|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: #Gamergate, identity politics and the anti-feminist backlash
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Perhaps you will be hurt and offended if I amend your last sentence to say "...people have a dark side."
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alex Cockell
Ship’s penguin
# 7487
|
Posted
I won't - but it does seem to me that so many of these altercations is where the feminine shadow is more commonly denied or excused and the blame pushed onto men via this "patriarchy" thing...
Almost as though I personally have to atone for everything every man has done against every woman..
Why should i?
[ 08. October 2014, 14:12: Message edited by: Alex Cockell ]
Posts: 2146 | From: Reading, Berkshire UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amorya
Ship's tame galoot
# 2652
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
Is it "misogyny" to simply point out that women have a dark side, and sometimes innocent bystanders get hurt badly?
Saying it in a debate where women who do not have a dark side are trying to avoid getting bullied and hurt, then yes, yes it is.
Posts: 2383 | From: Coventry | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alex Cockell
Ship’s penguin
# 7487
|
Posted
OK- SOME women then.
I still don't understand why I am deemed to be in the wrong for being white, hetero, male and autistic simply because of ideology? and I'M the bigot?
Posts: 2146 | From: Reading, Berkshire UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alex Cockell
Ship’s penguin
# 7487
|
Posted
All I know I I view both sexes as equal, with equal rights, equal responsibility and EQUAL ACCOUNTABILITY.
Or should be.
Stuff like "women have rights, men have responsibilities" need to be killed with fire.
Posts: 2146 | From: Reading, Berkshire UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Nobody says you are wrong. You are imputing this to yourself. If you insist upon being a victim and a martyr, that's up to you.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alex Cockell
Ship’s penguin
# 7487
|
Posted
All I know is I still get disoriented from time to time..
Posts: 2146 | From: Reading, Berkshire UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
Alex, it is my view that this thread is not relieving your disorientation. So I suggest you step back from the thread. If you choose to participate, you do so at your own risk and in the light of prior host and admin warnings addressed to you personally in this respect. Do not make your posts about yourself; engage with the broader issue.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
I still don't understand why I am deemed to be in the wrong for being white, hetero, male and autistic simply because of ideology?
You're not. I'm all of those things too. You will be deemed to be in the wrong if you apply your experience of a small minority of a group (in this case women) as being typical of that group in general. That is why you get accused of being a bigot, just as if you used a bad experience growing up in the Lewis to make generalisations about Christians.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
I still don't understand why I am deemed to be in the wrong for being white, hetero, male and autistic simply because of ideology?
You're not. I'm all of those things too. You will be deemed to be in the wrong if you apply your experience of a small minority of a group (in this case women) as being typical of that group in general. That is why you get accused of being a bigot, just as if you used a bad experience growing up in the Lewis to make generalisations about Christians.
Eutychus has requested that Alex discontinue posts about his own experience at the expense of the issue in the OP. In case it was not clear that it would be appreciated if everyone else cooperated in not making it difficult for him to comply, let me make it explicit.
Keep to the point, people.
Eliab
Purgatory host
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And this entire detour is an example of how easy it is for a (relatively) sensible and (comparatively) calm discussion about feminism to suddenly take a left turn and become All About White Guys. Here is a link, from today's paper: http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2014/oct/08/afflect-dicaprio-white-male-celebrity-activist
Well, it's open to the rest of us to help get it back on track.
Actually I agree with you. But surely the discussion is going to have to address the issue of All about White Guys, because that characterises this particular subculture, if what I am told is true. And any discussion of feminism that does not consider it is simply going to be decontextualized.
Actually, recontextualizing it is going to need quite a bit of reappraisal of assumptions in other quarters also. I'm not a gamer, so mine is not an inside view. But in his OP, Wood wrote:- quote:
(And maybe we can talk about "gamer" as an identity and whether that's problematic, because I sort of think it really is but to be honest, I've written enough in this OP.)
We're going to have to. Because according to the most recent stats. I can find, in the UK most gamers are women. That's not quite the case in the USA,where they represent about 48% of gamers, but it soon will be.
