To be honest, there's a lot about WoW that makes me uncomfortable. Savage cannibalistic trolls that talk like stereotypical black men, for example, sit right on the borderline of "not okay" for me. "Shake Your Bunny-Maker" was another one of those elements - the fact that the achievement specifically singled out female characters made me a bit uncomfortable. WoW is usually quite good at not gender-restricting things (you can get the "Blushing Bride" achievement by kissing anybody in a dress, male or female) and this seemed like an unfortunate decision.
What really upsets me, though, is the community reaction.
Some samples:
This sort of hippie feminist crap just isn't taken seriously anymore and certainly shouldn't be.
Of course I imagine if it was male characters 18+ no one would care (despite the existence of the Playgirl magazine) and no one would get to cry Sexism! Yay for the double standard.
As a male player I think it is sexist because it is not focusing on male characters. Come on, seriously this sexist/racist crap is being taken way to far.
Anyone who dwells in the sociological implication of two lines of text and five minutes searching around Dalaran is an idiot, pure and simple.
True equality is the day when anyone can make any joke towards anybody and nobody will care or take it seriously
You know what, short of violence and affecting choices, I don't understand what makes people get up in arms so much over racism/sexism etc ... If someone attacks someone as an act of discriminatory violence, I'll be the first to act, but short of that, suck it up.
Instead of trying to change the world for your daughter.. u should quit this game and get a job and take care of her.
Now a days people take things too serious and sap the fun out of harmless things for the population as a whole
I don't mean to diminish the cause of equality for women, but debates like this one do that all on their own.
And so on ad nauseam.
Ironically, the author of the post from which all of these comments were taken makes the comment on her own blog that "gamer guys don't tend to be mysogonistic". I wonder if she said that before or after a bunch of gamer guys jumped all over her for raising the *possibility* that something in a video game might be sexist. She gets a lot of support on her personal blog, but it's mostly from people praising her for having the "good sense" not to be personally offended by something. For example:
I would just like to say that this blog post is, perhaps, one of the most intelligent and rational things I have ever had the pleasure of reading. At the risk of sounding sexist (oh noes!), I have met only a handful of women who possess the requisite intelligence and (and this is an important 'and') rational character to agree with your reasoning
Dear Internet:
Sexism is a fantastically complicated issue. So is racism for that matter. Just because you don't think you're sexist, that doesn't mean you are not, in fact, sexist. The fact that you are married, or have a girlfriend, or a mother does not mean you are not sexist. Not even being a woman makes you immune to sexism - sexist ideas and attitudes are universal. That's. Why. They. Are. Bad.
A lot of people genuinely don't understand why other people were offended by the achievement. A WoW blog is a slightly weird place to be talking about the ideas of privilege but that's what we're dealing with here. The reason Mr "This racist crap has gone too far" and Mr "At the risk of sounding sexist" don't understand why people were offended by the SYBM achievement is because the issues that led to people finding them offensive are outside their experience.
As a man, I have spent my entire life having people tell me and - more importantly - show me that I can do anything I want. I could be a doctor or a lawyer or a bestselling fantasy novelist, I could be a game developer or if I really wanted to be, the pope. As a geek, I can also live a rich fantasy life in which I am a knight or a sorcerer, or the warcheif of the Horde.
Women don't get this. Yes little girls get the same "be all you can be" speeches at school, but there isn't the same follow through. Girls are still taught that their primary function is decorative, that while they *can* grow up to be doctors and lawyers and writers, it's important that they do it while looking sexy. Girls of the geeky persuasion find their fantasy lives similarly curtailed - in fantasy as in reality a woman's function is to look hot, not to be powerful or influential or effective. Geek girls are stuck playing the sidekicks in men's fantasies, not living their own.
Look at WoW Lore. Arthas Menethil, Thrall, Varian Wrynn, Tirion Fordring, Kaelthas Sunstrider, King Ymiron, Kel'Thuzad, Gul'dan, Illidian Stormrage, Edwin - blooming - Van'Cleef. Pick an archetype: the noble hero, the wise leader, the batshit-insane leader, the cunning rogue, or the arrogant, duplicitous bastard, there's a male character doing it. When it comes to women - well there's Jaina Proudmoore, Sylvanas Windrunner and ... that's it really unless you count Princess Theradras. And Jaina's main defining feature is being romantically linked to a bunch of male characters, while Sylvanas was recently shown to be incapable of realising that demons are not always trustworthy.
