Topic: How feminism is so toxic
Anonymous A started this discussion 10 years ago #51,332
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 53 minutes later[^] [v] #665,242
@OP
*tips fedorum*
*tips fedorum*
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 58 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #665,244
feminism as a simple core concept is not necessarily toxic
what is toxic is overly facile, specious, fatuous, presumptuous, and combatative vocabulary and discourse that only serves to piss people off who would otherwise be friendly to the core cause
the result is greater popularity of attention-craving assholes who find ways to profit from anti-feminist sentiment that grows in the general population
patronizing terms such as "mansplaining" help no one, and the natural response for people adverse to buzzword nonsense is to mock it with "cuntsplaining".
what is toxic is overly facile, specious, fatuous, presumptuous, and combatative vocabulary and discourse that only serves to piss people off who would otherwise be friendly to the core cause
the result is greater popularity of attention-craving assholes who find ways to profit from anti-feminist sentiment that grows in the general population
patronizing terms such as "mansplaining" help no one, and the natural response for people adverse to buzzword nonsense is to mock it with "cuntsplaining".
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 20 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #665,247
kook !!mCVqftDha joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 34 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #665,253
@previous (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
Coming from the group that fixtates on pronouns and trigger warnings. Oh okay.
Coming from the group that fixtates on pronouns and trigger warnings. Oh okay.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #665,255
@OP
Nice strawman.
Hey, let me build one of you. It's an obese neckbeard in a fedora, who screams about how SJWs control the world every time anything vaguely progressive happens.
Nice strawman.
Hey, let me build one of you. It's an obese neckbeard in a fedora, who screams about how SJWs control the world every time anything vaguely progressive happens.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 20 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #665,257
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #665,258
Feminism. If they build it, it will cum.
(Edited 11 seconds later.)
kook !!mCVqftDha replied with this 10 years ago, 13 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #665,259
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 10 years ago, 12 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #665,260
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 58 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #665,271
@previous (Sheila LaBoof)
> what is toxic is overly facile, specious, fatuous, presumptuous, and combatative vocabulary and discourse that only serves to piss people off who would otherwise be friendly to the core cause
> Words hurt my feewings ;_;
Man the fuck up. Thanks.
> what is toxic is overly facile, specious, fatuous, presumptuous, and combatative vocabulary and discourse that only serves to piss people off who would otherwise be friendly to the core cause
> Words hurt my feewings ;_;
Man the fuck up. Thanks.
kook !!mCVqftDha replied with this 10 years ago, 38 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #665,282
@665,260 (Sheila LaBoof)
He's saying that it's okay for women to have their feelings hurt by words, but not men. Progress.
He's saying that it's okay for women to have their feelings hurt by words, but not men. Progress.
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 39 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #665,324
kook !!mCVqftDha replied with this 10 years ago, 25 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #665,353
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 50 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #665,354
kook !!mCVqftDha replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #665,423
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 10 years ago, 4 hours later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #665,529
Lt. Judy Hopps joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 49 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #665,541
@665,423 (kook !!mCVqftDha)
@665,354 (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
if you haven't already noticed men are all already spineless crybabies just look at this thread
100% spineless crybabying
@665,354 (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
if you haven't already noticed men are all already spineless crybabies just look at this thread
100% spineless crybabying
Metæ joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 2 hours later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #665,546
If Anita Sarkeesian is unhappy with women in video games, why doesn't she make her own videogame with an ideal female character? If she can get $100,000 to make a couple of YouTube videos I bet she could get a million dollars for a videogame. It doesn't have to be an over-the-top AAA game either, it could be an indie game. Anita could get some feminist coders, artists, and writers together, do a social media campaign and really show the rest of the industry how it's done. I bet the big studios like EA would even sponsor it.
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 12 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #665,551
@previous (Metæ)
Have you ever watched any of her content?
She's actually making very sound, straightforward points, with the crux of her argument being that stereotyping needlessly limits female characters into certain roles or behaviours.
It's not really a case of "she needs to do it herself to prove she's right", because she's making some very straightforward arguments.
Have you ever watched any of her content?
She's actually making very sound, straightforward points, with the crux of her argument being that stereotyping needlessly limits female characters into certain roles or behaviours.
It's not really a case of "she needs to do it herself to prove she's right", because she's making some very straightforward arguments.
(Edited 19 seconds later.)
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx double-posted this 10 years ago, 12 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #665,553
@previous (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
That said, a video game made by her could be interesting, but I don't think it's something she needs to expend effort on to validate what she's saying.
