" instead of doing things like waking up, starting to kiss each other and then going at it. I understand why it could make it harder for rapists to get away with their crimes, but it seems so bizarre.
This means that you don't get to freak out and say "we've been dating for a year and she lives with me so it's not rape even though she really didn't want to have sex as soon as we woke up every day and only went with it because she had no real other options for a place to live or any of that" when your girlfriend files charges.
Posts
It doesn't really answer what I asked, no, so please clarify that. Would you say that "girlfriend mode" does not promote stereotyping of girlfriends, ie of persons based on gender, among players/fans of the game?
I say this because it can be argued that you are overstating what he did through your choice of analogy.
No one wants to think that they're a bad person and as soon as you start discussing consent or lack thereof they start thinking about all the times they've coerced someone into sex that the other party wasn't really into. Lord knows I've done it before. That's the best I got.
Again, you've said that the idea of making sure you have explicit consent before having sex and doing otherwise is rape (fucking someone without their consent) is literally the formation of a malfunctioning brain.
That you have said this not once but twice makes me seriously concerned for the well-being of those in contact with you.
I kind of agree with you, but I think they can be used as examples
Someone posted something about how many people immediately grasp the concept of "that was racist" even when it is innocuous racism, but miss it when it comes to sexism
I think that is wholly accurate, and while I won't defend the analogies to race to the death, it is still a useful pedagogical tool if the target is inclined to think about it for more then a few seconds and not reflexively dismiss it for being too hyperbolic etc
How so?
I see no difference between calling drums Filipino mode because my Filipino friend's extremely good at them and him calling BFF mode girlfriend mode because his girlfriend is bad at Borderlands.
Well, it must be so if you say so.
Except that's not what was implied, this is what you are inferring. There is a very stark difference between using well-known, humorous shorthand to personally describe the gaming mode and implying that this is an actual truth that you agree with.
That is, there's a huge gap between "girlfriend mode" and "this is a mode for girlfriends, and by extension, all women". The gap only closes if you close your eyes and wish really really hard that it would.
Like I said, it definitely could have been phrased better. I don't think his phrasing is sexist, but I do think it leaves room for a sexist interpretation (if you ignore context). This comes back, unfortunately, to people looking for something to get upset about and never giving the benefit of the doubt.
Thanks, I guess?
No, see, it's different because none of those other examples have the weight of cultural stereotypes behind them.
Wait, hold on, that just emphasizes that the actual statement was sexist....
The quoted passage was meant as a response to this:
We tell people how they should have sex all the time, we just move the goalposts regarding what is and is not allowed, and the reason we're having discussions about consent is to iron out the details of where those goalposts should be.
In any case, I don't think the enthusiastic consent model is a panacea for rape, or any of the other consent issues I brought up... largely because rape is known to be a predatory action more than a miscommunication between well-meaning adults. I do think it will reduce rape, because it will reduce the amount of shielding rapists get from non-rapist peers who have less sophisticated attitudes about sex. I think it would reduce the occurrence of some of the other troublesome situations I brought up.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Except, your idea of Enthusiastic Consent does not equal Consent in its entirety. I do not need to conform to your model or be a rapist. Framing it that way is stupid. Really stupid. As is your implication that I'm a rapist. Really stupid.
When I read that part, I found it extra creepy, but just another example of him being creepy. I didn't register the danger, perceived or real.
I'd guess that it's part "I wouldn't be really afraid in that situation" and part "Dr Glass was there, big man make everything okay". But yeah, after the last part I was just wtf.
Really well written piece.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
I'm still waiting for you to show me which girlfriends aren't women. Or is it only women who have boyfriends that are bad at video games? Is that why my wife is good at them, because we married?
Yes, it could have been phrased in a way that wasn't sexist. But it wasn't and you admit this by pointing out there's something wrong with it without specifying what exactly.
Only if you ignore the context of the situation. If you understand where he's coming from, you realize he's not talking about girlfriends (or women) at all. If you take "girlfriend mode" as literally meaning "a mode for girlfriends" then yes, it would be sexist.
The term was used as shorthand for "not being able to get someone into gaming".
The assumption was twofold, one that the non-gamer would be a girl, two that they would be dragged to the game and not want to play.
It also goes a bit beyond that, though i am not sure that the context has been mentioned [and it should have been]. A "less skilled mode for women" carries with it our understanding of gender. When a man calls another man a "little bitch" its a sexist comment and insult because the negative connotation is "being a woman". It is a comment that continues to keep down women even though in that situation it is enforcing gender norms on a male. It is a comment only given power by the system of privilege that we live in. It is, in a word, sexist.
