Males Who Hate & Fear Anita Sarkeesian Should Read These Posts by Male Writers to Understand What They're Missing (Since They Won't Listen to Anita Sarkeesian)

Last week's NWN posts about Anita Sarkeesian are covered in an accretion of sock puppet replies and arguments so off-base, inaccurate, or plainly confusing, to try and even understand them is to risk getting dumber in the process. (There's lots of worthwhile comments in these posts too.) So to start this week off, here's some good posts to reference. Ironically, they're all by male writers, but the thing is, since Anita Sarkeesian's angriest, most off-base critics are male and are rejecting her arguments essentially because she's female, they're not likely to listen otherwise:

The New Statemen's Ian Steadman does an in-depth look at and refutation of the most common criticisms directed at Sarkeesian, all of which have shown up in comments here on NWN. (Such as links to the widely-distributed video purporting to prove she's wrong about a mission in Hitman: Absolution.)

But why would gamers manufacture so much outrage over one woman's opinion? It speaks to their feelings of powerlessness and being ostracized, which Devin Feraci at Bad Ass Digest unpeels from a sympathetic point of view:

Let me tell you where these kids are coming from, because I used to come from there. The first thing that’s happening is that they’re mostly males who are socially unaccepted. They’re outsiders, losers, weirdos and freaks. And most of them aren’t just male, they’re white males. What’s happening is that these men are feeling powerless in their own lives, and then along comes someone like Anita Sarkeesian telling them that as white men they are the MOST powerful group in the world. And that they should be aware of this privilege and they should be careful how they exert it. Imagine the confusion this causes. These kids feel like the bottom of the heap, ignored and hated and mocked and here comes this woman - who is successful and admired and gets Joss Whedon to retweet her videos - telling them that they’re actually part of an invisible system keeping her down. This simply can’t compute for these guys.

Not only Joss Whedon, but also Rian Dundon, the director of the next Star Wars movie, and Elijah Wood, and many more cool geeks, support Sarkeesian's basic thesis. Which inspired me to make this Tweet which was just nicely favorited by Cliff Bleszinski, lead designer of the Gears of War games (so that's another uber-geek on Sarkeesian's side):

Speaking of which, on The Escapist, this -- Saints Row Writer Accepts Anita Sarkeesian's Critique of His Games:

"I think it's fair to be called out on your shit," he said. "I think that it's a sad man that can never be self-reflective. I think that we tried to go and carry ourselves with respect, and try to respect sexuality and respect gender as much as we can, and sometimes we fail but hopefully we'll do better and continue to get better."

And finally, on the criticism of "cherry picking" (something Sarkeesian is often accused of), this elegant analogy on Gamasutra from game designer Tadhg Kelly... followed by a plea to sanity:

If you saw an otherwise hilarious movie that took 30 seconds out to go on a diatribe against black people, most reasonable people wouldn’t say “hey the movie’s only 1% racist, therefore not racist”. Of course it’s racist. The cherry, as it were, taints the whole of the rest. It calls it into question. The joke about tying women to back of your horse in Red Dead Redemption is uncomfortable, and it makes the rest of the play experience uncomfortable too. My understanding of what feminists like Sarkeesian are saying is essentially “why do these cherries have to be there” - and that is more a question for game makers than players.

The plea to sanity part? This:

[I]f you’re not seeing your viewpoint reflected anywhere except in in the bowels of 4chan and some isolated angry YouTubers that evoke widespread distaste, when the broad and disorganized commentariat is shaking its collective head at the madness, perhaps it’s time to consider that your assumption of a silent majority just isn’t real. That maybe you made it up in your head. Or if you still think that you do represent a silenced majority, perhaps you should do something real to prove it.

Then again, one can always make more angry anonymous comments on blogs.

New Statesmen post via Boing Boing. Please share this:

Tweet

Comments

[FredTheGamer]

Wow, one more article about Sarkeesian on the "games are sexist" theme?

"Last week's NWN posts about Anita Sarkeesian are covered in an accretion of sock puppet replies and arguments so off-base, inaccurate, or plainly confusing, to try and even understand them is to risk getting dumber in the process"

- Wooah, is that your readers of this blog you're talking about? I think that is a unwise way to put it, because you will alienate what I suspect is the majority of your readers.

