Hello! Since the chatterbox really isn't for big ol' posts I have started this thread. Please feel free to discuss feminism and the objectification of women; both in relation to video games and in general. Please Behave Yourselves!

A Primer

THIS IS FEMINISM


THIS IS NOT


here are some posts to get the discussion flowing or whatever

well okay here is my response to RAV I guess. Though I doubt I can top that Beaton comic.

Re: RAV

I would argue that feminism is in fact increasing in popularity. it is far more prevalent than it was even five years ago. Largely due to the growing interconnectivity of our world. And once again I think that the fact that you think that feminism doesn't represent the modern woman is an ignorant one. Not all of feminism is representative, a lot of it is niche sure, but as a whole it does aim for a broad gender equality. You know to close the pay gap, reduce the epidemic (at best) of sexual assault and to gain a broader and less sexualized depiction of women in the media. You cannot tell me the things I just mentioned are not relevant to modern woman or represented in the feminist debate. Focusing the way you are on presumably the more esoteric or inflammatory parts of feminism is tantamount to building a straw man argument against what is in actuality a much bigger movement.

Once again, the patriarchy is a useful term for the reasons I explained earlier. You example is somewhat baffling to me, So a company highers women not out of a sense of sexism or equality but economic need? okay, i'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say with this but for one that situation is hardly representative of the modern world in general, so... ???

As well, I think you are the one simplifying the debate on prostitution. It is much more complex than simply an economic problem. Otherwise we would be seeing equal proportion of genders engaged in prostitution in low economic demographics. Prostitution is a deep and complex topic that contains economic factors sure but also intersects with sexuality, culture religion, puritanical victorian ideals, sexism, classism ect ect ect. Its a complex topic, and continues to be debated even within feminism. Which is fundamentally a good thing. And notably, the word patriarchy retains use within these debates.

Purely looking at it from a perspective of sexism isn't entirely helpful sure. but neither is looking at it from purely economic terms. and I can assure you that feminist debates have looked at it from all these angles.

Honestly I don't know what the spirit of a man is. But if I have any advice it's to try to not see the sometimes overgeneralized and sometimes heated feminist debates as characteristic of the entire movement. Don't take it personally dude.




Edited by AlcopopStar - 23 September 2013 at 3:13am

I am not disagreeing with you for the sake of disagreeing. And if you are taking about specific parts of feminism the onus is on you to be specific. Feminism is a global movement.

I would remind you that you were the one making large generalized statements and strawmaning feminist arguments. Which in my mind is worth responding to.

I don't know where you live but I would suspect based on the content of your previous arguments that you are probably mischaracterizing the feminism local to your country. If your country has a pay gap, higher rates of sexual abuse and disproportionately gendered political engagement then your country needs feminism. Full stop.

I would also note that I wasn't moralizing prostitution, I was simply saying it's complex and that complexity is reflected in feminist discourse. You are the one simplifying the debate to purely economic terms and if you don't see the inherent danger in that i'm not sure what to tell you.

Edited by AlcopopStar - 23 September 2013 at 4:14am

You are just not reading what I am writing. I can't make any progress here.

I think our greatest misunderstanding is this exactly, looking at Jeremy's primer:
"Feminism: The advocacy of women's rights on the ground of political, social and economic equality to men".

Sounds simple enough. Of course our misunderstanding is not about the basic principle of this, as you suggest.
Rather it is about the details in practice. That the practice of it at times over-extends the basic definition too much.

For example, does this include the rights of a fantasy woman as drawn by an artist?
Because this is what started our discussion, and is brought up often, the critique of artwork, based on feministic terminology, like sexism.

This is what I see symptomatic for a deeper misunderstanding throughout many matters of gender rights.

I do realize that many of the points of feminism are quite considerate actually, when it comes to:
* equal rights,
* equal opportunities
* protection of women from abuse.