That said, a video game made by her could be interesting, but I don't think it's something she needs to expend effort on to validate what she's saying.
(Edited 1 hour later.)
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 34 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #665,555
@previous (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
She certainly doesn't have to make a videogame. But if her aim is to improve the portrayal of female characters in video games, it would help advance that. It doesn't even need huge production values or commercial success but just to be a prototype or a concept for positive female characters in video games. Instead of saying "this is bad" say "it should be like this".
Think of Communism. Marx and Engels could have spent their lives making (entirely valid) criticisms of capitalism — and they did do that — but they also wrote a manifesto laying out their vision for what society should be like. A little book, only 100 pages or so and you can read it in an hour or two and get a good understanding of not just what's wrong with bourgeoisie capitalism, but also what should take its place, and how.
Anita Sarkeesian needs a manifesto, and since she works in the realm of gaming, it should be a manifesto in video game form.
She certainly doesn't have to make a videogame. But if her aim is to improve the portrayal of female characters in video games, it would help advance that. It doesn't even need huge production values or commercial success but just to be a prototype or a concept for positive female characters in video games. Instead of saying "this is bad" say "it should be like this".
Think of Communism. Marx and Engels could have spent their lives making (entirely valid) criticisms of capitalism — and they did do that — but they also wrote a manifesto laying out their vision for what society should be like. A little book, only 100 pages or so and you can read it in an hour or two and get a good understanding of not just what's wrong with bourgeoisie capitalism, but also what should take its place, and how.
Anita Sarkeesian needs a manifesto, and since she works in the realm of gaming, it should be a manifesto in video game form.
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 43 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #665,557
@previous (Metæ)
> but they also wrote a manifesto laying out their vision for what society should be like. A little book, only 100 pages or so and you can read it in an hour or two and get a good understanding of not just what's wrong with bourgeoisie capitalism, but also what should take its place, and how.
Anita already has that with her (very popular and accessible) videos. They clearly lay out a given problem, explain why it detracts from female characters in gaming, and explain how to improve upon things. She's not merely saying "this is bad", she already clearly presents the better alternatives and how to attain them. They are already her "manifesto".
So, I therefore question if there is such a thing as a"magic bullet" of a game that could somehow crystallise her points in a way her lectures and videos haven't. Positive examples for the things she criticises are already out there, so there's not like this hypothetical game would be a first example of a game that portrays women fairly.
Again, as an aside (that probably detracts from my argument, ha.) I would be interested to see what a game from her might be like. I just don't feel it's necessary to "complete" her argument.
> but they also wrote a manifesto laying out their vision for what society should be like. A little book, only 100 pages or so and you can read it in an hour or two and get a good understanding of not just what's wrong with bourgeoisie capitalism, but also what should take its place, and how.
Anita already has that with her (very popular and accessible) videos. They clearly lay out a given problem, explain why it detracts from female characters in gaming, and explain how to improve upon things. She's not merely saying "this is bad", she already clearly presents the better alternatives and how to attain them. They are already her "manifesto".
So, I therefore question if there is such a thing as a"magic bullet" of a game that could somehow crystallise her points in a way her lectures and videos haven't. Positive examples for the things she criticises are already out there, so there's not like this hypothetical game would be a first example of a game that portrays women fairly.
Again, as an aside (that probably detracts from my argument, ha.) I would be interested to see what a game from her might be like. I just don't feel it's necessary to "complete" her argument.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #665,561
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 26 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #665,563
Anonymous J replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #665,565
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 8 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #665,566
@previous (J)
Svet is also fond of saying he isn't Svet, even when he's making no effort to disguise his text voice. But all right, I believe you, for the moment.
Do you want to try and actually debate my points, then?
Do you disagree with Anita's central point, that female characters in games shouldn't be stereotyped just because they're female?
Svet is also fond of saying he isn't Svet, even when he's making no effort to disguise his text voice. But all right, I believe you, for the moment.
Do you want to try and actually debate my points, then?
Do you disagree with Anita's central point, that female characters in games shouldn't be stereotyped just because they're female?
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 2 hours later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #665,585
@previous (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
I tried watching a few of her Tropes vs. Women videos and I didn't see Anita offering any sort of suggestions for improvement. Just criticizing a litany of videogame characters (some really old and obscure) as being sex objects and/or damsels. Some of her arguments made absolutely no sense like her criticism of Ms. Pac Man for being Pac Man with a bow. It was 1980 and that was pretty much the limit of computer graphics at the time.
