Feminism

[Berzee]

I once met a person who thought an anecdote was a trend,

but I'm noticing more and more that I keep meeting people who think trends are anecdotes.

Both of the previous statements are false, but they carry a deeper truth.

[TychoCelchuuu]

Telling anecdotes is a really trendy thing to do.

[Gormongous]

This one time, I told an anecdote.

[ThunderPeel2001]

There's a definite trend of people telling anecdotes lately.

[Erkki]

I actually did understand what Luftmensch was saying, but I don't see how it helps anything -- it's just an issue of classification. If the goal is to reduce harassment of women, then arguing that maybe some of that harassment isn't motivated by sexism is not constructive. Sure, actually other people get harassed too, it's really intolerance of the different that is usually the reason behind it, not specifically sexism, I think. But sexism vs. feminism seems to be a major battlefield in the invisible war on intolerance, so I don't think it helps at all to say that maybe some of what seems sexism really might not be exactly sexism, because that might do nothing but muddy the waters.

[Luftmensch]

Yeah, the whole issue with muddying the debate is why I'm pretty cautious about who I'm talking to, because I don't want to give the kind of people I know would be glad to justify their sexism any kind of ammunition. Since a lot of the concepts are pretty abstract, it's convenient to call out things that aren't sexist per se because they represent sexist trends. Somewhere there's a point where the feminist problem also intersects with a race problem, or an economic problem or, in this case, a cyclist problem. It seems worthwhile to be able to acknowledge common problems and consider them through a more broadly egalitarian lens, rather than partitioning them by political convenience. If that's counterproductive for public debate, fine, don't bring it there.

[castorp]

Waaaaaaaah, the worst can of worms!

 

Sorry for reopening this thread, but The problem is related, it doesn't merit a new thread and it bugs me quite a bit.

 

So, the Wiki article for the 'Bechdel test' ends - under the section 'Limitations' - with the sentence: "She also wrote that it remained to be determined how often real life passes the Bechdel test, and what the influence of fiction on that might be." I took offence with that, as the way it is presented in the article seems to me to imply that yeah, maybe reality is like that, so the fucked up way women are portrayed in media is possibly truthful and thus okay. Also I read the chapter that is quoted (you can find it online) and I thought the question was asked in a very rhetorical way with a strong contextual 'no' as an answer, so for me even the quote-selection is at the least incomplete, if not misleading. (Maybe my reading of said chapter is a bit on the wishful thinking side, but if it was in fact meant as an open question it would kind of invalidate the source, in my eyes.) But my deletion was undone with the comment: "You may disagree with what the source says, but it is on-topic and from a reliable source. [W]e write articles based on what reliable published sources say, no matter what we think about their merits."

 

What do you think? Am I overreacting, misunderstanding?

[Sententia]

I don't see it as a sweeping weighted claim, just an observation in a void.  It's one of those pithy parting shots writers enjoy throwing out sometimes.  Maybe in real life some women talk a lot about men, or are affected by the media they enjoy, but either way I don't consider that to have any broader meaning.  The Bechdel test is to search for a single instance of women talking to one another about anything other than a male character, not to try and weight the ratio of conversation about men vs anything else.

[Codicier]

Waaaaaaaah, the worst can of worms!

 

Sorry for reopening this thread, but The problem is related, it doesn't merit a new thread and it bugs me quite a bit.

 

So, the Wiki article for the 'Bechdel test' ends - under the section 'Limitations' - with the sentence: "She also wrote that it remained to be determined how often real life passes the Bechdel test, and what the influence of fiction on that might be." I took offence with that, as the way it is presented in the article seems to me to imply that yeah, maybe reality is like that, so the fucked up way women are portrayed in media is possibly truthful and thus okay. Also I read the chapter that is quoted (you can find it online) and I thought the question was asked in a very rhetorical way with a strong contextual 'no' as an answer, so for me even the quote-selection is at the least incomplete, if not misleading. (Maybe my reading of said chapter is a bit on the wishful thinking side, but if it was in fact meant as an open question it would kind of invalidate the source, in my eyes.) But my deletion was undone with the comment: "You may disagree with what the source says, but it is on-topic and from a reliable source. [W]e write articles based on what reliable published sources say, no matter what we think about their merits."

