Feminism

[Gormongous]

I guess my point isn't that it doesn't happen (and those articles weren't really about any sort of explanation, more interruption and confidence, which is something I'm not disputing), but a rather more general point. If something is happening to everyone, can't you apply Occam's razor to suggest that it's less likely to be sexism/racism/homophobia, and more likely that it's just people being jerks in general?

 

The fact that it happens to women more than men doesn't imply sexism on the part of the perpetrator in my mind, it rather implies that men are generally more confident (which is due to a sexist society but that's a separate issue). I hope I'm not coming across as though I don't believe this is a thing: I do, what I'm finding hard to understand is if it's sexist behaviour or not. It doesn't seem like it is directly, but is caused by indirect sexism and/or overconfidence. I guess it sounds like more of a symptom of a sexist world coinciding with arrogant people, rather than an action done out of maliciousness? Does that make any sense? However does that make it less excusable... sorry ma'am, I wasn't meaning to be sexist, it's everyone else's fault.

 

Sorry, I'm really finding it difficult to get my thoughts down in a coherent manner, it's coming out in a bit of a mess. Probably because I don't really know what I'm talking about. 

 

You could just as easily say that the recent death of Eric Garner is due to police brutality, the brunt of which just happens to fall overwhelmingly on people of color, and therefore it's incorrect to talk about fatal beatings as an issue of racism, but I think we have room for a multiplicity of causes, both here and with mansplaining. Men are more confident (or rather, less inclined to heed interpersonal cues) when speaking and they're more confident (etc, etc) when speaking to women (who, as Argobot and others have said, experience societal pressure to defer). Sadly, that's sexist, whether or not they intend it to be. If the actions someone takes reflect, reinforce, and benefit from a sexist society, then they are sexist, whatever the character and beliefs of that person.

 

I don't know, I'm getting increasingly tired of the idea that ending sexism and racism and whatever is simply a matter of building a republic of good intentions.

[osmosisch]

Gormongous, on 21 Jul 2014 - 18:16, said:

Like most things feminism fights against, "mansplaining" is something that can happen to men but overwhelmingly and frequently happens to women. Here is a good primer on the evidence for it.

That's a great link, thanks. It's definitely got me watching my speech habits in the near future.

[Griddlelol]

Thanks for the replies, I discussed it with my girlfriend and it totally get it now. Even if someone does such things to men and women, they should be aware of sexism and thus take into account the culture/history as they proceed (or not proceed) to be a douche. If they don't, they're sexist...right?

Saying it's not sexist to "mansplain" to a guy but is sexist to a woman, doesn't mean that it's suddenly and OK thing to do to a guy, it's still shitty behaviour, but it doesn't have that whole "I'm better than your gender" undertone.

[SecretAsianMan]

Thanks for the replies, I discussed it with my girlfriend and it totally get it now. Even if someone does such things to men and women, they should be aware of sexism and thus take into account the culture/history as they proceed (or not proceed) to be a douche. If they don't, they're sexist...right?

Saying it's not sexist to "mansplain" to a guy but is sexist to a woman, doesn't mean that it's suddenly and OK thing to do to a guy, it's still shitty behaviour, but it doesn't have that whole "I'm better than your gender" undertone.

 

The thing that complicates it is even if you do take all that into consideration, it could still be sexist because you're not the one who gets to make that call.  If the person you say something to genuinely finds it sexist, then it is.  Trying to justify it by saying you didn't mean it that way is mansplaining your mansplation.  That's how I see it anyway.  But I'm a straight, non-white male so 2/3 of my opinion shouldn't count.

[Problem Machine]

If the person you say something to genuinely finds it sexist, then it is.

Someone brought up this interpretation earlier, and it bothered me then and it bothers me now. Does this mean that an interaction can be sexist even if the perpetrator has no idea they're speaking to a woman? Does that mean an automated response can be sexist? I understand the intent of the approach, but I think it's possible to say everyone's experience of feeling discriminated against is valid and important and meaningful without then making the leap that it must, therefore, be informed.