So talking about gamers in general is going to be highly problematic if we assume that the #gamergate business is in any way typical of them all. It rather seems it involves a small subset, which needs far greater characterization to be meaningful. They exist alright. Who - and where - are they? And why?
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
We're going to have to. Because according to the most recent stats. I can find, in the UK most gamers are women. That's not quite the case in the USA,where they represent about 48% of gamers, but it soon will be.
Only if you count everyone who has ever bought a game as a gamer, so the methodology is somewhat suspect.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
The stats I saw referred to people who play games, not just buy them, Chris. But issues of who plays what and how often are exactly the sort of things that are going to figure in identifying who the people we are talking about here are, I suspect
I've consciously tried not to exclude anyone through terminology - right now we need a "no true gamer" tangent like we need a hole in the head!
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I've consciously tried not to exclude anyone through terminology - right now we need a "no true gamer" tangent like we need a hole in the head!
I don't think we need to go down that route either. Suffice to say that there are different demographics who play very different games.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I've consciously tried not to exclude anyone through terminology - right now we need a "no true gamer" tangent like we need a hole in the head!
I don't think we need to go down that route either. Suffice to say that there are different demographics who play very different games.
Those demographics, however, don't necessarily correspond to age, gender, or anything else. My Dad goes in for first person shooters, I prefer strategy and RPGs, my wife goes for 3rd person fantasy RPGish stuff like Diablo or Van Helsing. The problem is that there is a group of men who have decided they have ownership of "gaming" however defined, and allied to this have decided to blame their social flaws on women.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The problem is that there is a group of men who have decided they have ownership of "gaming" however defined, and allied to this have decided to blame their social flaws on women.
People engaging in dickish behaviour should be stopped, that's all the argument it needs. There need be no more justification than that.
So I'm wary of a stealth argument from economics ("Women make up 48% of the gaming - therefore"), because when it turns out to be more nuanced than that that becomes a 'justification' for further dickish behaviour.
[and I never said the various demographics of gaming were to be defined by age - though there will be some trends here]
[ 08. October 2014, 20:46: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
As with almost every group, the group identity is defined by the noisy ones who demand the attention.
Harper's Conservatives in Canada are defined by having several rabid fundagelicals who want to drive the "hot-button" issues of abortion and teh gays rather than allowing for the needs of the whole country (let alone the boss being rabidly anti-anything that might affect his friends profits)
"Christians" have become defined by the rabid fundagelicals who haven't taken the trouble to read their own Bible.
The Catholic Church is presently defined by paedophile priests and intransigent bishops.
"Muslims" are defined by the terrorists/suicide bombers/ISIS
"Gamers" are defined by the kind of person who is the subject of the OP: obsessed, unable to socialise and nasty
None of these are even a significant minority of the whole group, but the public view is of them, not the majority
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
"Gamers" are defined by the kind of person who is the subject of the OP: obsessed, unable to socialise and nasty
None of these are even a significant minority of the whole group, but the public view is of them, not the majority
Well, kind yes and kinda no.
Read this
Or this from another article.
quote:
One of the weekend’s highlights was the fabulously feisty Women Who Kick Ass panel, which included American Horror Story’s Sarah Paulson, Orphan Black’s Tatiana Maslany and Game of Thrones’ Maisie Williams and Natalie Dormer. Dormer believes the best roles for women are now on television, not in film.“Television doesn’t feel the need to polarize women so much,” she said. “Male writers – and I say this with all love and respect – often want to make a woman either the angel or the whore, make her the witch, or put her on the pedestal. When people ask me about Margaery, I say they’re not mutually exclusive.” However, at another event, Anthony Starr, from HBO drama Banshee, pointed out that most women in action roles are still created from a male gaze, with a certain, overtly sexualized look. The conclusion: when women with non-model looks kick ass in film and on television, then we’ll have real equality.
This applies to games as well.
Not wanting to go the No True Gamer route, the demographics do not tell the complete story.
Nintendo's Wii extended the age range of people who play video games, but Gran would not consider herself a gamer. In other words, many people play games, but are not part of the gamer culture. And, despite more and more women being involved, the industry is still mostly run by, and for, white males.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
lilBuddha wrote: quote:
In other words, many people play games, but are not part of the gamer culture. And, despite more and more women being involved, the industry is still mostly run by, and for, white males.
