next »

[gimymblert]

If we assume there is "one system" it is still useful to name instance of its component, as it allow to target specific needs.

But however this belief does not hold under scrutiny, consider a rich woman and a poor woman. The rich woman might escape economic pressure but can still life under gender pressure, while the poor woman must life under pressure  of economic term (higher loan rates, gentrification, etc ...) and still under gender pressure, which had to racism if she is from a minority. Each of those problem have specific need and need specific solutions.

But feminism does have a term to define oppression across all type of problems, it's called intersectionality, it's a big fundamental concept in modern feminism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality

[Superb Joe]

i will come right out and say it: i'm not a fan of pizza hut

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

If we assume there is "one system" it is still useful to name instance of its component, as it allow to target specific needs.

But however this belief does not hold under scrutiny, consider a rich woman and a poor woman. The rich woman might escape economic pressure but can still life under gender pressure, while the poor woman must life under pressure  of economic term (higher loan rates, gentrification, etc ...) and still under gender pressure, which had to racism if she is from a minority. Each of those problem have specific need and need specific solutions.

But feminism does have a term to define oppression across all type of problems, it's called intersectionality, it's a big fundamental concept in modern feminism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality

that is poor scrutiny, because you also need scrutiny on the scrutiny. it is the nature of "systems" to contain multiple parts, that is what makes them a system. so yes every system has multiple parts. that's what being a system is! if it weren't composed of multiple parts, it wouldn't even be an entity in this universe, because everything in this universe is composed of multiple parts. for instance, you have your organs, your dna, your limbs, your bad english, and many other parts. but that doesn't mean that those parts are more important than you, or have a life of their own, because if you died, they would all die too (mostly). similarly, if blaggenthorg died, gender pressure and all the other kinds of pressure would also die

intersectionality of course exists as a concept, but generally you hear feminists talk about patriarchy way more than they talk about intersectionality. i mean, when was the last time you actually heard someone use that word outside of an essay? you don't see it very often in daily conversation. it's also notable that it was first named in 1989. that means for the vast majority of its ideological life, feminism *has not* had such a concept. it's a new thing they just invented less than 30 years ago, and still not even commonly known about by most feminists. that isn't really enough

[Superb Joe]

their toppings, even when compared to other pizza chains, are so thin as to be translucent. if pizza is in your name, pizza should be in your blood, and not after it has passed through the intestinal wall. you should be having pizza related infarctions. instead, youre getting stomped by dominos of all people. its maddening.

[rj]

burn games to the ground and start anew

kill media

buy a truck

new game idea: you are a Gamer. you have to kill yourself to save the world. it's an xxxtreme aaa fps, and the trick is figuring out how to shoot the gun so the bullet ricochets back into your decrepit, worthless skull

new game idea: you are a Gamer. you score points for how many people you can make upset. if you win, you get arrested.

new game idea: you are a woman, but you say something, -anything,- about games. you're scored on how well you can let the abuse not bother you. at the end, it always tells you what you could have done better, because it was your fault.


new game idea: you believe games can be art. it's a phoenix-wright-esque argument simulator. you have to reconcile with yourself that you also believe that games shouldn't work to be "inclusive" because that's "caving" to "political correctness." at the end, your opinion is graded on how deluded you are

new game idea: you are Games. you slowly die. there is nothing you can do. it's over. watch in a mirror as your flesh dissolves

[Tazi]

it's a game within a game, within a game, within a game. it's Gameception.

[rj]

it's a game within a game, within a game, within a game. it's Gameception.

this is a funny and enlightening comment

[gimymblert]

If we assume there is "one system" it is still useful to name instance of its component, as it allow to target specific needs.

But however this belief does not hold under scrutiny, consider a rich woman and a poor woman. The rich woman might escape economic pressure but can still life under gender pressure, while the poor woman must life under pressure  of economic term (higher loan rates, gentrification, etc ...) and still under gender pressure, which had to racism if she is from a minority. Each of those problem have specific need and need specific solutions.