What we have in this situation is very similar. By labeling the "a mode for those unfamiliar with the game or less skilled in first person shooters" as "for women" gender norms are cemented and enforced.
edit: I am not sure how a "girlfriend mode" can be construed to be anything but a genderized reference. If you don't think so then could you imagine how a "black person mode" or "homosexual mode" would be construed as racist or homophobic?
The term girlfriend was used as shorthand for "not being able to get someone into gaming".
That is sexist.
He is not the only person with a girlfriend. The word girlfriend does not describe just his girlfriend. When he uses the word girlfriend to describe something that description applies to all girlfriends, not just his.
What you're missing here is the context.
If it wasn't sexist, it should have been phrased fine?
I am le confused
I am not inferring anything
The presumption is where this is sexist, which is where I am getting that pesky thing you say I "imply" without it being there....
@Turkey gets it, and it really isn't difficult or horrible to say "this thing was sexist."
It really isn't!
I mean your defense as to how this isn't sexism is, literally "because the community is, itself, divided by sex."
Calling it girlfriend mode is apt, because most people playing it will have girlfriends who suck at FPS games. That is what you are saying. This is why it is alright, and not sexist?
Your argument is a tautology.
Context is she just moved here, isn't white, and walks around a lot because school's not in session and she has nothing else to do because her family is broke. God damned punk kids. Get off my lawn!
Also fuck small town Illinois.
It was brought up, but many pages ago. It deserves repeating, although I know some people will have trouble with it because they can't get past the first bit.
Ah, ok, thank you.
Personally, I'm really against restricting people in regards to their sex lives. As long as it's legal, it's fair game. When you start to try to tell people how they should and should not have sex (outside of the boundaries of the law), you're basically forcing your moral opinions on them, and you have no business doing that.
Like, the way people have been describing Enthusiastic Consent means BDSM is essentially out of the question, as is any kind of kink. I don't like that.
Of course, the term is now being used to everything from micro "Do you want me to spank you again?" to "Obey my Enthusiastic Consent laws or I imply you're a rapist", so I'm open to the idea that there's forms of it that do allow for kink and such. I just don't see them being displayed here.
Like I said, I wouldn't have any problem with people doing it. I just have a problem with others telling them they should do it. Your opinions about how I should have sex end where the law ends, as far as I'm concerned.
or maybe I don't
So your invisible implied consent is sufficient for you? You know that's the number one defense for rapists, right? "She wanted it." "She was asking for it" "The way she was dressed showed she wanted it" "if she didn't want to have sex she wouldn't have gotten so drunk." "She didn't fight back, so I thought she wanted it." "She's my girlfriend, of course she wanted to have sex."
Not only that but that's the most common theme in that reddit thread linked earlier about rapists stories, where the rapist just assumes that they were doing the right thing and only find out later they weren't.
Only explicit, obvious consent ("Hey you wanna fuck?" "Yes") is unequivocally Not rape. Everything else is in that shitty grey area that rapists use to excuse their actions, sure maybe some of it isn't rape, but who fucking cares that grey area shouldn't exist or be an excuse for rapists to get out of it. The only way to solve that is to make it all rape unless you spend the ten fucking seconds to say "hey would you like to fuck?" and respect that person's answer.
Seriously this is not a debate. This is not up in the air for argument. The legal definition of rape is “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."
Twitter
I know you well enough to know you're not deliberately misunderstanding... but damn, man.
It's shorthand. It isn't being used literally. In the context it means, "a situation where someone can't get someone else into games". It arose from a boyfriend/girlfriend situation (this its name) but that's not how it's being used.
What it means is very simple, but you don't get that because you're hung up on the "girlfriend" label, which doesn't actually effect what it means.
It has nothing to do with it being difficult or horrible, and everything to do with annoyance at people tacking their "sexist" labels willynilly on everything they can reach. So, an extension of anti-PC if you will. I know you do not like that term as applied to feminists, but it applies.
Not even remotely what I said.
A sub can positively consent to specific activities ahead of time, and has the power to revoke consent at any time via the use of a safeword.
The enthusiastic consent model works very well with 'mainstream' BDSM.
It has problems with fringe stuff like no-safeword BDSM or no-boundary BDSM, but those things aren't typically condoned by prominent kink organizations or authors.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
It's a shame that the "girlfriend mode" part from my pre-edit post hung around since that term was supposedly a false quote, but let's look at the original quote of what Hemingway actually said:
“The design team was looking at the concept art and thought, you know what, this is actually the cutest character we’ve ever had,” said Hemingway. “I want to make, for the lack of a better term, the girlfriend skill tree. This is, I love Borderlands and I want to share it with someone, but they suck at first-person shooters. Can we make a skill tree that actually allows them to understand the game and to play the game? That’s what our attempt with the Best Friends Forever skill tree is.”