The open question is not the basic principle here, but the extend of what needs to be done to ensure a realistic level of fairness. To what degree can this fairness be guaranteed, what degree of guarantee is reasonable to expect, what is to be done practically, and in the end what public rights possibly infringed.

The concern here is, that while some women that feel victimized in some form, understandably have a very high demand for security, the demanded degree of guarantee might be so unrealistic in practice, that the measures taken to yet ensure it nonthless, might go overboard on infringing the personal rights of men, such as an artist drawing women in some way, if not by legislation, then by social stigmatization. It is similar to child protection in politics, where on that notion, that guise, no infringement on public rights seems too overboard. That is a question of Safety versus Freedom.

While the most basic form of adressing these concerns is entirely reasonable, it is an open question where the right balance is, how far we should go, how far it makes sense to go, before the costs are in no relation to effects. It is in this glide-factor, where the extremism hides on the open end, maybe in any kind of movement. I find the notion to make an artist responsible for the speculation on how his work might affect the equality and safety of real women, absurd and extreme. I find the discourse on matters like pornography and prostitution off-shot. And the vocabulary putting men to general suspicion demeaning.

What have these matters to do with the simple definition of feminism above?
Or have they rather more to do with exactly those caricatures shown beneath it.
By an insatiable longing for security of the weakest, that makes even reasonable feminists at times loose scope and scale.

Or by the title of this topic: "thank you Mario, but our princess rescued herself!"
If the princess has truly saved herself, why is she so worried... even about Mario, not just King Koopa.

So, maybe you think that doesn't apply to you personally or feminism at large, maybe you think my input is useless, frustrating and not to be taken serious, rather than to be aware of in your discourse. Or you think you know it all already and are in no need for any advice, maybe as to prove your emancipation to independence. At the same time, it's difficult to feel included in your movement when I feel my concern is not given appreciation but is met with much scorn, on the notion that I am such an incredibly priviliged man, what do I know. And the way I was treated here and put off-road, to me it might as well read as "shut up and sign up! function man, function in my service, your own concerns are rediculous, your needs don't matter, only my worries do".

Edited by RAV - 23 September 2013 at 5:47pm

I think this is your misunderstanding not mine. I am aware of what feminism is.

Your argument is that an increased need for security (?) which is somehow unrealistic (?) leads to legislative or social rules on the way artists can draw women? I mean, a little, maybe? I don’t really think the debate is one of security unless it’s a question of rape culture. Where I feel a stigma against those that fetishize rape is appropriate.

In terms of general sexualization, I really don't think anyone is infringing on your right to draw butts and boobs man. There may be a general stigma when the media in question is creepy, or lacks respect, as with robin thickes blurred lines video, but that's fair enough and a level of criticism will be present with anything that is considered culturally inappropriate. You may as well complain about the fact that society doesn’t let you wear blackface anymore.

Here I would say that this is not really debate between safety and freedom, it's one between objectification and respect.

I mean women, who have typically culturally been reduced to sexual objects, have the right to complain about the gratuitous amount of sexualization that happens in almost every form of visual media.

Now I would note here that I don’t think sexualization is intrinsically wrong. But has been made problematic due to massive disproportional representation in our culture.

These things have been explored at great length in feminist discourse, and there are varying opinions on the subject. implying otherwise is ignorant at best if not downright disingenuous. You are saying what feminism needs without understanding what feminism has.

The bottom line is sexualization is not going away. Really the best way to make sexualization more acceptable is to fight for equal representation, be that the sexualization of men or the characterization of women.

Edited by AlcopopStar - 23 September 2013 at 5:54pm

The debate of objectification exists within the feminist discourse, my opinions of course can only represent a specific part of that discourse.

Also, perhaps it would be sensible, if you feel a miscommunication is taking place, to re-compile your argument now that there is a dedicated thread for this subject.

I feel part of the issue is that complaining about the problematic parts of feminism without claiming to be a feminist yourself seems somewhat... trite? a little vindictive maybe? and typically leads to a kind of characterization of the feminism that tends to appear on MRA reddit boards.