Well, who am I to judge, it's you blog man..

[Galatea]

NWN: "...perhaps it’s time to consider that your assumption of a silent majority just isn’t real."

FredTheGamer: "...because you will alienate what I suspect is the majority of your readers."

I love how the comments on these articles always demonstrate the truth of what's said in the articles.

[FredTheGamer]

Galatea, I'm starting to change my mind about this article.. some of the posts here actually feels like they make you dumber when you read them..

If you take the time to read my post again, I expressed concern about the Words chosen to describe the recent blogpost replys on this topic. I suspect the majority of the readers get offended if they are bashed over the head like that. And that will result in a alienation scenario where you instead of "winning people over" drive people further away from your viewpoint.

Finally, and this may come as a shock to you, but just because someone writes something on a blog, it does not automatically make it the truth. And in this particular case it's hard to know what is the truth or not - as we have no polls or any other means of measuring peoples opinions about this topic, and what the "silent majority" Thinks or not.

However, that was not my point with my reply, my point (becuase you likely missed it.. so here's a second chance!) is about the attitude towards the readers and commentators of these blogposts.

Enjoy the rest of your day!

[Sjöfn Stoneshield]

This week on the blog Vanadis Ser I reveal the strong economic interests and which fundamentally misogyny and misanthropy that abound on the six sim in Second Life. Today I describe sexual cannibalism. There are men who quite seriously imagines that women become sexually aroused by being strung on a skewer and grilled alive. Nothing could be more wrong. Whoever thought that the witch hunt ended in Salem in 1693 are wrong. It continues undisguised still applies today just in other forms. In Second Life, released all inhibitions. The reason for the witch hunt is the same now as then. Afraid sexual neurotic men. PS Sensitive readers be warned of strong images DS

[Sam Peters]

These kinds of posts would be much more convincing if the arguments were actually of any substance instead of a whole lot of stereotype bashing, there is nothing about the content that she has put out, just alot of dancing around concepts like cherry picking and analysing the most aggressive immature reactions. Wow so shocking that some men have gotten on the bandwagon. The entire gaming community has been peddling this almost just for click bait. How is any of the content of this blog post even new? Most of the articles written about Sarkesian are by men anyway, both good and bad.

I don't agree with the harassment that Anita has been getting, although it seems no more than alot of others would get, but they are from anonymous trolls on the internet. The official media however that peddles almost as much bile and stereotypical hatred to anyone who might be critical of her really is weird.

I thought the whole point of Anita's purpose was to open the whole field of the industry for debate about sexism and lazy game development, instead it's just turned into a media circus that paints feminism as one, scholarly and fairly unrigorous kind, with brow beating and shaming anyone who disagrees.

There are some great intelligent posts that have been written that are supportive of Anita's cause, although they often provide a better critique of the games she reviews than she does, and they're not filled with the same blatantly bias shame tactics that many of the main websites use, of which Iris seems to emulate. And on the other side of the spectrum there are as many reasonable and apt critiques of her work that are respectful.

What is telling is the onslaught of every famous games blog/ website that just uses her name as click bait and an opportunity to man bash, their point of view is almost as hateful and offensive as the immature tweats they love to smugly beat down and use as poster child's of the whole gaming community that puts the argument on a binary moronic lockdown. You are barely any better than the 'mansplainers and mysognists'.

How is branding anyone who is even remotely critical, no matter how well spoken or reasonable about it, with the following description fair?
"They’re outsiders, losers, weirdos and freaks."

As one of the commentators who is probably being labelled as correlating with the post's title, I have to say I don't hate or fear Anita, I don't think she's an awful person or wish her any harm. I do think she's not a great critic, and while she may deserve credit for simply bringing up the issue (though she's hardly the only one or the best), I can't ignore the distortions of her message, methods, or the whole game industry's not just one sided, but aggressive response. And neither am I scared, ultimately the consumers will dictate where the industry goes. Most of the gaming demographic is not mysognistic, or anti progress, many people moan about the same tired products being put out, but nor is it want of nanny state censorship, or reading it's kind in half assed arguments on the biggest gaming websites. It's a growing knowledge that many big games websites are full of cronyism, corruption, and being hype machines, largely because it's quite a small insular community, the fact they all copy eachother is just cause for more 'gamers' feeling like they are not being represented.