 

Moreover, if that's how we define sexism, does that mean that any blatant discrimination not recognized by the victim is therefore not sexist? If that were the case then surely the best cure for sexism would be to make it invisible. I don't feel that's a helpful understanding of sexism, I guess, is my point.

[Golden Calf]

Well, the thing is that a woman really doesn't have to assume that a man is being sexist to her. If she feels like the victim of a sexist act, she is the victim of the sexist act, regardless of others' intentions. Sexism is an entirely subjective act and does not require conscious commission. "Mansplain" started out as a word to describe the sort of unintentionally sexist thing that is done to women all the time, to create a conceptual space for this behavior so it can be called out and marginalized.

The thing that complicates it is even if you do take all that into consideration, it could still be sexist because you're not the one who gets to make that call. If the person you say something to genuinely finds it sexist, then it is. Trying to justify it by saying you didn't mean it that way is mansplaining your mansplation. That's how I see it anyway. But I'm a straight, non-white male so 2/3 of my opinion shouldn't count.

Surely this can't be right, right? I remember hearing this sentiment at my school's feminist club this past year, and that it bothered me at the time, but I didn't think about it enough in the moment to be able to respond without sounding dismissive or douchey. But it really bothers me. It seems to be abandoning a definition which, though sometimes difficult to prove in individual cases, is very strong and useful, in favor of one which elides the problem of proof but is so feeble that it can be boiled down to 'any behavior/expression a woman dislikes and chooses to call sexist'.

Two points:

First, if we're going to be fair-minded, we have to let MRAs make the same move. If a man feels he is the victim of a misandrist act, he is, regardless of others' intentions / the facts of the situation. This is not a world I want to live in.

Second, the definition is completely incapable of distinguishing between acts which are superficially similar but different in important ways. Let's say there's a guy who thinks women shouldn't get drunk, that they are just asking to be assaulted if they drink in college. And let's say there's another guy who thinks that everyone should refrain from drinking in college, that the type of drinking done in college leads to bad habits of binge drinking, that losing control of your faculties is dangerous (for all sorts of reasons) and immoral (leave aside whether you agree with him, or even think he's reasonable). Let's say that the guy 1 tells all his nieces "Be careful around alcohol, it's dangerous," and guy 2 tells his nieces and nephews the exact same thing. One of each niece perceives the advice as sexist (assumes guy 1's ideology in both cases). Under this definition they're both right. I claim that this shuts down legitimate beliefs / arguments / actions. Using this definition can't be an argument, it's a foreclosure. Feminism doesn't need a nuclear option, I think it already usually has the strongest argument in the room.

Side note: several of my friends (some of whom are Jewish) and I have on multiple occasions been accused of antisemitism when we criticize the Israeli government. I just can't concede that perceived prejudice constitutes actual prejudice.

To be clear, I absolutely do not think that even a significant minority of claims of sexism are frivolous. But this is why there's no reason to weaken the definition.

Also, I'm not saying people should have to justify at length any claim of sexism. If someone's obviously being sexist, and plays coy/naive when called on it, they can fuck off.

I am suddenly aware I've likely thrown myself into the mainsplain pit. Let me know how much of an idiot I am : \

 

Edit: Looks like Problem Machine beat me to the punch by 4 mins, and much more succinctly. Slightly reassuring that I'm not alone, I suppose.

[Gormongous]

Someone brought up this interpretation earlier, and it bothered me then and it bothers me now. Does this mean that an interaction can be sexist even if the perpetrator has no idea they're speaking to a woman? Does that mean an automated response can be sexist? I understand the intent of the approach, but I think it's possible to say everyone's experience of feeling discriminated against is valid and important and meaningful without then making the leap that it must, therefore, be informed.