In WoW, like in most fantasy, like in life, the default assumption is that anything useful that needs doing, anything pro-active is done by men, and that the job of women is to stand on the sidelines cheering them on, preferably while wearing as little as possible. The reason that some people were so upset by Shake Your Bunny Maker was not because it was grossly offensive by itself, but because it was yet another symptom of a world where women are just expected to stand there and look pretty.
(this post is a response to:)
Cosmic Geek: My actual opinion on Shake your Bunny-Maker
Thank you. Thank you for posting this (and for coming out of retirement to do it) and saying it the way you did.
ReplyDeleteI've been protesting the ear thing all week (or trying to hide from it as a druid or with Savory Deviate Delight with mixed success) and nobody "gets" why it bothers me so much. Why, for the first time, I'm seriously considering giving up the activities I enjoy, the friends I've made, and the guild I've led for two and a half years and taken from next-to-nothing to being the number three (or four, depending on the day) raiding guild on my server, over something as petty as "bunny ears." Because, as you say, it's just one more thing and for me, possibly the last straw.
Thanks for reading and commenting (this blog has languished a bit, largely because I stopped playing my DK for ages). I'm glad you found this post useful.
ReplyDeleteIt'd be a shame to give up on WoW over something so tiny but, as you say, it's just a small sign of a wider problem. My girlfriend basically pretends to be a man in WoW, simply because she doesn't like the way people treat her when they know she's female.
I've shifted over here for the sake of not spamming the other site's comment section. But I'm going to retort abit to what you commented to my post earlier.
ReplyDeleteYou Said: "Bunny Ears vs Equal Pay: Do you know why women get paid less than men? It's because people don't pay attention to women, because people consider the contributions made by women to be of less value than the contributions made by men. One thing that contributes to this attitude is people saying "there are fifty more important things you could be complaining about" every time a woman tries to object to something."
- Correct me if I wrong but did I not admit that that gender based pay was in fact very wrong and worthy of the attention? Claiming that everytime a woman complains the men will object is very broad statement and I can assure that you do not have the creditials nor bare the title God in order make such a broad accusation. That generalization is being based off the assumption that all men don't agree that gender based discrimation is going on. Very not true and I'd appreciate you not making that claim. All I'm doing is prioritizing the severity of claimed "sexism" and whether or not its worth putting the time and effort into disputing vs other more serious and life impacting problems as pay differences. Do you agree or not that getting paid less will have a greater impact on your quality of life vs having a pair of bunny ears on a virtual character? Understand this, I'm not for or against women's freedom, its not any different for men, for blacks, for asians, or even aliens. I look at each conflict objectively and determine just how much of an impact so conflict could have on a person's quality of life. The problem is you're only looking at it from a very narrow perspective. In terms of problems around the world, the battle the feminists wage on such problems as virtual bunny ears will always be questionable considering we have people dying from hunger and starvation around the world and in your own community. There's people desperate for blood and organ donors, and a multitude of other more serious and grave problems that need to be dealt with... not a pair of damned virtual bunny ears. How damned self centered. Seriously! Its perfectly fine if you want to focus on a critical problem such as salary and pay when it affects your life and possibly your family but not this. I respect the feminists that invest their time and effort in to tackling real life problems.
You Said: "Segregation: Women have an objectively poorer quality of life than men. Seriously. They have less power, less freedom and fewer choices. It's a real issue."
You want to hear me say that I fully agree. But I do not. The women in my family, mother included have all done well for themselves through hard work alone. Less freedom? Less choices? We're not living back in the 70's. Things while not perfect are a great deal better. Do you know how annoying it is when data processors and receptionist jobs are almost alway reserved specifically for women? Are you aware of for instance the number of scholarships that require you to be female in order to apply for them? Well? I'd be happy to send you the list I generated when finding scholarships for my ex's daughter. But did I ever complain before now? Not really. Hell, my mother, aunts, best friend's sister for instance all make more money and more successful then their signicant others. I'd be willing so far as to allow you contact them as well, I'm sure they'd love chime in on how they've felt 'oppressed'. So again, please do not speak on behalf of my female relatives because they would not agree with you... you are not a representative of all females and you should not believe you are just because your girlfriend may have a particular sensativity and that you're trying to protect her. Its very noble and sensative of you to be sure but understand that not every female will agree with your observation of women's freedom and present day choices. By the way, did you know that most of the markets that are doing well during this time of economic crisis are positions that are primarily staffed by women? Do your homework, you find what i say to be true. Again, its not quite as bad as you think.
