Jump to content
Roderick

Feminism

Recommended Posts

It's not that black and white. Speaking as someone who suffers from the "I don't want to be a creep" syndrome pretty much every time I'm around people I don't know, it has nothing to do with my fear of rejection. I do have a fear of rejection, but I'm more than conscious enough of it to know it has no bearing on my fear of coming off as a creep. And then there's also just my shyness in general, which keeps me from wanting to talk to anyone I don't know, woman or man, attracted to or not.

...I have trouble with people.

I might be completely wrong about this, but currently I'm thinking that they are more related than your paradigm allows. Feel free to correct me as I make assumptions.

I'm guessing that your fear of being a creep is not so much "Man I want to take some panty-shots when she's not looking", but is more like "I want to compliment her looks and I'm interested in potentially hooking up with her."

In that latter case, the difference between looking like a creep and confessing your feelings are whether or not she rejects you. I think that there may be an element of just being super uncomfortable with the idea of giving evidence of how you feel to someone else and then having to just deal with the fact that they an do whatever they want with them. What am I failing to consider?

Edit: I should mention that I'm more talking about situations in which you do know the other people at least a little bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's a clear difference between blaming feminism and women for not being in a relationship and feeling self conscious and uncomfortable at the thought of being too pushy or seeming sexist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmm, I feel awkward getting into my own personal thought process regarding approaching a relationship with women in the feminism thread, because I am the last person in the world who should probably talk about it, but here we go!

 

I'm not all that interested in "hooking up" with people. When I talk about my fear of being a creep, it is more to do with people I don't know, and the situation varies. I can look at an attractive woman and acknowledge that she is attractive, but I don't do much more than that. For a better example, I'll bring something up I mentioned a while ago in this thread: sometimes I feel weird when I'm just following a woman on the sidewalk. Not like intentionally following, but we're heading in the same direction. Happened a few times when I was living in SF that we'd both be heading in the same direction in the dark on a relatively empty street, and I'm a fast walker, so I catch up to her... And she starts walking faster. I mean, it's common sense to worry about it on her end, but for me it just reinforces that sometimes the things I doing naturally come off as unintentionally threatening. It doesn't help that I am a tall dude. And so it bounces back and I become even more careful. Next time I see it potentially happening, I'll just slow down and let her get ahead of me and hopefully we reach a crosswalk stop at the same time somehow and I can rush ahead after we start walking again. This is just one specific example. But you can pretty easily extrapolate from there to imagine how I think in pretty much any situation that involves a woman.

 

Then when I'm talking about fear of rejection it is just a natural fear of someone turning me down. It's pretty cut and dry. I would never even consider asking someone out or whatever if I didn't already know them pretty well, so fear of creepiness doesn't even come into it. This one isn't really a big deal because I mean everyone suffers that to some extent. It's just a hurdle you gotta get over. I suppose for most people who like to do the random hookup thing, this is different.

 

Then when I'm talking about fear of interaction it is just because I'm so damn shy and people are intimidating, whether it's a big group and I'm alone or I'm with a big group and there's one new person. This one doesn't really have anything to do with women or feminism, but it's just another factor in my ever-present "I don't want to be around people" mindset.

 

Anyway I don't want this to be a "hey let's analyze twig" session, I am just trying to explain my position. I'm sure it's different for everyone, but more importantly I don't think it's fair to just conflate fear-of-rejection with fear-of-being-creepy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your case seems way different than that of the letter to the advice column. There is a big difference between being considerate of a pedestrian on a dark street, and not being willing to acknowledge that a woman is making a sexual advance towards you because you don't want to be part of the problem. I still think that he was using his feminist perspective as a rationalization that allowed him to avoid situations in which he might be rejected (again, assuming that he was actually interested in any of the ladies he mentioned).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I am. And yes he obviously was. I didn't even think we were still talking about that. Thought we were talking about the comic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is kind of a wandering post, so apologies for that. 

 

Okay, so completely different thing.  I own a business that specializes in niche computer parts markets, like laptop and notebook parts.  We also occasionally take contract work from businesses to liquidate large amounts of tech for them.  It's almost entirely OEM, used or refurb stuff, so we never handle retail packaging.  We started a new contract at the end of last week to clear out a bitcoin miner who is getting out of it, a single individual who had a pretty respectably sized operation going.  Part of liquidating his stuff is testing and reboxing hundreds of GPUs. 