 

Moreover, if that's how we define sexism, does that mean that any blatant discrimination not recognized by the victim is therefore not sexist? If that were the case then surely the best cure for sexism would be to make it invisible. I don't feel that's a helpful understanding of sexism, I guess, is my point.

Surely this can't be right, right? I remember hearing this sentiment at my school's feminist club this past year, and that it bothered me at the time, but I didn't think about it enough in the moment to be able to respond without sounding dismissive or douchey. But it really bothers me. It seems to be abandoning a definition which, though sometimes difficult to prove in individual cases, is very strong and useful, in favor of one which elides the problem of proof but is so feeble that it can be boiled down to 'any behavior/expression a woman dislikes and chooses to call sexist'.

Two points:

First, if we're going to be fair-minded, we have to let MRAs make the same move. If a man feels he is the victim of a misandrist act, he is, regardless of others' intentions / the facts of the situation. This is not a world I want to live in.

Second, the definition is completely incapable of distinguishing between acts which are superficially similar but different in important ways. Let's say there's a guy who thinks women shouldn't get drunk, that they are just asking to be assaulted if they drink in college. And let's say there's another guy who thinks that everyone should refrain from drinking in college, that the type of drinking done in college leads to bad habits of binge drinking, that losing control of your faculties is dangerous (for all sorts of reasons) and immoral (leave aside whether you agree with him, or even think he's reasonable). Let's say that the guy 1 tells all his nieces "Be careful around alcohol, it's dangerous," and guy 2 tells his nieces and nephews the exact same thing. One of each niece perceives the advice as sexist (assumes guy 1's ideology in both cases). Under this definition they're both right. I claim that this shuts down legitimate beliefs / arguments / actions. Using this definition can't be an argument, it's a foreclosure. Feminism doesn't need a nuclear option, I think it already usually has the strongest argument in the room.

Side note: several of my friends (some of whom are Jewish) and I have on multiple occasions been accused of antisemitism when we criticize the Israeli government. I just can't concede that perceived prejudice constitutes actual prejudice.

To be clear, I absolutely do not think that even a significant minority of claims of sexism are frivolous. But this is why there's no reason to weaken the definition.

Also, I'm not saying people should have to justify at length any claim of sexism. If someone's obviously being sexist, and plays coy/naive when called on it, they can fuck off.

I am suddenly aware I've likely thrown myself into the mainsplain pit. Let me know how much of an idiot I am : \

 

Like I said before, there are many kinds of ridiculous, theoretical, never-going-to-actually-happen that makes "let the victim decide if they are a victim" sound like a more shaky proposition than it actually is. That said:

• Yes, an automated response can be sexist. It is created by a human being and exists in a sexist society, so it will have sexist preconceptions built into it. There's no way it can't. There are actually many, many instances of supposedly "impartial" bureaucracies committing sexist acts against women, if only because they are mostly created and staffed by men who tailor their assumptions to what they know as men.
• We don't consider theft that is not recognized by the victim as theft to be theft. It's true that oftentimes, as in cases of domestic abuse, the most difficult thing is getting a victim to recognize that they are being abused, but that is a problem of education, not of definition. It is not a feminist act to compel a woman against her will for any reason, even to denounce her own oppression.
• Misandry doesn't exist. There is no systemic oppression of men going on anywhere, therefore there is no rational basis for male feelings of marginalization or brutalization by society. Someone can feel that they are the victims of oppression by space aliens too, but it would be just as insulting to equate those feelings, however traumatizing to their originator, with the very real experience of people of color and women. I'm not saying that everyone's feelings of oppression and persecution are always valid, just that those of oppressed and persecuted populations are to a much greater degree. If that seems somehow unfair, well...
• When you say, "Don't get drunk, it's bad for you," it means a very different thing to a woman than to a man. History has made sure of that. In the same way, if you tell a white guy, "Be nice to cops," it means a very different thing than telling a black guy that. I firmly believe that people should be held responsible for the historical implications of their words, just like you have to be careful about bringing up Chuck-E-Cheese to a friend of yours who had the really bad trip that one time.