You Said: "Boobs versus Brains: You're still not getting it. You, like a great many people, are assuming that sexism is a problem that comes from other people. It isn't, it's a problem that comes from you and me. You want to stare at a nice pair of tits, go ahead, but don't pretend that when you do you're any different from the men who "through their stupid nature or being taught in such a way only look at breasts as something ogle over". If you're ogling breasts, you're viewing breasts as something to ogle over. Period."
You can say what you will but I for instance do not view a woman as a sex object and have never entertained the thought of a relationship based on phyiscal attraction. But the topic goes beyond breasts sir, it should apply to female form, the very characteristics that determine what is a woman versus a man. Sorry bud but if people didnt use physical attributes as a basis for attraction we'd have never made it this far as a species because we wouldn't have known who to mate with (if at all!). I for one think the female form is beautiful IN COMBINATION with her intellect and personality. Notice how the two go hand in hand. If you and your girlfriend think that its wrong to view the female form as something to be admired and found beautiful then that's your decision.
Playboy: This. Is. Not. About. Playboy. This is about reinforcing the universally held notion that women exist only for the sexual gratification of men. And before you say "I don't think that" - you do. Seriously. It's an assumption that is so totally ingrained in our culture that we accept it without questioning.
If an individual woman wants to pose naked in playboy, that's great. That's her choice. No feminist would disagree with that. What feminists object to is the idea that *all women* should want to be playboy centerfolds. That's why people objected to SYBM. It wasn't the bunny ears, it was the fact that any female character in the game was marked as a valid target to be (to cite another poster here) "turned into a sex bunny" purely because they were female."
Whoa, whoa, back the truck up mister, you're painting a very broad stroke for men in general and again I say with utmost sincerity and conviction that you DO NOT represent nor could ever possibly express the thoughts and interests of every man to be accounted for. Nor would I ever endorse any such man claiming to be representing men in general and making such accusations that "women are only for the pleasure of men". That sort of generalization is beaming with the sort of ignorance that your claiming others are afflicted with. I suggest you start talking with more men and not just the ones watching the Spike channel before claiming anything to be "universal" good sir. Give me a break.
You said: "That is wrong, sexist, and degrading and if you don't see that it's because you believe the thing you're still telling yourself you don't believe."
Granted that you'd be right if such an accusation were true but alas there's nothing universal in nature about the opinion that "women are only here for the pleasure men." You may speak for the idiots that maybe you or your fellow feminists may have come across but not me and I'd appreciate if you'd stop acting like you know what my interests are or how I view women. You're being incredibly rude and offensive. It would be just as easy for me to say that all women like men with bulging muscles along with other things... but would that be true?... No, it would be a completely narrow minded ignorant statement that would surely offend a great many women who arent as shallow minded as I'm painting them to be. Are you starting to see where i'm going with this? Seriously this is getting ridiculous. Not all men everywhere are like the ones your girl friend or whoever have come across. Tell her/them to get out more... geeez.
"Yes, it's just a computer game. And it's just TV. And it's just high school. And it's just college. And it's just at work. A bunch of little "justs" make up a person's whole life. And that's why some women were angry, and why they were right to be angry."
Look I would agree whole heartedly with your plight if the whole of gender agreed with you but alas they do not. If women everywhere felt they were being oppressed then every woman would be a feminist, and clearly that is NOT the case.
-James
PS: And you know what really fucking ticks me off about this whole feminist argument about how guys need to be more sensative? Once upon a time I was the sensative and nurturing type, even 'too nice' according to some. Do you know what ended up happening? The relationships with those women ended and they went after guys who were more self centered and had the stereotypical thought process you were accusing me of having as well. Its BS. In truth I've talked to so many women, and most tell me that they want a man who finds them to be both beautiful on the inside and out. They want their men to notice when they do something different whether its their hair or clothes, you name it. They want to be recognized just like we do, more than just their looks, more than just their personality, they want to attractive in both ways. God, i feel like my head is about to explode. Do yourself a favor stop talking strictly to just your fellow feminists and start talking to other men and women and really listen to what they say (it helps when you have them by themselves and they trust that when they tell you something they wont be embarrassed). You'll find that the problem you seek to eradicate isn't as profound or universal as you're making it out to be.
