Feminism

[Argobot]

Sure I mean to draw attention to the point that its used interchangeably and ambiguously. I've heard people say "I hate men, and I hate white people, but I hate them as an institution, not in general" if you can't define what the institution is in any terms that's meaningfully different from any other form of sexism or racism, why make the distinction?

If you don't like the status quo, say so.

So I agree that it's wrong for people to conflate all white males with "The Patriarchy." The Patriarchy is a word that refers to a specific set of economic, political, and social institutions, not all white guys everywhere. I think we're on the same page in that regard. What I don't understand is why there's a need to define "the Patriarchy" as distinct from sexism and racism as you say. Many of the institutions of "The Patriarchy" (and the more I type this word the more it starts sounding like nonsense to me) are in fact, sexist and racist. It's all part and parcel of the same terrible system that currently exists.

[ThunderPeel2001]

OMG. That Dead Island thing is absolutely horrendous. Their justification is totally messed up, too: "“Dead Island’s grotesque take on an iconic Roman marble torso sculpture.”"

Am I wrong or did the ancient Roman's only tend to sculpt men? I'm sure I read that somewhere. Plus, it's not like they just sculpted torsos -- they're just the bits that haven't been lost over time.

On a related note, here's possibly the most offensive greeting card ever made:

[brkl]

Could use more severed torso.

[Luftmensch]

What I don't understand is why there's a need to define "the Patriarchy" as distinct from sexism and racism as you say. Many of the institutions of "The Patriarchy" (and the more I type this word the more it starts sounding like nonsense to me) are in fact, sexist and racist. It's all part and parcel of the same terrible system that currently exists.

Exactly my point. We already have defined sexism and racism and bigotry, what's the point of using a new term that ostensibly means "male dominated"?

[Argobot]

Well I would say the distinction is that the 'patriarchy' is referring to systemic issue, whereas racism/sexism can refer to anything from the systemic to the individual. Plus, not all racist/sexist issues would necessarily fall under the Western definition of 'the patriarchy.'

I admit that it can all get a little pedantic but I think there's a reason for the different terms, even if the reason is a little muddled.

[MrHoatzin]

Could it more accurately be described as "kitsch"? I don't mean in any way to defend or make excuses for the thing (it's vile); it just struck me that that might be a more appropriate term for low art aping high art (probably the wrong terms – I'm not well-versed on this stuff) without having anything to say about it.

To be clear, I think that thing is horrible and stupid.

It is definitely kitsch. Calling something kitsch doesn't excuse it or make it a coherent critique of art or whatever. The entirety of their point is still PRT, ART, AMIRITE?!

I guess it manages to transcend itself as a perfect illustration of what is wrong with the misogynistic dudebro gamer culture, as if we're wanting for more examples of anti-intellectual, reactionary bullshit from this industry and its fans.

[Luftmensch]

The term "institutional" is itself a bit muddy, but my bigger qualm is that Patriarchy means male-dominated, and even if you don't intend to mean it that way, unless society as a whole understands that, you're going to have some problems.

Why not invent a new word? How about Ananthropathy? All it means is lacking empathy for humans. It has no connotations to gender roles. It doesn't assign blame. It implies a system that

Anyway, video games, amiright?

Speaking of Video games, after Anita Sarkeesian took enough money to buy a house and spent it all on Video games, was she ever planning on making that web series? When I first discovered her, I thought she was interesting, until I realized she was just quoting TV Tropes and rolling her eyes obnoxiously (seriously, eye-rolling is one of the worst gestures anyone can make). Lately I think of her almost as a scam.

[MrHoatzin]

I think if a system makes it easier for white dudes to assume positions of power due to whatever fake meritocracy cascade of life choices on their part, calling it patriarchy is pretty accurate. If a father of a family owns the honor of all the children (and can murder them for perceived slights against honor with society's endorsement) also calling it patriarchy is accurate. When a bunch of white dudes who have percolated through the system built for them, take it upon themselves to make decisions about reproductive rights of women constituents, calling it patriarchy is enlightening and accurate.

[Ben X]

Could it more accurately be described as "kitsch"? I don't mean in any way to defend or make excuses for the thing (it's vile); it just struck me that that might be a more appropriate term for low art aping high art (probably the wrong terms – I'm not well-versed on this stuff) without having anything to say about it.

Made me think of this:

(seriously, eye-rolling is one of the worst gestures anyone can make)

[Argobot]

Speaking of Video games, after Anita Sarkeesian took enough money to buy a house and spent it all on Video games, was she ever planning on making that web series? When I first discovered her, I thought she was interesting, until I realized she was just quoting TV Tropes and rolling her eyes obnoxiously (seriously, eye-rolling is one of the worst gestures anyone can make). Lately I think of her almost as a scam.