Above all, feminism is about absolute freedom of self-determination. As much as those "anti-feminists" get my goat for their glib and ugly denials, it is my belief that, in a perfect feminist society, they ought to have the right to deny the long history of female oppression and persecution. Likewise, if a women sincerely does not believe she is the victim of what is obviously to me a sexist act, I will respect her choice to believe that. It's hard, that's true, but feminism should not deal in absolutes, besides said freedom of self-determination.

 

Also, and I don't mean anything damning or dismissive by this, but if you don't trust a woman to be able to tell you honestly whether something's sexist, you might want to examine what things have led you to that lack of trust.

 

 

EDIT: Yeah, some of what SBM said, too. If someone is saying something that makes absolutely no sense no matter how much muscular empathy you exert on their words, then of course you have to mistrust it. No one's asking you to believe everything. The point here is to build a culture where the victim is always trusted by default, no matter what anyone's initial instincts are.

[SuperBiasedMan]

I'm not sure if this is what SAM meant, but I think it's good to be of the mindset where when someone who lacks privilege says they're being prejudiced against, you default to assuming it's true until you consider the actions carefully. You might find after some deep thought that it's not, but it's safer to adopt the guilty until proven innocent approach because sexism and other prejudices are deep rooted subconscious biases, and being aware of a bias does not make you immune to it.

So if you default to believing someone, you're far less likely to dismiss behaviour just because you haven't given it due consideration. When they point it out, you can think over it. And if you feel it's definitely not problematic behaviour then you don't need to take their word as the objective truth because as you both pointed out, it's entirely possible to read prejudice in an action even if the person reading it isn't over active in searching for it.

[Problem Machine]

Okay --  there's a huge difference between assuming that if someone says there's sexism going on there's probably sexism going on, which I agree with, and then taking that extra leap to declare that therefore sexism is defined solely by when a woman feels she is being discriminated against! It's hugely problematic to conflate the two!

 

Likewise, if a women sincerely does not believe she is the victim of what is obviously to me a sexist act, I will respect her choice to believe that.

Note the change of language here: From it being sexist or not-sexist based on her say-so to being not perceived by sexist as her despite being perceived as such by you. If we're putting things entirely into the realm of perception, then yes I agree everyone perceives discrimination (or not) in their own way, and that must be respected -- which is why I said:

I think it's possible to say everyone's experience of feeling discriminated against is valid and important and meaningful without then making the leap that it must, therefore, be informed.

It's shitty to devalue someone's experiences because they don't match up with your idea of what sexism or feminism encompasses. I agree with that. The problem happens when we define sexism based solely off of that perception. What then of the work of the women who tirelessly analyze and describe the systemic effects of and meaning of sexism in our culture? Doesn't it devalue their work to just then define sexism as "a woman perceiving she is being discriminated against"?

 

Ehh. In other words, I think you guys have the best of intentions, but your beliefs as you've expressed them seem super problematic to me, and your defense doesn't address my criticism.

[SuperBiasedMan]

I don't have an actual rebuttal because I'm just confirming that yes assuming probable sexism is different to making it Dr facto what a woman says. Maybe it came off as if I was conflating the two. Rereading is hard on a phone so I figure it's safest to declare that myself. My post was just meant to be how I view the situation, and what I personally think is the best approach.

[SecretAsianMan]

The thing I don't like is trying to come up with a blanket definition for any of it.  Nothing is absolute, especially when it come to socially defined matters.  But I think if you say something to a person, whether they're a man, woman, white, black, gay, straight, WHATEVER and it's something they find offensive or uncomfortable, then you have to accept that it is to that person.  That includes groups like MRAs.  They may be idiots and assholes (and I'm pretty sure they are) but they're allowed to have that belief no matter how much you dislike it.  I'm not saying that sexism is SOLELY defined by when a woman feels that a thing is sexist, but I am saying that if they genuinely believe it is then the bottom line is that it is sexist to that person and that's just as valid a feeling as any other.