James:
ReplyDeleteI wrote a long post in response to this but it got kind of rude so I deleted it.
Instead of replying to your post in detail, I'm going to try to point out a few things.
You're right, of course, that I don't know who you are, or what you are like in real life, but a lot of the way you have responded to this issue highlights a lot of the points I've been talking about.
The reason that women's issues are important is because men still act like they have the right to make decisions on behalf of women. Men regularly tell women how to look, how to act, and how to think.
When you respond to somebody getting offended by something by saying "there are more important things in the world" you are denying that person the right to their opinion. You are, in fact, taking it upon yourself to decide what women are allowed to care about. That is, in fact, sexist. It's easily done, but you have to be aware that you're doing it.
More on this issue here: http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-05-24_170
Similarly, when you talk about "the female form" as being synonymous with "playboy centrefolds" you are reinforcing the idea that women are only allowed to look one way, that women who are short or fat or facially disfigured are failures as women.
Yes, women like to be found beautiful. There is a difference between finding somebody beautiful and sexually objectifying them. The Shake Your Bunny-Maker achievement was not about recognizing the beauty of female Taurens. It was about the assumption that women = playboy bunnies = sex.
See also:
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/
@ Temitope
ReplyDeleteI've followed this development since (one of) the original posts was up on the Feministing Community site. ( http://community.feministing.com/2009/04/wow-thats-boring-lets-add-sexi.html )
It's also made it's way to Broken Toys and F13.
I have two comments about your dialogue with James...
1) I find it rather interesting that he continually states there are more valid and pressing points. And yet, instead of writing in support of them (which, when they get overturned us craaaayyyzzzeeee feminists will be able to look at these "frivilous" issues of body agency and identity within virtual worlds), he is instead taking a large amount of time to compose these long responses to you.
2) Your link to blog.shrub was *very* valid and something that many feminist media and virtual world critics have been trying to get people to realize. Another site you might be interested in is: http://www.derailingfordummies.com/
Thanks for taking the time to defend something as "unimportant" as this.
-Gexx, who can now play her female dwarf again
PS- I found this, it's relevent and funny
http://toomanyannas.com/blog/other/in-which-i-let-aely-speak-her-mind/
Thanks for the links.
ReplyDeleteThe thing that I find most hilarious about all the people saying "you should be worrying about AIDS and starvation" is that these are fricking World of Warcraft players, people who can and will whinge for hours over the fact that they tuned down the damage coefficients for a couple of raid bosses.
Head explodes:
ReplyDeleteYou said "When you respond to somebody getting offended by something by saying "there are more important things in the world" you are denying that person the right to their opinion."
First off, I personally can not deny anyone their opinion; I never said not to have an opinion, I merely said that there is in fact other more critical things that you could be using your time to blog out... in my opinion *snicker*. It may very well be valid but in the grand scheme of things takes a backseat to more pressing matters. Its like trying to fight hunger and giving me a sandwich just because I missed my lunch... lol. Quote me *ANYWHERE* where I said your opinion regarding the achievement was completely unfounded. I'll save you the trouble... you won't find it.
You said: "You are, in fact, taking it upon yourself to decide what women are allowed to care about. That is, in fact, sexist. It's easily done, but you have to be aware that you're doing it."
Read previous rebuttal. In addition, I never stated no one should ever think about it, what I said because clearly you missed it was, TACKLE THE BIGGER PROBLEMS FIRST. Seriously, this whole putting words into my mouth is getting incredibly irritating.
You Said: "Similarly, when you talk about "the female form" as being synonymous with "playboy centrefolds" you are reinforcing the idea that women are only allowed to look one way, that women who are short or fat or facially disfigured are failures as women."
Please quote in my previous entry where I stated that the only female forms to be viewed as beautiful are only the ones from playboy. Again, this is getting old. I'm lucky I haven't died yet from an vein exploding in my head. Sorry bud but you're the one who the drew the line between playboy and female forms that were beautiful as I said no such thing, you did that all on your own. Now I ask you, who's the one really being sexist?