I'm sure that's likely to be right. In a sense, are we not just looking at the growing-up pains of an industry here?
Its history is pretty well documented - early gamer geeks, first commercializations for "early adopters" - classic middle-class white male demographic right there. Games increasingly need intense systematizing skills, which negatively correlates with empathy. Enter stage right culture wars. Demographic, not being social adept, tends to conservatism in the broad sense, absorbs culture war values, and fails to notice life moves on and diversifies. Reality dawns, beans spilled etc.
Or are we looking at more than that? Wood - you've been close to this confraternity - what do you say?
[ 09. October 2014, 20:57: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
In happier news-- did you see this, did you see this, did you see this?
So to the Gamergate boys who sigh, "What do wimminz want?" The answer is "this! Exactly this! This right here!"
Of course, if someone's underlying agenda is to defend their right to marginalize, discriminate against, and silence people, that answer won't be good enough. But one thing that encouages me-- and something that had definitely chamged from the early 90's when I started gaming, is that while the trolls always seem to be first on deck to whine, "why so many wimminz," very often it will be a guy who is next on deck to say, "what the hell is your problem?"
The increased dialogue is giving the decent guys the rhetorical backup they need to stand up. It's encouraging.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Dormer believes the best roles for women are now on television, not in film.
I think this is true. I admire that someone like JJ Abrams has written really strong female lead characters into at least two of his series (Alias and Fringe).
With games, the only really strong well-written female lead I can think of right now is Jodie from Beyond Two Souls (played by Ellen Page). And she was a brilliant character.
I don't know what this says about me, but I always prefer to play as a female character in a game if I have the choice (I'm male). It just seems like games are way too male-dominated (the characters, as well as the gamers). And, though I agree with the "women are either the angel or the witch" statement, I think that's part of a wider problem that in a lot of games, both male and female characters are poorly written two-dimensional caricatures.
It's still a relatively young industry, and I'd say it's only a handful of games that I've played where there have been really interesting, complicated, well-developed characters. I guess that's partly because the interaction and gameplay that's the focus. But when you add great characters to that, it makes the whole experience even better. I loved Red Dead Redemption for the way it told its story and developed the main character, in a way that could only work in a game. But that sort of thing is the exception, rather than the rule. Too many games have simplistic sterotypes as characters.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
I only know Dormer from the Tudors, but she impressed me there as adding a lot of nuance to what could have been a straight up witch role. Good to hear she is using her position in the Geekoverse to speak up about stuff.
What I want to say, she played her Anne Bolyn role as someone who was the hero of her own narrative-- which is how most of us see ourselves. Most genre films/ tv/ etc are good at portraying men -- heroes or villians-- as the heroes of their own narrative. Women-- whether angels or whores-- are traditionally portrayed as people in someone else's story. It doesn't matter if she is ballsy or self-sacrificing or evil or climbs skyscrapers or whatever-- if she only exists as something the male characters respond to, and is not the owner if her own world, she is an incomplete character. In fact, even the most traditional, subservient, feminine character could be more feminist than the most badass, weapon- wielding, trash talking action female-- if the former has a developed point if view and the latter merely responds to the hero's narrative needs.
So one of the sites I visit that promotes empowering girls created a montage of answers that users submitted to the question, "what kind of things would you like to see in a female character? "
I was pleased to see my answer was included-- "she has her own agenda."
( i have to add, this is just as important to address in films/ stories that have a female protagonist-- in the new series of " Homeland" while the character of Carrie Matheson is still one of the most remarkable, complex characters of either sex that TV ever produced, the guy they are currently setting up to be her love interest-- not so much. Briefly drawn back-history of PTSD and occasional forays with other women, but he is basically Carrie's Jiminy Cricket. Hope they develop him more.)
[ 09. October 2014, 23:11: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
All true, Kelly. Especially the thing about being a hero of your own narrative. The same kind of thing happens a lot with non-white characters. They're there, but they're there to be disposable tools to drive the narrative, give comic interludes or whatever. But they can't be real heroes driving their own story.
