Women's Issues

I was redirected here from Sexism and Men's Issues thread.

After so much time has passed, i am still surprised that people keep harrassing Anita Sarkeesian over her feminist theory. Bringing up like how "Children in Africa are starving and Anita's employers are not payed. Therefore Anita should die or something."

I found that out when she tweeted Duke Ethic tweet, where they announced they would be talking with her about feminism, her role as a feminist media critic, the challenges she's faced in her work, and of course - ethics and i read the comments below the tweet and by god, 95% of them is just bashing feminism and claiming Anita hates all men.

All of this remind me of this video (first from 6 part series, where Innuendo Studious discusses GamerGate and Anita's history) from Innuendo Studios, which discusses and theorises on why so many people are so angry with Anita Sarkeesian. More specifically less with her as a person (as all of them probably don't know her) and more with her "feminism propaganda" (as they like to call it).

I can't watch the video at the moment and don't know how much of what I'm about to say is covered in the video. That said, here goes.

The main issue of the rabid anti-Sarkeesian crowd is the inability for them to disassociate the things they enjoy from their identities, as well as an inability for them to come to terms with the fact that one can enjoy media with problematic elements (i.e., pretty much all media) without being a bad person, provided one is willing to acknowledge and learn from the faults in question.

Disclaimer, I have very little interest in Sarkeesian or her work; some of her analysis and criticism I don't fully agree with, but I do like discussion and analysis of social issues within media.

The gaming dudebro audience that makes up Sarkeesian's core hate group identifies so strongly with the games they love, that any "attack" (criticism, but a lot of people don't know the difference) on media they enjoy becomes a personal attack on them. Critic says that an element of a game they love is sexist or criticizes fanservice or objectification as sexist? That must mean said dudebro is sexist and bad.

To them, sexism is the wife-beater, the dark alleyway rapist, or the old conservative "stay in the kitchen" rhetoric. So any critique of sexism or objectification in media they love automatically means they're sexist and/or agree with or promote those things, or that they're bad people like the aforementioned groups for enjoying those things, and they kneejerk against that.

These are the same dudes who think "Modern feminism is pointless and unneeded" because, of course, "real" sexism (a la the centuries-ago oppression and treatment of women as second-class citizens) was conquered now that women have the vote, can work outside of the home, and the sexes are equal within the eyes of the law. They don't believe in institutionalized, casual sexism or objectification in society and media, or else dismiss it with "it's just as bad for men/then that means everything is sexist/you're overreacting." Thus, any feminist activism, critique or rhetoric is "pointless complaining" by "radical/rabid feminists" (I refuse to use the buzzword more commonly used) who "want women to rule the world/hate or want to kill all men/want women to get special treatment," etc., etc.

Edited by ILikeRobots on Feb 15th 2020 at 2:25:45 AM

Basically this.

There's also another element which is the history of videogames serving as a target for Moral Guardians; when Sarkeesian first started to make her videos, figures like Jack Thompson and his crusade against games were still recent, and there was a feeling of games as a medium being under persecution by people who didn't really understand them, which just fed into a pre-existing victim complex many people in nerdier communities already have.

So Sarkeesian was seen as basically another one of those "nagging outsiders" who didn't really "get" videogames. Thusly the reaction to her among many gaming dudebros was instinctively negative. To many, at best she was someone to be casually dismissed. At worst actively an enemy to be harassed and brought down by the more unsavory types.

I really think the core of it is a lot of men are just not comfortable at all when dealing with conversations about institutional or cultural sexism so they tend to over-react rather severely whenever the subject comes up. To them, the only "good" or "non-extreme" feminist is one that never makes any complaints or makes them feel uncomfortable in any way. In retrospect, there's nothing particularly egregious about Sarkeesian's videos: the worst you could say about them was that they were basic "feminism 101" videos and not all that interesting, but on the other hand I don't think Sarkeesian ever meant for them to be any more than that. I don't think there's anything Sarkeesian could have done to make them more palatable, the reaction would have been the same.

EDIT: Oh, this video's actually pretty old.

More recently Sarkeesian posted some tweets about how some men have spoken to her and told her they used to be mad at her but mostly got over it. I don't think she said anything about the harassment dying down but I hope she's able to attain some measure of peace after all this.

Edited by Draghinazzo on Feb 15th 2020 at 6:25:42 AM

I think the culture wars of late have done a lot to change the perception of her. Now that conscious discussion about representation has been normalized, regular folks, though they might find it annoying, no longer see a reason to oppose it as threatening so all that's left are the hardcore idealogues. Sarkeesian was among the first, and certainly not the best, but if she appeared today she'd be another unremarkable example of The Discourse as it's called.

Edited by AlleyOop on Feb 15th 2020 at 5:58:04 AM

Yeah I suspect that what you’re left with now isn’t even the people whose identity is wrapped up in being a gamer, it’s people whose identity is wrapped up in being an anti-feminist gamer. That group is small but very active online (particularly on social media), I think they still pop up when feminists within the gaming sphere provide any feminism-informed commentary on games.