Gexx Said: "I find it rather interesting that he continually states there are more valid and pressing points. And yet, instead of writing in support of them (which, when they get overturned us craaaayyyzzzeeee feminists will be able to look at these "frivilous" issues of body agency and identity within virtual worlds), he is instead taking a large amount of time to compose these long responses to you."
First off, Gexx, I've already stated in previous posts (including on other sites) the gender based imbalances in regards in salary need to be corrected and isn't right (for instance). But I'm not going out for blood because I know you weren't aware of it, but Temitope most certainly was >.<
Second, I'm not by popular definition, a feminist. I support rights of any person or person(s) it goes beyond just women I'm afraid. Dont expect me to go on long tangents regarding certain gender based "wrongs" when what I'm arguing about really is how people need to learn when to pick their battles and learn to prioritize things. As far as my long winded responses... well, I just like to debate and argue lol.
You Said: "The thing that I find most hilarious about all the people saying "you should be worrying about AIDS and starvation" is that these are fricking World of Warcraft players, people who can and will whinge for hours over the fact that they tuned down the damage coefficients for a couple of raid bosses."
Granted that'd be true for the peeps over at elitistjerks but that doesn't apply to everyone. Seriously you love stereotypes and generalizations don't you? Oh and btw, I'm one of the long time players of WoW that takes time out to help raise money to help feed, educate and improve the quality of life for people in impoverished countries, more specifically El Salvador. We recently helped to raise $4,300 locally which will go getting kids in school so they have a chance at a better life. It was the end result of a bounty sale that took place in Geneva OH.
Am I being self righteous? Am I all that better than anyone else? No, but even though I play wow, I do more than just sit on my computer bitching about some problem I hardly know anything about and putting words into people's mouths in order to make some sort of angst filled argument.
I'm done with this, you can not quote any part of my posts in which I said the achievement wasn't sexist; you can't quote any part of my posts in which i said the only beautiful female forms are in playboy; you can't quote any part of my posts where I said that women shouldn't have the opinion in regards to whether not the achievement is sexist. All the highlights you've 'revealed' are things you contrived IN YOUR OWN HEAD, NOT MINE.
You know what do me a favor, before you start bitching again about whatever rights violations or problems you feel you need to go on a tangent over, go out and get fucking active and do something that has a chance to make a real difference... if you think that the achievement is such a huge blow to women's rights and quality of life then start a petition, get a few supporters together and go to Blizzard directly. And don't give me bullshit excuses, because if you can find enough people that feel as strongly as you do then you'll find a way to do it... anyone including Blizzard while listen to someone(s) who would put that much effort into a cause. But until then I don't want to hear anymore of this crap.
And just for the record, and you can quote me on this (because apparently these points were missed):
1. The achievement is actually sexist, but does it hold a candle to Mrs Smith getting 12k less salary for another man holding the same position? NO. If you can't understand why then your judgement sucks ass, and yes that's my opinion.
2. A woman's physical form is a beautiful one not just the one's featured in magazines and not just the physical features on a woman are beautiful too.
That is all. Good night.
-James
Second, I'm not by popular definition, a feministThat is, presumaly, because the popular definition of "feminism" doesn't include "people who are actually extremely sexist".
ReplyDeleteLet me break this down for you James. You are a sexist. Everything you have said here is sexist.
"A woman's physical form is beautiful" - sexist.
"The achievement is sexist but you shouldn't complain about it" - sexist.
Newsflash. Sexists are fully capable of typing the words "I am not sexist" into a computer. They are even fully capable of meaning it.
You know what do me a favor, before you start bitching again about whatever rights violations or problems you feel you need to go on a tangent over, go out and get fucking active and do something that has a chance to make a real differenceOkay. I will. I'll start by calling sexist assholes on their bullshit.
You're spouting bullshit, you sexist asshole.
I gave you chance to really make a valid argument and make me one of your supporters.
ReplyDeleteYour response was as angst filled as I had anticipated. It was not an argument filled with meaningful counter points, no, you've resorted to name calling. Not surprising. You spent no time or thought on it.
If a person who values priority of battles to fight a cause; who values the beauty of the female gender in all ways including the female form is considered a "sexist asshole"...
...then I'd rather be a sexist asshole instead of what you are.
Fail.