But feminism does have a term to define oppression across all type of problems, it's called intersectionality, it's a big fundamental concept in modern feminism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality

that is poor scrutiny, because you also need scrutiny on the scrutiny. it is the nature of "systems" to contain multiple parts, that is what makes them a system. so yes every system has multiple parts. that's what being a system is! if it weren't composed of multiple parts, it wouldn't even be an entity in this universe, because everything in this universe is composed of multiple parts. for instance, you have your organs, your dna, your limbs, your bad english, and many other parts. but that doesn't mean that those parts are more important than you, or have a life of their own, because if you died, they would all die too (mostly). similarly, if blaggenthorg died, gender pressure and all the other kinds of pressure would also die

intersectionality of course exists as a concept, but generally you hear feminists talk about patriarchy way more than they talk about intersectionality. i mean, when was the last time you actually heard someone use that word outside of an essay? you don't see it very often in daily conversation. it's also notable that it was first named in 1989. that means for the vast majority of its ideological life, feminism *has not* had such a concept. it's a new thing they just invented less than 30 years ago, and still not even commonly known about by most feminists. that isn't really enough

The first part is just rhetorics for the sake of things, it say nothing except that the whole is compose of part, but because there is part does not mean there is no whole which is self defeating logic because there is a whole does not mean the part does not have an identity in themselves. And that's my point, the part are independent enough that the whole is inconclusive in their analysis except as a rhetorical device aimed at masking the part, especially when you define that whole as something even more looser and undefined than the part. I mean we had concept such as monarchy before, it died and the type of society it structures died with it, what's the point? Plus the idea is to precisely target the part to make the whole crumble for a new system to emerged.

Notice I use the terms "modern" in "modern feminism", pointing it didn't exist before therefore is completely irrelevant, if the word was invented it was precisely to fill a void that have been identified. New discoveries are made everyday their relevance is not impacted but their ages, I mean how many old concept were rendered obsolete despite their old ages? And saying this word is not use very much as nothing to do with its relevance, all feminist I know (especially in video games) have an implicit understanding of the concept, generally they don't just defend women but minority in general, intersectionality is implicit in termes like LGBTAQ as it aim to reunite struggle that were views as separate before and introduce socio economical concern in the discourse (which is the mark of intersectionality). When you read indie dev like Mattie Brice and Meritt Kopa attacking the industry through a consumerist and capitalist lenses it is intersectionality. I can also point to the problem of black women in feminism who cumulate all the problem and whose view cannot be explain if you take appart those concept.

However I get that people like you don't hear the word often if they stay outside teh circle of discussion where these words happen, pretty much like any people outside of gaming is likely to have heard about seiklus. Does not reduce their impacts. Most peoples, maybe like you, see only the discourse through the lenses of "major" events like zoe quinn or ferguson, even though the "exceptional" quality of cases is that they break into "mainstream", generally there are not so exceptional outside the case they get notice by regular people.

I don't see you making compelling logic case as much as I see you hiding behind rhetorics as they manipulate concept and does not refer to any reality.

[gimymblert]

http://thenewinquiry.com/features/tni-syllabus-gaming-and-feminism/

Many of the thinkers and designers on this list disagree, even vociferously, with one another; this list is not meant to represent a singular viewpoint, nor to imply that feminism is in any way univocal. Nor is this by any means an exhaustive or comprehensive list. It is instead meant as a useful and evolving resource.

List of feminist work inside gaming

[Sik]

Dear gosh https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/506868395841581056

Doesn't help when the police doesn't take it seriously -_-'

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

The first part is just rhetorics for the sake of things, it say nothing except that the whole is compose of part, but because there is part does not mean there is no whole which is self defeating logic because there is a whole does not mean the part does not have an identity in themselves. And that's my point, the part are independent enough that the whole is inconclusive in their analysis except as a rhetorical device aimed at masking the part, especially when you define that whole as something even more looser and undefined than the part. I mean we had concept such as monarchy before, it died and the type of society it structures died with it, what's the point? Plus the idea is to precisely target the part to make the whole crumble for a new system to emerged.

Notice I use the terms "modern" in "modern feminism", pointing it didn't exist before therefore is completely irrelevant, if the word was invented it was precisely to fill a void that have been identified. New discoveries are made everyday their relevance is not impacted but their ages, I mean how many old concept were rendered obsolete despite their old ages? And saying this word is not use very much as nothing to do with its relevance, all feminist I know (especially in video games) have an implicit understanding of the concept, generally they don't just defend women but minority in general, intersectionality is implicit in termes like LGBTAQ as it aim to reunite struggle that were views as separate before and introduce socio economical concern in the discourse (which is the mark of intersectionality). When you read indie dev like Mattie Brice and Meritt Kopa attacking the industry through a consumerist and capitalist lenses it is intersectionality. I can also point to the problem of black women in feminism who cumulate all the problem and whose view cannot be explain if you take appart those concept.