I also think something that you often see is that women can't be strong for no reason. There was an article a while back (sadly, I can't remember where) that made the point that, even where you have strong women, they're written that they're strong because they were raped / abused when they were younger, and that trauma is what made them strong. Of course, that can happen. But for that to be the standard narrative is pretty shitty. It basically says that women can't be strong in their own right - they have to be abused into it.
(Incidentally, I've just started watching Homeland. I'm only a few episodes in, and Carrie is a great character (though it's going to take a lot to knock Sara Lund off her Queen-of-awesome perch). The only thing that is making me feel uncomfortable is that, at least so far, it comes across as incredibly Islamophobic. Which is a whole 'nother discussion in its own right.)
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
I guess the level to which you can develop your support characters is an issue for writers in any genre. Too little depth and they just move around like ciphers. Too much, and you finish up with War and Peace, where nobody can even remember who the lead characters are. And that balance is surely driven by the genre you are writing for. Television plots on subscription channels and public service outlets, where you don't get interruptions every 5 minutes, are going to be able to support longer, more complex storylines.
Kelly, if you find the storyline of Homeland in respect of Carrie interesting, you may like to check out some recent European TV crime fiction. Goperryrevs has already mentioned "The Killing" (Forbrydelsen) with the lead character of Sara Lund. Two others that are each very different, but that also have a female lead that is complex and flawed, would be the French "Spiral" (Engrenages), and the BBC's "Happy Valley". Of course American crime TV series have moved on too, but what all these ones feature is a female lead who is far from stereotypical really (apart from Sara Lund's sweater). If they share anything at all, it's a sense of tension over whether the lead's complex life will actually get to overwhelm them. If they are heroes (and sometimes they aren't), it's because they pull through despite all that. Or sometimes not.
Like I said, complex.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
Re. strong female characters? Orphan Black. That is all. Helped by Tatiana Maslany's acting, but still. Genius.
Anyway #1: So one of the big #Gamergate advocates turned out to be an actual Nazi. This comes as no surprise.
Anyway #2: Every so often I read a sensible piece on this sort of thing that says, "why are you going after a woman who blogs and an indie designer? How can these people possibly constitute a threat to you? It is a rhetorical challenge that doesn't expect an answer.
The problem with rhetorical challenges that don't expect answers is, as I found out earlier in this thread, is when they have answers.
The answer is, counterintuitively, quite a lot. It's not a material threat, no, but it is a threat.
It's a threat because, probably without really understanding why, by accommodating the existence of women, you cease to be the default.
The fear of being hated just for being white, straight, male and middle-class is a thing I hear expressed a lot, both directly and in subtext (and not just in this thread). Why do they hate us? they ask.
Of course, mostly they don't, but it's a sort of distress that comes from a) someone pointing out privilege and b) someone suggesting that privilege is a bad thing.
Like, I did not ask to be born white, male and British. I was born solidly working class but I had a couple of opportunities in my life (at least one of which, crucially, I could not have had if I was female - namely a free scholarship into a local private school, which was historically boys only) and now I live the existence of someone who really isn't working class and can't pretend to be.
I worked hard to be who I am, and have the career I have, and the family I have, and the beautiful home I have. I worked a lot harder than my rich contemporaries at that school, because I had to, because their futures were secure in a way that mine wasn't.
But I did not work as hard as I would have had to have worked if I had been born black, or female. I did not work as hard as I would have had to if I had not married someone who was from a significantly wealthier background than me.* If I had been born in Sub-Saharan Africa, or India, or the USA, or forty years earlier, or ten years later, I wouldn't have had those opportunities at all.
I don't think that this discounts how hard I've worked. But I have been helped by my privilege, and these have helped my merits, and talents, and skills along. I'm good at what I do.
But in several ways, I am the default. White, male, respectably Christian and married to someone of the opposite sex. Society is built in my shape.
This isn't fair. I know this isn't fair. I am not the bad guy here, but I share an identity with the bad guys. I didn't ask to be, but I am part of a history that favours, well, me. The weird uncomfortable feeling that this creates is the foundation of what people like to think of as white liberal guilt.
But what if society wasn't built in my shape? What if the doors that opened for me opened for other people too?
