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.
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.
When 12 year olds are told they must have done something to provoke their rapists, when police choke a person peacefully surrendering to death, when people think a female politician's makeup is more important than their policies, when black teens get questioned for texting while in a store, we have to acknowledge that there are still major problems. There's a lot of progress still to be made in respecting other people.
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.
It's the same as gay rights for me. I don't agree with everything LBGT groups push for and I don't think gay marriage is a good idea. At the same time, I am absolutely and 100% behind treating everyone respectfully. I think this kind of middle ground - "I don't agree but I respect you as a fellow human" - is being ignored. 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.
