Ranxerox

Anyone post this yet?
 
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429996.000-the-fight-back-against-rape-and-death-threats-online.html#.VI5TYlJ0xdh
 
Lucius Alexander
 
The palindromedary notes that if so, it's just been posted again.

The Straw Elephants In The Room
 
Pretty much all the arguments Ms Sommers makes in the first video are rebuttals to arguments that the anti-GamerGate side isn't making or to very distorted versions of arguments made.  In other words, they are all straw men arguments.
 
* Violent video games have never been scientifically shown to cause real life violence in there players. Umm, I haven't heard Anita Sarkeesian or any one else in the anti-GamerGate camp say that they did.  So this is a rebuttal seeking an argument.
 
* I find some acts shown in video games like GTA very disturbing, but as a matter of free speech the makers have a right to make such games and the players a right to play them. I've yet to hear any anti-GamerGate person call for the banning of such games, and just because a person has a right to freedom of speech does not shield that speech from criticism if the speech is objectionable. 
 
* Anita Sarkeesian's arguments are all based on the Objectifying Gaze hypothesis which has been much criticized in the 4 decades since it was originally proposed.  Ms Sarkeesian has talked the visual objectification of women in video games, so this would be an actual non-straw man argument if Ms Sommers didn't characterize it as the whole of Ms Sarkeesian's position.  However, Ms Sarkeesian has talked about visual objectification and hyper-sexualization of women as one part of a larger argument that she is making, an argument that can stand even in the absence of the visual objectification component.  Also, a more robust attack on the notion of the objectifying gaze as it relates to video games would have been appreciated from an intellectual standpoint.  There is a bit of a difference between the deliberate decision by a game developer to frame a scene from a vantage point looking through a women spread legs or down her cleavage compared to a man taking a moment out to admire a woman's ass as he passes her on the street.  It would have been been nice if Ms Sommers took the time to argue that the criticisms of Objectifying Gaze hypothesis are valid even when presentation is completely deliberate and directed by men.
 
 
In the second video, Ms Sommers provides some numbers about the sex of gamers, and while I don't think that anyone would classify her as a gamer based on playing PacMan  a few times in the Eighties, I do appreciate the numbers.  Numbers can be very helpful in "keeping it real".  Keeping it real in this case goes a long way towards explaining why AAA games are the way they are but it's not really much of a shield against criticism.  It may explain why game developers create so many games point of view of heterosexual white males, but that is no reason women, gays, and racial minorities not to clamor for representation also.  It is no reason for them to "stand down" as Ms Sommers puts it.
 
Also, you can ding games on individual acts of misogyny, without proving that the games cause their players to become misogynous.  Even if the games are promoting misogyny in their players it is going to be almost impossible to prove scientifically because nothing happens in a bubble, and it is irrelevant.  If someone uses the N word, it is not necessary to prove that they turned all the people who heard it into racist in order state that the usage was in itself crass, rude, and racist.  Just so video games criticized for individual bits of misogyny that appear in the games, and if these instances are so numerous as to be wide spread and pervasive then the industry as a whole can be criticized.

The Straw Elephants In The Room
 
Pretty much all the arguments Ms Sommers makes in the first video are rebuttals to arguments that the anti-GamerGate side isn't making or to very distorted versions of arguments made.  In other words, they are all straw men arguments.
 
* Violent video games have never been scientifically shown to cause real life violence in there players. Umm, I haven't heard Anita Sarkeesian or any one else in the anti-GamerGate camp say that they did.  So this is a rebuttal seeking an argument.
 
* I find some acts shown in video games like GTA very disturbing, but as a matter of free speech the makers have a right to make such games and the players a right to play them. I've yet to hear any anti-GamerGate person call for the banning of such games, and just because a person has a right to freedom of speech does not shield that speech from criticism if the speech is objectionable. 
 