Did you actually contribute to the Kickstarter? She regularly posts updates on her website and her Kickstarter page and has already said that the first video will be out at some point this winter. Her whole angle (and here is where I state that while I do admire her, I don't always agree with her interpretations) involves a lot of research and given the epic amounts of coverage her Kickstarter saga has gotten, it makes sense that she'd want to take the time to make sure that her videos are as perfect as possible, since she's pretty much guaranteed to be met with some backlash.

Not trying to be completely Team Anita here, but I really don't understand the dissatisfaction being directed at her.

[Luftmensch]

Not trying to be completely Team Anita here, but I really don't understand the dissatisfaction being directed at her.

Well part of my dissatisfaction is that I think getting a reaction is pretty interesting. Frankly, I will try to be a little controversial if I think I can learn something. Not a fan of flame wars, but I don't mind magnifying my opinion if I think it'll get a thoughtful response.

Personally, I have no stake in her Kickstarter campaign, I just observed that she hasn't created any new content in nine months (seven if you count the Kickstarter video), which is frankly a really long time to make opinionated YouTube videos of yourself talking. Also I think her videos are pretty lame; she's doing the same thing any TV or radio pundit does, except instead of producing between three and twenty hours of original published content every week, she managed to squeeze out almost eight minutes of video a week at the height of her productivity. Like any pundit, her authority is strictly based on her smugness. Her entire series is based on highlighting and reacting to negativity in culture and media, and she divides the community further by vilifying and talking down to people who disagree with her. Also her fans are terrible (the more outspoken ones at least).

Not the most eloquent statement, but that about sums up what I don't really like about her. Basically the same stuff I don't like about Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck.

[syntheticgerbil]

Made me think of this:

It always warms my heart every time I see a Calvin and Hobbes strip saying something I would have glazed over as a child but understand and nod my head to now.

[Argobot]

Well part of my dissatisfaction is that I think getting a reaction is pretty interesting. Frankly, I will try to be a little controversial if I think I can learn something. Not a fan of flame wars, but I don't mind magnifying my opinion if I think it'll get a thoughtful response.

Personally, I have no stake in her Kickstarter campaign, I just observed that she hasn't created any new content in nine months (seven if you count the Kickstarter video), which is frankly a really long time to make opinionated YouTube videos of yourself talking. Also I think her videos are pretty lame; she's doing the same thing any TV or radio pundit does, except instead of producing between three and twenty hours of original published content every week, she managed to squeeze out almost eight minutes of video a week at the height of her productivity. Like any pundit, her authority is strictly based on her smugness. Her entire series is based on highlighting and reacting to negativity in culture and media, and she divides the community further by vilifying and talking down to people who disagree with her. Also her fans are terrible (the more outspoken ones at least).

Not the most eloquent statement, but that about sums up what I don't really like about her. Basically the same stuff I don't like about Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck.

If you didn't give her money for the Kickstarter, I don't think you get to complain about how long it takes her to produce content. Her initial goal was for less than $5000 -- a modest amount, I think for producing and editing video content and then also maintaining a website to house that content, especially when this is probably your main source of income. She ended up getting well over that amount because of all the press generated by the disgusting online harassment that was leveled at her. If the harassment hadn't happened, I seriously doubt she would have made more than $5000 and definitely not the amount she ended up with.

So you don't liker her videos -- fine. But maybe the new, post-Kickstarter videos well be better and you'll actually find something of value in them.

[gregbrown]

Also I think her videos are pretty lame; she's doing the same thing any TV or radio pundit does, except instead of producing between three and twenty hours of original published content every week, she managed to squeeze out almost eight minutes of video a week at the height of her productivity.

Whoa there. The Argobot covered a lot of the other points, but this quip jumped out at me: writing, filming, and editing an excellent video is hard and a tremendous investment in time—especially if you don't have a ton of previous experience, or are aiming to push your craft to even higher levels of quality. The work:output multiplier can quickly get quite insane, especially if you're doing all the jobs at once, and have much more scrutiny and much higher expectations than you were planning for from the outset.

[Luftmensch]

If you didn't give her money for the Kickstarter, I don't think you get to complain about how long it takes her to produce content.

Well 1.) no, you're wrong, and I'm not going to debate whether I have the right to criticize her, and 2.) that was just an easy secondary criticism to make on top of the fact that I simply think that the videos she makes. I'll agree that it was a very hollow and baseless complaint to make. I'll stand by my opinion that the central conceit of her videos, telling everyone how terrible pop/nerd culture is with a smug or disapproving expression, is unnecessary and kind of despicable. But I belief in positivity, open two-way discussion (including listening to criticisms and acknowledging fault), and I abhor divisive language and vilification. I don't live up to that very well myself but I try.