My greatest hope for this issue is that it will be picked up by much more responsible feminist/s, who actually respects the gaming community, who will give a more balanced, deep, and useful critique, where the media opens everything up for debate and it doesn't turn into some weird vile war. I find it vile that Anita may be credited for starting that, when there are many more responsible and accurate feminists who have been there long before her, and would be better for the job. I've read some very insightful posts on either side of debate but not on here at NWN, or the links provided in various numerous posts.

[Arcadia Codesmith]

I think Steadman is on to something. Research has correlated prejudicial attitudes with lower intelligence and impaired reasoning ability, handicaps that are also associated with failure in many other aspects of life.

Although gamers as a whole are often stereotyped as young white male low-status "losers", that's a small and shrinking proportion of the player base (which, paradoxically, still views itself as the overwhelming majority -- severe cognitive dissonance).

In point of fact, although they might have the (invisible to them) benefits of white male privilege, they are subject to pervasive structural and institutionalized classism.

And the classists at the top of the heap have been very clever in manipulating the inherent gullibility of the uneducated to gain support in weakening the same legal protections that keep the classists in check, often by pointing them at OTHER oppressed groups.

It's all very perverse and diabolical.

[Sam Peters]

Classic Arcadia Codesmith, all over the place. Last time you were comparing the 'losers' to sociopaths now it's low IQs, I suppose that's going up in the world at least.

[Arcadia Codesmith]

It never ceases to amaze me that people who can barely put together a coherent sentence nonetheless find time to put words in other people's mouths.

[RULosingHair]

Do you want to make yourself ridiculous?

[FredTheGamer]

Arcadia: Sam can hardly put coherent sentences together? Wow I think I found the problem right here, people are not listening and discussing with each other, instead it turned into a verbal trenchwar, and there are thirteen on the dozen of those on the internets - moving on..

[Sam Peters]

There you go again, just an unfair insult with nothing to back it up which is what I called you out on.

How did I put words in your mouth?

"Research has correlated prejudicial attitudes with lower intelligence and impaired reasoning ability"

Last time: http://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2014/08/feminist-frequency-death-threats.html#comments
It was:
"Anybody who responds to a point of view they don't like with a threat of physical harm or death is suffering from a serious mental illness and needs to be under treatment and constant observation.
Anti-psychotics may be more to the point than prison rape."

They are internet trolls, wrong for sure but equating it to mental illness/psychotic inclinations is an incredibly self righteous, misleading view.
"Jane Primrose said, "That's quite insulting to the majority of people with mental illnesses, who do not threaten or harm others."
I'm offended that you're insulted. The existence of violent psychopathy has no bearing on the experience of a person with clinical depression or bipolar disorder."

[Adeon Writer]

Responding to trolls, the ultimate timewaster of the digital age.

[Arcadia Codesmith]

Perhaps you're right, Adeon. I have no idea how to respond to people who conflate brutal threats of death and dismemberment with the pervasive background noise of routine prejudice.

[FredTheGamer]

TKO awarded to Sam in the first round. And I suspect this topic is a bit exhausted since not many new from the "silent majority" speak up with fresh views and insights.

I have though a little about this, and maybe why its so hard to find a compromise or a little patch of common ground to stand on is that her views are expressed in a cherry picking and in my eyes biased way and presented to fit into her and her followers agenda. It makes the debate and views very polarized. And we end up take pot shots at eachother from the ideology trenches instead. Because we love games, have extensive experience and consider ourselves to be somewhat experts and know these games.

Meanwhile in the real world people are SWAT team trolling fellow online gamers by faking a distress call resulting in a deadly and fully armed SWAT team making a forced entry and strap down the victim of the "prank" until they realise its a fake distress call, costing tax payers thousands of dollars and impose significant danger. Now that is a real issue along with "threats are no big thing" culture.

