Author Topic: Anita Sarkeesian Discussion  (Read 9465 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ultimate Paragon

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8423
  • Gender: Male
  • Tougher than diamonds, stronger than steel
Re: Anita Sarkeesian Discussion
« Reply #15 on: November 16, 2014, 04:15:22 pm »
Because I think this is necessary.

While I have little respect for Anita Sarkeesian as a public personality, I do not recognize her as someone worthy of either mockery or admiration, much less hatred. Therefore, I see no reason to have a topic specifically for her as an individual.

*snip*

Okay. How are we supposed to react to this?

Get outraged over her claim that school shootings are ALWAYS commited by men? Sure, she did state in another tweet that "only" 98% of school shooters are male, something you know very well since it was present in the image you coincidentally edited out... but I guess a sweeping generalisation in a format limited to 140 characters is still an unforgivable crime.

Perhaps that book she's promoting is one we are supposed to know and hate? Apparently not, since you claim not to know the name of its author Dr. Allan Johnson..

What about her thesis that "ideas of toxic masculinity" are to blame for school shootings? I guess you could construe that as misandry...

Or maybe it's the very use of the word "patriarchy" that should have us up in arms.


Because Anita used a tragic shooting to plug a book that quoted her.

... oh.

I mean, self-promotion in a perfectly relevant context is already such a HUGE breach of ethics. But promoting a book because she appears in the cover of the latest edition, therefore increasing her visibility to people that are already following her? The fiend! The witch! She should be burnt at the stake for this!

The "toxic masculinity" thing is another major reason to be upset.  I mean, imagine somebody blaming pedophilia on "toxic homosexuality".  Fact is, most men don't commit mass shootings.

Offline Ironchew

  • Official Edgelord
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1888
  • Gender: Male
  • The calm, intellectual Trotsky-like Trotskyist
Re: Anita Sarkeesian Discussion
« Reply #16 on: November 16, 2014, 04:24:53 pm »
It's toxic gun culture, not toxic masculinity (though the two can overlap in theory).

Why start a thread about this, though? This is clearly going to devolve into another GamerGate thread, so why not just keep it all there?
Consumption is not a politically combative act — refraining from consumption even less so.

Offline ironbite

  • Overlord of all that is good in Iacon City
  • Kakarot
  • ******
  • Posts: 10686
  • Gender: Male
  • Stuck in the middle with you.
Re: Anita Sarkeesian Discussion
« Reply #17 on: November 16, 2014, 04:37:26 pm »
So it took you this long to make a topic about the third pillar of Gamergate eh?

Ironbite-why does this movement hold such appeal for you?

Offline SCarpelan

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1084
Re: Anita Sarkeesian Discussion
« Reply #18 on: November 16, 2014, 04:50:49 pm »
The "toxic masculinity" thing is another major reason to be upset.  I mean, imagine somebody blaming pedophilia on "toxic homosexuality".  Fact is, most men don't commit mass shootings.

In gender studies the processes that reproduce both masculinities(sic) and femininities(sic) are criticized. I read Sarkeesian's tweet as referring to the toxicity of admiring the capability and readiness for violence in most masculinities. Yes, she could have formed her tweet better if this is the case but she only has 140 characters. This is related to something that I've started paying attention to thanks to a FB friend who often links stuff from the MRA sites. When a feminist doesn't remember to carefully define or explain the terms they use for people who are not familiar with them people seem to interpret them as most offensive way they can based on the premise that the person is a raging misandrist. (As a sidenote: most victims of violence are also men so men also stand to benefit from the feminists criticizing this aspect of reproduction of masculinities.)

I don't care much about Sarkeesian because of her dishonesty but in this case she didn't say anything worth outrage.

Offline Murdin

  • Bishop
  • ***
  • Posts: 141
Re: Anita Sarkeesian Discussion
« Reply #19 on: November 16, 2014, 05:24:20 pm »
The "toxic masculinity" thing is another major reason to be upset.  I mean, imagine somebody blaming pedophilia on "toxic homosexuality".  Fact is, most men don't commit mass shootings.

You're just catching at straws at this point. But hey, look, I can do this too! You said that blaming school shootings on men is comparable to blaming pedophilia on homosexuals. But the fact is that an overwhelming majority of school shooters ARE male, while most child molesters are not homosexual. Therefore, you are a homophobe for making this comparison. See how fucking stupid it was?

I feel like I'm stating the obvious but... when Saarkesian addresses "toxic ideas of masculinity", she is not blaming maleness in itself, but cultural constructs around it that she qualifies as "toxic". Your comparison implies that she holds senseless, largely unprovoked killing sprees as something inherent to the nature of men, when in fact she's stating the exact opposite.

Heck, the entire point of her "Tropes vs. Women" series is to point out what she sees as the expression of "toxic ideas of femininity" in video games.


It's toxic gun culture, not toxic masculinity (though the two can overlap in theory).

School massacres are not limited to shootings.

Offline Second Coming of Madman

  • Some of Internet Jesus
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1543
  • Gender: Male
  • Cisscum Internationale Society
Re: Anita Sarkeesian Discussion
« Reply #20 on: November 16, 2014, 05:31:16 pm »
Murdoch Spawn, you do make my hate boner so obvious right now.

Also, didn't Lizard already make this damn thread already? I motion for merge.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2014, 05:36:11 pm by Second Coming of Madman »
@KanzlerImaginos - Feel free to drop me a line.

Quote
Toddlers get too much exercise, they wouldn't make good veal.