 

This has reminded me of just how gross the retail packaging is for some PC enthusiast stuff.  The miner had saved all the original packaging for all his rigs, so we've been reboxing all the cards to sell them.  Which means I've spent a significant amount of time this week staring at these, often physically surrounded by stacks of them. 

 

post-33601-0-96397900-1406848591_thumb.jpg


 

post-33601-0-05740900-1406848600_thumb.jpg


 

post-33601-0-89102700-1406848608_thumb.jpg


 

post-33601-0-32242900-1406848616_thumb.jpg

 

Obviously using sexy women is nothing new, but this is really the first time I've just been so physically surrounded by this kind of marketing for hours a day, for an entire week.  It's increasingly creeping me out.  I'm pretty much the opposite of a prude, but it is seriously weird to spend hours with these digitally "perfect" renditions of women sitting around.

 

It got me thinking about the rapid desensitization that must go on when you work a job where this kind of material is just constantly around you, within your field of view constantly.  I tend to think that claims of desensitization because of media are pure bullshit (like virtual violence desensitizing kids to real violence), but when your reality is filled with this stuff for 8+ hours a day, does it contribute to seeing the female form as background?  As wallpaper?  As marketing?  Or does it have no effect?  I really don't know, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to work in a space where this kind of sexualized imagery was the norm all day long. 

 

Just been a weird week, and thought this was an appropriate place to share it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't about generalities, and it's not about private activities.  That's treating this exceptionally disingenuously.  This is about two very specific individuals and their years long interaction with the customer base that WotC serves, through their previous professional work.  You're talking about this as though it were some vague situation about someone's private beliefs that can be extrapolated out to any person or company. 

 

Do you not believe that how you have publicly comported yourself in a professional capacity has no bearing on whether or not people should hire you in the future? 

 

What's disingenuous is claiming that these people's blogs are professional work.  I do believe that public persona should affect the work life but what, specifically, have they done that's worth firing?  Should having a cave-man opinions on sex and gender and no ability to form cohesive arguments online be a reason to lose a job?  If so, where do we draw that line?  Are we comfortable if an employer with conservative values fired someone for believing more progressive stances on sexuality and gender?  

 

What's more, we don't know the details of what these two people did aside from "Additional Consulting" which is perhaps the most vague word choice possible.  The reality is that these two bloggers may not have had any substantive effect on the final product but we're supposed to blacklist D&D due to their involvement?  Please note that I haven't played any version of 5e but it seems that the final product itself is open to gender and sexual identity so who knows?  Maybe those two were "consulted" to find negative aspects of D&D culture that could be rooted out.

 

Essentially, all we know is that two idiots showed up as "Additional Consulting" with no other context.  To say that D&D is somehow guilty by association on their sins is absurd.  Starting a witch-hunt over these two would only hurt the blossoming acceptance for people outside the norms of the sexuality and gender.  In my opinion, being accepting and inclusive even of people who are hurtful will, in the end, win more progress for us than the scare tactics the original article seemed to embrace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having "controversial" beliefs and actively discriminating and promoting hate and anger are completely different things. This isn't a case of these people simply having problematic beliefs. This is a case of someone actively engaging with and insulting people on a regular basis.

 

A simple example: 

 

Someone can be against homosexuality - that is their prerogative - but the second they begin spewing vile words about gay people is where the line is drawn.

 

Someone can be for homosexuality - that is their prerogative - but the second they begin spewing vile words about people against homosexuality is where the line is drawn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with your last bit, though. There's an episode of Love + Radio starring Daryl Davis, a black musician who interviewed and befriended and turned several leading figures of the Ku Klux Klan: http://loveandradio.org/2014/02/the-silver-dollar/

 

Pretty good episode. I think it speaks for itself on the matter of including even those who hate us.

 

EDIT: Also my above post (oops I double posted!) was not meant to be a defense of firing people or holding D&D/WotC accountable for the actions of these people. I actually agree with you in that regard. If these people are good at the job for which they were consulted, then good. It's only if we find their influence actually hurt the game in a way harmful to inclusion that we should worry. As far as we know, that is not the case. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't make a big deal of these people being bad for other reasons.