I do think that the population of rabid anti-feminist gamers is shrinking. I have a friend who regularly plays PVP with the username "SJWillow", and she doesn't get nearly as much vitriol for it from that part of the online community as I would have expected.

Edited by TobiasDrake on Feb 16th 2020 at 9:51:14 AM

This is very late, but one of the reasons heels were popular/are popular because of how they reposition the calves, thighs and butts. Even men used to wear smaller heels to make their calves sexier.

Edited by MrAHR on Feb 16th 2020 at 11:57:17 AM

Did they? Huh, I wasn't aware of that

I thought heels started out because high-status men rode horses, and you need heels to keep your feet in the stirrups.

You know, I hear that all the time whenever the topic comes up, but I've never really found an actual reliable source for it. Even the wikipedia article has a "citation needed" note tacked on to it.

In any case, they'd be rather shallow raised heels, about an inch high, much like what you'd find on a modern cowboy boot. Generally not part of the conversation regarding the high heels that women today (are often made to ) wear.

Edited by Kayeka on Feb 17th 2020 at 10:03:10 AM

Fair enough.

Harvey Weinstein is guilty of rape and criminal sexual act. He's apparently not (legally) a sexual predator, though.

Jezebel's Emily Alford has an article on the verdict of the Weinstein case and what it says about how cases of rape and sexual assault are treated.

I found the analogy of wicker men weird because cheering about death of someone, but I haven the original, only the remake of nicola cage which is....very nicolas cages to be, have anyone saw the original?.

Now, sometimes I wonder if winstein as a sort of perfect perpretator so to speak: he is more of what people expect of the sleezy hollywood type, the idea of what people expect of a rapist with a nice suit, in contrast of men who build a reputation like cosby or trump.

Even John Oliver joked that Weinstein was obviously a rapist because he "looked like one".

Weinstein not only looked the part, he was a producer and not an actor. He never had roles that made him look good and get the public to like him the way Bill Cosby for example did. Heck, prior to the accusations being made public I bet most people outside of Hollywood didn't even know who Weinstein was.

Edited by M84 on Feb 28th 2020 at 4:05:51 AM

I didnt.

In a way weinstein is the wealthy backalley rapist so to speak: wealthy, producer, have this sorta decadent look that can said "I can do what I want".

in sort, trump but without is extensive RP.

OK, About Alfort's article, that might be slightly tangential, but... Regardless of the whole "cheering about murder" part, am I the only one to see the irony of starting your text by making an analogy between Weinstein/every other male rapist and... A fictionnal character that is litterally painfully murdered after (and because) he reject unsollicited sexual advances?

EDIT: sorry, forgot the spoiler tags

Edited by jaff on Feb 27th 2020 at 2:19:06 AM

Scottland is attempting to make monthly products free

Bloody good. I still can't believe that stuff has "pleasure tax" added on to it in the USA.

It's something that will prove very useful even to those who can easily afford them, as I'm sure many people will recall having their period start at a very inopportune time, so knowing that you have access to some in the near vicinity will help prevent a bigger clothes-ruining mess or need to suddenly call for time off.

Even if you can afford them, there is something distinctly unpleasant about having to pay for something for reasons you cant control, when the situation is already unpleasent enough as is.

I've seen it, and while I'm sympathetic to the author's overall point and I don't want to spend too much time on this aside to the detriment of the overall message, I also think the comparison to The Wicker Man (and more specifically what she says the film is about early on) is weird.

To explain with some spoilers:

So, basically, the original Wicker Man is about a cop trying to find a missing girl on a remote island which is basically run by a pagan cult.

It's gradually revealed that the cop is something of a conservative prude so by today's standards he isn't exactly the most sympathetic, but the issue is that the villagers aren't really good people either. They want to sacrifice him because they think it will give them a better harvest next year, so they planted a false missing person report and basically spend the whole time trolling him and (from his perspective) being willfully obstructive and he has good reason to think that the islanders were complicit or active in the child's death, which they seem to be doing deliberately to make the policeman stay on the island, since they know he won't give up the case.

A lot of their behavior at best is strange, at worst actively cruel and disturbing, so while it's fair to say the cop is something of a bigot, you don't have to be a bigoted christian to find the islanders unsettling, and the cop is the only person trying to do something unambiguously good in the story. The ending of the film where the ruse is revealed and the cop is sacrificed is portrayed as a horrifying Downer Ending, and not something where we're supposed to agree with the villagers. The film also casts heavy doubt on whether this sacrifice will do anything at all for their crops next year, and in fact suggests that it won't do anything and they'll just sacrifice the cult leader, Summerisle, next year.

In short, it isn't a story about a rejection of outdated and regressive sexual mores, it's a story about how faith and mob mentality can lead people to commit deeply immoral deeds. Her initial comment is a neat film reference but her actual interpretation of the film feels like Misaimed Fandom to me.

Edited by Draghinazzo on Feb 27th 2020 at 10:18:15 AM

The movie also ends with the implication that the villagers will turn on their leader after the sacrifice fails to improve their harvest.