* Anita Sarkeesian's arguments are all based on the Objectifying Gaze hypothesis which has been much criticized in the 4 decades since it was originally proposed.  Ms Sarkeesian has talked the visual objectification of women in video games, so this would be an actual non-straw man argument if Ms Sommers didn't characterize it as the whole of Ms Sarkeesian's position.  However, Ms Sarkeesian has talked about visual objectification and hyper-sexualization of women as one part of a larger argument that she is making, an argument that can stand even in the absence of the visual objectification component.  Also, a more robust attack on the notion of the objectifying gaze as it relates to video games would have been appreciated from an intellectual standpoint.  There is a bit of a difference between the deliberate decision by a game developer to frame a scene from a vantage point looking through a women spread legs or down her cleavage compared to a man taking a moment out to admire a woman's ass as he passes her on the street.  It would have been been nice if Ms Sommers took the time to argue that the criticisms of Objectifying Gaze hypothesis are valid even when presentation is completely deliberate and directed by men.
 
 
In the second video, Ms Sommers provides some numbers about the sex of gamers, and while I don't think that anyone would classify her as a gamer based on playing PacMan  a few times in the Eighties, I do appreciate the numbers.  Numbers can be very helpful in "keeping it real".  Keeping it real in this case goes a long way towards explaining why AAA games are the way they are but it's not really much of a shield against criticism.  It may explain why game developers create so many games point of view of heterosexual white males, but that is no reason women, gays, and racial minorities not to clamor for representation also.  It is no reason for them to "stand down" as Ms Sommers puts it.
 
Also, you can ding games on individual acts of misogyny, without proving that the games cause their players to become misogynous.  Even if the games are promoting misogyny in their players it is going to be almost impossible to prove scientifically because nothing happens in a bubble, and it is irrelevant.  If someone uses the N word, it is not necessary to prove that they turned all the people who heard it into racist in order state that the usage was in itself crass, rude, and racist.  Just so video games criticized for individual bits of misogyny that appear in the games, and if these instances are so numerous as to be wide spread and pervasive then the industry as a whole can be criticized.

The Straw Elephants In The Room
 
Pretty much all the arguments Ms Sommers makes in the first video are rebuttals to arguments that the anti-GamerGate side isn't making or to very distorted versions of arguments made.  In other words, they are all straw men arguments.
 
* Violent video games have never been scientifically shown to cause real life violence in there players. Umm, I haven't heard Anita Sarkeesian or any one else in the anti-GamerGate camp say that they did.  So this is a rebuttal seeking an argument.
 
* I find some acts shown in video games like GTA very disturbing, but as a matter of free speech the makers have a right to make such games and the players a right to play them. I've yet to hear any anti-GamerGate person call for the banning of such games, and just because a person has a right to freedom of speech does not shield that speech from criticism if the speech is objectionable. 
 
* Anita Sarkeesian's arguments are all based on the Objectifying Gaze hypothesis which has been much criticized in the 4 decades since it was originally proposed.  Ms Sarkeesian has talked the visual objectification of women in video games, so this would be an actual non-straw man argument if Ms Sommers didn't characterize it as the whole of Ms Sarkeesian's position.  However, Ms Sarkeesian has talked about visual objectification and hyper-sexualization of women as one part of a larger argument that she is making, an argument that can stand even in the absence of the visual objectification component.  Also, a more robust attack on the notion of the objectifying gaze as it relates to video games would have been appreciated from an intellectual standpoint.  There is a bit of a difference between the deliberate decision by a game developer to frame a scene from a vantage point looking through a women spread legs or down her cleavage compared to a man taking a moment out to admire a woman's ass as he passes her on the street.  It would have been been nice if Ms Sommers took the time to argue that the criticisms of Objectifying Gaze hypothesis are valid even when presentation is completely deliberate and directed by men.
 
 
In the second video, Ms Sommers provides some numbers about the sex of gamers, and while I don't think that anyone would classify her as a gamer based on playing PacMan  a few times in the Eighties, I do appreciate the numbers.  Numbers can be very helpful in "keeping it real".  Keeping it real in this case goes a long way towards explaining why AAA games are the way they are but it's not really much of a shield against criticism.  It may explain why game developers create so many games point of view of heterosexual white males, but that is no reason women, gays, and racial minorities not to clamor for representation also.  It is no reason for them to "stand down" as Ms Sommers puts it.
 