However I get that people like you don't hear the word often if they stay outside teh circle of discussion where these words happen, pretty much like any people outside of gaming is likely to have heard about seiklus. Does not reduce their impacts. Most peoples, maybe like you, see only the discourse through the lenses of "major" events like zoe quinn or ferguson, even though the "exceptional" quality of cases is that they break into "mainstream", generally there are not so exceptional outside the case they get notice by regular people.

I don't see you making compelling logic case as much as I see you hiding behind rhetorics as they manipulate concept and does not refer to any reality.

modern feminism was old even in 1989. modern doesn't mean 'present', just like modern art includes some art from 100+ years ago. feminism has a long history, and to say only anything in the last 3 years or something is 'modern' isn't true, modern feminism was very developed long before you or even i were born

also, it's not just rhetoric, your original claim was rhetoric. the process of the argument was:

me: these multiple systems are actually one system, with one source, one root cause, so they should have one name
you: but multiple parts of any system need names
me: but everything has a part and a whole, saying something has parts doesn't mean it isn't also a whole
you: that's just rhetoric!

but the original second statement was rhetoric too -- that it is a whole but is composed of parts. how is that not just rhetoric? of course everything has parts, but that doesn't stop it from being a whole interconnected system either -- so you used a rhetorical device to say i'm wrong, and then when i answered the rhetorical device, you indirectly (but correctly) called your own original objection rhetorical

but anyway, basically you admit that everything i say is true, but don't want to admit my conclusion is true (that the patriarchy doesn't exist except as a tiny part of a larger system, and that you can't fight a part of a monster alone, it's like trying to fight the head of a hydra). i am just saying to go after the heart of the monster, not the extremities. and the heart of the monster is the state. it created patriarchy, racism, homophobia, etc. -- the true feminist is also necessarily an anarchist

[SirNiko]

Dear gosh https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/506868395841581056

Doesn't help when the police doesn't take it seriously -_-'

This doesn't provide enough information to suggest the police aren't taking this seriously - it isn't clear if she had provided them the full story at the time of that statement. If somebody came to me and told me they were being threatened at work my first suggestion would also be to try and find a new place of employment, as a means of immediately escaping the danger and disruption. Doubly so if the threat is widespread enough to make tracking through digital forensics extremely difficult.

As unfortunate as it is, police departments have to deal with a lot more pressing and probable threats than teenagers upset over internet videos. Anita would do well to buy a weapon and learn how to use it to protect herself in the unfortunate situation that somebody might attempt to follow through on a threat. Relying singularly on the police for protection is foolhardy even when they are taking the threat seriously.

Hopefully, though, the police do get involved and track down at least some of the individuals responsible - death threats are never appropriate under any circumstances, regardless of intent to follow through.

[gimymblert]

@paul

At least you finally reveal your true card: anarchy

BUT

Your summary is incomplete and that you are right does not mean I'm automatically wrong.

Let's unravel this more closely!

1. You don't get to define when modern feminism start to be modern to win an argument, because modern mean that we are talking to the up to date version, which does include intersection, there is a reason it was inlcude in feminism and it was to adress shortcoming : P nice try

2. Within your own summary you failed to report the point I was making, ie that because the whole exist independently of its part does not mean the part does not exist on their own. A circle of flower is still a circle if made with fire even though the parts are different however a square of fire or flower is still not circle despite sharing similar part.

Similarly you know we can have vastly different game base on similar rules or even assets, as long the structure itself is different. It's not so much these parts need name but that they are also independent element from the whole, the whole forest vs trees dilemma. That one is true does not preclude the other to be true, a forest is made of tree does not preclude trees from existing. It works both way it's a non argument!

So that first part was already a way to demonstrate the shortcoming of your rhetoric, my second statements is more about calling a cat a cat as it does little to be a real argument.

Effectively, while it explain why you think that way, it explain very little about why you don't think patriarchy exist nor demonstrate it does not exist. Nor you demonstrate how patriarchy is effectively inside a bigger system you failed to define entirely at that point. That's why your statement is rhetorical, while in previous post I make a case about why patriarchy exist and is essential to define feminism, and how it produce gender role even in its anthropological definition mechanically. Not such things with your statements.

3. Regarding your example with a monster, you can also say that targeting vital part is essential to bring the monster down, ie attacking the heart or the brain who happen to be part, also correctly identifying part also allow to have control of the fight by understanding the interaction between them, ie understand them as a "system", i our monster metaphor it mean that to aim for the vital part you need to weaken the monster first like cutting appendices to reduce option to the monster. BTW that's how hercules dealt with the hydra, he burned the head so it could attain a vital part and land the final blow.