[Iggy]

Insecure white men, afraid of losing status? Next thing you know, they'll be blamed for buying huge pickup trucks, pit bulls, and assault weapons in order to look tough in a world they can't understand. After all, their fathers exuded an easy confidence and the world was theirs to roam like young gods.

Tut tut. Such men are not behind any of the world's problems.

On the other hand, two thumbs up to game-designers and players who see validity in her critiques and remain gracious. Now that is manly.

[Pussycat Catnap]

@FredTheGamer:

How should she present her research then, if not in a "Cherry picked" way?

When you do research, and present it - aren't you supposed to present specific examples of your data in order to make your point?

When I took my writing courses in college, I recall being told that for writing a 'persuasive argument' I would need to do just that:

1. Present my Issue.

2. Show some examples that specifically back it.

3. Analyse each example to show why I feel they back my point.

4. Write a nice conclusion for my paper.

The 'IRAC' format is a variant of that in the legal world: Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion.

In science I think you have something similar in the scientific method...

Hypothesis, theory, experiments, conclusion?
(that's out of my knowledge, so I'm guessing there.)

So... if you had the same evidence as her, how would you make her point differently?

As someone who, myself, also tends to argue my points very passionately - and often too much so... And then gets people who, when I examine them - hold almost identical worldviews to me... but then backlash against me for my 'delivery'...

That's a question that's on my mind a lot...

How should the points / argumentation / data be presented...

Presume for sake of argument that you had the exact same data she came back with... Presuming all her data was valid, how would you suggest she present it?

That's my problem with the critique of 'cherry picked' - I'm not sure how else one is supposed to go about that presentation.

[Arwyn Quandry]

Hi. Girl here. If you need proof, search my avatar name on this blog, there's a post with a picture of me RL. Post titles like this are insulting to all the women who disagree with Anita. I have legitimate reasons for issues with her work (among them: questionable fundraising, lack of content, low-quality content when it's produced and deliberate baiting).

Assuming that the only reason someone dislikes the view of a blogger is because of their gender is pretty seriously sexist. I'm not going to believe someone because of their gender, I'm going to believe them because of their facts, and if a female's facts are off, she's not more believable than anyone else. Assuming otherwise is, again, really sexist.

[Ciaran Laval]

The stereotyping in some of the linked articles is not remotely helpful, nor does it appear to have any actual evidence to back it up.

There seems to be a game of pass the parcel on who it's trendy to insult and stereotype. Long time Second Life users should know better than to base opinion on such stereotyping.

[Pussycat Catnap]

@Arwyn: "I have legitimate reasons for issues with her work (among them: questionable fundraising, lack of content, low-quality content when it's produced and deliberate baiting)."

Ok, those are criticisms that make more sense than the word 'cherry picked'. I can see some of them, don't agree with others, and am not yet of opinion on a few.

I'd like to see a criticism of her that was very detailed, but did not reek of misogyny, and did not try to pretend her central claim that there is a problem with depictions of women in gaming was untrue.

Or at the least, did not go onto its own misogynistic rant. Of the detailed criticisms of her work that I have seen thus far... they all read like ad homonim attacks and misogynistic rants.

No one (that I have thus far read) gives a long breakdown, that manages to remain itself unbiased, as your short criticism has done.

(And yeah I know with my strong opinions on things, I might seem like the last person to be asking for a rational critique that avoids the realm of bashing... but yes, that's what I'd need in order to be able to re-evaluate my opinions.)

To me... it reads as if the primary "rational" issue with her is her presentation, and maybe the strength of her conclusion (the degree of the problem) - but not with the general 'hypothesis' that the issue she presents exists.

But many of her critics cannot avoid revealing their own nature and strong anti-woman bias... so I'd love to see one that manages to just rationally break it down.