 

Witch hunts help no one. I hate that shit.

 

A bigger concern for me is how quickly and easily the people at WotC dismissed claims of hurtful things Pundit/Zak said. "I see no strong evidence" despite allegedly dozens of people submitting reports. That's pretty nasty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with your last bit, though. There's an episode of Love + Radio starring Daryl Davis, a black musician who interviewed and befriended and turned several leading figures of the Ku Klux Klan: http://loveandradio.org/2014/02/the-silver-dollar/

 

Pretty good episode. I think it speaks for itself on the matter of including even those who hate us.

 

EDIT: Also my above post (oops I double posted!) was not meant to be a defense of firing people or holding D&D/WotC accountable for the actions of these people. I actually agree with you in that regard. If these people are good at the job for which they were consulted, then good. It's only if we find their influence actually hurt the game in a way harmful to inclusion that we should worry. As far as we know, that is not the case. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't make a big deal of these people being bad for other reasons.

 

Witch hunts help no one. I hate that shit.

 

A bigger concern for me is how quickly and easily the people at WotC dismissed claims of hurtful things Pundit/Zak said. "I see no strong evidence" despite allegedly dozens of people submitting reports. That's pretty nasty.

 

Ok, I definitely see that in regard to WotC just blowing off the concerns.  It smacks of corporate damage control which, unfortunately, will probably work.  I guess now that I think about it, I'm glad the issue is being raised because it shifts the culture away from the overwhelming gross-ness but it's such a fine line. Also, Love + Radio is awesome.

 

Also Bjorn, being surrounded by creepy, uncanny sexualized women sounds like something out of a nightmare fever dream.  Sorry you have to put up with that BS.  I can't even bring myself to be mad at the companies though.  They wouldn't do that kind of stuff if it didn't work and unfortunately, it does.  Thankfully, I think conversations like this are helping to swing away from that mindset.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's disingenuous is claiming that these people's blogs are professional work.  

 

The first guy blogs, is (head?) admin of a popular forum, was a consultant for WotC, is doing other paid consulting work in the games industry and is (according to him) on the path to getting his first game published.  He's made, no exaggeration, hundreds of thousands of posts online over the years.  Posts in prominent places that are read by a lot of people.  The second guy produced a video series for The Escapist.  These aren't amateurs.  Professional might not be quite the right word, but it's closer to being accurate than claiming either is just a blogger or amateur. 

 

 

I do believe that public persona should affect the work life but what, specifically, have they done that's worth firing?  Should having a cave-man opinions on sex and gender and no ability to form cohesive arguments online be a reason to lose a job?  If so, where do we draw that line?  Are we comfortable if an employer with conservative values fired someone for believing more progressive stances on sexuality and gender?  

 

Have you spent any time reading through his stuff, particularly the "swine" conspiracy theories?  Seen how he interacts with people on forums?  Again, as far as I'm arguing this isn't about opinion.  It's about how those opinions shape his interaction with other people, predominantly people in the gaming fan community.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the part of that article that hit me the most was where the author talked about privileged people not believing accusations of harassment.

 

I know I've felt that way sometimes, partly because of what the author says - it's hard to believe that could happen and someone could get away with it. The idea that justice should prevail. Also, personally I find it really difficult to believe someone could do something like that. I just can't understand the thought process behind sexual or malicious harassment. 

I feel awful and kinda gross, luckily no one has ever come to me with stuff like that. It's definitely something I'll work on from now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that bothers me most about it is not that they hired grognards as additional consultants, because that will happen and in a small hobby like tabletop RPGs you don't always have enough expertise to be able to entirely exclude shitty people, but that the design leadership automatically responded with skepticism to the possibility that they'd hired grognards. That's a much bigger red flag to me - particularly because the person I know most likely to GM a throwback D&D system like 5th ed is also the person I know the grognards would most want to exclude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They wouldn't do that kind of stuff if it didn't work

 

Minor cherrypicking gripe here but I think that thought is actually pretty inaccurate. They presumably do it because they think it works, but I question the validity of that assumption, because the human brain is notorious for drawing conclusions from roughly correlated data. I've often wondered how much decisions like this are perpetuated as the default 'We've always done things this way" mode and how much is actually a real considered and measured decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I buy all my GPUs based on how hot the woman on the cover is. The numerical conventions are so confusing that it seems like the most reasonable heuristic.