Also, you can ding games on individual acts of misogyny, without proving that the games cause their players to become misogynous.  Even if the games are promoting misogyny in their players it is going to be almost impossible to prove scientifically because nothing happens in a bubble, and it is irrelevant.  If someone uses the N word, it is not necessary to prove that they turned all the people who heard it into racist in order state that the usage was in itself crass, rude, and racist.  Just so video games criticized for individual bits of misogyny that appear in the games, and if these instances are so numerous as to be wide spread and pervasive then the industry as a whole can be criticized.

The Straw Elephants In The Room
 
Pretty much all the arguments Ms Sommers makes in the first video are rebuttals to arguments that the anti-GamerGate side isn't making or to very distorted versions of arguments made.  In other words, they are all straw men arguments.
 
* Violent video games have never been scientifically shown to cause real life violence in there players. Umm, I haven't heard Anita Sarkeesian or any one else in the anti-GamerGate camp say that they did.  So this is a rebuttal seeking an argument.
 
* I find some acts shown in video games like GTA very disturbing, but as a matter of free speech the makers have a right to make such games and the players a right to play them. I've yet to hear any anti-GamerGate person call for the banning of such games, and just because a person has a right to freedom of speech does not shield that speech from criticism if the speech is objectionable. 
 
* Anita Sarkeesian's arguments are all based on the Objectifying Gaze hypothesis which has been much criticized in the 4 decades since it was originally proposed.  Ms Sarkeesian has talked the visual objectification of women in video games, so this would be an actual non-straw man argument if Ms Sommers didn't characterize it as the whole of Ms Sarkeesian's position.  However, Ms Sarkeesian has talked about visual objectification and hyper-sexualization of women as one part of a larger argument that she is making, an argument that can stand even in the absence of the visual objectification component.  Also, a more robust attack on the notion of the objectifying gaze as it relates to video games would have been appreciated from an intellectual standpoint.  There is a bit of a difference between the deliberate decision by a game developer to frame a scene from a vantage point looking through a women spread legs or down her cleavage compared to a man taking a moment out to admire a woman's ass as he passes her on the street.  It would have been been nice if Ms Sommers took the time to argue that the criticisms of Objectifying Gaze hypothesis are valid even when presentation is completely deliberate and directed by men.
 
 
In the second video, Ms Sommers provides some numbers about the sex of gamers, and while I don't think that anyone would classify her as a gamer based on playing PacMan  a few times in the Eighties, I do appreciate the numbers.  Numbers can be very helpful in "keeping it real".  Keeping it real in this case goes a long way towards explaining why AAA games are the way they are but it's not really much of a shield against criticism.  It may explain why game developers create so many games point of view of heterosexual white males, but that is no reason women, gays, and racial minorities not to clamor for representation also.  It is no reason for them to "stand down" as Ms Sommers puts it.
 
Also, you can ding games on individual acts of misogyny, without proving that the games cause their players to become misogynous.  Even if the games are promoting misogyny in their players it is going to be almost impossible to prove scientifically because nothing happens in a bubble, and it is irrelevant.  If someone uses the N word, it is not necessary to prove that they turned all the people who heard it into racist in order state that the usage was in itself crass, rude, and racist.  Just so video games criticized for individual bits of misogyny that appear in the games, and if these instances are so numerous as to be wide spread and pervasive then the industry as a whole can be criticized.

The Straw Elephants In The Room
 
Pretty much all the arguments Ms Sommers makes in the first video are rebuttals to arguments that the anti-GamerGate side isn't making or to very distorted versions of arguments made.  In other words, they are all straw men arguments.
 
* Violent video games have never been scientifically shown to cause real life violence in there players. Umm, I haven't heard Anita Sarkeesian or any one else in the anti-GamerGate camp say that they did.  So this is a rebuttal seeking an argument.
 
* I find some acts shown in video games like GTA very disturbing, but as a matter of free speech the makers have a right to make such games and the players a right to play them. I've yet to hear any anti-GamerGate person call for the banning of such games, and just because a person has a right to freedom of speech does not shield that speech from criticism if the speech is objectionable. 
 
