I think Anita has noble goals and raised some valid points but she clearly taking the wrong approach to dealing with it. And as Han said some the tweets like the one posted make her hard to take her seriously.
These are some rather good criticisms of her work, which I strongly agree with.
http://thelearnedfan...ita-sarkeesian/
http://daemonpro.tum...women-and-anita
*sigh*
I'm done with life.
... as Han said some the tweets like the one posted make her hard to take her seriously.
In general I usually don't take grown men wearing fanny-packs or women wearing a complete outfit seriously.
Guest_AugmentedAssassin_*
*sigh*
Guest_TrillClinton_*
I'm done with life.
Really? I was just getting to the lovely comments. Frankly if these is the type of ideas she is going for, I do not want her anywhere near the curriculum(Yes they are talks of her involvement in education agencies). She is dangerous
You're killing me, Smalls.
I think Anita has noble goals
Que?
*sigh*
So, who wants tickets off this rock?
From what Ive gathered this whole issue is wrapped up in a bunch of issues. First lets melt down the REAL core beliefs of both sides.
1. Gamers are against biased and corrupted journalism in videogames.
2. Women are against sexism in videogames.
BOTH statements are valid. But the politics and the propaganda from both sides have warped the movement of what is being said.
This leads us to where we are, any criticism against journalism or an opposition is misinterpreted as sexism towards women in gaming because of the "Gamergate" movement.
Gamergate has become a double-edged sword that means 2 different, yet valid things to 2 different groups of people who at their core, should be on the same side.
My suggestion, lets drop all pretext and labeling of either side and start fresh with clear and concise core values and a denounciation of those within either movement who resort to underhanded means such as cherry-picking at an issue or issuing death threats.
Let the gamers shun those who would steep to such lows as harassing women, and let the feminist critique those within their circle who would only wish to propogate a biased view of the situation.
There is good in what is happening now, but a few rotten apples are spoiling it for BOTH sides.
Be excellent to one another.
EDIT: Applejack is best pony.
Guest_Catch This Fade_*
So, who wants tickets off this rock?
Damn Mars for not being habitable yet. Why is it not 2183?
From what Ive gathered this whole issue is wrapped up in a bunch of issues. First lets melt down the REAL core beliefs of both sides.
1. Gamers are against biased and corrupted journalism in videogames.
2. Women are against sexism in videogames.
BOTH statements are valid. But the politics and the propaganda from both sides have warped the movement of what is being said.
This leads us to where we are, any criticism against journalism or an opposition is misinterpreted as sexism towards women in gaming because of the "Gamergate" movement.
Gamergate has become a double-edged sword that means 2 different, yet valid things to 2 different groups of people who at their core, should be on the same side.
My suggestion, lets drop all pretext and labeling of either side and start fresh with clear and concise core values and a denounciation of those within either movement who resort to underhanded means such as cherry-picking at an issue or issuing death threats.
Let the gamers shun those who would steep to such lows as harassing women, and let the feminist critique those within their circle who would only wish to propogate a biased view of the situation.
There is good in what is happening now, but a few rotten apples are spoiling it for BOTH sides.
Be excellent to one another.
^This
i dunno. It is always men doing this crap. It's actually more hopeful to think that it's because of an ideal of toxic masculinity or some such, because at least something could be done about that. If men are just evil, we're kinda stuck.*sigh*
i dunno. It is always men doing this crap. It's actually more hopeful to think that it's because of an ideal of toxic masculinity or some such, because at least something coukd be done about that. If men are just evil, we're kinda stuck.
So it's better to generalize an entire gender instead of blaming the individual?
I agree that we society could improve on how we teach/raise/whatever people, but what will happen when it's a female that shoots up a school? Will people defend or criticize her actions?
So it's better to generalize an entire gender instead of blaming the individual?
