Interesting article about Sexism in Geek Communities

[薔薇語]

Let's see.  Jaylen Fryberg's girlfriend broke up with him.  He got very depressed.  Then instead of say seeking psychiatric counseling or just spending three weeks eating ice cream and crying a lot, he took his one of his father's guns and did something men are ten times as likely to do as women, he shot a bunch of people.  

 

Now, Mz Sarkeesian didn't blame the shooting on violence in video games; she attributed to something she called toxic masculinity.  Given the well documented reluctance of men to seek help with emotional issues and the much greater tendency of men to go on mass shooting rampages, how can you or anyone else absolutely declare that the shooting was utterly unrelated to issues of masculinity?

 

As for the charge that it was a gross oversimplification of a complex issue, it was a tweet.  What do you expect from 140 characters?  Ms Sarkeesian was not claiming to have a complete answer or saying that the solution would be easy.  She was throwing out onto the table a piece of the puzzle that needed to be solved.   

 

 

It is extremely oversimplified. It is contentious. And her "toxic masculinity" shtick is less oriented in "not seeking help" and more in "men hate women". So, it is an unrelated issue unless one does some mental gymnastics to try and reason her out of the corner she built up. And I am just going to quote myself, 

 

"[W]hile I understand she has a predisposition to think men and masculinity are the great evils of this world, she is jumping the gun on her conclusion. The presupposition that somehow these mass murderers are driven by sexist intentions or that masculinity is to blame, is a big leap of faith. While I can understand her concerns about the unfortunate prevalence of these individuals being male, that does not mean that masculinity, or more aptly, society's concept of masculinity is the root or even most compounding factor. Rather there may be more ingrained biological reasons for it that far outweigh any social constructs"

 

Lastly, believe it or not, not every issue needs to be hashed out on Twitter. Twitter does not provide the ability to make nuanced arguments - the kind this topic needs. So, given the choice of rampant over simplification of an issue for the sake of stirring up controversy, and of fully articulating one's case for the sake of clarity, Ms. Anita chose the former. Again, trolling behavior. 

 

La Rose. 

[Ranxerox]

I would apply another, more brutal if lexical, criterion, as well. For any writer, is "toxic" a modifer on "masculinity", or is "masculinity" a subset of "toxic"? If the latter (and I have encountered writings for which the latter was true), then that flips the bozo bit.

 

In English the qualifying adjective come first and the noun which it qualifies come after.  So with the phrase toxic masculinity, masculinity is the noun and toxic is the adjective that qualifies.  The phrase toxic masculinity strongly implies the speaker believes in non-toxic masculinity, because otherwise the statement is redundant.  We don't generally speak of hot fire or wet water after all. 

 

IOW you are adding ambiguity where none exist in the phrasing of the thing. Why are you doing this?  

[薔薇語]

In English the qualifying adjective come first and the noun which it qualifies come after.  So with the phrase toxic masculinity, masculinity is the noun and toxic is the adjective that qualifies.  The phrase toxic masculinity strongly implies the speaker believes in non-toxic masculinity, because otherwise the statement is redundant.  We don't generally speak of hot fire or wet water after all. 

 

IOW you are adding ambiguity where none exist in the phrasing of the thing. Why are you doing this?  

 

One can define a group of things as being X and then from that subset highlight one part. For example:

 

Army Core of Engineers

Army Intel

Army Infantry

 

While it is possible to infer from the above that the speaker realizes that there is a "core of engineers" who are not also members of the Army, the natural reading is that speaker is using compounding nouns to enunciate with clarity the referenced group. It is in this way that one can read the above. It comes from a notion that Masculinity is naturally toxic and non-masculinity is the non-toxic alternative (be it femininity or something else, it is simply "non-Masculine"). Whether that is a fair reading of Ms. Anita's words or not is in the eye of the beholder; I for one am disinclined to think it is. But as Cancer points out, there are those who use the phrase "toxic masculinity" in that way.

 

La Rose. 

 

PS: 

 

Other versions of "toxic" being used in the above way:

 

Toxic hatred - All hatred is toxic, but by using the compound, the image the speaker wishes to express is more clear. 

 

Toxic hate speech - All hate speech likely be considered toxic but by using the compound the feelings of the speaker are expressed my clearly. 

[Pattern Ghost]

Ranxerox, you're a nice guy, and a thoughtful member of our little community here. Rather than argue with you, I'm going to bow out. Suffice it to say we disagree on Sarkeesian's motives. I think she's a sophomoric attention whore, and that's the last word I'm going to post on the matter.

 

It could be that I'm being unfair, but I haven't yet seen anything to convince me otherwise. I do think it'd be bad form to argue about that opinion given the topic of this thread and the fact that she isn't here to defend herself.