* Anita Sarkeesian's arguments are all based on the Objectifying Gaze hypothesis which has been much criticized in the 4 decades since it was originally proposed.  Ms Sarkeesian has talked the visual objectification of women in video games, so this would be an actual non-straw man argument if Ms Sommers didn't characterize it as the whole of Ms Sarkeesian's position.  However, Ms Sarkeesian has talked about visual objectification and hyper-sexualization of women as one part of a larger argument that she is making, an argument that can stand even in the absence of the visual objectification component.  Also, a more robust attack on the notion of the objectifying gaze as it relates to video games would have been appreciated from an intellectual standpoint.  There is a bit of a difference between the deliberate decision by a game developer to frame a scene from a vantage point looking through a women spread legs or down her cleavage compared to a man taking a moment out to admire a woman's ass as he passes her on the street.  It would have been been nice if Ms Sommers took the time to argue that the criticisms of Objectifying Gaze hypothesis are valid even when presentation is completely deliberate and directed by men.
 
 
In the second video, Ms Sommers provides some numbers about the sex of gamers, and while I don't think that anyone would classify her as a gamer based on playing PacMan  a few times in the Eighties, I do appreciate the numbers.  Numbers can be very helpful in "keeping it real".  Keeping it real in this case goes a long way towards explaining why AAA games are the way they are but it's not really much of a shield against criticism.  It may explain why game developers create so many games point of view of heterosexual white males, but that is no reason women, gays, and racial minorities not to clamor for representation also.  It is no reason for them to "stand down" as Ms Sommers puts it.
 
Also, you can ding games on individual acts of misogyny, without proving that the games cause their players to become misogynous.  Even if the games are promoting misogyny in their players it is going to be almost impossible to prove scientifically because nothing happens in a bubble, and it is irrelevant.  If someone uses the N word, it is not necessary to prove that they turned all the people who heard it into racist in order state that the usage was in itself crass, rude, and racist.  Just so video games criticized for individual bits of misogyny that appear in the games, and if these instances are so numerous as to be wide spread and pervasive then the industry as a whole can be criticized.

The Straw Elephants In The Room
 
Pretty much all the arguments Ms Sommers makes in the first video are rebuttals to arguments that the anti-GamerGate side isn't making or to very distorted versions of arguments made.  In other words, they are all straw men arguments.
 
* Violent video games have never been scientifically shown to cause real life violence in there players. Umm, I haven't heard Anita Sarkeesian or any one else in the anti-GamerGate camp say that they did.  So this is a rebuttal seeking an argument.
 
* I find some acts shown in video games like GTA very disturbing, but as a matter of free speech the makers have a right to make such games and the players a right to play them. I've yet to hear any anti-GamerGate person call for the banning of such games, and just because a person has a right to freedom of speech does not shield that speech from criticism if the speech is objectionable. 
 
* Anita Sarkeesian's arguments are all based on the Objectifying Gaze hypothesis which has been much criticized in the 4 decades since it was originally proposed.  Ms Sarkeesian has talked the visual objectification of women in video games, so this would be an actual non-straw man argument if Ms Sommers didn't characterize it as the whole of Ms Sarkeesian's position.  However, Ms Sarkeesian has talked about visual objectification and hyper-sexualization of women as one part of a larger argument that she is making, an argument that can stand even in the absence of the visual objectification component.  Also, a more robust attack on the notion of the objectifying gaze as it relates to video games would have been appreciated from an intellectual standpoint.  There is a bit of a difference between the deliberate decision by a game developer to frame a scene from a vantage point looking through a women spread legs or down her cleavage compared to a man taking a moment out to admire a woman's ass as he passes her on the street.  It would have been been nice if Ms Sommers took the time to argue that the criticisms of Objectifying Gaze hypothesis are valid even when presentation is completely deliberate and directed by men.
 
 
In the second video, Ms Sommers provides some numbers about the sex of gamers, and while I don't think that anyone would classify her as a gamer based on playing PacMan  a few times in the Eighties, I do appreciate the numbers.  Numbers can be very helpful in "keeping it real".  Keeping it real in this case goes a long way towards explaining why AAA games are the way they are but it's not really much of a shield against criticism.  It may explain why game developers create so many games point of view of heterosexual white males, but that is no reason women, gays, and racial minorities not to clamor for representation also.  It is no reason for them to "stand down" as Ms Sommers puts it.
 