I would have had to have work harder for my wonderful life, and I might not have it now. If I had failed it would be my own fault and I would have no backups.
So I don't want to be the bad guy. I don't want to be identified with the bad guy. If I am identified with the bad guy and something is done about social injustices, then I will lose out, without ever personally doing anything bad (I hope).
Now let's think about a lot of the #Gamergate boys.
Like the ones who (and I am not joking) were angry at Zoe Quinn for making a game about depression because "she's an attractive woman, she can't understand depression!"
Like the ones who, thanks to experiences at high school (and in my experience it is interesting how many online and pen and paper gamers' understanding of society stops at high school) consider themselves marginalised, and can't understand how they are privileged. Because even though they're short of cash, maybe lonely and maybe marginalised, the games industry is made in their shape. It fits around them, and when a thing fits comfortably around you, you don't notice it nearly as much as when it's a poor, itchy fit.
And more than that, you have the problematic identity of the gamer. To be a "gamer" as an identity is to consume games. It is to buy stuff and play it, and keep up with the next new releases that you can buy. It is Warcraft subscriptions and new hardware.
An ideologically-fired friend once told me that "geek is a synonym for late-capitalist consumer," and I see what he is getting at.
But when you base your identity on what amounts to buying stuff, and not a whole lot else, what happens when, in the product, you cease to be the default.
I remember how horrified some self-identified gamers were when one of the Mass Effect games had the option of a gay relationship subplot (and of playing the protagonist as a female). I mean, you didn't have to play that plotline, and it wasn't given the same prominence as the straight guy option, but the very fact it was there meant that there was the choice of a game that no longer fit that traditional gamer demographic.
And they went mental.
What I am trying to say is simply this: if your identity is founded on buying stuff, what happens when it looks like the basis of your identity will no longer be designed for you?
Thee guys didn't want to be told they are the bad guys. Ironic, then, that they become the thing they are so desperate to prove they are not when faced with the thought of the stuff they like to buy ceasing to be the stuff they like to buy.
__
*Of course I didn't marry her for the money, but seriously, I'd be disingenuous if I pretended that being part of a much wealthier family hadn't have been easier, because I have had a lot of help from my wife's family over the years.
Meanwhile, in the D'n'D dept:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
In happier news-- did you see this, did you see this, did you see this?
I did. Hilariously, at the same time there were complaints about the gender balance of the Monster Manual. And the issues surrounding some of the consultant credits (not unrelated to the issues in the OP).
Still, good on them.
(My favourite version is 4th edition, btw.)
[ 10. October 2014, 12:01: Message edited by: Wood ]
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
I hesitated to post this the other day, because it's long, a wee bit incoherent at times, and I feel for the hosts, but it's quite relevant on the GamerGate side.
Doubtless preaching to the converted in the main, but those on the periphery or to whom the whole "Gamer" thing is alien may find it informative.
It's a recent piece by Kathy Sierra, who was the subject of a harrassment campaign a few years back:
The Koolaid Point
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
The Scalzi article is pretty good. As for the Kathy Sierra one, how depressing is that? They win.
Ms Sierra's self appointed nemesis, by the way, is the Nazi I was talking about. No hyperbole here. He blogs about all sorts of hideous racist shit and has a swastika tattooed on his chest. That's #Gamergate's allies and heroes, ladies and gentlemen.
Going back to the thing about privilege, Scalzi's article reminded me of some thoughts I had on how we don't live in a patriarchy so much as a kyriarchy.
Kyriarchy is one of those useful neologisms that sociologists occasionally come up with, that defines the shifting Web of privileges that we all have.
Like, basically we are all more or less privileged than the people around us. Like me, I'm less privileged than the posh boys I went school with, or was, and more privileged than buttload of people. Our hypothetical #gamergate advocate - our fedora-wearing libertarian neckbeard who has never known the love of a human woman (he eschews the love of men) - is less privileged than me in a bunch of ways. He's poorer than me, socially marginalised, and so on. But he is still a straight white guy. He's still the default in some ways even when he is less privileged.
Like Anita Sarkeesian is attractive, conventionally attractive, middle class, and educated to a high level.
On the one hand she's more privileged than Ugly Hypothetical Neckbeard but UHN doesn't get sexually harassed or threatened with death for pointing out that people don't give women a fair shake.
