CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Mainly the thing about stereotypes is that yeah, you're brain wants to do that shit automatically. Your brain likes patterns a whole fucking lot, and will create patterns where none exists if it needs to because it is so goddamned addicted to patterns. So you can't control that your mind does that.
But that's one of the reasons you actually have to consciously reject stereotypes instead of embracing them all the time.
It's kinda similar to what you're saying, _J_, about taking control. As most of us have argued with you, you actually can't control the stuff your brain does on autopilot, you just can't. But you can control what happens after that. So your brain makes a stereotype, but you try not to default to it, or use it in language with other people, you tell your conscious mind that the stereotype is BULLSHIT and that people are individuals. And you'll still have scumbag brain doing it's scumbag thing, but you're still going to continue to fight it. Or at least you should.
But in addition to that, you need to tell people not to encourage scumbag brain by employing harmful stereotypes when they speak. To quote from the article I linked:
"There's a reason for political correctness," he said. "At least, as studies suggest, it might be a good idea to not put stereotypes out there too clearly, because if you do, people will internalize them."
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
But let's say that instead, over the course of the match and in the immediate aftermath 10 people each say one thing that's sort of grey area. "Aw man, who let a girl on our team?", "awww we gots to babysit the little girl?", "we'll leave the girl to defend the farm and hope they don't try to attack it", "man she was so bad, guess that was to be expected" or other stuff. Reporting doesn't really work for most of that, and that stuff is much more likely to just be tolerated. But by the end, what are the odds I had a good time? The only real response is for myself (or hopefully others) to call out the sexist remarks, in the hope that 1) it gets these specific people to do shit like this less, or at least 2) that fewer people will choose to emulate the behaviour because they can see that it isn't acceptable.
All of these examples appear to be criticizing you for sucking at the game, not for being a girl. Anecdotally speaking, you're liable to get the same comments if you had a male avatar (with different words substituted in place of "girl").
EDIT: crap, with the obvious exception of the first one.
But in addition to that, you need to tell people not to encourage scumbag brain by employing harmful stereotypes when they speak. To quote from the article I linked:
"There's a reason for political correctness," he said. "At least, as studies suggest, it might be a good idea to not put stereotypes out there too clearly, because if you do, people will internalize them."
This is where you and I disagree.
And, to be clear, I do not disagree about the article's descriptive claim. Persons...ok I'll say this sloppily for the sake of convenience....persons internalize negative sentiments.
Where I disagree is the article's normative claim: Persons internalize negative sentiments, and so here is how we should act.
But let's say that instead, over the course of the match and in the immediate aftermath 10 people each say one thing that's sort of grey area. "Aw man, who let a girl on our team?", "awww we gots to babysit the little girl?", "we'll leave the girl to defend the farm and hope they don't try to attack it", "man she was so bad, guess that was to be expected" or other stuff. Reporting doesn't really work for most of that, and that stuff is much more likely to just be tolerated. But by the end, what are the odds I had a good time? The only real response is for myself (or hopefully others) to call out the sexist remarks, in the hope that 1) it gets these specific people to do shit like this less, or at least 2) that fewer people will choose to emulate the behaviour because they can see that it isn't acceptable.
All of these examples appear to be criticizing you for sucking at the game, not for being a girl. Anecdotally speaking, you're liable to get the same comments if you had a male avatar (with different words substituted in place of "girl").
EDIT: crap, with the obvious exception of the first one.
Now pretend that El Skid was number 2 on the scoreboard, yet still got all that.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
SKFM do you understand what a gender stereotype is?
Yes. Do you understand that stereotypes can be true about certain members of the group subject to the stereotype?
And do you understand that the above makes it no less a stereotype and no less sexist?
So now we're not allowed to make true statements about specific people or groups of people if those statements are true often enough to be recognized as common and become stereotypes?
I don't think this is sexist, because it is not trading on the idea of women as being bad at games. It is based on the idea that there are many people who have the following characteristics: (1) female, (2) in a relationship, (3) with a gamer and (4) not themselves a gamer. The remark was based on the existence of this group, not any specific characteristics of that group.
This is where it got sexist, because this characteristic artificially limits the potential audience of the feature to a single sex. What, exactly, about the BFF Tree links it intrinsically to the female sex?
Nothing. The link is to members of the "girlfriends who don't play games" group. It isn't only for women or for all women, and he never said anything to indicate it as such. He said it was made with this one group in mind though. I don't see the problem here. When you watch a commercial with a black actor do you say "I can't buy that product if I'm white because they showed it is for black people?"
So now we're not allowed to make true statements about specific people or groups of people if those statements are true often enough to be recognized as common and become stereotypes?
I think the idea is that "true often enough to be recognized as common" is problematic.
We fabricate a group based upon perceived similarity with respect to trait-X (assuming there are traits, which I guess most people would in this thread).
We then discern that some members of the group exhibit trait-Y.
So, we posit that persons in the group exhibit trait-Y, even though the similarity upon which we based our construction of the group was trait-X.
Vague generals like "sexist" are problematic.
Stereotypes are also problematic.
This is why it's best to talk about particulars.
Does your approach allow for marketing though? Products are targetted at a specific idea of what a group is all the time, and I see this as being very similiar. The developer had an idea of what a group is in mind, and is hoping to appeal to that group. Time will show whether this mode actually succeeds in appealing to that group, but I don't think making the attempt is problematic.
How do you feel about lego using demographic data to try and appeal to girls with the new doll-like minifigs?
Why is it bad to quash the female vote? The opposite of that why, the why that seeks to quash the female vote, is most likely going to be sexism. Why would we ignore this?
Because the motivation to do X isn't relevant when the problem is X.
The action that results from the motivation is the problem.
Since we're clear on the causative relation (phew), why is not relevant?
Preferably, you explain how handing out fines for things like traffic violations prevents the undesired behaviours that are classified as traffic violations, if the fines in no meaningful way affect the motivations that then cause the actions. Because my postulate here is going to be that a priori knowledge of a posteriori punishment, influences the motivation for taking action to a degree that is sufficient to prevent the action in the first place; Hence, the motivations that give rise to "problematic" situations are relevant.