Also, you can ding games on individual acts of misogyny, without proving that the games cause their players to become misogynous.  Even if the games are promoting misogyny in their players it is going to be almost impossible to prove scientifically because nothing happens in a bubble, and it is irrelevant.  If someone uses the N word, it is not necessary to prove that they turned all the people who heard it into racist in order state that the usage was in itself crass, rude, and racist.  Just so video games criticized for individual bits of misogyny that appear in the games, and if these instances are so numerous as to be wide spread and pervasive then the industry as a whole can be criticized.

Men Behaving Badly – Street Harassment And Cat-Calling
 

In English the qualifying adjective come first and the noun which it qualifies come after.  So with the phrase toxic masculinity, masculinity is the noun and toxic is the adjective that qualifies.  The phrase toxic masculinity strongly implies the speaker believes in non-toxic masculinity, because otherwise the statement is redundant.  We don't generally speak of hot fire or wet water after all. 
 
IOW you are adding ambiguity where none exist in the phrasing of the thing. Why are you doing this?  

Let's see.  Jaylen Fryberg's girlfriend broke up with him.  He got very depressed.  Then instead of say seeking psychiatric counseling or just spending three weeks eating ice cream and crying a lot, he took his one of his father's guns and did something men are ten times as likely to do as women, he shot a bunch of people.  
 
Now, Mz Sarkeesian didn't blame the shooting on violence in video games; she attributed to something she called toxic masculinity.  Given the well documented reluctance of men to seek help with emotional issues and the much greater tendency of men to go on mass shooting rampages, how can you or anyone else absolutely declare that the shooting was utterly unrelated to issues of masculinity?
 
As for the charge that it was a gross oversimplification of a complex issue, it was a tweet.  What do you expect from 140 characters?  Ms Sarkeesian was not claiming to have a complete answer or saying that the solution would be easy.  She was throwing out onto the table a piece of the puzzle that needed to be solved.   

Let's see.  Jaylen Fryberg's girlfriend broke up with him.  He got very depressed.  Then instead of say seeking psychiatric counseling or just spending three weeks eating ice cream and crying a lot, he took his one of his father's guns and did something men are ten times as likely to do as women, he shot a bunch of people.  
 
Now, Mz Sarkeesian didn't blame the shooting on violence in video games; she attributed to something she called toxic masculinity.  Given the well documented reluctance of men to seek help with emotional issues and the much greater tendency of men to go on mass shooting rampages, how can you or anyone else absolutely declare that the shooting was utterly unrelated to issues of masculinity?
 
As for the charge that it was a gross oversimplification of a complex issue, it was a tweet.  What do you expect from 140 characters?  Ms Sarkeesian was not claiming to have a complete answer or saying that the solution would be easy.  She was throwing out onto the table a piece of the puzzle that needed to be solved.   

Ranxerox, you're a nice guy, and a thoughtful member of our little community here. Rather than argue with you, I'm going to bow out. Suffice it to say we disagree on Sarkeesian's motives. I think she's a sophomoric attention whore, and that's the last word I'm going to post on the matter.
 
It could be that I'm being unfair, but I haven't yet seen anything to convince me otherwise. I do think it'd be bad form to argue about that opinion given the topic of this thread and the fact that she isn't here to defend herself.

But as a nation we aren't grieving the deaths in the Washington shooting, not compared how a parent feels over the death of a child.  The cold, unvarnished truth is that for most people the shooting doesn't rise above the level water cooler conversation in it's impact on them.  Of course to the parent and loved ones of the two girls that died this is likely the most devastating event of their lives.  However, it is unlikely they will ever hear about Ms Sarkeesian's remarks unless someone deliberately brings her comments to their attention.  So, I don't see her comments as being disrespectful to the parents.
 
We talk about what is in the news cycle.  It is what we do as a nation. It is how we have discussions about important issues, because we don't have the attention spans to talk about these things when they aren't right in our faces.  So after the tragedy in Benghazi FOX news pushed their agenda and the Sandy Hook tragedy MSNBC had their own agenda to move along.  It may be unbecoming but it is a game that everyone plays, and singling Ms Sarkeesian out as a sleazy moron [Patten Ghost] and a troll [you] for playing the game strikes me as arbitrary.