We can infer that he is calling the "girlfriend skill tree" because he thinks of "girlfriend" as someone who "suck[ s ] at first-person shooters". To me, that does promote stereotyping of "gilfriends" as "suck[ing] at first-person shooters", even within context. Remember we're not talking about intent here. I liked this article on the incident over at PCGamer (I haven't read them in 7+ years but it seems they're still rocking)
and
A closer analogy yet might be "Dad" Mode/Skill tree. Which would still be sexist, and also possibly ageist. But when put in that context, I'm not sure people would react very strongly, if at all.
Option 1 doesn't make anything better, good grief.
Option 2 is my stance on what he said. I think it was an in joke that he didn't translate, it happens, but it was still a mistake. Of course then they made the character that had that skill tree "the cutest one ever", so there's that.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Being shorthand doesn't make it not sexist. Being a metaphor does not make it not sexist.
They at least understand it's unpopular, sort of like the republicans who feel the need to preface all of their racism with "I'm not a racist I just don't like Owebama's Kenyan policies"
I and others have worked through in multiple ways from the simple to the complex as to how this was sexist, and the arguments against it being so are incredibly poor.
I still remain confused as to what criteria you use to determine if something was sexist or not, because everytime something has come up that is pretty much undeniably sexist, you deny it was.
And any time one edges into using this argument, it makes your arguments that much weaker
Consent is not the issue. The issue is your narrow definition of consent. The idea that anyone who does not verbally ask to penetrate and receive a verbal "please put your penis in my body" is a rapist is retarded. God, all those poor married couples who were raping each other all these years because they didn't know that all other ways of showing consent were invalid in the face of Jakeman's ultimatum.
The funny thing is, I'm not opposed to the idea. There's definitely times where I've felt it was necessary to ask out loud, and there's definitely times where it wasn't. The only problem I have is you demanding that everyone do exactly as you say or be labeled rapists, and honestly, fuck that.
Being a joke does not make it not sexist. Not being intended to be sexist does not make it not sexist.
I know @ultimanecat hates the "race" analogy but look at Uncle Joe Biden's latest gaffe- that was racist as fuck, even if he meant it with all good intentions and probably isn't, himself, a racist.
Just to regulate this a bit, a couple of wrinkles:
1) As I mentioned, there's plenty of things that are consent violations (and creepy, and rape-ish) without involving penetration.
2) Many jurisdictions still define consent negatively - consent is a thing that must be explicitly revoked, not a thing that must be explicitly given. This is still reflected in a lot of people's attitudes - that doing X action (going on a date with somebody, having a drink with somebody, going into a private room with somebody) implies consent until it is explicitly revoked.
The enthusiastic consent model was borne from the positive consent model, which was a deliberate attempt to reverse the latter notion, which is called "implied consent" in sex geek circles. But positive consent alone is not sufficient, because plenty of people in sex work / kink / anti-abuse / feminist / etc. communities have pointed out times when they "consented" to sex reluctantly out of fear of some kind of reprisal if they didn't.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The EC model does not require this and I'm pretty sure I already covered this upthread.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Edit: @Ultimanecat "A closer analogy yet might be "Dad" Mode/Skill tree. Which would still be sexist, and also possibly ageist. But when put in that context, I'm not sure people would react very strongly, if at all. "
I did that analogy earlier actually. Like two posts before your first "okay everybody check your analogies" post, that puzzled me.
How would Enthusiastic Consent apply? I mean, what makes it different here from normal consent in the BDSM context?
Both statements are intended to be positive things. Both people probably aren't racist, or sexist.
Both statements are either racist or sexist because they draw on popular stereotypes about each group.
The first draws on the stereotype that all african americans were once enslaved (which A. isn't necessarily true and B. is not something you should really joke about because of the context)
the second draws on the stereotype that most people playing Borderlands 2 are males, and that they have girlfriends who are not good at shooters (which A. isn't necessarily true and B. is not really something you should joke about, because of context)
In the first the context is that there was and still is a large culture of either outright slavery, open hostility, or subtle barriers to advancement for this group.
In the second the context is that there was and still is a large culture of either outright oppression, open hostility, or subtle barriers to advancement for this group.
Sorry cat-man
Can't help it.
This means that you don't get to freak out and say "we've been dating for a year and she lives with me so it's not rape even though she really didn't want to have sex as soon as we woke up every day and only went with it because she had no real other options for a place to live or any of that" when your girlfriend files charges.