[Problem Machine]

I'm not saying that sexism is SOLELY defined by when a woman feels that a thing is sexist, but I am saying that if they genuinely believe it is then the bottom line is that it is sexist to that person and that's just as valid a feeling as any other.

To me, though, saying that is a lot like saying that something seems orange to them. That is their experience and it's not invalid, but there's a difference between one person's perception of an event being orange and whether that actually matches up with the facts. Now, a lot of people have their experiences trivialized and gaslighted, which sucks, don't get me wrong -- but I think some line needs to be drawn between 'sexism' as systemic discrimination and 'sexism' as personal experience.

[JonCole]

I don't really have much to add to this particular discussion, I think all sides have been represented by well spoken dudes. I will agree with Problem Machine's point that "some line needs to be drawn between 'sexism' as systemic discrimination and 'sexism' as personal experience" because they are separate, important issues that are not mutually exclusive. Combating systemic discrimination is a valuable effort that can be partially accomplished by combating personally experienced sexism on an individual basis, but it's hard for me to imagine that there will be a large effect in the other direction that could be measured.

 

On a somewhat unrelated note, a female friend of mine expressed some distaste for the word "empower" as it pertains to women's rights. I thought it was interesting as it's a term oft used for the disenfranchised minority, but empower suggests that power is being bestowed. Feminism not trying to empower, but it's trying to release some of the power that has been imprisoned by man. There are few things that men inherently hold over women, so thinking we somehow need to add something to the women's side of the scale rather than move women's inherent power from the men's side to the women's side is a bit silly. Anyways, thought that was an interesting point.

[Problem Machine]

Yes! We should seek not to empower, but to reundisempower!

 

Reundisempowerment for all!

[Griddlelol]

Curious: why reundismpower?

[Problem Machine]

Because it's a longer, therefore funnier word.

But also because it presumes the natural state of all human beings is empowerment!

[Bjorn]

Please note, parts of this are me thinking out loud through the arguments that have been presented, and don't represent hard and fast opinions I hold, more like me walking myself through a new logic path I hadn't considered before.  I'm happy with where I ended up, but not sure I'm satisfied with all the turns it took to get there.  This should probably apply to every post I make in this thread. 

 

 

Okay --  there's a huge difference between assuming that if someone says there's sexism going on there's probably sexism going on, which I agree with, and then taking that extra leap to declare that therefore sexism is defined solely by when a woman feels she is being discriminated against! It's hugely problematic to conflate the two!

 

Having read through this, I feel like you're (probably completely unintentionally), doing the internet argument thing where you're really drilling down into one thing so hard that you're losing track of the bigger picture and trying to make very hard, distinct lines in a conversation that is dominated by fuzziness.  

 

Women, by and large, do get to define sexism.  Because it's them that it happens too.  I can recognize inequality.  I can recognize mistreatment.  But I can't recognize all the subtle and built in elements that create a sexist society, because I'm on the wrong side of the divide.  I want to emphasize that I don't want to put words in your mouth, nor do I want to misrepresent what you just wrote.  But part of what I see in your critique is an unwillingness to let sexism be solely defined by women.  That there has to be a purely objective way to measure it, or that men have to be in on defining and judging what sexism is. 

 

Let's take this as an example:

 

To me, though, saying that is a lot like saying that something seems orange to them. That is their experience and it's not invalid, but there's a difference between one person's perception of an event being orange and whether that actually matches up with the facts. Now, a lot of people have their experiences trivialized and gaslighted, which sucks, don't get me wrong -- but I think some line needs to be drawn between 'sexism' as systemic discrimination and 'sexism' as personal experience.

