[Phantom Hoover]

You say it's not wrong to claim this as terrorism against women, and yet, when someone makes that claim, it's wrong?

He said it's not even wrong.

[The E]

Aaargh, stupid english, why you fail me now.

Yes, I read that wrong, and I apologize for that.

[Luis Dias]

Take one of her recent retweets, about the #fappening, claiming that this scandal was about "nothing less than terrorism against women". Do you enjoy this kind of obviously ridiculous rethoric? It's not even wrong to make these claims, and yet we are innundated by this ****ty stuff. Did anyone get angry when previously some men's nude photos or sex tapes or whatever were released and shared by the same media that is now being so moralistic about this?. No. Why not? Because it's not a big ****ing deal, as it wasn't a big ****ing deal whenever prominent men had hate mail or death threats.

Strangely enough, there is seemingly no market whatsoever for pics of celebrity cock. I cannot remember any time in which a leaked nude picture of a male celebrity was newsworthy (except in cases where female celebrities were also present in the picture).

They do exist (see Hulk Hogan's case, where the same media even refused to take down its material when asked for). But it's obviously skewed.

Well could it be that female bodies are a lot more interesting than men's? We've been throught this. Why would a bigger interest in one genders' body be construed as hatred of that gender is something that really goes beyond reason and no wonder most people just eyeroll at these claims.

Is it okay to publish these things? No. Is it okay to classify it as mysoginy? No. Just as it's blatantly wrong and self-serving to whine how anti-semitic one is when someone criticizes the Israel government. But don't you see the hidden intentions here? ****, jesus.

You say it's not wrong to claim this as terrorism against women, and yet, when someone makes that claim, it's wrong?

No, I said "it's not even wrong". It's a reference to something Pauli once said about a scientific argument (in a way as saying it's worse than being wrong).

So, from the top: We have an article that explores the how and why of the reaction feminism gets on the internet. One point addressed is that of radicalization of small, tightly knit groups. The article cites a study that cited a person on the behaviour of al-Qaeda, with the citation being so general as to apply to any radicalized group. Then the writer of the article suggests that a similar process of radicalization happens in the anti-feminist crowd.

Man, it's incredible. So in order to establish that these groups work really well together and form tighty knit groups, one goes out to bring the Al Quaeda example, but that's fine because it's a high level abstracted analogy, I mean, in NO WAY it is designed to paint these people (who the writer called "TERRORISTS" in the headline itself) as being in a moral level equivalent to Al Quaeda. I mean that would be just the nasty rethorical trick in the book, pretty sure all these brilliant well intentioned people would never stoop so low.

That, as far as I am concerned, is not a questionable writing decision. There's a difference between saying "These mechanisms are the same ones we saw in al-Qaeda" and "These people are literally al-Qaeda", and it applies here.

Well!

[karajorma]

Strangely enough, there is seemingly no market whatsoever for pics of celebrity cock. I cannot remember any time in which a leaked nude picture of a male celebrity was newsworthy (except in cases where female celebrities were also present in the picture).

Hulk Hogan, Bam Mahgra, Gene Simmons, Colin Farrell, Mini-Me from Austin Powers (his name escapes me at the moment). And that's just off the top of my head!


There is obviously a big market for celebrities having sex. Male or female.

[Luis Dias]

Just look at this Gawker page highlighting what they wrote about Hogan's sex tape. Read the material. If you find any shame on the fact they were trespassing Hogan's privacy I advise you to go to the optometrist right away. http://gawker.com/tag/hulk-hogan-sex-tape

One fast passage: "Update: The video posted here has been removed pending litigation. See here for details. If you'd like to watch it elsewhere, you may do so here" (sharing a link). It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad to compare it with the way people are being treated right now because they dared peek to one or two pictures of half naked women (I didn't because I really don't care, but still).

[karajorma]

Well I don't know if Gawker in particular is the best site for a comparison since I don't think they've been particularly harsh about looking at the women's photos either. But I would agree that I've never seen a site react to the invasion of a male celebrities privacy in the same way.

What you really need to find is a site that complains about the women's pics but doesn't complain about male sex tapes.

[Meneldil]

You can think her videos are badly done, her theories lacking and her data unsubstantiated, but I don't believe that "she didn't dilute her opinion enough" is a good criticism, even if fighting only the most solid battles can seem effective in the short term.

I think that pin pointing the exact problem in Sarkeesian has been hard, at least for me, since I've been hedging and swinging in some different directions. It's in my nature to listen and research about everything involved from very different viewpoints, and some times the result is messier than if I just sticked with first impressions and just be a sheep to someone with a sharp clear message about this whole thing. I think it's worth the trouble though.