Offline Murdin

  • Bishop
  • ***
  • Posts: 141
Re: Anita Sarkeesian Discussion
« Reply #21 on: November 16, 2014, 05:39:03 pm »
Murdoch Spawn, you do make my hate boner so obvious right now.

Because I took UP's obvious bait, or for some other obscure reason?

If this is because of my "positive" comments about Sarkeesian... honestly, I can't believe I'm defending this artwork-stealing, footage-stealing, can't-be-bothered-to-play-the-games-I-criticize hack. Or rather, I wish I could say that, but the batshit insanity of most of her "critics" is just impossible to ignore.

Offline Second Coming of Madman

  • Some of Internet Jesus
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1543
  • Gender: Male
  • Cisscum Internationale Society
Re: Anita Sarkeesian Discussion
« Reply #22 on: November 16, 2014, 05:45:07 pm »
No, it's because you didn't use the cane on UP by page 2. We could have prevented this all with a good old fashioned vaudeville hook.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2014, 05:46:42 pm by Second Coming of Madman »
@KanzlerImaginos - Feel free to drop me a line.

Quote
Toddlers get too much exercise, they wouldn't make good veal.

Offline Ultimate Paragon

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8423
  • Gender: Male
  • Tougher than diamonds, stronger than steel
Re: Anita Sarkeesian Discussion
« Reply #23 on: November 16, 2014, 06:04:55 pm »
Murdoch Spawn, you do make my hate boner so obvious right now.

Because I took UP's obvious bait, or for some other obscure reason?

If this is because of my "positive" comments about Sarkeesian... honestly, I can't believe I'm defending this artwork-stealing, footage-stealing, can't-be-bothered-to-play-the-games-I-criticize hack. Or rather, I wish I could say that, but the batshit insanity of most of her "critics" is just impossible to ignore.

"Most" of her critics?  Do you have any evidence to back up that claim?

Murdoch Spawn, you do make my hate boner so obvious right now.

Also, didn't Lizard already make this damn thread already? I motion for merge.

No, he made a thread about female representation in video games.  This is a different subject matter.

Offline Canadian Mojo

  • Don't Steal Him. We Need Him. He Makes Us Cool!
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1770
  • Gender: Male
  • Υπό σκιή
Re: Anita Sarkeesian Discussion
« Reply #24 on: November 16, 2014, 06:08:47 pm »
...artwork-stealing, footage-stealing, can't-be-bothered-to-play-the-games-I-criticize hack...

Now those sound like some good reasons to dislike someone.

Offline Tolpuddle Martyr

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3716
  • Have you got thumbs? SHOW ME YOUR FUCKING THUMBS!
Re: Anita Sarkeesian Discussion
« Reply #25 on: November 16, 2014, 07:57:08 pm »
Oh, joy! Another GG thread!!11!!!1!

This is not about GamerGate.
So what non-GG things have she and her associates done to invoke your ire?

How about this?

*tsunami of paint*

Bloody hell, you asked him that?

Offline Tolpuddle Martyr

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3716
  • Have you got thumbs? SHOW ME YOUR FUCKING THUMBS!
Re: Anita Sarkeesian Discussion
« Reply #26 on: November 16, 2014, 08:13:08 pm »
The "toxic masculinity" thing is another major reason to be upset.  I mean, imagine somebody blaming pedophilia on "toxic homosexuality".  Fact is, most men don't commit mass shootings.

That would probably be because homosexuality is attraction to the same sex and pedophilia is attraction to children, as evidenced by the fact that the victims of pederasts can be of any gender and heterosexual pederasts clearly exist so their isn't a link between homosexuality and pedophilia except insofar as both involve sex.

Masculinity is associated with aggression, at least in it's current cultural context and a mass shooting is an undeniably aggressive act. So one could indeed draw a link between the act of a mass shooting and masculine cultural expectations. Hence the link is stronger than the supposed link between pedeophilia and homosexuality.

I suspect it's a good deal more complicated than that, the social and psychological precursors to a violent act like a mass shooting probably involve a stew of factors but it's notable that a lot of mass shooters were lonely frustrated men and aggression is one possible reaction to frustration so I wouldn't rule social expectations of masculinity right out as a potential factor.

Offline Canadian Mojo

  • Don't Steal Him. We Need Him. He Makes Us Cool!
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1770
  • Gender: Male
  • Υπό σκιή
Re: Anita Sarkeesian Discussion
« Reply #27 on: November 16, 2014, 09:03:52 pm »
Oh, joy! Another GG thread!!11!!!1!

This is not about GamerGate.
So what non-GG things have she and her associates done to invoke your ire?

How about this?

*tsunami of paint*

Bloody hell, you asked him that?
All I did was hand him the rope. What he did with it was up to him.

Offline ironbite

  • Overlord of all that is good in Iacon City
  • Kakarot
  • ******
  • Posts: 10686
  • Gender: Male
  • Stuck in the middle with you.
Re: Anita Sarkeesian Discussion
« Reply #28 on: November 16, 2014, 09:13:54 pm »
So he hung himself is what I'm getting?

Ironbite-also, why the hell is this the thing he gets so up in arms about?

Offline davedan

  • Lord Cracker
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3539
Re: Anita Sarkeesian Discussion
« Reply #29 on: November 16, 2014, 09:15:36 pm »
How about this?

Meh.

If anything it looks like you should be focusing most of your attention on Mr. Dr. Johnson (he has a pH.D. in sociology) since his work seems to be the inspiration and created the paradigm Anita works within.

Who's Dr. Johnson?

That is a bit of a credibility annhilating reply. I would make a quiet retreat UP.