[Ugh]

I guess, if they replace Anita with a male in next video, result will be pretty much the same.
To Pussycat Catnap: you talked about "scientific research method" few comments ago. I just wanted to tell you, not every research gives any significant result. But problem is, Anita already took the money...
(conclusion goes here)

[Sam Peters]

@ Pussy Catnap and anyone else interested:

Here is one of the only few official criticisms of her videos from a professional gaming blog Destructiod, that is not even a little bit aggressive, deragoratory, or bashing, if anything it's quite humble and honest critiquing:

http://www.destructoid.com/a-response-to-some-arguments-in-anita-sarkeesian-s-interview-230570.phtml

The comments below the article also lacks the tit for tat of name calling and insults of most other sites, pretty reasonable all round really.

In my view the problem by and large is not Sarkesian herself I think, she's just giving her view of things but the almost uni-lateral aggressive backing of every big gaming site.

[Pussycat Catnap]

@Sam: I'll go read that when I have time, and before I get involved in the debate again.

[Pussycat Catnap]

@Sam: OK, read that. Really good food for thought there.

Some of her videos show some pretty egregious stuff going on. But that article also shows some very good counter arguments in some of the things she mentioned in their interview.

So this is perhaps where we get to the 'cherry picking' statements - which seem loaded... but I think I get where they're coming from.

Perhaps this:
There are some serious issues of sexism in SOME of gaming - but not all of it. And some of her critics feel she is painting too broad a brush?

This has become impossible to debate though - because mixed in with that are highly emotional attacks and defenses of her...

I'm not expert on the subject, and she hits close enough to my own 'hot buttons' that I have to struggle against an urge to leap in on the emotional side of defending her (and I have lept in before).

My own limited experience in gaming shows me some very badly misogynistic examples in SL, BUT also some very positive examples also in SL... and in the few leaps into MMOs that I have made... a balance that seems to favor positive by a slight margin, but didn't go too far either way except in obscure titles that are widely laughed away by the main stream (Scarlet Blades for example...)

So I can see it would not be fair for me to hold up Scarlet Blades to condemn the entire world of MMOs - when at least in that format, it is the exception.

******

There's a larger argument to be made about the risks of doing publicly funded research and finding yourself suddenly over-funded. That's probably the moment where you should slam on the breaks, and announce that before you move the money from 'there' to 'here', you're rewriting your proposal to show a breakdown of 'expected' expenses.
- I did not realize she had announced a $6000 plan. I had assumed it was always expected to be over $100,000 - because I live in San Francisco where... $100,000 is what $6000 is anywhere else (or so it feels everytime I pay rent...). $6000 wouldn't get me past 2 weeks of work on a project here.
- BUT if that is what she originally announced, and the figure that came in was so much higher... I can see that yes: a new breakdown would have been wise to publish.

***

I'll have to give this some more thought now...

[Cube Republic]

@ Pussycat, she makes the claim that people are affected by things without knowing they're affected by them. ''The more you think you're not affected the more likely you are to be affected."

It kind of puts forward the proposition that we're not capable of free thought. Personally speaking, I find a lot of stuff on the media disturbing. Take these recent be-headings of those American men. I turn away in disgust, the the actions are abhorrent. But then I can shoot some bad guys in video games, there's a separation, I don't feel the desire to go out and shoot people for real. Thus I feel her argument is flawed, with no scientific proof.

[irihapeti]

@Cube

i poke what you said with a stick ok, bc I don't think you mean what you say. Or you do but are only understanding your own POV. I conclude this from what you wrote ok

+

.poke.

i see a story on the TV news. i read a newspaper article about a guy who attacked a woman RL. I am disgusted and sickened that somebody could actually do this

i then turn away bc upset/sick. And go online and play this game where I not only imagine doing this but I also get to do it virtually. Is only a game/imagination to my mind. It dont make me a attacker for reals

why do I need or even choose to imagine this? Why do I feel a need to play it out virtually? If it sickens and disgusts me

[FredTheGamer]

irihapeti: it's not what Cube said, if Cube watched the awful beheading on the TV and then after that started to play a computer game mimicing the beheading, maybe getting a score and trying to perfect the technique. THEN it would be as you describe it in your example.

good posts, this thread has turned interesting again, we're coming out of the trenches and discussing what the war is really about!