 

You've assumed in this example that the item being described as orange is not orange.  But what if it is, and you're wrong.  What if, because of your position in society, the way you've been taught, the ways that you've been sculpted to view the world, you see it one way, and that way is wrong.  Objective, provable, immutable facts rarely exist.  But by assuming in this example that you stand on the side of fact, and the other observer is just seeing their "experience", you've validated your own experience as being the true one, the experience that is not to be questioned.  And that element of society is often what helps perpetuate things like sexism, racism, etc. 

 

Your color example is particularly interesting, since men are many times more likely to be color blind and it may be more likely that women have the ability to see a wider range of color.  I find it interesting that color is the example you went with, since perceived color is almost entirely a subjective social construct that we all agree on, not a fixed, immutable quality of the object in question.  It's particularly interesting that you chose orange, since there is some evidence that many women actually perceive the red-orange spectrum better than men. 

 

A man literally cannot see orange the same way a woman can.  And in the same way, a man literally cannot see sexism the same way that a woman can.  If a male dominated society has defined orange, then a woman's experience will always be wrong even though her observation is more accurate.  If you insist on defining sexism objectively for a male dominated society, than a woman's experience will again always be wrong for the same reasons. 

 

I, in many ways, agree with the first thing I quoted by you in this post.  It makes me uncomfortable to define sexism that way.  But it makes me equally uncomfortable to say that there is an objective definition of sexism, or that men need to be involved in defining or judging what sexism is. 

[Argobot]

http://www.polygon.com/2014/7/22/5926193/women-gaming-harassment

[Problem Machine]

Well, first: I didn't say men need to be involved in determining what sexism is, but I do think there are many women doing great work in discovering what the boundaries of sexism are, where it comes from and what it does. As is the nature of emotion, the feeling of being discriminated against is something that can lead to this kind of understanding, but the feeling itself is not a replacement for the understanding. We need to hear and respect what women say their experience is -- but that isn't the end of the process, it's the beginning! I don't think we know, or ever will know, the exact size and shape and scope of sexism -- but, bit by bit, as the emotional experience of sexism informs the systemic understanding of its processes, we can get closer.

 

In other words, I agree that we need to hear what women say sexism is, and respect their understanding of it, but no one should be content with leaving it at that. There's more to understand.

 

edit: And, as that understanding grows, it may grow to contradict some of what we thought we experienced before. Going back to TerrySchiavosGhost's example of the two uncles, if the niece then gets to know her uncle better and her understanding of the circumstances shifts, she could stop perceiving his behavior as sexism -- knowledge and understanding change our experience of the world, and though in overwhelming majority I expect that improved understanding will increase the amount of sexist behavior we find, I suspect that some situations that seemed discriminatory will turn out to be innocuous as well.

[Gormongous]

Well, first: I didn't say men need to be involved in determining what sexism is, but I do think there are many women doing great work in discovering what the boundaries of sexism are, where it comes from and what it does. As is the nature of emotion, the feeling of being discriminated against is something that can lead to this kind of understanding, but the feeling itself is not a replacement for the understanding. We need to hear and respect what women say their experience is -- but that isn't the end of the process, it's the beginning! I don't think we know, or ever will know, the exact size and shape and scope of sexism -- but, bit by bit, as the emotional experience of sexism informs the systemic understanding of its processes, we can get closer.

 

In other words, I agree that we need to hear what women say sexism is, and respect their understanding of it, but no one should be content with leaving it at that. There's more to understand.

 

I guess I don't really understand the distinction you're making here between feeling and understanding. It sounds a little bit like you're privileging reason over emotion, which is a false dichotomy historically used to marginalize the experience of women, but I'm sure I'm wrong there. Can you spare a little more time and say what exactly you're talking about in practical terms, beyond just trusting what women have to say about the experience of sexism in a way that does not insert a male arbiter into the process? Can you give specific examples of how systemic understanding differs from emotional experience, besides presumably being more thorough?