But let's say that instead, over the course of the match and in the immediate aftermath 10 people each say one thing that's sort of grey area. "Aw man, who let a girl on our team?", "awww we gots to babysit the little girl?", "we'll leave the girl to defend the farm and hope they don't try to attack it", "man she was so bad, guess that was to be expected" or other stuff. Reporting doesn't really work for most of that, and that stuff is much more likely to just be tolerated. But by the end, what are the odds I had a good time? The only real response is for myself (or hopefully others) to call out the sexist remarks, in the hope that 1) it gets these specific people to do shit like this less, or at least 2) that fewer people will choose to emulate the behaviour because they can see that it isn't acceptable.
All of these examples appear to be criticizing you for sucking at the game, not for being a girl. Anecdotally speaking, you're liable to get the same comments if you had a male avatar (with different words substituted in place of "girl").
EDIT: crap, with the obvious exception of the first one.
Now pretend that El Skid was number 2 on the scoreboard, yet still got all that.
I can pretend lots of different instances of sexism. That's not my point.
It just seemed pretty striking to me that those comments are dispensed equally to both sexes, are not critical of the person's sex (they are critical of the person's lack of skill at the game), and yet are still labeled "sexist." I think it speaks to what _J_ is talking about. You're choosing to interpret them as offensive sexist comments, when you could easily interpret them as simply being fed up with noobs, and the only reason the word "girl" gets used at all is because El Skid is playing a female avatar.
But let's say that instead, over the course of the match and in the immediate aftermath 10 people each say one thing that's sort of grey area. "Aw man, who let a girl on our team?", "awww we gots to babysit the little girl?", "we'll leave the girl to defend the farm and hope they don't try to attack it", "man she was so bad, guess that was to be expected" or other stuff. Reporting doesn't really work for most of that, and that stuff is much more likely to just be tolerated. But by the end, what are the odds I had a good time? The only real response is for myself (or hopefully others) to call out the sexist remarks, in the hope that 1) it gets these specific people to do shit like this less, or at least 2) that fewer people will choose to emulate the behaviour because they can see that it isn't acceptable.
All of these examples appear to be criticizing you for sucking at the game, not for being a girl. Anecdotally speaking, you're liable to get the same comments if you had a male avatar (with different words substituted in place of "girl").
EDIT: crap, with the obvious exception of the first one.
Now pretend that El Skid was number 2 on the scoreboard, yet still got all that.
I can pretend lots of different instances of sexism. That's not my point.
It just seemed pretty striking to me that those comments are dispensed equally to both sexes, are not critical of the person's sex (they are critical of the person's lack of skill at the game), and yet are still labeled "sexist." I think it speaks to what _J_ is talking about. You're choosing to interpret them as offensive sexist comments, when you could easily interpret them as simply being fed up with noobs, and the only reason the word "girl" gets used at all is because El Skid is playing a female avatar.
Except that they are quietly linking skill level and gender. Which is the whole problem.
SKFM do you understand what a gender stereotype is?
Yes. Do you understand that stereotypes can be true about certain members of the group subject to the stereotype?
And do you understand that the above makes it no less a stereotype and no less sexist?
So now we're not allowed to make true statements about specific people or groups of people if those statements are true often enough to be recognized as common and become stereotypes?
I don't think this is sexist, because it is not trading on the idea of women as being bad at games. It is based on the idea that there are many people who have the following characteristics: (1) female, (2) in a relationship, (3) with a gamer and (4) not themselves a gamer. The remark was based on the existence of this group, not any specific characteristics of that group.
This is where it got sexist, because this characteristic artificially limits the potential audience of the feature to a single sex. What, exactly, about the BFF Tree links it intrinsically to the female sex?
Nothing. The link is to members of the "girlfriends who don't play games" group. It isn't only for women or for all women, and he never said anything to indicate it as such. He said it was made with this one group in mind though. I don't see the problem here. When you watch a commercial with a black actor do you say "I can't buy that product if I'm white because they showed it is for black people?
This isn't an appropriate analogy. A more appropriate one would be "Here's a TV commercial with Michael Dorn, and he's saying 'Neutrogena T-Gel: It works for black men.'" Now, obviously the link is to members of the "black men who have dandruff problems" group, but it isn't only for black men. He just said it was made with this one group in mind, though.
SKFM do you understand what a gender stereotype is?
Yes. Do you understand that stereotypes can be true about certain members of the group subject to the stereotype?
And do you understand that the above makes it no less a stereotype and no less sexist?
So now we're not allowed to make true statements about specific people or groups of people if those statements are true often enough to be recognized as common and become stereotypes?
I don't think this is sexist, because it is not trading on the idea of women as being bad at games. It is based on the idea that there are many people who have the following characteristics: (1) female, (2) in a relationship, (3) with a gamer and (4) not themselves a gamer. The remark was based on the existence of this group, not any specific characteristics of that group.
This is where it got sexist, because this characteristic artificially limits the potential audience of the feature to a single sex. What, exactly, about the BFF Tree links it intrinsically to the female sex?
Nothing. The link is to members of the "girlfriends who don't play games" group. It isn't only for women or for all women, and he never said anything to indicate it as such. He said it was made with this one group in mind though. I don't see the problem here. When you watch a commercial with a black actor do you say "I can't buy that product if I'm white because they showed it is for black people?
This isn't an appropriate analogy. A more appropriate one would be "Here's a TV commercial with Michael Dorn, and he's saying 'Neutrogena T-Gel: It works for black men.'" Now, obviously the link is to members of the "black men who have dandruff problems" group, but it isn't only for black men. He just said it was made with this one group in mind, though.
Why DON'T you see the problem here?
An advertisement that focuses on a certain demographic is a problem? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
SKFM do you understand what a gender stereotype is?
Yes. Do you understand that stereotypes can be true about certain members of the group subject to the stereotype?
And do you understand that the above makes it no less a stereotype and no less sexist?
So now we're not allowed to make true statements about specific people or groups of people if those statements are true often enough to be recognized as common and become stereotypes?
I don't think this is sexist, because it is not trading on the idea of women as being bad at games. It is based on the idea that there are many people who have the following characteristics: (1) female, (2) in a relationship, (3) with a gamer and (4) not themselves a gamer. The remark was based on the existence of this group, not any specific characteristics of that group.