[Cancer]

Back in August, a Fields Medal awarded to a woman for the first time, to Maryam Mirzakhani. The Fields Medal has been described as being "the equivalent of a Nobel Prize in mathematics".

[Cygnia]

 

Men Behaving Badly – Street Harassment And Cat-Calling

 

[Cygnia]

 

Journalist Glenn Fleishman explains how GamerGate is an abusive hate movement

 

[Sociotard]

I thought "obviously someone is going to make a book out of the gamergate debacle". And then I thought "It's slowing down now. Maybe next year? Hey, maybe already." so, on a lark, I checked Amazon.  The top results for gamergate are about the evolution of hive minds. I just thought that was funny.

[Lucius]

Journalist Glenn Fleishman explains how GamerGate is an abusive hate movement

 

"....how Gamergate is an abusive hate movement"

 

I consider that so obvious I am not even going to bother to click. I may not understand what they think they're accomplishing, but I already know they're abusive and hateful.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary wonders if they know that - surely it's been pointed out to them....

[Markdoc]

"....how Gamergate is an abusive hate movement"

 

I consider that so obvious I am not even going to bother to click. I may not understand what they think they're accomplishing, but I already know they're abusive and hateful.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary wonders if they know that - surely it's been pointed out to them....

 

The whole point about hate movements is about being part of a hate movement. They're not trying to accomplish anything: the hating *is* the point. The whole deal is about being encouraged by the rest of the pack to be hateful to someone. 

 

After all, what does a bully achieve when he beats up a kid much smaller than himself and forces him to eat dirt? The same thing: the thrill of abuse sanctioned by his pack.

 

cheers, Mark

[Cygnia]

 

YouTube, Patreon, and the Rise of the Professional Victimizer

 

[Lucius]

YouTube, Patreon, and the Rise of the Professional Victimizer

 

So some of them, at least, are getting something out of it.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

They're making more money than I'm getting out of Palindomedary Enterprises

[Pattern Ghost]

Mike Morhaime Urges Blizzard Gamers to "Reject hate and harassment" at Blizzcon. (WoW forums explode with hate and harassment within minutes, natch.)

[Pattern Ghost]

YouTube, Patreon, and the Rise of the Professional Victimizer

 

Those tweets are too long. Could you summarize in 70 characters or less, please?

 

 

 

 

 

(edit: not yanking Cygnia's chain, I just don't like tweets in general =) )

[Pattern Ghost]

More from Blizzcon: New FPS game announced, Overwatch. Article on diversity of characters and Blizz's stance on the subject, etc.:

 

http://www.polygon.com/2014/11/8/7176861/blizzard-overwatch-diversity

[薔薇語]

More from Blizzcon: New FPS game announced, Overwatch. Article on diversity of characters and Blizz's stance on the subject, etc.:

 

http://www.polygon.com/2014/11/8/7176861/blizzard-overwatch-diversity

 

 

Wow. That looks like an amazing game from the trailer:

 

 

I wonder if we could get that turned into a TV show. ^^

 

La Rose. 

[Cygnia]

 

3 Shortcuts to Not Being a Terrible Person

 

[Zeropoint]

I find myself somewhat conflicted, in that I support equality in games (and everything) and oppose sexism . . . but on the other hand, I just recently got the game Core of Innocence and I'm enjoying it. Where does deliberate fanservice fall on the ethical scale?

[Hermit]

An interesting and controversial article on possible reasons why more women aren't in certain sciences/engineering careers

"The freedom to say 'no'"

 

 

 

It's important to note that these findings involve averages and do not apply to all women or men; indeed, there is wide variety within each gender. The researchers are not suggesting that sexism and cultural pressures on women don't play a role, and they don't yet know why women choose the way they do. One forthcoming paper in the Harvard Business Review, for instance, found that women often leave technical jobs because of rampant sexism in the workplace.

[SKJAM!]

I find myself somewhat conflicted, in that I support equality in games (and everything) and oppose sexism . . . but on the other hand, I just recently got the game Core of Innocence and I'm enjoying it. Where does deliberate fanservice fall on the ethical scale?

 

No one (almost) is saying you can't enjoy fanservice in a game, or trying to ban games with fanservice in them.  However, if the fanservice is the primary selling point, or the most enjoyable part of the game, then you may want to consider what the priorities of the game company are in comparison to yours.  And also whether, in this case, the fanservice (and possible problematic tropes) outweigh the main character's good points.

 

It's worth keeping in mind that, as anyone who watches a lot of anime comes to realize, that there are different levels of fanservice.  In no particular order:

• "Let's have a moment of fun for the lads before getting into the main story."
• "Yes, the women's costumes are kind of impractical and designed to show off their assets, but you get used to it."
• "I think there may be something neurologically wrong with the heroine, given how many times she 'accidentally' shows off her goodies."
• "I never thought I'd get bored looking at women in their underwear, but here we are."
• "I need a shower.  With a steel wool pad and lye soap.  Even then, I'm not sure I'll ever feel clean again."
• "Oh, just go ahead and make it a porno, already."

