|
|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
| BLUE | BLACK | PURPLE |
true doom murderhead
Joined: 17 May 2008
Location: Austria
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:48 pm |
  |
|
Can we make "fuck videogames forever" the official sb tagline. Have someone record a jingle with the melody of Strawberry Fields
Can we get Anita on national TV. I want her to have the fortune and fame that will enable her to piss off even more idiots, more safely. Also, what would the reaction from normal people be, you think? I guess most people think videogames are dumb and/or bad anyway so this might work in our favor here. And how would they react to Anita's trolls? If negatively: would that quiet them down because they would all of a sudden realize how socially inappropriate they are being (well it's not really that, just fear to be in the minority)? Works pretty well against neo-nazis here so why not against nerds. I'll probably donate to feminist frequency for this reason. The problem needs more attention, Anita's who we've got, who's got the most attention, so let's build on that. She'll be the mainstream and when she gets big enough others will get some spotlight as well.
I think Anita is spot on with pointing out all the misogynistic crap in videogames. I don't care for her suggestions on improving them though. No, not everything has to have gravitas and whatever else she'd like to see. You can make points about violence even with floaty, throwaway violence, if you know how. That's art: you can basically do everything with every tool available — if you're creative and your heart's in the right spot. But sure, maybe I'm taking that too seriously and she was taking about one possible way to improve things. Yeah, why not
If summarize the situation as videogames excelling at dehumanizing everybody, just so your hands have something to do. Everybody's just a sidequest or a setpiece in this unsophisticated world. No doubt though that women get it a million times worse than any other group of people.
Her advice on how to change the stupidly sexist Lego for girls — and their advertisement — was very good though. And those two videos on Lego are actually her best. This thread's video comes second. (I have not yet seen all of her videos)
In this thread's video she made clear she didn't think rape or violence against women could never appear in videogames. But in another video about GQ magazine and the sexualization of young girls it seemed like she was against objectification of women in general, in a way I disagree with. It's 100% a case of "I don't understand male sexual desires, thus they are immoral."
Like how it's terrible that men jerk off to women even when they aren't depicted as "whole" people. And that young boys are being trained by that to have no sexual empathy. What she doesn't know is that there is evidence that the male brain tends to process sexual desire fundamentally different and that emotion and sexual desire are separated systems in men, yet not in women. Which makes a lot of evolutionary sense. Also, men indeed naturally "objectify" women in the sense that they need nothing more than a single physical sexual turn on to get psychologically aroused. And masturbate to orgasm. *blush* Women generally don't pay for pictures of men's butts and jerk off to them, even though they think they are sexy. Men do, and so do some cousins of ours in the animal kingdom, if you know of that crazy experiment.
Also, to be sexually attracted to "high school age" girls is not inherently dangerous or wrong, like attraction to prepubescents. It might be counterintuitive to her because youth doesn't play a role in female sexual desire but for men youth is THE key piece to sexual attraction. Again this makes perfect evolutionary sense as well. So yeah, 20 year olds posing as 17 or 16 year old is not a problem and neither is it about a "fantasy about corrupting innocence", but about a woman's remaining fertile years, which interestingly is more important to men than to primates, who care only about immediate fertility and thus prefer mature females who have achieved regular ovulation. It's actually quite romantic if you see it that way! Men are in for the long haul when they lust after jailbait and don't just want to hit it and quit it! Or something
The last two paragraphs are not to say that objectification of women or fantasies about young girls belong in the mainstream though. They decidedly don't. They belong into porn, the bedrooms of consenting adults, etc. There they aren't harmful.
In conclusion: I recommend she reads A Billion Wicked Thoughts
Last edited by | BLUE | BLACK | PURPLE | on Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:55 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
| BLUE | BLACK | PURPLE |
true doom murderhead
Joined: 17 May 2008
Location: Austria
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:53 pm |
|
|
| tiburon wrote: |
| username wrote: |
| diplo wrote: |
Yeah, I didn't think you were suggesting that. I'm wondering what username was suggesting, though; the "still" in their last sentence suggests that a criticism is being made of Sarkeesian's role as an analyst and relative newcomer to videogames. The only criticism I can intuit is that Sarkeesian's "outsiderness" is making her blind to contextual insight that can only be had by being a "gamer." |
Didn't mean to disappear, the forum has been crapping out on me on and off for the past few days.
