It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
low rated
avatar
HGiles: The really big goals of feminism - voting, owning property and not being it - are met. Much like the big goals of the civil rights movement - voting, equal protection by law - were met. But there are still huge issues.
avatar
StingingVelvet: Not taking sides here, but one big issue with modern feminism is most women don't agree on what the goals are. My wife talks about this a lot. One feminist will tell you women should cover up and not be sexualized, another wants the right to wear whatever she wants wherever she wants. One woman wants pornography banned for exploiting lower income women, another wants prostitution legalized because what a woman does with her body should be her business.

There's no clear message on a lot of these issues. The same thing seems to be happening in media criticism. For example a lot of "SJWs" are pushing for a female Doctor Who but my wife hates the idea, she thinks of him as a male character and doesn't get why that should change. Similarly I know a lot of girls who enjoy seeing sexy female characters in games, or make their own sexy protagonist when given the chance, because sexy is fun sometimes.

The internet gives a loud bullhorn to anyone who wants it. This results in niche opinions sounding like social movements, even if they aren't. It also pressures journalists to listen to every opinion equally, even if they're not actually shared by many people. All of this (lacking a clear message, every message getting airplay) is a big factor in the current debate and the frustrations of people on both sides.
Welcome to democracy. The big issues will rise to the top because more people will care about them. :)

For one thing, there's growing awareness of the really troubling levels of sexual assault and old boys clubs in some professions.
avatar
HGiles: And GGers definitely broke the bounds of decency first with stalking and doxxing.

That's the real problem of GG. Of course people who are attacked and threatened will react badly. GGers started that mess, and now it's very hard to have a genuine discourse. GGers tainted the whole issue of games journalism with misogyny and irrational hatred. The whole issue is set back.
avatar
TwilightBard: Proof please, because I have HEARD about this stalking and doxxing anytime someone wants to easily dismiss Gamergate, but no one's actually been able to give me proof, just empty accusations.
If you haven't heard of Brianna Wu, Anita Sarkeesian or Zoe Quinn, you need to Google harder, dude(ette). Harrassment of Ms. Quinn was literally the first thing GGers got organized for.
Post edited December 16, 2014 by HGiles
low rated
avatar
HGiles: Welcome to democracy. The big issues will rise to the top because more people will care about them. :)

For one thing, there's growing awareness of the really troubling levels of sexual assault and old boys clubs in some professions.
Yeah. I'm especially happy to see more awareness of the issues colleges have in this regard. I was there, I know how bad it can be. I know the women do it to themselves to some extent and "party" with strangers, but the men in those situations are often manipulative and predatory. It's really a bad situation.
low rated
avatar
HGiles: Welcome to democracy. The big issues will rise to the top because more people will care about them. :)

For one thing, there's growing awareness of the really troubling levels of sexual assault and old boys clubs in some professions.
avatar
StingingVelvet: Yeah. I'm especially happy to see more awareness of the issues colleges have in this regard. I was there, I know how bad it can be. I know the women do it to themselves to some extent and "party" with strangers, but the men in those situations are often manipulative and predatory. It's really a bad situation.
It is a bad situation. But why shouldn't women go to parties? Getting drunk in public isn't a good idea for anyone, but guys do it all the time without worrying about being raped. The idea that women drinking means they somehow contributed to another person assaulting them is a part of the problem. The blame is 100% on the person who decided to assault a human being, not on the person who wanted to have a fun evening, however foolish their choice of fun might be.
avatar
Jonesy89: You mean the group that wants critics to not talk about certain things in their reviews under the guise of asking for them to be more objective, despite still wanting the critic to talk about highly subjective things like fun? Just saying, they aren't exactly doing a bang up job of making themselves look like one of their main stated goals is to silence critics on particular subjects. True, some opponents of GG aren't endearing themselves to me on that front either, but I have less sympathy for that kind of behavior when it is one of the main tenets of the movement of a group.
That's a straw man argument, asking for more objective reviews doesn't mean asking for 100.000% objective reviews (which is both impossible and useless) nor saying that critics should be banned from ever mentioning any political or personal issues they might have with a game.

Just to try to remain as objective as reasonably possible in their reviews and if they want to adds some personal subjective thought to do it in an insert or in a linked opinion piece. And that's valid for both positive and negative reviews.
low rated
avatar
Jonesy89: You mean the group that wants critics to not talk about certain things in their reviews under the guise of asking for them to be more objective, despite still wanting the critic to talk about highly subjective things like fun? Just saying, they aren't exactly doing a bang up job of making themselves look like one of their main stated goals is to silence critics on particular subjects. True, some opponents of GG aren't endearing themselves to me on that front either, but I have less sympathy for that kind of behavior when it is one of the main tenets of the movement of a group.
avatar
Gersen: That's a straw man argument, asking for more objective reviews doesn't mean asking for 100.000% objective reviews (which is both impossible and useless) nor saying that critics should be banned from ever mentioning any political or personal issues they might have with a game.