This is where it got sexist, because this characteristic artificially limits the potential audience of the feature to a single sex. What, exactly, about the BFF Tree links it intrinsically to the female sex?
Nothing. The link is to members of the "girlfriends who don't play games" group. It isn't only for women or for all women, and he never said anything to indicate it as such. He said it was made with this one group in mind though. I don't see the problem here. When you watch a commercial with a black actor do you say "I can't buy that product if I'm white because they showed it is for black people?
This isn't an appropriate analogy. A more appropriate one would be "Here's a TV commercial with Michael Dorn, and he's saying 'Neutrogena T-Gel: It works for black men.'" Now, obviously the link is to members of the "black men who have dandruff problems" group, but it isn't only for black men. He just said it was made with this one group in mind, though.
Why DON'T you see the problem here?
We don't need to make up an example. There are plenty of real things, like the bump fighter razor. It was designed with black men in mind since they are more likely to get ingrown hairs, but white people can and do use it too. I don't see it being marketed at black men as problematic.
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
But in addition to that, you need to tell people not to encourage scumbag brain by employing harmful stereotypes when they speak. To quote from the article I linked:
"There's a reason for political correctness," he said. "At least, as studies suggest, it might be a good idea to not put stereotypes out there too clearly, because if you do, people will internalize them."
This is where you and I disagree.
And, to be clear, I do not disagree about the article's descriptive claim. Persons...ok I'll say this sloppily for the sake of convenience....persons internalize negative sentiments.
Where I disagree is the article's normative claim: Persons internalize negative sentiments, and so here is how we should act.
Cause that's a really silly normative claim.
Well as far as the particular issue you mentioned before, having Planned Parenthood government funded, I agree that changing sexist views aren't necessarily going to do anything about that. That would be because I have different politics from you regarding that particular issue.
But when you're talking about something like how rape is investigated and prosecuted, and how a victims of rape are unlikely to report due to the stigma, and how even people who love the victim might engage in victim blaming out of ignorance, well yeah I can pretty much guarantee that a more enlightened, less sexist society is going to make that situation clear up considerably.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
Does your approach allow for marketing though? Products are targetted at a specific idea of what a group is all the time, and I see this as being very similiar. The developer had an idea of what a group is in mind, and is hoping to appeal to that group. Time will show whether this mode actually succeeds in appealing to that group, but I don't think making the attempt is problematic.
How do you feel about lego using demographic data to try and appeal to girls with the new doll-like minifigs?
"allow for" is an odd question to ask. I'm not talking about permission.
LEGO can do those things. My point is to not confuse the demographic data they construct with reality.
Preferably, you explain how handing out fines for things like traffic violations prevents the undesired behaviours that are classified as traffic violations, if the fines in no meaningful way affect the motivations that then cause the actions. Because my postulate here is going to be that a priori knowledge of a posteriori punishment, influences the motivation for taking action to a degree that is sufficient to prevent the action in the first place; Hence, the motivations that give rise to "problematic" situations are relevant.
Much of that did not make any sense. And that's not how semicolons work.
We live in a world in which fines are dispensed for traffic violations, and yet persons still speed. So, what are you talking about?
But when you're talking about something like how rape is investigated and prosecuted, and how a victims of rape are unlikely to report due to the stigma, and how even people who love the victim might engage in victim blaming out of ignorance, well yeah I can pretty much guarantee that a more enlightened, less sexist society is going to make that situation clear up considerably.
How is the term "sexist" helpful in that post?
"less victim blaming" seems fine. "less judgmental" would work, too.
Yeah, rape prosecution problems mostly stem from how problematic a crime it is to... well... prosecute. I'm not sure how a less sexist society is going to magically make the crime less complex.
Yeah, rape prosecution problems mostly stem from how problematic a crime it is to... well... prosecute. I'm not sure how a less sexist society is going to magically make the crime less complex.
When my lady friend was raped by her friend, she talked to a group of us about whether she should try to seek out legal action.
Pretty much no one thought it was a good idea. We agreed that the best solution was to just beat the shit out of the fucker who raped her.
Yeah, rape prosecution problems mostly stem from how problematic a crime it is to... well... prosecute. I'm not sure how a less sexist society is going to magically make the crime less complex.
When my lady friend was raped by her friend, she talked to a group of us about whether she should try to seek out legal action.
Pretty much no one thought it was a good idea. We agreed that the best solution was to just beat the shit out of the fucker who raped her.
But she was against that.
I can see why. Assault is not generally a problematic crime to prosecute. That is, unless you were planning to go all Batman with it.
Yeah, rape prosecution problems mostly stem from how problematic a crime it is to... well... prosecute. I'm not sure how a less sexist society is going to magically make the crime less complex.
It is a complex crime, but it is also a crime where a lot of pre-existing notions of sex and gender come into play, and consequently the entire process from investigation to conviction is at high risk of being warped by sexism.
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.
I know now why there aren't a lot of female specialists
You know how police have the blue wall of silence? Doctors and nurses have a white wall that they use on themselves. People who don't like a person can effectively end them. Using the patient as a tool, they can fail to inform these people of critical information they need to know, so that unlucky person treats the patient on bad or incomplete information, of course gets a poor outcome or better yet, patient death, and that person is fired and their career is over. It's how male doctors edge out female doctors and how female nurses edge out male nurses, or more often anyone who looks at them funny. There is no accountability trail because you're expected to be well enough liked by your team to work together, and if you're the odd one out, you get the axe. Doesn't matter if the patient gets hurt or dies in the process. Such a wonderful system we have there.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
SKFM do you understand what a gender stereotype is?
Yes. Do you understand that stereotypes can be true about certain members of the group subject to the stereotype?
And do you understand that the above makes it no less a stereotype and no less sexist?
So now we're not allowed to make true statements about specific people or groups of people if those statements are true often enough to be recognized as common and become stereotypes?
I don't think this is sexist, because it is not trading on the idea of women as being bad at games. It is based on the idea that there are many people who have the following characteristics: (1) female, (2) in a relationship, (3) with a gamer and (4) not themselves a gamer. The remark was based on the existence of this group, not any specific characteristics of that group.