[irihapeti]

@Fred

are you saying that bc a gun is used to kill in the game rather than a sword like in RL then this is different? Literally gun != sword. Therefore not the same. Even when can still get a high score with either gun or sword. The choice of weapon makes them different?

if so then what was the point of Cube using this analogy. What relevance does death by sword vs death by gun have to do with the topic being discussed, the objectification of women in games

[Sam Peters]

I suspect Cube is debating the 'does video games contribute to RL violence debate'.

[Arcadia Codesmith]

Since the dawn of time, old people have lamented the pitiable state of young people and blamed it on most anything that wasn't around when they were young (because the things that were around when they were young were perfectly wholesome and harmless, of course).

"Video Game Violence" is just a more recent installment of the trend, and it's already dying down as the unmarred first generations of gamers have kids of their own and turn their cranky ire towards new targets.

There is some interesting research on the topic, but the popular trope that "video games turned Johnny into a cold-blooded killer!" falls apart when a little research shows that Johnny had serious issues before he ever picked up a game controller.

But that's really a tangent to the issue at hand.

[FredTheGamer]

Computer games rugning Johnny into Cold-blooded killer? - I thought it was the rock and roll music, or those darn movies he watches on his betamax video, or those bell shaped jeans he always wear... ;)

@irihapti, the sword is a weapon, and the gun is a weapon, they have that in common, but the way you use them are very different therefore not the same.

Shooting a bad game in a computer game, and beheading a hostage in a deser are both acts of violence, but are very different, therefore not the same.

If a Movie actor dies in a Movie, or your fellow collegue dies on the floor next to you, is the same thing, but very different, therefor not the same. (trust me on this one..)

You need to read the last section of what Cube writes again, it's in a way "games are one thing, reality is different". But I'm putting Words in Cube's mouth and I'm not going to do that, just trying to explain how I read it and agreed with it.

ps. When I grew up there was a moral outcry against those old "Game & Watch" handheld games when they were new. Including accusations about excessive violence and rape scenarios etc.

[Sam Peters]

"Since the dawn of time, old people have lamented the pitiable state of young people and blamed it on most anything"

I think this is more true of recent history, the last few centuries or so, before that most of the youth would have more or less followed their parents almost directly, both in culture and ways of job. The rate of technology has been growing exponentially so every generation of parents has seen their children face an every increasing change of technology, the present day the fastest it's ever been.

I think the way violence in video games is presented is way too simplistic, I would imagine there is next to no correlation with real life inclinations of violence. That said I don't think it has no affect either. Video games generally can be very addictive and click peoples brains into primal pumped up states that while exciting in brief periods can cause a low grade degree of stress that can really start to play havoc with peoples lives, hijacking purposeful endeavours to get artificial hits of dopamine. I've noticed in many people when there is significant use of computer games it can seriously increase their irritability, lack of empathy/ selfishness and be a powerful escapism that is easy to underestimate partly because they are just 'games', childsplay. When you add violence and aggression on to that it just magnifies it this concoction.

That's not to demonise video games, it depends on the player and the type of games that are being put out there, some of my favorite fulfilling experiences as a child were playing some particularly choice games. But while there are violent movies and television, people don't generally get as hooked and hard wired to rewatch and get involved with them in such an immersive manner, there's a reason the label 'gamer' has been debated of late because it can be such a hard core community of users that spend alot of time doing it. SL is a classic example of just how powerful such immersive experiences can be, there seems a seriously significant proportion of those that use it with a minor to major addiction to it.

My point is less to do with the violence, and the way that technology can so often take over the most important things these days, particularly empathy and emotional well being. Technology can be the best and worst, but given the speed it's advancing in this day in age it really is starting to cry out for some serious ethical considerations as to it's use. There's a fair chunk of growing research to say that the more artificial our lifestyle becomes, the further cut off from nature and our community that the more pathological and stressed/ depressed we become. Add on top of that an increasing desensitisation to violence and a pervasive sense that anything goes can really create a culture and lifestyle with an underbelly cut off form it's heart.