Just to try to remain as objective as reasonably possible in their reviews and if they want to adds some personal subjective thought to do it in an insert or in a linked opinion piece. And that's valid for both positive and negative reviews.
I never said that GG was after 100% objective reviews. I'm just saying that trying to limit what critics can talk about in a review is, regardless of GG's intentions, looks rather like they are trying to control what a critic can say, which a public that already doesn't like GG is going to interpret that in the most unfavorable way, namely that GG is trying to silence opinions of others being expressed in reviews.
low rated
avatar
HGiles: It is a bad situation. But why shouldn't women go to parties? Getting drunk in public isn't a good idea for anyone, but guys do it all the time without worrying about being raped. The idea that women drinking means they somehow contributed to another person assaulting them is a part of the problem. The blame is 100% on the person who decided to assault a human being, not on the person who wanted to have a fun evening, however foolish their choice of fun might be.
Anyone who gets intoxicated to a high level around people they don't know is taking part in very risky behavior. While the predator (who might also be intoxicated) should take the blame obviously, it's also a common sense thing to say that women should not put themselves in that situation by getting highly intoxicated around strange men in an environment ripe with sexual assault.

The fact people act like we can't say that common sense truth is very frustrating because in my opinion it makes women less aware of the dangers of their behavior. It should be shouted to the rooftops that they shouldn't go to parties around men they don't know and drink in excess. It's just common sense.
avatar
MaGo72: http://www.staresattheworld.com/2014/11/catch-22-feminism/

Just out of interest a "neo-reactionary" monarchist is somebody whose politicial view/ideology is, that monarchism as a ruling politicial system in a state would be the one to go for aswell as returning to "old" values?

Furthermore the term "neo-reactionary" is quite new for me, I know the term reactionary which has been used quite differently to describe certain politicial movements/groups in a given country at a given time. From what I could look up, it seems the term for itself coins something like a "radical conversative". David Aurini the author of the above text says from himself, that he is a neo-reactionary monarchist. When you consider those glasses of a perspective on the world, the text makes sense - although I do not share his view.

I think one question which has never been asked or adressed in all those articles is, what is the kind of equality feminism is going for?

The feminist movement has reached quite a lot of it's initial goals. When I look at those articles and their views which came up in the GG discussion, it seems more to me that "equality" in front of the law, equal treatment of women in our existing western societies is no longer the main goal. It seems to me the main goal is the extinction of gender and associated characteristics as a social, cultural construct. One could argue that this is direct implication of a cultural alignment of genders because the associated traits with one gender are not directly comparable with the other role, but the question which I ask myself is: Such a change would encompass giving up/normalizing the traits and characteristics of both genders, while when I look at the proponents and authors of certain articles it sounds more like aiming for "privilege". The reason for this in my opinion is, that the proposed change is not really a matter of this or that gender role, it is a change which touches our culture in its roots and views on society, the moral and ethical values aswell. And with the "We do it, it is ok, but it is not ok when you do it "- argumentation you hit a wall.
avatar
HGiles: When one group is fighting against sexual assault and murder, and the other side is fighting to silence other points of view, I know where I stand.
The anti-video game (and generally antii-pop culture) Neo-fems are not remotely interested in the genuinely disadvantaged or oppressed in US/Western society other than as a political football they can take out and abuse from time to time, in order to puff up their own image. And who's trying to silence others? Gamers supporting and sympathetic to gamergate? You're joking! You only have to look at the scores of people silenced on twitter who've dared to critisize Ms. Saerkeesian and her global gaggle of mentally ill college students. X-D


avatar
HGiles: "I don't agree but I respect you as a fellow human" .
Yep.


avatar
HGiles: And GGers definitely broke the bounds of decency first with stalking and doxxing.
Again, do some investigating, you'll find out that peoople standing up to the the not so new (try Europe, Canada or Australia for the last 20 years) tyranny of corrupt media and thugish Rad-Neo-Marxists are the ones having their lives destroyed.

And of course there has been no evidence that supporters of #gamergate have been involved in any of these alledged threats again Neo-fem journalist, activists or commentators. Again, go do some research. Sarkaesian has not even temped to make any charges against anyone. Who are her alledged attackers. No on e knows, it's a mystery.


avatar
HGiles: GGers started that mess, and now it's very hard to have a genuine discourse. GGers tainted the whole issue of games journalism with misogyny and irrational hatred. The whole issue is set back.
Are you just sh*t stirring or are you one of the delusional, mentally ill college/university students who are under the dark thrall of some degenrate tenured "professor".


