Author Topic: Anita Sarkeesian is at it AGAIN!  (Read 16826 times)

Ibrahim90

  • Podcast Co-Hosts
  • *
  • Posts: 1841
  • Bogometer: -44
    • View Profile
Re: Anita Sarkeesian is at it AGAIN!
« Reply #30 on: September 30, 2013, 09:44:24 PM »
So 3 videos in and STILL jsut ONE GODDAMN TROPE.

he who lives on the hope of another trope in her videos, will die fasting.
"All you guys complaining about the possibility of guy on guy relationships...you're also denying us girl on girl.  Works both ways if you know what I mean"

-Jesse Cox

Skm1091

  • Bogon filter
  • ***
  • Posts: 893
  • Bogometer: -29
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Anita Sarkeesian is at it AGAIN!
« Reply #31 on: September 30, 2013, 10:05:02 PM »
he who lives on the hope of another trope in her videos, will die fasting.

My bet is that the next trope won't be out for another year or two. :P

nilecroc

  • Guest
Re: Anita Sarkeesian is at it AGAIN!
« Reply #32 on: October 01, 2013, 12:47:34 AM »
What cares what she thinks? She'd say a man holding a door open for women is sexist.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2013, 10:00:50 AM by nilecroc »

Professor_Fennec

  • Futon absorber
  • *
  • Posts: 61
  • Bogometer: 9
    • View Profile
    • Professor Fennec's YouTube page
    • Email
Re: Anita Sarkeesian is at it AGAIN!
« Reply #33 on: October 03, 2013, 06:08:04 AM »

This guy goes into detail about explaining the economics of male disposability and brings up a point of contention against Sarkeesian saying how "patriarchy" was never intended to be a means of male domination over women.  Rather, it is an accident of history and economics.  Hearing a feminist describe patriarchy in non-Marxist terms was refreshing to say the least, even though I still deny the existence of patriarchy.

I deny patriarchy because, although feminine traits might be viewed negatively as week, masculine traits are likewise often viewed negatively as crude or primitive.  If a man is too masculine, he might actually be called a "cave man", "ape" or some other similar pejorative.  It is no less easy to say that patriarchy is the reason men aren't allowed to cry or have empathy as it is to say that matriarchy is the reason women aren't allowed to get dirty, fight in combat or be goal oriented.  We know Feminism uses inherently sexist language because if seeks out equality between the sexes by focusiong only on one of them.  Feminism says that women should be equal to men, but it doesn't ever say that men should be equal to women.  It assumes women have lesser status in society then men, even though men are the disposable sex.  This is why feminism is stupid, yet pointing this out to a feminist will be ignored every time.  Rather then address this very valid point many MRAs point out, they would rather just change the subject or tell you to shut the fuck up. 

dallen68

  • Bogon filter
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
  • Bogometer: -35
    • MSN Messenger - davidallen124@gmail.com
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - djajr
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Anita Sarkeesian is at it AGAIN!
« Reply #34 on: October 03, 2013, 10:15:42 AM »
Quote
yet pointing this out to a feminist will be ignored every time

No, the last thing that will happen is you being ignored. What will happen is you'll have a tirade coming at you ad nauseum, at the end of which you will feel 2" tall, and wondering if you can ever show your face in public again. For your own safety, you understand. If said feminist happens to share accommodation with you, you may find your self on the other side of the door, even though YOU own the house.

What's an MRA?


nilecroc

  • Guest
Re: Anita Sarkeesian is at it AGAIN!
« Reply #35 on: October 03, 2013, 10:20:13 AM »
Part 3 is up

Her criticisms seem to be women in games don't conform to her vision of how women should be portrayed (thank god for that, as they'd all be boring imitations with absolutely no personality or character of their own), so it has to be sexist.

MrBogosity

  • Master of the Bogoverse
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6117
  • Bogometer: -42
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Anita Sarkeesian is at it AGAIN!
« Reply #36 on: October 03, 2013, 11:25:31 AM »
What's an MRA?

Men's Rights Advocate. If anything, it's an even worse title than "feminist."

Professor_Fennec

  • Futon absorber
  • *
  • Posts: 61
  • Bogometer: 9
    • View Profile
    • Professor Fennec's YouTube page
    • Email
Re: Anita Sarkeesian is at it AGAIN!
« Reply #37 on: October 05, 2013, 03:39:41 AM »
Men's Rights Advocate. If anything, it's an even worse title than "feminist."

Until recently, all I have known about Feminism and MRM is what I've learned from Stefan Molyneux and two friends (a sociologist and a social psychology PhD student), so I'm still forming my opinions.  So far, all I have found is a ton of stuff on Feminism but very little on the Men's Rights Movement.  All I can tell is that MRM is a sort of counterbalance to Feminism, filling in the gaps that the gynocentric ideology leaves behind.  Both groups seem to be quite adversarial to one another as well, leading people like Dr. Warren Farrell to say we need a new "Gender Equality" movement.   

Exactly how is it worse to be called an MRA then a Feminist?  I would really appreciate your insight because this opinion you have expressed is unique to all those I have heard before. 
« Last Edit: October 05, 2013, 03:47:07 AM by Professor_Fennec »

MrBogosity

  • Master of the Bogoverse
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6117
  • Bogometer: -42
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Anita Sarkeesian is at it AGAIN!
« Reply #38 on: October 05, 2013, 07:43:08 AM »
Exactly how is it worse to be called an MRA then a Feminist?  I would really appreciate your insight because this opinion you have expressed is unique to all those I have heard before. 

In my opinion, it's one of those "they should know better" situations. As you said, the two sides are adversarial to each other, but being adversarial is the very problem the MRM purports to oppose. They also chose a name that was exactly as gender-exclusive as the feminists they oppose, again ostensibly for that very reason.