-James
PS: Btw, its not sexist to appreciate the beauty of the female form. Sexism: "prejudice or discrimination based on sex ; especially : discrimination against women". I'm questionably shallow but that has little to do with claiming women are inferior in anyway nor have I ever claimed such a thing. I'd almost be willing to accept that I was abit shallow if it weren't for the fact that I value more than just looks when it comes to a woman. I think you've lost sight of what it means to be sexist. So please, just stop.
I gave you chance to really make a valid argument and make me one of your supporters.No. You didn't. You *demanded* that I present an argument which *you* considered valid according to your own terms.
ReplyDeleteSince this conversation started precisely *because* your terms are - to put it flatly - *wrong* that was not something I had any interest in doing.
Even now, you are clinging to the same definition of "sexism" which I started this whole thread in response to. I have never said that you have claimed women are inferior. You have repeatedly claimed the opposite.
You *have* however *treated* women as inferior. By taking it upon yourself to tell women which battles they should fight, you have treated them as inferior. By presenting your "appreciation" for women as some kind of virtue, you have treated women as inferior.
Saying "I appreciate the beauty of the female form" is sexist. Saying "I value more than just looks when it comes to a woman" is sexist. You consistently use the word "woman" as a synonym for "prospective sexual partner" - guess what, that's sexist.
I think you've lost sight of what it means to be sexist. So please, just stopI know exactly what it means to be sexist. It means a lot more than you think it does.
By your definition of "sexism" sexism does not exist. Not here, not anywhere. I defy you to find one single person who will tell you, to your face "I think women are inferior" (which, according to you, is the only way a person could ever be considered sexist). There aren't any.
Back when women weren't allowed to vote, when wives were considered the property of their husbands, back when marriage vows still contained the phrase "love, honour and obey" nobody said women were "inferior". They just said they were *different*.
You are not a sexist by your definition. But neither is anybody else. If you want to go away and live in your happy Nice Guy bubble, I can't stop you. But you are part of the problem, no matter how many cookie sales you run.
I swear to Bob, your generalizations are going to be the death of you. First off 'my definition' is taken from the Merriam-Webster dictionary so argue that point with them and when you get it changed let me know and I'll come and shake your hand personally. But I digress, lets continue to use the definition you've concocted in your head.... You're saying that I'm calling women inferior because I think they shouldn't pick this particular battle to fight right now. Before you can do that you have to generalize that every woman supports your idea that this is a battle that should be fought *now*. I LOL at this, I doubt every woman sides with you, so in essence I'm calling any man (yourself presumably), or woman inferior who sides with the opinion you're supporting. So no, i'm not being sexist in that regard, that could loosely be claimed if in fact every woman sided with you but I can assure you they all don't. So please stop deluding yourself in that I have some personal vendetta against the female gender as I do not, the only people I have a problem with are those that make bad decisions. So am i being prejudice in some way? Eh, probably, but it obviously isn't directed towards the gender as clearly not all females share the same opinion and you are *Male* are you not?
ReplyDeleteYou said: "I appreciate the beauty of the female form" is sexist. Saying "I value more than just looks when it comes to a woman" is sexist. You consistently use the word "woman" as a synonym for "prospective sexual partner" - guess what, that's sexist.
The problem here is that we're coming at this with to completely different definitions of term "sexist", mine i get from a dictionary, your is from some place I have yet to discover, most likely inside your own head. By the definition from the dictionary, the phrase: "I appreciate the beauty of the female form" is in no way indicating inferiority even indirectly. Do you know how backwards that would be if a female said that very same phrase? Can a female be sexist against herself for appreciating her own form? Would you rather she said she hated the way she looked? That's a retarded notion if there ever was one. And why can't a man or woman be appreciative of the female form? Furthermore implicating that its ok for a woman to be appreciative of her own form but not ok for a man definitely has a ring disharmony to it. I would be very careful if I were you how you pick your next words.
You said: "You consistently use the word "woman" as a synonym for "prospective sexual partner"...
Do I really? Or is it rather that you want to believe that I use the two terms interchangeably? Because again, I don't ever recall saying or inferring such a thing. You're either applying something you believe or the stigma that seems to hover over male gender to myself which I don't much appreciate.
You said: "By presenting your "appreciation" for women as some kind of virtue, you have treated women as inferior."