This is where it got sexist, because this characteristic artificially limits the potential audience of the feature to a single sex. What, exactly, about the BFF Tree links it intrinsically to the female sex?
Nothing. The link is to members of the "girlfriends who don't play games" group. It isn't only for women or for all women, and he never said anything to indicate it as such. He said it was made with this one group in mind though. I don't see the problem here. When you watch a commercial with a black actor do you say "I can't buy that product if I'm white because they showed it is for black people?
This isn't an appropriate analogy. A more appropriate one would be "Here's a TV commercial with Michael Dorn, and he's saying 'Neutrogena T-Gel: It works for black men.'" Now, obviously the link is to members of the "black men who have dandruff problems" group, but it isn't only for black men. He just said it was made with this one group in mind, though.
Why DON'T you see the problem here?
We don't need to make up an example. There are plenty of real things, like the bump fighter razor. It was designed with black men in mind since they are more likely to get ingrown hairs, but white people can and do use it too. I don't see it being marketed at black men as problematic.
Which actually isn't an example, because it's designed based on an actual physiological issue - namely that individuals with tightly curled facial hair get ingrown hairs more often, and that such facial hair tends to be genetically linked to black males.
Yeah, rape prosecution problems mostly stem from how problematic a crime it is to... well... prosecute. I'm not sure how a less sexist society is going to magically make the crime less complex.
It is a complex crime, but it is also a crime where a lot of pre-existing notions of sex and gender come into play, and consequently the entire process from investigation to conviction is at high risk of being warped by sexism.
And amazingly, this is something that enthusiastic consent can actually help with!
I tend to say that wealthy white men who happen to be in the legal profession tend towards being privileged, unempathetic, conservative gooses. It might not be true of all of them, but it's certainly true of at least one of them I know, so it's probably fair to say it's true of all of them. If it's not true of them, then the onus is on them to choose not to be offended by it, cause after all I didn't mean them.
In fact in my new indie game there's a (for lack of a better term) "conservative internet poster" mode where it makes every other character inexplicably shrill about mundane things but the game is pretty easy otherwise. I'm hoping it might help conservative internet posters handle the level of diversity in my game. It has men wearing dresses! Scandalous, I know.
Yeah, rape prosecution problems mostly stem from how problematic a crime it is to... well... prosecute. I'm not sure how a less sexist society is going to magically make the crime less complex.
It is a complex crime, but it is also a crime where a lot of pre-existing notions of sex and gender come into play, and consequently the entire process from investigation to conviction is at high risk of being warped by sexism.
Even if you removed every instance of gender from the issue (which I do not think is a good idea) you would still be left with a extremely difficult-to-prosecute crime, just by the nature of what the crime is and how our justice system is set up.
And amazingly, this is something that enthusiastic consent can actually help with!
Now I really want to nail down exactly what this model is. My research on it (both here and elsewhere) ranges from "If you aren't having sex this way now you are a rapist" to "a running dialogue of what you're going to do during sex is a good thing".
I'm hoping the truth is somewhere down the middle, but currently there doesn't seem to be a definitive definition. At least, not that I've found.
Yeah, rape prosecution problems mostly stem from how problematic a crime it is to... well... prosecute. I'm not sure how a less sexist society is going to magically make the crime less complex.
It is a complex crime, but it is also a crime where a lot of pre-existing notions of sex and gender come into play, and consequently the entire process from investigation to conviction is at high risk of being warped by sexism.
Even if you removed every instance of gender from the issue (which I do not think is a good idea) you would still be left with a extremely difficult-to-prosecute crime, just by the nature of what the crime is and how our justice system is set up.
That doesn't mean that there's no room for improvement anywhere.
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.
Yeah, rape prosecution problems mostly stem from how problematic a crime it is to... well... prosecute. I'm not sure how a less sexist society is going to magically make the crime less complex.
It is a complex crime, but it is also a crime where a lot of pre-existing notions of sex and gender come into play, and consequently the entire process from investigation to conviction is at high risk of being warped by sexism.
Even if you removed every instance of gender from the issue (which I do not think is a good idea) you would still be left with a extremely difficult-to-prosecute crime, just by the nature of what the crime is and how our justice system is set up.
And amazingly, this is something that enthusiastic consent can actually help with!
Now I really want to nail down exactly what this model is. My research on it (both here and elsewhere) ranges from "If you aren't having sex this way now you are a rapist" to "a running dialogue of what you're going to do during sex is a good thing".
I'm hoping the truth is somewhere down the middle, but currently there doesn't seem to be a definitive definition. At least, not that I've found.
It might help to change the first one to "If you're not having sex this way, you can't prove you're not a rapist" if it makes you feel better.
Yeah, rape prosecution problems mostly stem from how problematic a crime it is to... well... prosecute. I'm not sure how a less sexist society is going to magically make the crime less complex.
It is a complex crime, but it is also a crime where a lot of pre-existing notions of sex and gender come into play, and consequently the entire process from investigation to conviction is at high risk of being warped by sexism.
Even if you removed every instance of gender from the issue (which I do not think is a good idea) you would still be left with a extremely difficult-to-prosecute crime, just by the nature of what the crime is and how our justice system is set up.
That doesn't mean that there's no room for improvement anywhere.
It's certainly a good discussion to have. I just think that trying to get people to change how they have sex is not the correct way to do it (though that's aimed more at Angel than you).
I think if we were to have this discussion, a different thread might be the better place for it. It seems like it would be a whole topic unto itself, no?
SKFM do you understand what a gender stereotype is?
Yes. Do you understand that stereotypes can be true about certain members of the group subject to the stereotype?
And do you understand that the above makes it no less a stereotype and no less sexist?
So now we're not allowed to make true statements about specific people or groups of people if those statements are true often enough to be recognized as common and become stereotypes?
I don't think this is sexist, because it is not trading on the idea of women as being bad at games. It is based on the idea that there are many people who have the following characteristics: (1) female, (2) in a relationship, (3) with a gamer and (4) not themselves a gamer. The remark was based on the existence of this group, not any specific characteristics of that group.
This is where it got sexist, because this characteristic artificially limits the potential audience of the feature to a single sex. What, exactly, about the BFF Tree links it intrinsically to the female sex?