 

What do you think? Am I overreacting, misunderstanding?

 

 

I'm not sure deletion is always right answer to these thing, but putting some context in there would seem wholly appropriate. Have you tried talking to the moderator and explained the issue to find out if they would consider the line being amended in some way(rather than deleted) that would satisfy you both? or if you feel strongly enough about this (& as silly as this may seem) have you tired contacting Nina Power, since if your reading is correct I can't imagine she'd be happy to be misinterpreted.

[juv3nal]

So, the Wiki article for the 'Bechdel test' ends - under the section 'Limitations' - with the sentence: "She also wrote that it remained to be determined how often real life passes the Bechdel test, and what the influence of fiction on that might be." I took offence with that, as the way it is presented in the article seems to me to imply that yeah, maybe reality is like that, so the fucked up way women are portrayed in media is possibly truthful and thus okay.

 

I think you're missing an alternate (potential) interpretation which is that patriarchy is pervasive enough that it affects the way people behave in real life (even women when they are speaking amongst themselves outside of the presence of men) and that's a genuinely fucked up thing/probably even more so than the way women are portrayed in media etc.

[Patrick R]

I don't even understand how "real life" could possibly fail the Bechdel test. There aren't really "unnamed characters" in real life, and there is no woman whose entire verbal life has been focused on men. Even as a thought experiment, it just doesn't translate for me.

Also, I realized today that Baby Got Back by Sir Mix-A-Lot almost passes the Bechdel test. The only problem is that the narrator isn't named, while her silent friend Becky is.

[Erkki]

Waaaaaaaah, the worst can of worms!

 

Sorry for reopening this thread, but The problem is related, it doesn't merit a new thread and it bugs me quite a bit.

 

So, the Wiki article for the 'Bechdel test' ends - under the section 'Limitations' - with the sentence: "She also wrote that it remained to be determined how often real life passes the Bechdel test, and what the influence of fiction on that might be."

BALEETED!

[Ben X]

Is there a note on why it was deleted? I don't know how to work Wikipedia. Is it "Not worth mentioning considering the previous sentence, also a dubious question to ask, probably not important for this article"? And which mystery person made this edit? Will it just be undone again by someone else?!

[castorp]

Woah, cool. Thanks Ben. I had too much to do (and still have) to try again to change it (and then getting sucked into an argument with some Wiki-personal about *********). The more I thought about it the less it made sense. As Patrick said, what?, 'Bechdel Test' in reality, how would that?, what?, that is totally stupid. (Yeah, talking about what influence the representation of women in media has on people in reality-world is interesting, but that doesn't validate the first part of that sentence.)

 

(I'm curious whether it will not be changed back this time. I fear that I won't go down that easily.)

[Niyeaux]

The Bechdel test manages to be even more stupid in real life than it is in fiction. Fancy that.

[Ben X]

Woah, cool. Thanks Ben.

 

Not me! I wasn't pretending, I really am that rubbish!

[tegan]

Oh hey, look who's back.

 

 

[Patrick R]

I'd click play but...sigh...those earrings. They just ruin everything.

 

Psyched to watch this.

[Argobot]

I liked this video very much! I think she got over some of the stiltedness that was in the first video and seemed much more comfortable (and enthusiastic) in her delivery. I thought the counter-examples would be in the second video, but given how long this one was, it makes sense that she'd split this trope into three part videos.

 

It was a really great follow up, and pretty damning evidence of how overused the "wife dies, must rescue daughter" or "wife is killed, soul is capture by Satan" plot line is.

[tegan]

I just finished watching it. I felt like there was a lot more "look at how goddamned stupid video games are" in this one, but it needed to be said; and the conclusion toward the end really got its point across much more effectively than the first video.

 

Also, since she preemptively disabled the comments this time, people have been trolling her by reporting the video for TOS violations instead. I'm not a huge fan of them myself, but why the fuck are internet people so offended and full of vitriol at the notion of wanting to discuss issues like fucking adults?