[Hermit]

You also have to respect the theory of fan service from both directions. In comics, for example, while I love looking at the ladies in comic books/supehero mediums, I get a real kick out of how much Dick Grayson is used as eye candy for the folks out there that admire the male form, both the readers of that persuasion, and the characters in the books themselves. It's almost like another superpower for him, and I find it both amusing and fair. Now the balance is still very much in favor of eye candy for straight men, but I do think it's only right that they have a few like 'man per view' characters thrown in.

[Ranxerox]

I find myself somewhat conflicted, in that I support equality in games (and everything) and oppose sexism . . . but on the other hand, I just recently got the game Core of Innocence and I'm enjoying it. Where does deliberate fanservice fall on the ethical scale?

 

I'm pretty sure that this has already been linked to here, but it doesn't hurt to link to it again.

 

http://www.socialjusticeleague.net/2011/09/how-to-be-a-fan-of-problematic-things/

[Lucius]

As I understand

 

I find myself somewhat conflicted, in that I support equality in games (and everything) and oppose sexism . . . but on the other hand, I just recently got the game Core of Innocence and I'm enjoying it. Where does deliberate fanservice fall on the ethical scale?

 

I don't claim to be an expert on ethics so perhaps I should refrain from commenting, but, here's how I see it.

 

Obviously, there are electronic games with "fanservice" that appeal to males.

 

There are also games (an overlapping set) that embody, or seem to embody, questionable attitudes regarding men and women; such as treating female characters as prizes to be won or as bystanders while the male characters make the choices and undertake the actions that really count. I could be wrong but I don't think anyone is trying to actually prevent such games from being made, per se, or even morally condemn all those who play such.

 

One could sum this up by saying that many computer games have been, and are being, designed as if for an audience exclusively of adolescent males.

 

A group of people, such as Ms. Sarkeesian, have begun to raise a number of points, such as that there are many women interested in and playing such games, that it would be a good idea to include viable player character options who are not male or otherwise represent "diversity," that there are games that are not designed with these kind of assumptions and it would be good to have more such games, etc. There does seem to be some dispute as to the fairness, accuracy, relevance, etc. of these observations. Meanwhile, those who create such games have begun to notice that their (previous) assumptions about their audience are not necessarily true any longer (if they ever were) and take that into account.

 

A group of people, apparently mostly male, seem to feel intensely threatened by this kind of talk, judging by reactions that range up to and include death threats and rape threats, responses that would be disproportionate and unjustifiable - not to mention counterproductive -  even IF there were a credible threat to somehow shut down the creation of more video games of the kinds they presumably enjoy playing.

 

A geat deal of the harrassment and threats seem to be enabled by Twitter and Facebook, which touches on a recurring theme I have noticed over the years. The more I hear of such things as Facebook, the more certain I am that I want nothing to do with them and the less I understand why anyone in their right minds would want to have anything to do with them.

 

 

As an "outsider" who seldom plays games of the sort under discussion (I haven't even played Civilization in the last year) have I managed to understand the situation and put it in a nutshell?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary remarks that it has to be a brazil nut shell, and a large one at that

[Doc Shadow]

You also have to respect the theory of fan service from both directions. In comics, for example, while I love looking at the ladies in comic books/supehero mediums, I get a real kick out of how much Dick Grayson is used as eye candy for the folks out there that admire the male form, both the readers of that persuasion, and the characters in the books themselves. It's almost like another superpower for him, and I find it both amusing and fair. Now the balance is still very much in favor of eye candy for straight men, but I do think it's only right that they have a few like 'man per view' characters thrown in.

 

I don't know if anyone has brought this up before, I'm not searching through 1400+ posts, but let's be honest here. Just about every superhero costume is a cat suit so tight it looks like it's been sprayed on. There's plenty of fan service to go around for both sexes. And always has been.

[SKJAM!]

The catch there is that generally male characters in comics are costumed/posed/framed for "power" while female characters generally are costumed/posed/framed for "sexy".  Male readers may assume that this is equivalent, but female readers can spot the difference.  (It's due to male creators thinking that "power" is what makes men sexy, it seems.)  Each individual instance, of course, is the result of a valid creative choice, but the aggregate sends a message that the creators weren't entirely intending to send.

 

Manga companies have picked up on this a bit more, resulting in things like "Bishonen Jump Syndrome" where over time the art styles have shifted to favor male characters that have designs, costumes and poses that also appeal to female readers for better sales.  Which has led to a certain amount of backlash from more "old-school" readers who preferred the more "manly" look.  (Exacerbated, I think, because this kind of character design used to be primarily used for ambiguously gay villain characters in the boys' comics.)