Nothing. The link is to members of the "girlfriends who don't play games" group. It isn't only for women or for all women, and he never said anything to indicate it as such. He said it was made with this one group in mind though. I don't see the problem here. When you watch a commercial with a black actor do you say "I can't buy that product if I'm white because they showed it is for black people?
This isn't an appropriate analogy. A more appropriate one would be "Here's a TV commercial with Michael Dorn, and he's saying 'Neutrogena T-Gel: It works for black men.'" Now, obviously the link is to members of the "black men who have dandruff problems" group, but it isn't only for black men. He just said it was made with this one group in mind, though.
Why DON'T you see the problem here?
We don't need to make up an example. There are plenty of real things, like the bump fighter razor. It was designed with black men in mind since they are more likely to get ingrown hairs, but white people can and do use it too. I don't see it being marketed at black men as problematic.
Which actually isn't an example, because it's designed based on an actual physiological issue - namely that individuals with tightly curled facial hair get ingrown hairs more often, and that such facial hair tends to be genetically linked to black males.
There were people in another thread challenging that claim (I thought they were being ridiculous) but I don't think it really matters. The product is useful for anyone who is prone to ingrown hairs, and white people do use it, despite it being explicitly marketed to black people. I see nothing wrong with this situation.
Anyone can use this web browser, but it is marketed to black people. The company that makes it was started by three black men. Problem? How about Ebony magazine?
It's certainly a good discussion to have. I just think that trying to get people to change how they have sex is not the correct way to do it (though that's aimed more at Angel than you).
I think if we were to have this discussion, a different thread might be the better place for it. It seems like it would be a whole topic unto itself, no?
I'm being deliberately vague partly to avoid a derail, and partly because rape investigation bullshit is a hot-button topic for me. It's one of the few topics I can't talk about without getting emotional.
Instead, lemme try to contextualize how I view enthusiastic consent and how it relates to sexual assault and feminism using an anecdote and some buzzwords in my next post.
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.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Yeah, rape prosecution problems mostly stem from how problematic a crime it is to... well... prosecute. I'm not sure how a less sexist society is going to magically make the crime less complex.
It is a complex crime, but it is also a crime where a lot of pre-existing notions of sex and gender come into play, and consequently the entire process from investigation to conviction is at high risk of being warped by sexism.
Even if you removed every instance of gender from the issue (which I do not think is a good idea) you would still be left with a extremely difficult-to-prosecute crime, just by the nature of what the crime is and how our justice system is set up.
And amazingly, this is something that enthusiastic consent can actually help with!
Now I really want to nail down exactly what this model is. My research on it (both here and elsewhere) ranges from "If you aren't having sex this way now you are a rapist" to "a running dialogue of what you're going to do during sex is a good thing".
I'm hoping the truth is somewhere down the middle, but currently there doesn't seem to be a definitive definition. At least, not that I've found.
It might help to change the first one to "If you're not having sex this way, you can't prove you're not a rapist" if it makes you feel better.
Whatever happened to the idea that we should not legislate how people behave in the privacy of their own bedroom?
Yeah, rape prosecution problems mostly stem from how problematic a crime it is to... well... prosecute. I'm not sure how a less sexist society is going to magically make the crime less complex.
It is a complex crime, but it is also a crime where a lot of pre-existing notions of sex and gender come into play, and consequently the entire process from investigation to conviction is at high risk of being warped by sexism.
Even if you removed every instance of gender from the issue (which I do not think is a good idea) you would still be left with a extremely difficult-to-prosecute crime, just by the nature of what the crime is and how our justice system is set up.
That doesn't mean that there's no room for improvement anywhere.
It's certainly a good discussion to have. I just think that trying to get people to change how they have sex is not the correct way to do it (though that's aimed more at Angel than you).
I think if we were to have this discussion, a different thread might be the better place for it. It seems like it would be a whole topic unto itself, no?
If the way you have sex is by not asking for enthusiastic consent then yes, it is in your partner's best interest that you change the way you have sex. Unless you don't give a shit about your partner here, something you keep going back to by referring to the idea of getting consent as literally retarded. I know you hate the term "privileged" and probably hate the concept of "rape culture" but dude, you're sounding an awful lot like a privileged rape apologist, the sort of person who makes it easy for rapists to get away with their crime because after all she implied consent because she didn't fight back, right?
I don't think you understand the concept very well either, since plenty of people seem to get by on legitimate enthusiastic consent (she pulled your pants off, so it's probably likely she wanted sex) and the only people whose behavior would need changing would be the sort of people who either cornered some chick in a hallway at a party and she didn't really explicitly fight back so there's consent or people who get stuck in abusive relationships and keep sexually pleasing them because at least they don't hurt them then.
Also this ties back to the "You can't read minds" thing where the assumption here is that you can in fact read minds. You can tell if your partner wants sex because you simply read their mind, right? Similarly you can tell that the "girlfriend mode" comment wasn't sexist because you can read the guy who said it's mind, right?
SKFM do you understand what a gender stereotype is?
Yes. Do you understand that stereotypes can be true about certain members of the group subject to the stereotype?
And do you understand that the above makes it no less a stereotype and no less sexist?
So now we're not allowed to make true statements about specific people or groups of people if those statements are true often enough to be recognized as common and become stereotypes?
I don't think this is sexist, because it is not trading on the idea of women as being bad at games. It is based on the idea that there are many people who have the following characteristics: (1) female, (2) in a relationship, (3) with a gamer and (4) not themselves a gamer. The remark was based on the existence of this group, not any specific characteristics of that group.
This is where it got sexist, because this characteristic artificially limits the potential audience of the feature to a single sex. What, exactly, about the BFF Tree links it intrinsically to the female sex?
Nothing. The link is to members of the "girlfriends who don't play games" group. It isn't only for women or for all women, and he never said anything to indicate it as such. He said it was made with this one group in mind though. I don't see the problem here. When you watch a commercial with a black actor do you say "I can't buy that product if I'm white because they showed it is for black people?
This isn't an appropriate analogy. A more appropriate one would be "Here's a TV commercial with Michael Dorn, and he's saying 'Neutrogena T-Gel: It works for black men.'" Now, obviously the link is to members of the "black men who have dandruff problems" group, but it isn't only for black men. He just said it was made with this one group in mind, though.