[brkl]

So have you been stating your actual opinion in this thread or an exaggerated one to push people's buttons?

[Merus]

I'm also going to point out here that the subject matter she trades in gets the hackles up of a certain type of male, who are generally willing to cut less slickly produced material a lot more slack.

That said, I haven't watched any of her videos so I'd be going off hearsay, but she has the money to spare doing something really good and insightful and is apparently updating her backers so that is all I ask. But I am automatically suspicious of any outside criticism because there's a surprising amount of disingenuous blowback on this kind of topic. For instance, there was a lot of talk about how her project was a 'scam' taking money away from much more deserving projects and then no-one bats an eyelid at Godus, which is very easily summarised as a project by a known overpromiser that took money away from other, more deserving projects. Apparently one's only a problem if it's a feminist doing it.

(More specifically: the very contention that it's a "scam" is problematic. Underlying that attitude is the idea that the issues being presented aren't real or are being blown out of proportion, which is indefensible - particularly because of what happened to the Kickstarter. It's also a very common, reflexive response, so much so that's it's got its own name, "mansplaining". Some of the examples that come up when you Google that are stunning, and, again, they're not isolated incidents.)

But I belief in positivity, open two-way discussion (including listening to criticisms and acknowledging fault), and I abhor divisive language and vilification.

It's pointless to have an open, two-way conversation with someone who believes you don't have the right to an opinion.

[Gormongous]

Yeah, the "tone" argument, while often well-intentioned, is also a weapon used to silence. It's not enough to have valid points, but you have to say them nicely, or they'll be ignored. Meanwhile, the self-appointed arbiters of tone are too often the ones baying for blood at the very existence of those points, so it's a no-win scenario for the underdog here.

Me, I've watched most of Sarkeesian's existing content and mostly find it good stuff. The only way I could view it as "smug" or "disapproving" is if I considered the issues she talks about to be common knowledge and therefore her commentary on them to be gratuitous. Seeing as we just had a major developer offer as a pre-order bonus a headless, limbless, bikini-clad female torso covered in blood, that doesn't seem to be the case (and the existence of a cultural climate that lets shit like this slip by dozens if not hundreds of smart, informed people is exactly why we need words like "patriarchy" to distinguish it from simply the status quo).

And yeah, some of her fans suck. But fans everywhere suck. Fandom is a black hole of human sense and decency. It has no bearing on those around whom it coalesces.

[Ben X]

Frankly, I will try to be a little controversial if I think I can learn something. Not a fan of flame wars, but I don't mind magnifying my opinion if I think it'll get a thoughtful response.

Just quoting this so no one misses it and gets into a debate with Luftmensch without realising his opinions are 'artificially heightened'.

[Salacious Snake]

Yeah, the "tone" argument, while often well-intentioned, is also a weapon used to silence. It's not enough to have valid points, but you have to say them nicely, or they'll be ignored.

This is super common and poisonous. Dissenters are labeled "shrill" or "strident," as if it's a crime to state an opinion with any strength or commitment.

The privileged are accustomed to being handled with kid gloves.

[Argobot]

Well it's nice to hear that other people find value in the Sarkeesian videos. Like I said, sometimes I think she overreaches on her analysis, but most of the critiques she makes are worth considering. Nerd culture does not lack for terrible examples of sexism (hi Dead Island torso lady) and it's nice that there are people who aren't afraid to point out how terrible that stuff can be. That said, Sarkessian isn't the end all be all of feminist pop culture criticism, but she certainly is one of the better known figures, largely because of the harassment she received. It's weirdly encouraging that someone can go through all that grossness and actually come out ahead, makes me less afraid of talking about feminist issues on the internet.

[Argobot]

Oh wait, you know that mild optimist I was just expressing? Well now it's gone because I read this:

"And women no longer need to be beautiful in order to express their talent. Lena Dunham and Adele and Lady Gaga and Amy Adams are all perfectly plain, and they are all at the top of their field."

http://www.theawl.com/2013/01/lena-dunham-adele-lady-gaga-amy-adams-all-very-ugly-says-esquire

Good job everyone!

[Salacious Snake]

Ugh.

Also, somehow I managed to get this far in life without knowing what Esquire was. I mean, I knew it was a magazine, but I had no idea beyond that.

[Nappi]

Oh Jesus.

As pointed out in the The AWL piece, you should definitely read the final two paragraphs of the Megan Fox interview. Pure gold.

[MrHoatzin]

The way the dude rants on about Aztecs and sonteria and the bible is utterly baffling.