It's also the type of violence, it it just fun and artificial play, like playing guns as kid, is it more mature that recognises the great grief and pain in violence, or is it some sadistic artistic expression that comes off as deeply disturbing and mean spirited. I've always found Tarrantino a mixed bag of the play and the disturbing, where there is no accountability for how shallow and surface his work can be, lauded critics praising him for his 'meaningless aesthetic genius'. Or more recently 'Game of Thrones' which is a complex mixed bag indeed, some of it is fun, some of it paints a parallel of historic violence, but some of it for me and many others came off as extremely distasteful and gratuitous, cashing in on shock ripping the viewers hearts out. 'Reek's' torture, the Red Wedding, Oberon's skull splatting death all come to mind.

I think violence is a complex issue too oft overly simplified where two largely erroneous camps battle it out, it doesn't get the diversity of opinion that it needs.

[Cube Republic]

A lot of what you said Sam reminded me of this video I saw last night

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ4q7dgtS8c&index=1&list=UUovw3dT74MoN9907ulr9DKg

not really on topic as far as AS goes, but awesome art never the less.

[Pussycat Catnap]

"why do I need or even choose to imagine this? Why do I feel a need to play it out virtually? If it sickens and disgusts me"
--- Regarding why play a violent game after seeing violent news.

*****

Actually as a veteran, but a non-combat one, I have some half-insight there by way of people I know.

Mental processing.

PTSD sufferers for example - benefit from things like getting into Martial Arts, video games, etc... as a way to process what they have experienced... and also as a way to divide and partition it off from the rest of their lives.
- It brings structure to the chaos that war has put into them.

But that is a secondhand observation, not a first hand one.

[Pussycat Catnap]

Much as I dislike Gor... I know for a fact that at least one woman in Gor I know in SL is in it for reasons that sound very much like my PTSD example above. Helping her process parts of her RL history...
- So even in something I find personally very... [...]... there is a strong counter to my own arguments against it...

That might be relevant here.

And I think this can come down to an ultra hard to distinguish line between glorifying something, revealing the horror of something - the usual two angles discussed...

And the third angle that I think is really the important one: Processing something.
- Which seems to get no air-time in the debates between 'objectifying/glorifying vs. revealing/realism/outing-truth'.

The problem with being in there to process, is the medium is usually trying to cater to the other camps, and people will see you as being in one of the other two camps, labeling you and assigning an agenda to you.
- I've done that to people in Gor... which is how I've met and had my eyes opened to people in it in order to instead process things about their lives.

I think that third angle is too complex, and we're a society that likes everything to have two polar opposite sides we can get angry at each other over. :)

(and what is the buzzword for that second angle... where you show horrible events in order to show what something is "really" about... such as showing the ruination gang violence creates in a community rather than showing fast cars, bling, and guns?

- As a Mulato... go look up the gangs of Oakland, Fresno and Los Angeles and then let me tell you about where I grew up. Its why I don't care for games like Grand Theft Auto, but can also understand why others use them to process that reality.)

[Arcadia Codesmith]

"I think this is more true of recent history, the last few centuries or so, before that most of the youth would have more or less followed their parents almost directly, both in culture and ways of job. "

True to a point... but in 400 BC Socrates was sentenced to death for "corrupting" the youth of Athens with his newfangled notion of getting them to question the world around them. The rate of change has accelerated, but the basic dynamic of using anything new and unfamiliar as a scapegoat for the supposed moral failings of the next generation has been around for a long, long time.

[Sam Peters]

Well yes and no because that is a bit simplistic. It's not always a scapegoat for the moral failings of the next generation, progress is messy and often the baby can be thrown out with the bath water. Mistakes of the past do not excuse new mistakes of the present and future generations. On the one hand we need to evolve beyond the traditional, but also respect that as much of it is good as bad, the new generation cannot just cut it's ancestral cord.

A classic example is the folks who go on about the good old days in the 50s when there was more community spirit and family values. On the one hand it's like, 'oh you mean a few years after we just had the second world war? When women had huge restrictions on equality and black people had to be segregated on buses?'. But then again, there did seem to be more community spirit, with a deeper shared sense of national identity and meaning. There has been a huge increase in divorces and single parent families that only continues to rise, decreases in marriages, which leaves their children at a distinct economic, academic, psychological and emotional disadvantage, with varying degrees of consequence. So on the one hand there has been huge progress but on the other, something so vital as the family unit faces a condition probably never faced before, and that's just one biggie.