[Twig]

people have been trolling her by reporting the video for TOS violations instead.

Jeeeesus.

 

I still don't like how the first one was delivered. Watching this one now! The fuck do I care, it's twenty minutes, and maybe I'll get something out of it this time!

 

This episode was much better! I liked when she just straight up laughed at the wife-in-arm scenario. It was a very cheesy delivery and pleased me greatly. U:

 

I'm not entirely convinced that the kill-transformed-lady-to-save-lady is really what she proposes it is, though.I feel like saying it promotes domestic violence is, uh, ugh. That borders on the "video games perpetuate violence" argument, which, eh, well. Sure, in the small percentage of people that both can't separate virtual reality from reality AND have the potential and/or tendency for violence against women (or anyone else for that matter), that might have some effect, but those people are mentally fucked, anyway. It's not really fair to just blanket it as "this makes domestic violence seem A-OK!"

 

I'm also not entirely convinced that the line "So, now, I'll take from you!" followed by shooting a dude's lady friend implies that said lady friend is the dude's property, or an object that has been taken from the dude... I think it's certainly indicative of the larger trend of women being the oh-so-weak-and-vulnerable, male-protagonist-driving plot device, but to say that implies the lady belongs to the man is reallllly stretching it. I'm also not saying that THAT particular trope doesn't exist in video games, because I'm sure it undoubtedly does. Can't think of any off the top of my head, but whatever. Point is, she chose a bad example to just off-hand mention it.

 

Still! Overall a much stronger video. Maybe just because it wasn't all the immediately obvious stuff like in the first one. I hope she stays a bit more focused and doesn't try to lump in a trope that, in my opinion, I guess, doesn't really fit.

 

I'm excited for the next one, now.

 

(I'm only posting about what I disagree with because, well, if I listing all the things I agreed with, this post would be a lot longer.)

[I_smell]

Yeah this whole thing's pretty alright. First time around I was kinda underwhelmed that it's more a catalogue of a hundred examples than it is any interesting analysis, but alright I've had time to spot that. There is at least some mention of why these things are and what effects they have.

 

I agree that having all ladies be weeping suicide-bags is a weird, sad trope, but also I agree with Twig that the connection to domestic violence feels like a stretch. Do people hit their wives as a form of helping them in real life? I figured it'd just be people who don't know how to deal with frustration and have a moral code all out o' whack.

But for me to mis-interperet domestic violence is a pretty fair possibility aswel.

 

I DO agree that the woman is an item in the protagonist's possession, in all those examples though.

 

boooooo awkward forced laughter!

boo obscure Green Lantern fridge thing, that wasn't a very intuitive touchstone at all!

 

My favourite screencap.

[Gormongous]

I enjoyed it all the way through. There seemed to be a little more of an edge that suited her, especially the bored repetition of the wife/daughter fridge/damsel mashup. Oh, and a reference to one of the funniest jokes in Wreck-It Ralph. "The most tragic backstory ever."

 

It was also good to hear her go into the way that the revenge fantasies we act out in games damage masculinity by limiting the scripts available to its expression. Getting to that point was worth hearing her overstate the domestic violence and property arguments a bit.

 

About my only complaint is the two references to Hotline Miami. Surely the hyper-violence in the game, which is actually about violence unlike most violent games, is kind of a gimme. Whatever, she was just using it for the images, which certainly are effective.

[Argobot]

Re: games causing domestic violence. I don't think she was actually trying to make the argument that the "kill lady to save lady" is a cause or justification of domestic violence in real life. I think she more was trying to draw the parallels between women 'asking for it:' in the case of games, women are literally asking to be killed by the protagonist; in real life, 'she was asking for it' is used to defend all kind of violent actions against women. My interpretation wasn't that this trope is a mirror of domestic violence, just that it has some gross similarities, and that games writers should think more about those similarities when they're writing this kind of plot.

[Merus]

Yeah, I don't think it's supposed to be a this-causes-that, but more of a 'hey it's a lot less attractive when you remember that things everyone agrees are terrible look a lot like this supposedly harmless thing'.