*sarcasm*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't it used to be chrome monsters on the boxes?  I remember that joke being made on the podcast once.

 

...ok I just did a quick google image search for "graphics card box".  It's almost all busty women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Notorious R.G.B. speaks!

 

It's well worth watching or listening to the whole thing.  It's a treat, particularly given how rarely justices give interviews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes I read this thread, and I just wish there were more women withing this community. Not to say that all ya'll dudes' thoughts on feminism are wrong (I'm confident in saying this nearly everyone who posts frequently in this forum feminist and progressive), yet it feels odd that this thread about women centric issues is a platform for the voices of people who're the farthest away from ever having to experiencing these issues ever in their entire lives (same goes with the LGBQT thread, but that thread at least was started by a queer lady). I had this exact conversation with a friend who skimmed through the forums, and left with that same kind of feeling. His exact words were, "I mean, when you watch the convos unfold there it's very clear -- like in any other social setting, this is a room of white guys." I'd say the same thing about the Idle Thumbs podcast as well, that, despite featuring very good people, it's another podcast with white dudes (until lately of course). In a way, Idle Thumbs and its community is the most open boy club to exist on the internet. We're not telling girls to get away from our tree house, but we're not inviting them or considering them coming to our tree house.

 

Now, I don't know if there is a solution to this, and I have no solution to suggest at the moment. This is just me rambling and pointing something that kinda bugs me and worries me, and is, of course, very related to this thread's main topic. Yet, in the words of that same friend again, "...it's still a good litmus for the site [for better or worse]. Any other game site would have deleted this by now." That idea both makes me happy and makes me sad. In another forums\, this thread would've been closed the day it was made, as privileged, sexist gamer bros start complaining that the evil feminazis are coming for their precious video games in their precious community. Say kudos for not being that!

 

And yet, this community's extreme lack of diversity on all fronts is something I hope changes as time goes by. But right now, there's tons to improve.

 

Note: I may be changing some small things in this post since this was all a stream of consciousness, just so I can be more clearer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're not telling girls to get away from our tree house, but we're not inviting them or considering them coming to our tree house.

 

 

And yet, this community's extreme lack of diversity on all fronts is something I hope changes as time goes by. But right now, there's tons to improve.

 

Had any thoughts on what could be done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And yet, this community's extreme lack of diversity on all fronts is something I hope changes as time goes by. But right now, there's tons to improve.

 

I found it quite ironic after doing the idle thumbs survey that one of the most progressive diverse gaming podcasts (that one queer lady in the past few months makes it such is pretty sad) has probably the most homogeneous following out there. Giant Bomb has a shitton of female listeners but is exclusively run by white dudes. 

 

I guess if you're a niche within a niche it's hard to get a diverse following.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found it quite ironic after doing the idle thumbs survey that one of the most progressive diverse gaming podcasts (that one queer lady in the past few months makes it such is pretty sad) has probably the most homogeneous following out there. Giant Bomb has a shitton of female listeners but is exclusively run by white dudes. 

 

I guess if you're a niche within a niche it's hard to get a diverse following.

I agree.  Video games culture is still very entrenched in the "only white dudes" mindset.  Thus, it's usually the white dudes who find the niches most quickly.  The trend is breaking but Giant Bomb is just more popular and the diverse crowd will probably stick with something well known.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but there are a ton of women (binders full of women) who play games and presumably listen to podcasts. It's weird that there's such a big gender imbalance, to the point where I'd say it raises questions. I find it hard to believe that Idle Thumbs is niche enough that there wouldn't be women finding it, trying it, and finding it offputting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that it should stop us trying to find ways to make the community more welcoming to people not in the homogeneity, but I do think having Danielle as a cast regular is going to help in making it more face-value inviting to a diverse audience. There are so many all male podcasts on the net that (intentionally or not) don't care about being for anyone other than straight white dudes, that I think it's a bit of a stereotype that people might filter out.

Also this has been mentioned by other people before, but I really enjoy hearing a non-dude voice on the podcast - it makes me uncomfortable in a non-specific way to hear a discussion with only guys contributing, the same way I felt when working at an all male workplace or going to a mostly white school.

The fact that Danielle is a total badass is icing on the cake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×