Why DON'T you see the problem here?
We don't need to make up an example. There are plenty of real things, like the bump fighter razor. It was designed with black men in mind since they are more likely to get ingrown hairs, but white people can and do use it too. I don't see it being marketed at black men as problematic.
Which actually isn't an example, because it's designed based on an actual physiological issue - namely that individuals with tightly curled facial hair get ingrown hairs more often, and that such facial hair tends to be genetically linked to black males.
There were people in another thread challenging that claim (I thought they were being ridiculous) but I don't think it really matters. The product is useful for anyone who is prone to ingrown hairs, and white people do use it, despite it being explicitly marketed to black people. I see nothing wrong with this situation.
Anyone can use this web browser, but it is marketed to black people. The company that makes it was started by three black men. Problem? How about Ebony magazine?
Yes, it is terribly surprising that a magazine on black culture would be targeted at black individuals.
Yeah, rape prosecution problems mostly stem from how problematic a crime it is to... well... prosecute. I'm not sure how a less sexist society is going to magically make the crime less complex.
It is a complex crime, but it is also a crime where a lot of pre-existing notions of sex and gender come into play, and consequently the entire process from investigation to conviction is at high risk of being warped by sexism.
Even if you removed every instance of gender from the issue (which I do not think is a good idea) you would still be left with a extremely difficult-to-prosecute crime, just by the nature of what the crime is and how our justice system is set up.
And amazingly, this is something that enthusiastic consent can actually help with!
Now I really want to nail down exactly what this model is. My research on it (both here and elsewhere) ranges from "If you aren't having sex this way now you are a rapist" to "a running dialogue of what you're going to do during sex is a good thing".
I'm hoping the truth is somewhere down the middle, but currently there doesn't seem to be a definitive definition. At least, not that I've found.
It might help to change the first one to "If you're not having sex this way, you can't prove you're not a rapist" if it makes you feel better.
Whatever happened to the idea that we should not legislate how people behave in the privacy of their own bedroom?
Well, It was really only between 1975 and 1993 that we actually made it illegal to rape your wife (state by state). In he whole 1950s era mindset you were buying her sexual services for life by marrying her. Blame Ronnie Reagan, that crazy liberal.
Yeah, rape prosecution problems mostly stem from how problematic a crime it is to... well... prosecute. I'm not sure how a less sexist society is going to magically make the crime less complex.
It is a complex crime, but it is also a crime where a lot of pre-existing notions of sex and gender come into play, and consequently the entire process from investigation to conviction is at high risk of being warped by sexism.
Even if you removed every instance of gender from the issue (which I do not think is a good idea) you would still be left with a extremely difficult-to-prosecute crime, just by the nature of what the crime is and how our justice system is set up.
That doesn't mean that there's no room for improvement anywhere.
It's certainly a good discussion to have. I just think that trying to get people to change how they have sex is not the correct way to do it (though that's aimed more at Angel than you).
I think if we were to have this discussion, a different thread might be the better place for it. It seems like it would be a whole topic unto itself, no?
If the way you have sex is by not asking for enthusiastic consent then yes, it is in your partner's best interest that you change the way you have sex. Unless you don't give a shit about your partner here, something you keep going back to by referring to the idea of getting consent as literally retarded. I know you hate the term "privileged" and probably hate the concept of "rape culture" but dude, you're sounding an awful lot like a privileged rape apologist, the sort of person who makes it easy for rapists to get away with their crime because after all she implied consent because she didn't fight back, right?
I don't think you understand the concept very well either, since plenty of people seem to get by on legitimate enthusiastic consent (she pulled your pants off, so it's probably likely she wanted sex) and the only people whose behavior would need changing would be the sort of people who either cornered some chick in a hallway at a party and she didn't really explicitly fight back so there's consent or people who get stuck in abusive relationships and keep sexually pleasing them because at least they don't hurt them then.
Also this ties back to the "You can't read minds" thing where the assumption here is that you can in fact read minds. You can tell if your partner wants sex because you simply read their mind, right? Similarly you can tell that the "girlfriend mode" comment wasn't sexist because you can read the guy who said it's mind, right?
Normally I have to read more then a sentence to find something utterly ridiculous. You're framing your idea as something everyone must do or they're doing it wrong, which is patently stupid in regards to sexual interaction. You're calling someone who does not agree with your idea a rape apologist.
Fuck that.
EDIT: You also seem to be missing the fact that there is a difference between Consent and Enthusiastic Consent. While enthusiastic consent could be seen to be a part of the consent family, not all consent is enthusiastic consent.
I can't even believe it's necessary to point that out.
SKFM do you understand what a gender stereotype is?
Yes. Do you understand that stereotypes can be true about certain members of the group subject to the stereotype?
And do you understand that the above makes it no less a stereotype and no less sexist?
So now we're not allowed to make true statements about specific people or groups of people if those statements are true often enough to be recognized as common and become stereotypes?
I don't think this is sexist, because it is not trading on the idea of women as being bad at games. It is based on the idea that there are many people who have the following characteristics: (1) female, (2) in a relationship, (3) with a gamer and (4) not themselves a gamer. The remark was based on the existence of this group, not any specific characteristics of that group.
This is where it got sexist, because this characteristic artificially limits the potential audience of the feature to a single sex. What, exactly, about the BFF Tree links it intrinsically to the female sex?
Nothing. The link is to members of the "girlfriends who don't play games" group. It isn't only for women or for all women, and he never said anything to indicate it as such. He said it was made with this one group in mind though. I don't see the problem here. When you watch a commercial with a black actor do you say "I can't buy that product if I'm white because they showed it is for black people?
This isn't an appropriate analogy. A more appropriate one would be "Here's a TV commercial with Michael Dorn, and he's saying 'Neutrogena T-Gel: It works for black men.'" Now, obviously the link is to members of the "black men who have dandruff problems" group, but it isn't only for black men. He just said it was made with this one group in mind, though.
Why DON'T you see the problem here?
We don't need to make up an example. There are plenty of real things, like the bump fighter razor. It was designed with black men in mind since they are more likely to get ingrown hairs, but white people can and do use it too. I don't see it being marketed at black men as problematic.