(To all whom it may concern, please excuse any spelling or grammatical errors as I am doing this on the go, but I just felt compelled to reply to at least one of the more mendatious posts on this thread. Peace, love and all that)
low rated
avatar
noncompliantgame: Sarkaesian has not even temped to make any charges against anyone. Who are her alledged attackers. No on e knows, it's a mystery.
You mean the ones that the FBI (last I heard) was trying to find because noone knows who they are, thus requiring them to be tracked by law enforcement in order to be charged?
low rated
avatar
Jonesy89: You mean the ones that the FBI (last I heard) was trying to find because noone knows who they are, thus requiring them to be tracked by law enforcement in order to be charged?
Exactly. Even that Yiannopoulos bastard has conceded that his investigations have clearly proven Sarkeesian's contact to the FBI to deal with online harrassment matters. But, no, the whole conspiracy bullshit is still purported and the facts are conveniently forgotten.
low rated
avatar
noncompliantgame: Are you just sh*t stirring or are you one of the delusional, mentally ill college/university students who are under the dark thrall of some degenrate tenured "professor".
I think it's fairly clear who's 'sh*t stirring' in this conversation.
avatar
Jonesy89: You mean the ones that the FBI (last I heard) was trying to find because noone knows who they are, thus requiring them to be tracked by law enforcement in order to be charged?
avatar
Vainamoinen: Exactly. Even that Yiannopoulos bastard has conceded that his investigations have clearly proven Sarkeesian's contact to the FBI to deal with online harrassment matters. But, no, the whole conspiracy bullshit is still purported and the facts are conveniently forgotten.
"The Sassette Principle" or just another day in politics. Its all dirty stuff.
Attachments:
low rated
avatar
HGiles: It is a bad situation. But why shouldn't women go to parties? Getting drunk in public isn't a good idea for anyone, but guys do it all the time without worrying about being raped. The idea that women drinking means they somehow contributed to another person assaulting them is a part of the problem. The blame is 100% on the person who decided to assault a human being, not on the person who wanted to have a fun evening, however foolish their choice of fun might be.
avatar
StingingVelvet: Anyone who gets intoxicated to a high level around people they don't know is taking part in very risky behavior. While the predator (who might also be intoxicated) should take the blame obviously, it's also a common sense thing to say that women should not put themselves in that situation by getting highly intoxicated around strange men in an environment ripe with sexual assault.

The fact people act like we can't say that common sense truth is very frustrating because in my opinion it makes women less aware of the dangers of their behavior. It should be shouted to the rooftops that they shouldn't go to parties around men they don't know and drink in excess. It's just common sense.
I think we're on the same page here, really.

It's not about not saying things that are common sense, it's that they shouldn't be needed common sense in the first place. The situation is messed up and needs to change, with men and women working together to fix these issues.

People need to learn that a person being incapable of saying no is not the same as them saying yes. That women specifically are told to be guarded on what should be fun occasions, and that a huge aspect of rape prevention skips over teaching people not to be drugging rapists, is one aspect of the systemic problem. I think we need to work harder on teaching people not to use alcohol or date rape drugs, and to work together to protect each other and stop people who are trying to hurt others.

Putting the onus solely on women instead of making it a shared issue where men and women work together to make a safe environment for everyone is part of the problem. No one can control someone else's behavior. Doing everything 'right' is no protection. People need to work together to make a safe and happy environment for everyone.

At the very least, it can be framed as self interest: if a woman needs to be paranoid about her drink and who's near her, she's not going to be terribly interested in flirting. The widespread acceptance of creepy behavior makes dating much harder for everyone, in addition to the serious trauma that victims suffer directly.

Also, people often use 'victim did something risky' to mean 'victim is to blame'. It's faulty reasoning that often crops up when talking about sexual assault and people venturing into neighborhoods of other ethnic groups or social classes. I couldn't tell whether that was what you were going for or not, hence my post to point out how similar reasoning is often used to blame victims.
low rated
avatar
HGiles: I think we're on the same page here, really.
Pretty much. I think realizing how the world is and taking precautions is something we should teach our daughters. That's the point of mentioning the prevention aspect women can keep in mind. It's not about "blame" really, it's about awareness.
avatar
HGiles: I think we're on the same page here, really.
avatar
StingingVelvet: Pretty much. I think realizing how the world is and taking precautions is something we should teach our daughters. That's the point of mentioning the prevention aspect women can keep in mind. It's not about "blame" really, it's about awareness.
But that seems to be anti-feminist in that it requires responsibility of the individual instead of everyone else, the vocal section of Feminism seems to get it's power from perpetuating victimhood & fear of all outside of the group

& [url=http://www.nationalreview.com/article/386267/feminists-say-roofie-detecting-nail-polish-actually-also-rape-culture-katherine-timpf]"date-rape drug sensing" nailpolish
avatar
StingingVelvet: Pretty much. I think realizing how the world is and taking precautions is something we should teach our daughters. That's the point of mentioning the prevention aspect women can keep in mind. It's not about "blame" really, it's about awareness.
avatar
Rusty_Gunn: But that seems to be anti-feminist in that it requires responsibility of the individual instead of everyone else, the vocal section of Feminism seems to get it's power from perpetuating victimhood & fear of all outside of the group

snip
Hmmm... just so we're clear, are you saying vocal feminism advocates de-responsibility of female individuals somehow? :) If so, this is where our colleagues have a taboo reaction I believe... rad fems absolutely refuse to see how their extremism reinforces notions of women as inferior moral agents.