Edited by AlcopopStar - 23 September 2013 at 7:01pm

I’m not here for a narrative, i'm just here to debate your arguments. which I have done.

Reading back on your earlier posts you seem to vaguely attack feminism only to later say your points are provincial and specific?

Its like watching an atheist arguing against religion by only bringing up fundamentalists.

You claim that everyone has there own version of feminism, and you are not wrong there, but I feel that out of everyone in this debate you in fact have the most personal and threatening version of all.

I would post examples, but that would put you at risk of being "out of context and skewed" so I guess there is nothing left to say.

I am really unhappy with how this went down. Really unhappy. This is what went wrong here:

I wrote a little poetry slam thing for fun that was not to be taken completely at face value, and was more about how it sometimes *feels* reading a lot of the feministic debate, and most relevant how it relates to art. It was more to mirror that venting, of how a woman feels sometimes about sexism she faces, from a man's perspective how he feels about facing all those accusations about sexism. Basically, like I would understand a woman's frustration about her situation at times, I wrote a little perspective piece so that she could understand how the situation feels for a man as well. It was more about understanding how it feels, you know.

When AlgopopStar responded to it, shown in Jeremy's opening post here, he did in a way that's too literal for what I meant this to be. Can't blame him. And his response really is not wrong and quite good actually, I approve of it. Problem is I wrote a hell of a lot this evening, really, and got a lot of hard flag, and he caught me up fresh at my weak point when I got really damn tired and should have just gone to bed, and from there it went downhill, with my lowest quality post of the evening, also in Jeremy's opening post (hate you Jeremy =) and some of the petty hick hack followup.

Look. This all got a bit carried away too much because too many issues got mixed into the discussion thoughout the course of the evening. The main point was the worry about objectification in art. I find that an extreme expression in the feministic discourse, as I layed out, in a concrete common way, not strawman way. Regarding this, the only relevant post here of mine is the one about the Fairness&Security versus Personal Freedoms, and that I feel lately in some of the debate that the personal freedoms got too much disregarded compared to nebulous arguments of how it might affect Fairness&security (and why the effect is overrestimated, I wrote much earlier in the chatterbox as well).

AtcopopStar, I understand your first response and agree completely, it is how I think of it as well (when I'm not drunk&tired), just that I felt the need to also represent the other side for once, relatable to art. On our first encounter, I felt misunderstood in my intention and caught up as I got, instead of clearing it up, played right into it and got derailed even more, misunderstanding myself in that moment, if that makes any sense.

Do you understand my problem here, cascade of events, and find it somewhat relatable, even if weird?


Edited by RAV - 24 September 2013 at 2:19pm

I am glad we understand each other fairly.
I place more value in a productive collaboration than in gentle voices.

Your consideration is reasonable and agreeable.
There is a level of provocation that you can't expect people to tolerate.

My reason for bringing it up was because of witnessing particular debates, on PJ and Pixelation, heated over content that I found harmless. Cup-size this, ass-shot that, whatever. On the mere notion of objectification by itself, it was argued it's wrong, categorically, by how it would shape the behaviour of men, and possibly be a setback to feminism. I know this line of thought is tempting, but I also found it absurd. This is why I wanted to open up the discussion and bring in other vocabulary to look at this problem from another angle than from where it was discussed before, so that seemingly self-evident conclusions could be re-evaluated. Maybe in this context, things I've said before make more constructive sense.


Edited by RAV - 25 September 2013 at 2:49am

Since the chatterbox is volatile content, I'll paste my earlier comments about that here, selected and slightly modified to fit this topic:

1.
Frankly, I find it annoying how the problem of sexism is being trivialized by throwing that term at all those other contexts that are neither bad nor dangerous, such as art or advertisement or entertainment. Some zealots go so far as to call everyone sexist by having a sexual interest, and pity or damn those that like to appeal in whatever manner. I think it goes without saying how ill-minded and inhuman that line of thought is.