[feelthedarkness]

http://www.polygon.com/2014/7/22/5926193/women-gaming-harassment

 

Fucking hell. This is sort of eye opening. Yesterday, I would have said the post-dickwolves focus was a sign of progress, but I guess that is false. Every website needs a heavy handed moderator. 

 

"In the wake of VidCon, and as more and more women start speaking up about the harassment they face online, it’s time to start realizing that our narrative of progress is deeply flawed. Things aren’t getting better for women on the Internet; they’re deteriorating and ignoring the problem amounts to being complicit in it," she wrote.

[Argobot]

I say this occasionally but it's always worth repeating: I'm so happy that I've never experienced anything like what is mentioned in the article from the Idle Thumbs community. It's comforting to know that mostly male game-related spaces exist where women won't immediately get shit all over for commiting the terrible sin of being female in public.

[Problem Machine]

I guess I don't really understand the distinction you're making here between feeling and understanding. It sounds a little bit like you're privileging reason over emotion, which is a false dichotomy historically used to marginalize the experience of women, but I'm sure I'm wrong there. Can you spare a little more time and say what exactly you're talking about in practical terms, beyond just trusting what women have to say about the experience of sexism in a way that does not insert a male arbiter into the process? Can you give specific examples of how systemic understanding differs from emotional experience, besides presumably being more thorough?

You don't understand a distinction between the feeling that you are discriminated against and the action describing how that is so? It's the difference between saying that women face harassment and actually showing what that harassment looks like, as in the post above. It's the difference between a single person's experience and a common thread that goes through a million people's experience. On the end of people less understanding of feminism, that difference is the difference between beginning to perceive an ancient systemic discrimination and handwaving a 'few bad eggs because boys will be boys'.

 

The reason for the strenuousness of my objection is because if it's all just a matter of how people feel, rather than the circumstances that engender those feelings, there's nothing actionable there. Put bluntly, at that point if person A thinks person B is sexist, there's nothing that person A can say to convince person B that that's the case beyond 'that's how I feel' and nothing person B can say to convince person A they're innocent. If that's the end of the conversation, no conversation took place. No meaningful progress can be made. It erodes the very ground that conversation takes place on.

 

Everyone's personal experience is important, but it's not the be-all-end-all. As I said, it's where the conversation begins, not where it ends.

[Nappi]

Read the first section of the article and had to stop, because I didn't want to ruin my ok day thinking about that. I'll have to read the rest some other time.

 

Jesus, that is so fucking gross.

[Bjorn]

Fucking hell. This is sort of eye opening. Yesterday, I would have said the post-dickwolves focus was a sign of progress, but I guess that is false. Every website needs a heavy handed moderator. 

 

"In the wake of VidCon, and as more and more women start speaking up about the harassment they face online, it’s time to start realizing that our narrative of progress is deeply flawed. Things aren’t getting better for women on the Internet; they’re deteriorating and ignoring the problem amounts to being complicit in it," she wrote.

 

It's worth linking here that Samantha Allen piece, where she argues that the harassment is getting worse over time, that it is more organized, entrenched and easier than ever.  The problem isn't even moderation.  There's infinite unmoderated space for this toxic shit to brew in. 

 

I wonder, is it hard for women to encourage other women to enter gaming as a career (whether its development or journalism)?  Would a woman hesitate, even if it's just for a moment, to encourage a bright-eyed 12-year-old from pursuing a gaming career?

 

 

Everyone's personal experience is important, but it's not the be-all-end-all. As I said, it's where the conversation begins, not where it ends.

 

I meandered in my previous post, but part of my point is that if the discussion is taking place in a male defined space (which is the society we live in), then aren't the experiences of women potentially undervalued or lessened by the conversation itself?  Is expecting that conversation potentially sexist in and of itself?  Is that getting into the territory of "Please explain sexism/feminism to me because I don't understand it?"  By insisting that a person's feelings are the beginning of a conversation, are you insisting that a woman has to deliver a "sales pitch" to justify her experience, not just accepting her experience for what it is?