It's not a problem in that instance because there is a real, physiological reason to attribute something to a specific group. The problem is when you attribute something to a particular group for no real reason, i.e. "girls are bad at games" when being good at games has nothing to do with gender.
I also think it's problematic when toy companies make gender specific toys that only appeal to boys or girls because of societal preconceptions and not for any reason that should actually have to do with gender. It's a difficult problem for those companies though, because they'll be more successful with their advertising if they show girls playing with dolls. But on the other hand they'll be perpetuating the sexist notion that dolls are for girls.
Yeah, rape prosecution problems mostly stem from how problematic a crime it is to... well... prosecute. I'm not sure how a less sexist society is going to magically make the crime less complex.
It is a complex crime, but it is also a crime where a lot of pre-existing notions of sex and gender come into play, and consequently the entire process from investigation to conviction is at high risk of being warped by sexism.
Even if you removed every instance of gender from the issue (which I do not think is a good idea) you would still be left with a extremely difficult-to-prosecute crime, just by the nature of what the crime is and how our justice system is set up.
And amazingly, this is something that enthusiastic consent can actually help with!
Now I really want to nail down exactly what this model is. My research on it (both here and elsewhere) ranges from "If you aren't having sex this way now you are a rapist" to "a running dialogue of what you're going to do during sex is a good thing".
I'm hoping the truth is somewhere down the middle, but currently there doesn't seem to be a definitive definition. At least, not that I've found.
It might help to change the first one to "If you're not having sex this way, you can't prove you're not a rapist" if it makes you feel better.
I don't want to live in a society where i have to prove i'm not a rapist.
I just realized that the anecdote I was about to post just rehashes the same arguments we've been having, and I lost all motivation to actually follow through on it.
Fuck it.
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.
Posts
But that's one of the reasons you actually have to consciously reject stereotypes instead of embracing them all the time.
It's kinda similar to what you're saying, _J_, about taking control. As most of us have argued with you, you actually can't control the stuff your brain does on autopilot, you just can't. But you can control what happens after that. So your brain makes a stereotype, but you try not to default to it, or use it in language with other people, you tell your conscious mind that the stereotype is BULLSHIT and that people are individuals. And you'll still have scumbag brain doing it's scumbag thing, but you're still going to continue to fight it. Or at least you should.
But in addition to that, you need to tell people not to encourage scumbag brain by employing harmful stereotypes when they speak. To quote from the article I linked:
All of these examples appear to be criticizing you for sucking at the game, not for being a girl. Anecdotally speaking, you're liable to get the same comments if you had a male avatar (with different words substituted in place of "girl").
EDIT: crap, with the obvious exception of the first one.
This is where you and I disagree.
And, to be clear, I do not disagree about the article's descriptive claim. Persons...ok I'll say this sloppily for the sake of convenience....persons internalize negative sentiments.
Where I disagree is the article's normative claim: Persons internalize negative sentiments, and so here is how we should act.
Cause that's a really silly normative claim.
Now pretend that El Skid was number 2 on the scoreboard, yet still got all that.
Nothing. The link is to members of the "girlfriends who don't play games" group. It isn't only for women or for all women, and he never said anything to indicate it as such. He said it was made with this one group in mind though. I don't see the problem here. When you watch a commercial with a black actor do you say "I can't buy that product if I'm white because they showed it is for black people?"
Does your approach allow for marketing though? Products are targetted at a specific idea of what a group is all the time, and I see this as being very similiar. The developer had an idea of what a group is in mind, and is hoping to appeal to that group. Time will show whether this mode actually succeeds in appealing to that group, but I don't think making the attempt is problematic.
How do you feel about lego using demographic data to try and appeal to girls with the new doll-like minifigs?
Preferably, you explain how handing out fines for things like traffic violations prevents the undesired behaviours that are classified as traffic violations, if the fines in no meaningful way affect the motivations that then cause the actions. Because my postulate here is going to be that a priori knowledge of a posteriori punishment, influences the motivation for taking action to a degree that is sufficient to prevent the action in the first place; Hence, the motivations that give rise to "problematic" situations are relevant. I think I would find literature to that effect most enlightening.
I can pretend lots of different instances of sexism. That's not my point.
It just seemed pretty striking to me that those comments are dispensed equally to both sexes, are not critical of the person's sex (they are critical of the person's lack of skill at the game), and yet are still labeled "sexist." I think it speaks to what _J_ is talking about. You're choosing to interpret them as offensive sexist comments, when you could easily interpret them as simply being fed up with noobs, and the only reason the word "girl" gets used at all is because El Skid is playing a female avatar.
Except that they are quietly linking skill level and gender. Which is the whole problem.
This isn't an appropriate analogy. A more appropriate one would be "Here's a TV commercial with Michael Dorn, and he's saying 'Neutrogena T-Gel: It works for black men.'" Now, obviously the link is to members of the "black men who have dandruff problems" group, but it isn't only for black men. He just said it was made with this one group in mind, though.
Why DON'T you see the problem here?
An advertisement that focuses on a certain demographic is a problem? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
We don't need to make up an example. There are plenty of real things, like the bump fighter razor. It was designed with black men in mind since they are more likely to get ingrown hairs, but white people can and do use it too. I don't see it being marketed at black men as problematic.
Well as far as the particular issue you mentioned before, having Planned Parenthood government funded, I agree that changing sexist views aren't necessarily going to do anything about that. That would be because I have different politics from you regarding that particular issue.
But when you're talking about something like how rape is investigated and prosecuted, and how a victims of rape are unlikely to report due to the stigma, and how even people who love the victim might engage in victim blaming out of ignorance, well yeah I can pretty much guarantee that a more enlightened, less sexist society is going to make that situation clear up considerably.
"allow for" is an odd question to ask. I'm not talking about permission.
LEGO can do those things. My point is to not confuse the demographic data they construct with reality.
The problem is the action, not the motivation to act.
Persons being motivated to rape is not problematic.
Persons raping is problematic.
Much of that did not make any sense. And that's not how semicolons work.
We live in a world in which fines are dispensed for traffic violations, and yet persons still speed. So, what are you talking about?