The analysis put forward by AS is, in essence, a not especially sophisticated take on very basic feminist theory as it applies to video games. Most of the time, she repeats truism (in the sense that they are just things that are true about our society generally, vis-a-vis issues re: sexism at a societal level), without explaining the very important link between the feminist conclusion and the practice in video-games. Essentially, she has a soapbox and her points are not particularly intellectual creative. The sensible response to her point is simply this: she oversimplifies a lot of important issues as regards feminism and media generally, and otherwise doesn't do a very good job of illustrating why it is that these general problems are problems in the video game industry.
On the other hand, the response to her ranges from confused (in the sense that they just come from a background that doesn't really appreciate the nature of feminist discourse about the issue, and tend to confuse the ridiculous rhetoric some scholars have adopted with the merits of their points) to incoherent (in the sense that it's just a stupid reply) and then to full-on crazy (the rape/death threats).
It's difficult to have any meaningful discussion when one side has no understanding of even the basic concepts in play, and the other side does an absolutely horrible job in explaining what those concepts are and why they are important.
i dunno. It is always men doing this crap. It's actually more hopeful to think that it's because of an ideal of toxic masculinity or some such, because at least something could be done about that. If men are just evil, we're kinda stuck.
WTF does this even mean?
I'm just saying we shouldn't kid ourselves. Women have had the opportunity to catch up to men in slaughtering people wholesale for well over a century. They haven't taken it.
A lot of that is the ways the genders are taught to deal with their aggression. There are a lot of outlets for men to be violent, and to learn to respond to issues with violence. This is as much an example of sexism as anything - the fact that we socialize dudes to be violent is a problem.
A lot of that is the ways the genders are taught to deal with their aggression. There are a lot of outlets for men to be violent, and to learn to respond to issues with violence. This is as much an example of sexism as anything - the fact that we socialize dudes to be violent is a problem.
I disagree. If a behavior is found across all cultures, tribes and nations fairly strongly, like religion/spirituality or a higher level of aggression in males, there is almost always a biological component, not a societal one.
Take a society that doesn't teach religion and you'll have spiritual expression in a generation. Maybe two.
Take a society that teaches peace and non-aggression and you'll have two teenage dudes fighting over a beef stick in two weeks.
I'm just saying we shouldn't kid ourselves. Women have had the opportunity to catch up to men in slaughtering people wholesale for well over a century. They haven't taken it.
No, we shouldn't. But it's still important to look at what caused that one person to act as they did instead of immediately blaming everyone. Generalizing is what gets us into trouble in the first place and to start throwing ****.
I disagree. If a behavior is found across all cultures, tribes and nations fairly strongly, like religion/spirituality or a higher level of aggression in males, there is almost always a biological component, not a societal one.
Except that it isn't - the behaviour, I mean. There are actually substantial cultural differences across cultures that have different views on gender. The distinction - in fact, the essential distinction - isn't that a culture is different generally, but that the culture is different in respect of the belief you're studying. Obviously this isn't a controlled experiment where you can just exclude other aspects of culture, but (for example), comparing two (very similar, though one is more extreme) cultures vis-a-vis the treatment of women (e.g. NA/SA, Europe and the Middle East), and you'll see a great deal of convergence.
Men are more aggressive than women. That's well-established, because of the biological roots of aggression. The issue isn't the difference in aggression, but rather the type of aggression expressed. That's the issue we're discussing, at least in respect of violence.
I disagree. If a behavior is found across all cultures, tribes and nations fairly strongly, like religion/spirituality or a higher level of aggression in males, there is almost always a biological component, not a societal one.
Take a society that doesn't teach religion and you'll have spiritual expression in a generation. Maybe two.
Take a society that teaches peace and non-aggression and you'll have two teenage dudes fighting over a beef stick in two weeks.
So you're saying there's a genetic component, but does that mean that society does not make an impact?
The Nature versus Nurture debate is pretty much over. It's Nature AND Nurture, not one or the other.
Guest_TrillClinton_*
You're killing me, Smalls.
... im sorry.
Posting this before I commit a mass shooting.
Posting this before I commit a mass shooting.
But first you're going to practice it in GTA right?
Guest_Catch This Fade_*
... im sorry.
Posting this before I commit a mass shooting.
I wanted to say, "Someone should take the internet away from her" but I feel more intelligent with each tweet I read.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