But as a nation we aren't grieving the deaths in the Washington shooting, not compared how a parent feels over the death of a child.  The cold, unvarnished truth is that for most people the shooting doesn't rise above the level water cooler conversation in it's impact on them.  Of course to the parent and loved ones of the two girls that died this is likely the most devastating event of their lives.  However, it is unlikely they will ever hear about Ms Sarkeesian's remarks unless someone deliberately brings her comments to their attention.  So, I don't see her comments as being disrespectful to the parents.
 
We talk about what is in the news cycle.  It is what we do as a nation. It is how we have discussions about important issues, because we don't have the attention spans to talk about these things when they aren't right in our faces.  So after the tragedy in Benghazi FOX news pushed their agenda and the Sandy Hook tragedy MSNBC had their own agenda to move along.  It may be unbecoming but it is a game that everyone plays, and singling Ms Sarkeesian out as a sleazy moron [Patten Ghost] and a troll [you] for playing the game strikes me as arbitrary.

Please explain.  Usually, I hear this line of reasoning when people make calls for gun control after one of these mass shootings, but I have never quite been able to follow the logic on it.  Right after airplane crashes we talk about flight safety.  After train wrecks we talk about rail safety.  In the wake of successful terrorist attacks we talk about national security and the holes in our current system.  Nobody is saying, "Ebola victims are still in the hospital, now is not the time push your infection control and disease monitoring agenda."
 
So why is rude to have a discussion and push for reforms over the still fresh graves of mass shooting victims, but not rude to do it over the graves those who are killed by airplane crashes, terrorist acts or preventable diseases?

After reading that paragraph I couldn't take anything this blogger said as having value.  How is this different from saying that hating is men is what feminism is, or saying that Islam is terrorism?

After reading that paragraph I couldn't take anything this blogger said as having value.  How is this different from saying that hating is men is what feminism is, or saying that Islam is terrorism?

Science’s Sexual Assault Problem
 

I just finished a book I really liked, and I'm trying to decide if I should allow myself to like it because it has feminism issues.
 

 
To start with, it seems like anything in here should be a little feminism-okay, because Seanan is a woman.
 
Not really. Misogynist attitudes can be and often are perpetuated by women. Several articles to that effect have been posted on this forum. Get on with the actual problems.
 
Well, the main character engages in prostitution. That doesn't define her character, I think. She just uses it as an expedient way to get stuff she needs, and then doesn't give the act another thought. 
 
 
Definitely problematic, although it does seem to depend on the school of feminism you look at. 
 
The author makes good reasons for it though.  She establishes that the character can only be corporeal if a mortal offers her a coat, and since she very much enjoys being corporeal and finds it useful in her real line of work, chapter one involves her trading a quickie for a coat. She is also seen trading blowjobs for her favorite greasy diner foods.
 
Also pointed out on this forum, the 'rules' set up in fiction don't really matter. They're made up.  The author could have written any number of different rules into place such that the character wouldn't have been compelled into prostitution.  And the economic compulsion really is a problematic thing, from a feminist perspective.  Some authors argue that economic compulsion is not much better than the violent or pharmacological compulsion of other forms of rape. Depicting someone resorting to prostitution due to lack of options, and then being casually okay with it, is not good at all.
 
Uh yeah. Speaking of the R word. This book might need a trigger warning. It all happens 'off screen', but it is strongly implied that this is what happens to one of the antagonists as poetic justice.
 
Not good.  Does it reinforce the rapist is evil (even though we already know he is evil), or is it more to explore the crime and its ramifications from the victims perspective.
 
The former.  We're just told the crime is about to happen.
 
Well, I guess that about settles it.
 
The book does have a strong female protagonist, and it does pass the bechdel test. 
 
Might not be enough.
 
*sigh* I guess I'd better go downgrade the number of stars I gave it in my review. Maybe. I'm still conflicted. Arguing with myself in public didn't help.
 
It never does.
 
EDIT: It doesn't help that the ghost protagonist is a 70-year-old that is permanently 16.  Makes all those blowjobs even nastier.

Science’s Sexual Assault Problem