Here's part of the problem. These guys are screaming, look at what she has! How could you dare to suggest that I with my problems am more privileged than her!
But see, UHN both is and isn't. And the problem is that they're different things and can't justify the UHNs doing what they do.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
I don't think they have won the war, but I can accept her argument that they can win many battles. Annoying as it is.
I often find myself either not commenting, or walking away from conversations (particularly online) that are clearly not going to go anywhere, which gives the "other side" a victory of sorts. There are genuine no-win points - if I say X they will counter Y; if I say X but Y's an invalid response they will counter Z or "123 fallacy" etc. Wherever I go, the "others" will have a comeback. It might be bollocks. It might not make any sense. But there will be no communication, a lot of 'shouting', and no progress.
Those are the times you have to walk away.
If it was in RealLife(tm), face to face, verbal conversation, it wouldn't go that way. Body language, tone of voice, the inability to get away with clearly bullshit arguments etc. would put paid to an endless tit for tat childishness. But online, there are times when you're doomed.
And that's in much, much, much less heated situations than any from the article(s). A reasonable person can't "win" against the determinedly, wilfully and stridently unreasonable, especially online. You're not even playing the same game, let alone by the same rules.
Actually, I'm depressed too now. Bugger.
The non-depression aspect is that over time the strident fuckwits will fade, lose influence, and lose power. It's just no-one wants to be doing the waiting, for obvious reasons.
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
Oh, Regdar and his many deaths. I even have a book from Wizards where he's squashed by Cthulhu himself.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Wood, excellent points - though kyriarchy has long been acknowledged on platforms like tumblr, but because it's been mostly by young women (often non-white - I'm sure I read something about tumblr now having a non-white majority but don't quote me) so it's seen as frivolous and unimportant.
I read something about MRAs which went along the lines of them not being for all men at all, and their rhetoric having nothing about defending non-white men, gay/bi men, trans men etc. It's just all straight white cis men saying 'a feminist was mean to me once'. The lack of MRA voices protesting the targeting of young black men by the police during Ferguson was very noticeable.
There are many problems with feminism, but most feminists are aware of this and there are many intra-community discussions on how to fix those problems. There's self-awareness. You can't spend very much time in feminist circles without being aware of the historical and current exclusion of trans women and non-white women, for instance. I've yet to see MRAs talking about how to include more trans men and non-white men.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alex Cockell
Ship’s penguin
# 7487
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Wood, excellent points - though kyriarchy has long been acknowledged on platforms like tumblr, but because it's been mostly by young women (often non-white - I'm sure I read something about tumblr now having a non-white majority but don't quote me) so it's seen as frivolous and unimportant.
I read something about MRAs which went along the lines of them not being for all men at all, and their rhetoric having nothing about defending non-white men, gay/bi men, trans men etc. It's just all straight white cis men saying 'a feminist was mean to me once'. The lack of MRA voices protesting the targeting of young black men by the police during Ferguson was very noticeable.
There are many problems with feminism, but most feminists are aware of this and there are many intra-community discussions on how to fix those problems. There's self-awareness. You can't spend very much time in feminist circles without being aware of the historical and current exclusion of trans women and non-white women, for instance. I've yet to see MRAs talking about how to include more trans men and non-white men.
It would REALLY help if those intra-community discussions were to take place publicly - as in the moderates to loudly critique the extremists on Newsnight... You know - as we see the rest of the church call out Westboro, or the Quilliam Foundation do with Anjem Choudhary.
Because it is very confusing from the outside where all you hear as a nonplussed straight white male member of the public is that you are everything wrong in the world - or called on to take up arms for entitled princesses (my takeaway from that Heforshe debacle was that Thompson would look at home handing out white feathers - fuck that).. or something.
I thought feminists were supposed to be strong and independent. Well - how about showing some?
Posts: 2146 | From: Reading, Berkshire UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Why would any male be non-plussed about the problems women have to endure (or the problems facing blacks, or Indians, or natives, or LGBTs) unless that male had made a determined effort not to process ANY of the news of the last 5, 10, 20 or 100 years?