So basically what you're saying is that by expressing appreciation for something I'm actually subtly indicating its inferior? Man, you must be extremely hard to please. When someone tells you "I appreciate the hard work you did.", do you scoff at them because somewhere in your head you believe them to be sarcastic or maybe condescending? You have untrusting albeit pessimistic personality. Personally I think people should have appreciation for women for a variety of reasons. So if by expressing my appreciation for something i'm actually degrading it how I am I, in genuine terms, supposed to get the point across that "this is a wonderful thing"? By your definition, you can't. And if you start saying that its for everyone have a universal appreciation for something (ie: to point of virtue) and not something else you're setting a double standard and again I would be very careful with your rebuttal because you're not helping your argument at the moment.
-James
James.
ReplyDeleteThe problem here is that I keep explaining why what you are saying is sexist, and you keep saying "but that isn't what I mean".
The problem is, you will not actually *say* what you mean.
Perhaps if you could tell me what you actually mean when you say - for example - that you "appreciate the female form" that would help.
Well I've adopted the definition from the diary as the "correct" one if you will. I will elaborate.
ReplyDeleteI identify sexism as any action that would directly or indirectly (under scrutiny of course - because not everyone will feel degraded from the same indirect actions) a particular gender inferior to another and therefore subject said gender to a lesser quality of life.
By that definition there are definitely some things that are obviously sexist.
For instance, take two people, both observe the same woman, both find a particular woman's appearance to be striking for whatever reason, however one starts thinking sexual thoughts while the other starts to think "I'd like to know more about her".
This is a very simple test, albeit with a twist I'll reveal later. But the question is, which part about the above scenario do you think is sexist? Moreover, *who* do you believe to be sexist?
As far as my reference to the female form, on the surface it encompasses the physical attributes. Abit further in, psychologically, are all the things that constitute a woman's grace and humanitarian aspects (~ the one thing I come to respect more and more the past few years as I get I involved with helping the needy.
My argument was is that while there are a great many men on the surface appreciate the physical attributes of a woman, there's a pretty good number of us that do not regard physical attributes to be sole determinate of the quality of the individual. In other words you can appreciate physical beauty and still place significant importance on personality and psyche. And in doing so said person recognizes the subject they're observing as more than just a collection of skin and organs. And if they've come to recognize that the person they are observing is more than just looks and not just there for their visual enjoyment than are they really being sexist? I guess what I'm tryin to point out is that its possible to a person physically attractive without believing that they are no more than a sexual plaything. That to me would be sexist.
But the question is, which part about the above scenario do you think is sexist? Moreover, *who* do you believe to be sexist?First off. It is impossible for me to answer this question without making assumptions, because you have deliberately provided me with insufficient information. It's like that fucktarded thing that keeps going around the internet where you've got to pick one of two people to be leader of the world and it turns out that the nice-sounding one IS HITLER.
ReplyDeleteJust to warn you - you said there was a twist, there is a good chance that this twist is something I spotted but can't be arsed to write a contingency for. Take a fucking cookie, you managed to communicate poorly on the internet. I hope you feel clever.
Anyway, taking this example at face value:
Person number two.
Person number one sees a hot woman and admits that he (or she, yes I spotted your gender neutrality - please understand that women can be sexist to, so it really doesn't matter) finds her sexually attractive. Brilliant. Nothing wrong with "person" number one.
Guy number two is this guy. A sexist douchebag who pretends that his sexual attraction to a woman comes from a more enlightened, more meaningful understanding of the "real person" than those Jerks who just want sex. He reduces women to sexual objects and pretends he's doing the exact opposite. He doesn't have a girlfriend, and deep down he thinks it's because women are too stupid to know how great he'd be for them. Guy B is a complete shit.
And again, if your twist is that Guy B is really A WOMAN who just wanted to be friends with another woman, you fail.
Also, you still haven't actually told me what you mean by "the female form". Although once again I'd like to point out the following Totally Sexist Things you have said:
all the things that constitute a woman's grace and humanitarian aspectsOnce again. Sexist. You, a man, are taking it upon yourself to define what a woman is and should be. Don't tell me you aren't. You did. You did it just there.
You do not realise that this is sexist. The fact that you do not realise it is, itself, sexist. The fact that you will continue to insist that it is not sexist because your personal definition of sexism precludes the possibility that you could ever be sexist, is incredibly sexist.