That's why I again say it's better to be an individualist. None of that crap comes along with it.

Professor_Fennec

  • Futon absorber
  • *
  • Posts: 61
  • Bogometer: 9
    • View Profile
    • Professor Fennec's YouTube page
    • Email
Re: Anita Sarkeesian is at it AGAIN!
« Reply #39 on: October 05, 2013, 05:36:54 PM »
That's why I again say it's better to be an individualist. None of that crap comes along with it.

Why is this so hard to explain this to people, even to Libertarian Feminists?  It seems straight forward, but I have some clues.

I have a friend who is a Libertarian who is Canadian.  I've mentioned him before as being a social psychologist, but he's also a Feminist.  It gets really hard to discuss feminism because, ironically, I'm dealing with an in-group/out-group wall inside his own head.  He's more sympathetic to and less critical of Feminists, because he's already taken on this identity, and is less sympathetic and less critical of the critics of Feminism.  As for his Libertarianism, that comes mostly from Milton Friedman and no other source. 

The only "big gun" I have to defend my position, because he has the knowledge of and access to all scientific papers that are in his favor, is that sociologists think in terms of social constructs and are very prone to dismiss biological causes that might explain what it is they observe.  In other words, everything looks like a social construct when you are trained to look at things in terms of social constructs, even when you observe things that clearly are not social constructs. This opens the door wide open for all sorts of vial confirmation bias.

When you take a gender biased word like "Feminism" and you say "Hey, that word is gender biased", they always tell you that its justified because we live in a "patriarchy" and Feminism apposes patriarchy, because patriarchy is a social system that oppresses women to the benefit of men.  So then you tell them that patriarchy is an abstract construct that we can't test for, they then pull out all there statistics about who gets the worst deal, and they always paint a picture of women being the victim of society. 

But then you point out things like mother bias in child custody, greater numbers of male suicide and male disposablility and you ask, "If men have it so bad, how can this society legitimately be called patriarchal?" 

"Oh, but you see," the feminists will say, "patriarchy hurts men, too.  You should join us, become a male Feminist and fight patriarchy with us!"  But then you point out how they just told you that patriarchy benefits men at the expense of women, and that they have made a contradiction since they now say that "patriarchy hurts men, too". 

When the conversation comes to this point, they always bring you the trump card "Well, you are just a white male who hasn't experienced what women have experienced, so you just don't get it".  That usually ends the conversation right there.

However, if you continue to dispute feminist claims, they then resort to more ad hominem, calling you names like "rape apologist", "victim blamer" and "bigot".  Just like with Creationists, Statists and Religious apologists, they resort to insults when they have nothing left. 

However, this guy is my friend and a fellow Libertarian.  What can I do to reach him and pull him away from postmodernism? 

Lord T Hawkeye

  • Podcast Co-Hosts
  • *
  • Posts: 1069
  • Bogometer: -47
    • AOL Instant Messenger - Lord+T+Hawkeye
    • View Profile
    • Play Time
    • Email
Re: Anita Sarkeesian is at it AGAIN!
« Reply #40 on: October 05, 2013, 05:53:06 PM »
Quote
However, this guy is my friend and a fellow Libertarian.  What can I do to reach him and pull him away from postmodernism? 

Girlwriteswhat is a great youtuber who does her homework on the subject and they can't pull the "you're a guy so you don't count!" nonsense on her.

One of her best ones where she explains that what women view as priviledge are in fact men being handed the tools they need to fulfill the MANY obligations women happily dump on their shoulders.


A vid by Stefbot that demolishes feminist theory and explains how all this special pleading for women is one of the main causes of violence in society.
I recently heard that the word heretic is derived from the greek work heriticos which means "able to choose"
The more you know...

Professor_Fennec

  • Futon absorber
  • *
  • Posts: 61
  • Bogometer: 9
    • View Profile
    • Professor Fennec's YouTube page
    • Email
Re: Anita Sarkeesian is at it AGAIN!
« Reply #41 on: October 05, 2013, 07:52:16 PM »
Girlwriteswhat is a great youtuber who does her homework on the subject and they can't pull the "you're a guy so you don't count!" nonsense on her.

One of her best ones where she explains that what women view as priviledge are in fact men being handed the tools they need to fulfill the MANY obligations women happily dump on their shoulders.


A vid by Stefbot that demolishes feminist theory and explains how all this special pleading for women is one of the main causes of violence in society.

Those are excellent videos. 

Professor_Fennec

  • Futon absorber
  • *
  • Posts: 61
  • Bogometer: 9
    • View Profile
    • Professor Fennec's YouTube page
    • Email
Re: Anita Sarkeesian is at it AGAIN!
« Reply #42 on: October 05, 2013, 09:40:38 PM »


Wow, even Richard Dawkins is taking a bite out of Feminism. 

Professor_Fennec

  • Futon absorber
  • *
  • Posts: 61
  • Bogometer: 9
    • View Profile
    • Professor Fennec's YouTube page
    • Email
Re: Anita Sarkeesian is at it AGAIN!
« Reply #43 on: October 07, 2013, 12:18:05 AM »

VectorM

  • Bogon shield
  • **
  • Posts: 481
  • Bogometer: -13
    • View Profile
Re: Anita Sarkeesian is at it AGAIN!
« Reply #44 on: October 07, 2013, 11:53:10 AM »
In my opinion, it's one of those "they should know better" situations. As you said, the two sides are adversarial to each other, but being adversarial is the very problem the MRM purports to oppose. They also chose a name that was exactly as gender-exclusive as the feminists they oppose, again ostensibly for that very reason.

That's why I again say it's better to be an individualist. None of that crap comes along with it.

This is why I really do not like the MRA shtick, even though I am subscribed to 2 or 3 people who identify as MRA.