Waking up suddenly and saying "what happened?" is only allowed for Rip van Winkle. Have you, AC, ever thought about anything but how confused you have decided to become? Is there no way to get you to process someone else's thought?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alex Cockell
Ship’s penguin
# 7487
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Why would any male be non-plussed about the problems women have to endure (or the problems facing blacks, or Indians, or natives, or LGBTs) unless that male had made a determined effort not to process ANY of the news of the last 5, 10, 20 or 100 years?
Waking up suddenly and saying "what happened?" is only allowed for Rip van Winkle. Have you, AC, ever thought about anything but how confused you have decided to become? Is there no way to get you to process someone else's thought?
Why should I? Surely it's up to an identity group to make their position completely clear through manifestos and the like - so they can be called out? When Feminism operates as a political entity and changes laws to make things VERY risky for men.. it's not up to a member of the public to have to read graduate-level stuff..
Doris Lessing told feminists to lay off men in 2001 - http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/aug/14/edinburghfestival2001.edinburghbookfestival2001
Posts: 2146 | From: Reading, Berkshire UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
ADMIN NOTE
Alex
You have been advised to stay away from topics such as this. There have been two Hostly warnings on this thread alone and you are very close to crusading.
In light of previous warnings, you have earned yourself two weeks shore leave.
Spike
SoF Admin
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amorya
Ship's tame galoot
# 2652
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
I often find myself either not commenting, or walking away from conversations (particularly online) that are clearly not going to go anywhere, which gives the "other side" a victory of sorts.
The reason this stuff is so scary, and the reason that people feel they are fighting for their life, is because it's impossible to walk away from.
People are getting doxed. This means that the trolls are using detective work to find people's real life contact details, and posting them online to entice other people to follow them into the real world and continue the argument. I've seen people have to move out of their house because of threatening letters, photos of their kids with comments about "I'll be waiting in a dark alley", harassing phone calls, rape threats and worse.
Posts: 2383 | From: Coventry | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
(Incidentally, I've just started watching Homeland. I'm only a few episodes in, and Carrie is a great character (though it's going to take a lot to knock Sara Lund off her Queen-of-awesome perch). The only thing that is making me feel uncomfortable is that, at least so far, it comes across as incredibly Islamophobic. Which is a whole 'nother discussion in its own right.)
First of amen to what you said about characters of color as frequently not owning their narrative.
Second, let's integrate this tangent about Carrie Matheson into the larger discussion-- because she was definitely not this gung -ho about nailimg civilian targets last season as she was last season, and I suspect this will be something she has to confront as the season progresses.
But, as you say, her toughness is not a direct result of sexual abuse, it comes from other trauma. Her shifting from a people- skill type job she was good at ( case officer) to a good position as a career move but is bound to change the personality of any person who occupied it, of either gender; her failure to bond with her kid could be down to her mental health issues or more specifically down to the fact that she had to put a toddler in a playpen and leave it next to its mother's dead body and can't tell anyone about it-- even when she is doing something that makes you cringe in horror, you know enough of her narrative to at least get why it happened.
And overexposirory "background" speeches don't cut it either-- to understand someone, you have to look through their eyes, even if only briefly. (That's a Who quirk that bugs the crap out of me, sometimes.)
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I guess the level to which you can develop your support characters is an issue for writers in any genre. Too little depth and they just move around like ciphers. Too much, and you finish up with War and Peace, where nobody can even remember who the lead characters are. And that balance is surely driven by the genre you are writing for. Television plots on subscription channels and public service outlets, where you don't get interruptions every 5 minutes, are going to be able to support longer, more complex storylines.
Kelly, if you find the storyline of Homeland in respect of Carrie interesting, you may like to check out some recent European TV crime fiction. Goperryrevs has already mentioned "The Killing" (Forbrydelsen) with the lead character of Sara Lund. Two others that are each very different, but that also have a female lead that is complex and flawed, would be the French "Spiral" (Engrenages), and the BBC's "Happy Valley". Of course American crime TV series have moved on too, but what all these ones feature is a female lead who is far from stereotypical really (apart from Sara Lund's sweater). If they share anything at all, it's a sense of tension over whether the lead's complex life will actually get to overwhelm them. If they are heroes (and sometimes they aren't), it's because they pull through despite all that. Or sometimes not.