In terms of the insider/outsider divide and the stacks of games she played... is it said if she acquired and played them all before or after she decided to make a series of videos about these topics? If it is after, or to put it another way her interest isn't about gaming but these other various women's issues (or, very important to note, it is perceived that this is the case) then that'd generally be considered more of an outside role I would imagine.
Also outsider POVs are great and we need more of them! The only thing I wanted to point out is that when an outsider (again whether actual or just perceived) moves from observing and into lecturing (again whether actual or perceived) a group on their behavior or traits or whatever the group more often than not responds poorly to it, regardless of how on point said thoughts are. The messenger often matters. She can probably present these ideas much better than... let's say Cliffy B, but it'd probably be taken better from someone in his position.
...I really wanted to find a notable female in the game industry on the level of Cliffy B and use her instead, but I couldn't name one :\
The "still" was because while I felt like looking at part of what may be fueling this kind and level of reaction, I didn't want doing so to come off as declaring her deserving of the terrible things directed at her. I was worried it might be taken as "she kicked a hornet's nest and hence deserved to get stung". If I accidentally made it seem more that way I apologize. |
I think there are a bunch of important female game devs, but not a bunch of highly visible ones, for whatever reason.
Example. |
What?! Roberta Williams is awesome and everybody knows it! She's been getting attention and acclaim for like 30 years now. I read about her in PC mags in the nineties. Every game she brings out nowadays gets press — at least they reach me. I'm not representative of anything of course. Are you saying nobody knows about her nowadays or that she didn't get enough press back in the day? It's not like I studied her so I really don't know |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
| BLUE | BLACK | PURPLE |
true doom murderhead
Joined: 17 May 2008
Location: Austria
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 11:38 am |
|
|
| Oh shit that's right, I was thinking about Gray Matter, which was by Jane Jensen. Pretty embarrassing but the two used to work together so they're grouped closely in my mind |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
| BLUE | BLACK | PURPLE |
true doom murderhead
Joined: 17 May 2008
Location: Austria
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 12:58 pm |
|
|
| Corinth wrote: |
| i admit i can't tell if the evopsych biotruth stuff is sarcastic or serious, so now it's my turn to make the ! sound |
I tend to not be precise with these things.
What I'm saying is, Sarkeesian says x is inherently problematic, gives no reason for why she thinks so AND gives a WRONG reason for where it comes from. As in, culture. I say x is not cultural because it is not specific to our culture, damn near universal, thus must come from somewhere else, point to clues about biology (nothing set in stone, nothing 100%, doesn't prescribe action), point to possible evolutionary hypothesis (interesting but doesn't prescribe action), say "it's more likely that this is part of our culture for those reasons" instead of some random or even devious reason.
Blue supposedly being for boys and pink for girls is random or marketing, for example. You can not just look that up historically but also there's no proof that it's preferred by the assigned genders outside of cultural reasons. So if you say "in general boys prefer blue, it's just in their nature, that's why we sell Boy Things in Boy Colors and Girl Things in Girl Colors, it wouldn't work otherwise" then you're wrong, but if you say "we make legal teen porn/objectifying, non-whole person depicting porn because men like it, it's in their nature, it wouldn't work otherwise" then you're right. Not in absolutes, of course, taking only about majorities and statistic likelihoods here. Some men love granny porn. Some can't get off without a convincing plot and characters (maybe??).
That's how I should have structured my post but I preferred to ramble and hoped people would give me the benefit of the doubt to interpret it like that. Also would have included a "x is not inherently problematic because evidence points to there not being a correlation between x and Bad Thing."
If you think this is terrible biotruths or whatever buzzword then I'm sorry, guess I just haven't learnt better yet and you'll have to give me some time to improve
The one thing that she said the GQ video was not about — young children seeing the sexualization of their pretend-high school age heroes — is the thing I worry about because there is evidence of these images having a negative influence on them, regarding psychological problems, stress, body image, etc. But the things she sees as inherently problematic I see as not so and if I had to argue my point I'd do it with this sort of pattern. If I wasn't lazy. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