4. You haven't demonstrate the relation of the state with feminism problems at all, so the truth assertion not an argument but a belief. BTW bringing down the state does not mean that the social practice is brought down with him. If anything reality shows that the state lean favorably in terms of law toward feminism but the social practice does not follow. And if anything patriarchy is what allow the state to continue as it effectively target part of the population and weaken them by blocking access to resource, effectively allowing control of it's individual against themselves, that's why in the law he can pretend to be feminist and not enforce this value, it allow itself to escape criticism and appease the weaker element. Patriarchy enforce the state not the other way around, because institution are born from the power of the few.

A good example of this is how socio economical pressure have increased after the first social action of feminism like increased gendered toys add (like lego or video games who were gender neutral at first) letting society taking care of its member despite the law. BTW patriarchy transcend gender roles as we see that through the ages, even when gender attribute reverse the power remain ties to men, the last example of this is the reverse perception of who is "the childlike sex driven idiots incapable of managing money", use to be women, now its men, without power or prestige switching hand at all.

[MeshGearFox]

I'm being completely serious -- and this is probably the only serious post I've made here in the last four years -- but tigsource has legitimately made me dislike women and transpeople.

Good job, guys.

[starsrift]

I'm being completely serious -- and this is probably the only serious post I've made here in the last four years -- but tigsource has legitimately made me dislike women and transpeople.

Good job, guys.

Don't blame being a hateful person on us. That's just avoiding responsibility for a poor attitude.

[jamesprimate]

i get what paul is saying about patriarchy being one manifestation of a larger system of human societal power dynamics (Foucault!), but thats drawing a pretty pretty arbitrary distinction. its forgetting the trees for the forest, or saying continents dont matter "because planet", etc etc. even choosing to argue over that distinction seems like the one of the more insidious symptoms of patriarchy to me: smart people rationalizing an inability to empathize.

its not surprising that patriarchy isn't an important concept to even many progressively-minded men, hence the rise of the term "bro-gressive". But it is a pretty delusional position. The effects of patriarchy are very real, very harmful (for everyone) and extremely easy to observe.

for instance i was just reading about a very interesting example: Better Identification of Viking Corpses Reveals Half of the Warriors Were Female, flipping the current paradigm on its head. researchers re-examined viking grave sites and, lo and behold, half those buried with warrior honors were women.

the takeaway from this isnt that women can be strong warriors, that should be obvious to anyone who has met an actual human women in real life. the takeaway is that the previous paradigm of "no female viking warriors" resulted from the original archaeologists simply labeling every grave with a sword as "male" by default WITHOUT EVEN LOOKING. (great science there guys.) this in turn provided decades of psudeo-scientific bullshit for misogynists to suggest that women were are weaker sex, etc etc., and even extends to our own little corner of the world where misogynist gamers argue that women shouldnt be in their sword fantasy games because "historically, women werent warriors. they only raised children."

that, my friend, is patriarchy: a group of male scientists project their own preconceptions about women into their work. did they do it on purpose? likely not. just in their world view the possibility of female warriors simply never occurred to them. but that lapse had long lasting consequences that continue to be felt today, affecting our very perception of the world. and this is just one instance that i happened to be reading about right before this thread. imagine an entire history of this. that is patriarchy.

[s0]

1. You don't get to define when modern feminism start to be modern to win an argument, because modern mean that we are talking to the up to date version, which does include intersection, there is a reason it was inlcude in feminism and it was to adress shortcoming : P nice try

there's a valid argument somewhere in there which is actually an inner-feminism controversy: apparently many feminists (particularly white cis middle class feminists) only pay lip service to intersectionality. it just becomes a bullet point along the lines of "uhhh btw we're against racism and transphobia too" without them really acting on it. so u could say intersectionality doesn't yet have the same relevance in activism that it has in theory. (http://www.autostraddle.com/its-time-for-white-feminists-to-stop-talking-about-solidarity-and-start-acting-240166/)

[FARTRON]

I'm being completely serious -- and this is probably the only serious post I've made here in the last four years -- but tigsource has legitimately made me dislike women and transpeople.

Good job, guys.

you never liked women you liar

[gimymblert]

@ca
Or I mostly lose to the feminist that aren't cis white middle class, they don't seem to be very popular in game where feminism is more about the queer lgbta kind mixed with the racist lecture we got recently. BUt yeah I'm aware of this divide between WOC and white feminism.

edit:
Do white feminism perceive as the canon feminism?

[Superb Joe]

many feminists (particularly white cis middle class feminists)

theyre the worst kind!