That said it is a great irony that while we seem to be as a general people more aware as a whole of the world's ills and hence so much seems bad, we are not aware that progressively there has been less violence as we've progressed. Crime has generally speaking reduced by the decade, there are no longer any huge super powers having world wars or cold wars, which in of itself is pretty enormous. Even the most violent video game is surely a step up from beheadings, witchhunts, collosseums etc.

[Estelle Pienaar]

@fred_the_lamer: go to mummy and cry but leave us silent majority alone.

[Pussycat Catnap]

"That said it is a great irony that while we seem to be as a general people more aware as a whole of the world's ills and hence so much seems bad, we are not aware that progressively there has been less violence as we've progressed. Crime has generally speaking reduced by the decade, there are no longer any huge super powers having world wars or cold wars, which in of itself is pretty enormous. Even the most violent video game is surely a step up from beheadings, witchhunts, collosseums etc."

-----

Yep. The world is vastly safer today, in most places, than it has ever been.

What we see going on in the crazy hotspots like Iraq, Ukraine, Somolia - that used to be the norm on most of the planet. The peace most people can enjoy now: from the well off in the first world to even the poor of the third world - was once a rare thing.

But outside of major conflicts... small scale interpersonal conflict is generally a lot safer now than it has ever been. The 'gangland nature' of some places - used to be what everyone dealt with.

That's no reason to stop struggling to make things even better - but it is reason to feel like we, as a species, can and have in fact made things better. We've proven we can improve... so we might as well keep on improving.

[irihapeti]

i didnt get the analogy of violence to objectification the first time. I still dont get its relevance to the discussion. Even after I give it a poke. I dont get the young vs old thingy either

+

i just relate something about objectification in the RL. Objectification of the non-violent no-think variety. No-think which has a impact. Mostly bc in these situations nobody within the domain much cares to think about it differently

as a young child I grow up in the countryside. A one horse town pretty typical of Countryside Anywheres. 1 school, 1 pub, 1 shop, 1 garage. And seed and fert depots. We lived on a farm outside of town. Only going to town for the necessary

taking your car, tractor, truck, quad to the garage to get a warrant or engine rebuild was considered to be the domain of grown men only. The garage a place where women understood they were unwelcome. So they never went. The husband, father, older brother, bf, would take the vehicles and discuss/arrange with the owner and mechanics what needed to be done. Was just the way it was. Since forever

a new owner came to the garage. He came from the city with his family

he remove all the pinups from the garage workshop. Within a few weeks the garage no longer was the sole domain of grown men. Within a year the garage had taken on its first ever female apprentice mechanic. Something the apprentice never ever contemplated becoming before

+

basically it isnt about the women depicted on the wall. Is about the women in the room with you, actually and for reals

when the woman on the wall comes off the wall into the room with you then her views are relevant to the people in the room. Until then the only views that matter in the garage workshop (the room) are those of the people in it

is a Gor, subbe/domme, etc analogy this. In games where can start with nothing and can develop/evolve your own character (say like in SL/OpenSim etc) then you not on the wall. You in the room. You a player in the game. Freely able to make your own choices

when a game (a room) is designed by the makers to put the depictions on the wall and keep them there as depictions then is about controlling the domain

[Leo]

I disagree with most of Anita's material but she does make some good points every now and then. I think one of her big mistakes is by turning off the comments on her vids (intentional or not) she'd attracted more trolls and losers than silencing them. Although they look like a small minority, it's enough to cause some damage. Seriously if noone provoked Anita, she will probably fade away in time as another nobody but these people just can't help but response to her vids again and again, and now things have finally got a little out of hand. 2 years ago i would have never heard of radical movements like #gamersgate or the Social Justice Warriors. I believe instead of improving the situation, they will only make matters worst the more they talk about her. Still a large majority of gamers could care less about them. We spend more time playing our favorite games instead of creating flame wars/drama over the internet which is pretty "lol" in my opinion.