2.
But the way these fantasies shape our lives is much more complex than a -> b.  In gaming, 99% of themes are about some form of violence. Does this make us killing machines? Newsflash: those parts of the world with the most gaming are the most peaceful; those parts of the world with the most liberal art/ads are the fairest; and in spite all that grotesk amount of porn and perversity these days, there is this huge romantic wave coming with young people. Violence and sexism weren't created by art and ads, they are processed in art and ads, they won't go away by debating and restricting art and ads, and they have never been worse than in a history of little to no art and ads, and how exactly what affects us is largely hysteric speculation.

4.
I haven't challenged that these things are wrong where it applies: real life, real issues, real context. Violence is the wrongest thing of it all, yet you get all giddy when stomping that Goomba or making your moves in FF:Tac. You would say, it doesn't tell you violence is right, it's just fun playing it out. Yet some wtf-hentai strip supposedly tells you sexism is ok, go for it. Or is this cognitive dissonance compensated by crusading fictional sexism ever so more rigorous? Trying to solve real problems by "correcting" fiction is non-sense and most likely counter-intuitive. All progress has been made in non-fictional ways, at ease with fiction. Because no matter how wrong it is, it is part of how the mind works innately, it is here to stay one way or the other. Rather have it be the other, and not hate yourself for it. Objectification is quite an involved topic really, neurologically and philosophically.

5.
Furthermore, sexism is not just about men being a problem to women, but also women being the problem to other women: it is way too flat to just see men subjecting women to their motivation, it is also women having an intrinsic interest in searching/inventing/innovating an advantage over other women when it comes to attracting attention of men, and other women trying to nullify that advantage by moralization. It's part of the natural game that women and men play a game of objectifications and affection on each other. Actually, it's quite fun. Of course what's not fun is being forced into one certain role you don't want. But variation is key. Our fantasies today are too varied, for that one fantasy would be wrong/bad instead of just fun. People are different, people need and have fantasies, it's ok, even if not real life. But people do know the difference, and if not then they got other issues. The formation of our persona out of all these influences is far too complex than it makes sense to speculate over the effect of a particular influence in general, or denunciate even as much as moderately sexualized content. We must trust people and their fantasies in a benefit of doubt.

6.
Come and listen
to my heart beat
girl, this man
is so sad and angry
don't tell me I'm wrong
I'm a man, I'm just a man
don't tell me I'm bad
there are things of me
didn't choose to be
and I can't help it
can you like me how I am?
can you make me happy?
playing me along the way?
I like to see you happy girl
I play any role for you repayed
we play together everyday
we play whatever we'd like today.

7.
Don't hate roles
create more roles!
more, more, more!
roles for everyone!
your job as an artist is
to make life interesting
more ART, more everything
not less art
of this kind or that kind
you sit down and create more art
of another kind
CREATE you know, not the easy way out
telling other people to unhappen
that their art is wrong
that they are wrong
that there is something wrong with them
you have no idea what this is doing
worse than what their art is doing
god help us all.

You're drawing her a stripper
-- a reduction you objectified
you're drawing her a captain of the guard
-- a reduction you objectified
you're drawing her a good housewife
-- a reduction you objectified
you're drawing her a mighty adventurer
-- a reduction you objectified
you exagerate her body features
-- a reduction you objectified
you bestow her personality
-- a reduction you objectified
...

You objectify it all
it is your delusion to think you're not
when you honestly believe you're not
what ever you imagine, it's all your fetish
your ideology, your mood, your fantasy
it's what you'd like to see or be
what you think is good
but what is good for her
is not up to you.

That is not to say
drawing her one way
is wrong and bad
it is to say draw everything
right whatever way.

Imagine, artist, fantasize it all
you don't have to like it all
you look what others do, why it bores you
and make something else that's interesting
you. make. something. else.
and then you make all the same too
and all the variety of it
is fun, inspiring, good and true.


Edited by RAV - 25 September 2013 at 3:33am