How is the term "sexist" helpful in that post?
"less victim blaming" seems fine. "less judgmental" would work, too.
"Sexism" does not seem to be a helpful term.
When my lady friend was raped by her friend, she talked to a group of us about whether she should try to seek out legal action.
Pretty much no one thought it was a good idea. We agreed that the best solution was to just beat the shit out of the fucker who raped her.
But she was against that.
I can see why. Assault is not generally a problematic crime to prosecute. That is, unless you were planning to go all Batman with it.
It is a complex crime, but it is also a crime where a lot of pre-existing notions of sex and gender come into play, and consequently the entire process from investigation to conviction is at high risk of being warped by sexism.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
You know how police have the blue wall of silence? Doctors and nurses have a white wall that they use on themselves. People who don't like a person can effectively end them. Using the patient as a tool, they can fail to inform these people of critical information they need to know, so that unlucky person treats the patient on bad or incomplete information, of course gets a poor outcome or better yet, patient death, and that person is fired and their career is over. It's how male doctors edge out female doctors and how female nurses edge out male nurses, or more often anyone who looks at them funny. There is no accountability trail because you're expected to be well enough liked by your team to work together, and if you're the odd one out, you get the axe. Doesn't matter if the patient gets hurt or dies in the process. Such a wonderful system we have there.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Which actually isn't an example, because it's designed based on an actual physiological issue - namely that individuals with tightly curled facial hair get ingrown hairs more often, and that such facial hair tends to be genetically linked to black males.
And amazingly, this is something that enthusiastic consent can actually help with!
In fact in my new indie game there's a (for lack of a better term) "conservative internet poster" mode where it makes every other character inexplicably shrill about mundane things but the game is pretty easy otherwise. I'm hoping it might help conservative internet posters handle the level of diversity in my game. It has men wearing dresses! Scandalous, I know.
Even if you removed every instance of gender from the issue (which I do not think is a good idea) you would still be left with a extremely difficult-to-prosecute crime, just by the nature of what the crime is and how our justice system is set up.
Now I really want to nail down exactly what this model is. My research on it (both here and elsewhere) ranges from "If you aren't having sex this way now you are a rapist" to "a running dialogue of what you're going to do during sex is a good thing".
I'm hoping the truth is somewhere down the middle, but currently there doesn't seem to be a definitive definition. At least, not that I've found.
That doesn't mean that there's no room for improvement anywhere.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
It might help to change the first one to "If you're not having sex this way, you can't prove you're not a rapist" if it makes you feel better.
It's certainly a good discussion to have. I just think that trying to get people to change how they have sex is not the correct way to do it (though that's aimed more at Angel than you).
I think if we were to have this discussion, a different thread might be the better place for it. It seems like it would be a whole topic unto itself, no?
Yeah, that's not making it better.
There were people in another thread challenging that claim (I thought they were being ridiculous) but I don't think it really matters. The product is useful for anyone who is prone to ingrown hairs, and white people do use it, despite it being explicitly marketed to black people. I see nothing wrong with this situation.
Here is another example: http://www.blackbirdhome.com/
Anyone can use this web browser, but it is marketed to black people. The company that makes it was started by three black men. Problem? How about Ebony magazine?
I'm being deliberately vague partly to avoid a derail, and partly because rape investigation bullshit is a hot-button topic for me. It's one of the few topics I can't talk about without getting emotional.
Instead, lemme try to contextualize how I view enthusiastic consent and how it relates to sexual assault and feminism using an anecdote and some buzzwords in my next post.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Whatever happened to the idea that we should not legislate how people behave in the privacy of their own bedroom?
If the way you have sex is by not asking for enthusiastic consent then yes, it is in your partner's best interest that you change the way you have sex. Unless you don't give a shit about your partner here, something you keep going back to by referring to the idea of getting consent as literally retarded. I know you hate the term "privileged" and probably hate the concept of "rape culture" but dude, you're sounding an awful lot like a privileged rape apologist, the sort of person who makes it easy for rapists to get away with their crime because after all she implied consent because she didn't fight back, right?
I don't think you understand the concept very well either, since plenty of people seem to get by on legitimate enthusiastic consent (she pulled your pants off, so it's probably likely she wanted sex) and the only people whose behavior would need changing would be the sort of people who either cornered some chick in a hallway at a party and she didn't really explicitly fight back so there's consent or people who get stuck in abusive relationships and keep sexually pleasing them because at least they don't hurt them then.
Also this ties back to the "You can't read minds" thing where the assumption here is that you can in fact read minds. You can tell if your partner wants sex because you simply read their mind, right? Similarly you can tell that the "girlfriend mode" comment wasn't sexist because you can read the guy who said it's mind, right?
Yes, it is terribly surprising that a magazine on black culture would be targeted at black individuals.
You're not really helping your case here.
Well, It was really only between 1975 and 1993 that we actually made it illegal to rape your wife (state by state). In he whole 1950s era mindset you were buying her sexual services for life by marrying her. Blame Ronnie Reagan, that crazy liberal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape
Normally I have to read more then a sentence to find something utterly ridiculous. You're framing your idea as something everyone must do or they're doing it wrong, which is patently stupid in regards to sexual interaction. You're calling someone who does not agree with your idea a rape apologist.
Fuck that.
EDIT: You also seem to be missing the fact that there is a difference between Consent and Enthusiastic Consent. While enthusiastic consent could be seen to be a part of the consent family, not all consent is enthusiastic consent.
I can't even believe it's necessary to point that out.
It's not a problem in that instance because there is a real, physiological reason to attribute something to a specific group. The problem is when you attribute something to a particular group for no real reason, i.e. "girls are bad at games" when being good at games has nothing to do with gender.
I also think it's problematic when toy companies make gender specific toys that only appeal to boys or girls because of societal preconceptions and not for any reason that should actually have to do with gender. It's a difficult problem for those companies though, because they'll be more successful with their advertising if they show girls playing with dolls. But on the other hand they'll be perpetuating the sexist notion that dolls are for girls.
I don't want to live in a society where i have to prove i'm not a rapist.
Fuck it.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
well I don't want to live in a society where women suffer harassment and threats of violence every day so
it's kind of a raw deal for everyone