What bugs me about it is that male characters are heavily trope based, too. And no, I don't want Tropes vs. Men because games have to be a bit exaggerated and unrealistic to be fun. If you take it too seriously you end up with Depression Quest which has a great message but makes drying paint look thrilling.
I tried watching a few of her Tropes vs. Women videos and I didn't see Anita offering any sort of suggestions for improvement. Just criticizing a litany of videogame characters (some really old and obscure) as being sex objects and/or damsels. Some of her arguments made absolutely no sense like her criticism of Ms. Pac Man for being Pac Man with a bow. It was 1980 and that was pretty much the limit of computer graphics at the time.
What bugs me about it is that male characters are heavily trope based, too. And no, I don't want Tropes vs. Men because games have to be a bit exaggerated and unrealistic to be fun. If you take it too seriously you end up with Depression Quest which has a great message but makes drying paint look thrilling.
(Edited 31 seconds later.)
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 43 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #665,588
@previous (Metæ)
> I didn't see Anita offering any sort of suggestions for improvement.
I am pretty sure the message is "don't do these things". Seems pretty straightforward to me.
> criticizing a litany of videogame characters (some really old and obscure)
As a gamer, I found that level of research impressive and helpful for her argument. She's not just lazily taking a clutch of modern, mainstream video game characters. She looks across gaming's history to show how these problems have persisted and evolved over time.
> Some of her arguments made absolutely no sense like her criticism of Ms. Pac Man for being Pac Man with a bow. It was 1980 and that was pretty much the limit of computer graphics at the time.
She's using that a part of a larger point, though. The point being that female knockoffs of male characters are often just the male character, but with added feminine accessories or colours. Even in games where there are no such graphical limitations. The point being that female characters are often limited to these colours or accessories, whereas male characters aren't really as limited.
She does also talk about Ms. Pac Man's cartoon appearances. Where there aren't graphical limitations but the same things still apply.
> What bugs me about it is that male characters are heavily trope based, too.
Anita is pointing out that female characters are more beholden to gendered tropes, so she focuses on them. But she does also say that she thinks that gendered tropes being enforced are bad altogether, and that having an overly concrete division between character genders is wrong. Sounds like a pretty egalitarian message to me.
> because games have to be a bit exaggerated and unrealistic to be fun.
Sure, sure. I don't think anybody here is saying that all games need to be dull, grey blobs. Anita basically just saying that these factors affected female game characters are too widespread, and are often done for questionable reasons.
> I didn't see Anita offering any sort of suggestions for improvement.
I am pretty sure the message is "don't do these things". Seems pretty straightforward to me.
> criticizing a litany of videogame characters (some really old and obscure)
As a gamer, I found that level of research impressive and helpful for her argument. She's not just lazily taking a clutch of modern, mainstream video game characters. She looks across gaming's history to show how these problems have persisted and evolved over time.
> Some of her arguments made absolutely no sense like her criticism of Ms. Pac Man for being Pac Man with a bow. It was 1980 and that was pretty much the limit of computer graphics at the time.
She's using that a part of a larger point, though. The point being that female knockoffs of male characters are often just the male character, but with added feminine accessories or colours. Even in games where there are no such graphical limitations. The point being that female characters are often limited to these colours or accessories, whereas male characters aren't really as limited.
She does also talk about Ms. Pac Man's cartoon appearances. Where there aren't graphical limitations but the same things still apply.
> What bugs me about it is that male characters are heavily trope based, too.
Anita is pointing out that female characters are more beholden to gendered tropes, so she focuses on them. But she does also say that she thinks that gendered tropes being enforced are bad altogether, and that having an overly concrete division between character genders is wrong. Sounds like a pretty egalitarian message to me.
> because games have to be a bit exaggerated and unrealistic to be fun.
Sure, sure. I don't think anybody here is saying that all games need to be dull, grey blobs. Anita basically just saying that these factors affected female game characters are too widespread, and are often done for questionable reasons.
kook !!mCVqftDha replied with this 10 years ago, 28 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #665,592
Anonymous J replied with this 10 years ago, 6 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #665,597
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #665,599
Adam Djensen joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 12 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #665,600
kook !!mCVqftDha replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #665,607
Anonymous E replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #665,611
kook !!mCVqftDha replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #665,614
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 10 years ago, 55 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #665,629
@665,588 (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
tropes tropes tropes *fart*
Who can take seriously wrtinting like that
I think by the usage, the better word in the context is "cliche".
tropes tropes tropes *fart*
Who can take seriously wrtinting like that
I think by the usage, the better word in the context is "cliche".
(Edited 6 minutes later.)