Like I said, complex.
( notes recommendations)
As to your "War and Peace" obsevation, I offer you John Irving and Robert Altman. Irving is probably who I would choose for a writing rolemodel, and Altman definitely tops the list of filmaking icons of mine, both for the same reason- even though they definitely have central characters, they both acknowledge that their protagonists are constantly stumbling into other people's storylines. And they seem to pull it off with grace.
( I have a never-developed Who fanfic idea revolving around a community in which the infrostructure is constantly in need of repair, and evrything that looks like the Doctor saving the day is actually caused by someone tightening a pipe somewhere, or initiating a sewer flush at the right time.) ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
[ 10. October 2014, 23:41: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Triple post! Oh, and let Sara have her "sweater," as long as it's clear that she had a life long before she wore it.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amorya
Ship's tame galoot
# 2652
|
Posted
On the subject of doxing, Brianna Wu (who I quoted earlier in this thread) has just been doxed, had her home address posted. She's now getting tweets including:
quote:
Your mutilated corpse will be on the front page of Jezebel tomorrow and there isn't jack shit you can do about it. If you have any kids they're gong to die too. I don't give a fuck. They'll grow up to be feminists anyway.
Of course, she's had to leave her house, in case this piece of scum isn't just all talk.
Posts: 2383 | From: Coventry | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Jesus God.
"By their fruits shall you know them." That really says it all.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Reading that lead to this.
Anybody who finds themselves defending people who did shit like this to an 11 year old girl has turned a really bad corner.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
I often find myself either not commenting, or walking away from conversations (particularly online) that are clearly not going to go anywhere, which gives the "other side" a victory of sorts.
The reason this stuff is so scary, and the reason that people feel they are fighting for their life, is because it's impossible to walk away from.
People are getting doxed. This means that the trolls are using detective work to find people's real life contact details, and posting them online to entice other people to follow them into the real world and continue the argument. I've seen people have to move out of their house because of threatening letters, photos of their kids with comments about "I'll be waiting in a dark alley", harassing phone calls, rape threats and worse.
I appreciate that, and wasn't seeking to minimise or belittle. Merely illustrating on a much smaller scale that, especially online, it is easy to find situations where whatever course of action you take, you "lose" and they "win".
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
I finally got around to reading the Kathy Sierra article this morning, and then (against my better judgement) read a bit of the comments section below. The comments on that article seem to be largely dominated by a quite articulate and intelligent-sounding man who seeks to convince everyone that as long as trolling, harrassment and personal attack stay firmly within the realm of the internet (i.e. no doxxing or real-life attacks), they must be not only allowed by vigourously defended in the name of free speech and a free internet.
He gave several examples, most too esoteric for me to follow, about very specialized areas of debate in which one point of view was considered unacceptable and people had tried to shut down discussion of that perspective. All in service of his main point: that the internet must be free and open to discussion of all points of view, including unpopular ones.
My question: Does nobody understand the concept of the ad hominem attack anymore? Is it really so difficult to say, "We believe in free speech and discussion of all views, including unpopular ones, but not in personal attacks"? We seem to manage it fairly well here in the small and civil world of the Ship, reminding people that you can attack the issue as vigourously as you like but not the person making the point (unless in Hell). But then, even in Hell we don't seem to draw many of the type of people who would link to a picture of a mutilated corpse with another Shipmate's head superimposed on it with the headline "YOUR NEXT" simply because they held a differing view on, say, transubstantiation. (Obviously the community would never allow anyone to get away with the egregious you're/your error, for starters).
So why is it hard for people who are fearless defenders of free speech on the internet to get this distinction? Is it really that hard to see the boundary between, "I disagree with what Anita Sarkeesian said about the portrayal of women in video games and here are sixteen examples from Grand Theft Auto that demonstrate why I'm right and she's wrong," and "She's a [insert derogatory term for a woman here] who should be [insert unpleasant thing to do to her here] and here's her home address so you can go do it." Freedom of speech can certainly allow one while forbidding the other.
Is this really such a difficult distinction to make?
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