For all I know what you say could be 100% true, and is mostly a potentially valid criticism of her methods. And criticism of her methods by other (women) feminists in gaming would be a great thing, for that community.
On the other hand I know very little about what she posts on her social media or about her in general. I was commenting solely on the content of her last two videos and what I think could or couldn't be wrong with them, and on a particular point of criticism I don't believe to be effective in the long run.

[AdmiralRalwood]

Well could it be that female bodies are a lot more interesting than men's? We've been throught this. Why would a bigger interest in one genders' body be construed as hatred of that gender is something that really goes beyond reason and no wonder most people just eyeroll at these claims.

It sounds like you don't understand the concept of sexual objectification. Here, have a wikipedia article on the subject.

[Luis Dias]

Well could it be that female bodies are a lot more interesting than men's? We've been throught this. Why would a bigger interest in one genders' body be construed as hatred of that gender is something that really goes beyond reason and no wonder most people just eyeroll at these claims.

It sounds like you don't understand the concept of sexual objectification. Here, have a wikipedia article on the subject.

And it sounds like you went on sniping right on a quote where you thought you could slam me something in my head without any regard whatsoever to the context around what I was saying.

I *know* what objectification is, what feminists say about the dychotomy between subject and object, its relation to its corollary arousal, and so on and so on and so on. It is not irrelevant to what I was saying but it is entirely perpendicular. So congrats there, mate.

[AdmiralRalwood]

And it sounds like you went on sniping right on a quote where you thought you could slam me something in my head without any regard whatsoever to the context around what I was saying.

It sounds like you're attributing emotional motivation where there is none. I have no interest in "slamming" anything; I was just providing you with information.

I *know* what objectification is, what feminists say about the dychotomy between subject and object, its relation to its corollary arousal, and so on and so on and so on. It is not irrelevant to what I was saying but it is entirely perpendicular.

If you think it's "entirely perpendicular" to what you were saying, I'm going to have to disagree with your assessment that you actually know what sexual objectification is.

[Luis Dias]

Well I don't know if Gawker in particular is the best site for a comparison since I don't think they've been particularly harsh about looking at the women's photos either. But I would agree that I've never seen a site react to the invasion of a male celebrities privacy in the same way.

What you really need to find is a site that complains about the women's pics but doesn't complain about male sex tapes.

Jezebel is a subset of Gawker. http://jezebel.com/behind-every-bullied-woman-is-a-man-yelling-about-free-1629502544

[Luis Dias]

It sounds like you're attributing emotional motivation where there is none. I have no interest in "slamming" anything; I was just providing you with information.

I could say the exact same thing to you, therefore this comment and the last one was absolutely inane and unnecessary. Why the snark? Or are you gonna say something like "it looks like you saw snark where there was none!" back at me? Drop off that attitude with me, please. It's not helpful in any conversation, and it's definitely not going to play well with me.

If you think it's "entirely perpendicular" to what you were saying, I'm going to have to disagree with your assessment that you actually know what sexual objectification is.

sigh. Disagree at wiil... If you don't understand why it was perpendicular, then you didn't understand what I said when I compared the treatment of sexual objectification of women and men by the media, who did what, and in what particular case were people shocked and what they were not.

[AdmiralRalwood]

I could say the exact same thing to you, therefore this comment and the last one was absolutely inane and unnecessary. Why the snark? Or are you gonna say something like "it looks like you saw snark where there was none!" back at me? Drop off that attitude with me, please. It's not helpful in any conversation, and it's definitely not going to play well with me.

I genuinely was not attempting to be snarky; the "attitude" to which you refer does not exist. The purpose of the comments is that you are stating factually incorrect things as though they were self-evident.

sigh. Disagree at wiil... If you don't understand why it was perpendicular, then you didn't understand what I said when I compared the treatment of sexual objectification of women and men by the media, who did what, and in what particular case were people shocked and what they were not.

...And you still are.

[666maslo666]

Some comparisons of reactions to male vs. female nude leaks:

https://i.imgur.com/CQ5qgvu.jpg

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-levin/5-reasons-not-to-look-for_b_5756888.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/26/greg-oden-naked-pictures_n_437238.html


Seems like male leaks are taken less seriously than female ones..

[Luis Dias]

Slight variation on the same bull**** double standards:

[Phantom Hoover]

This is Maddox's video, right? Because Maddox is kind of a total arsehole, and I wouldn't trust his opinions as far as I can throw him.

[Luis Dias]

Doesn't make him wrong here though. It's been quite a while since I've seen anything by him for that same reason.

Do watch the video, it's spot on, informative, and entertaining.

[deathfun]

This is Maddox's video, right? Because Maddox is kind of a total arsehole, and I wouldn't trust his opinions as far as I can throw him.

Being an asshole shouldn't make what you say any less viable
On that note though, one shouldn't trust anyone's opinions regardless of who they are

Though generally an asshole has no problems tip toeing around what needs to be said either, which is why I generally like them more

But in the end, you'd be judging the person and not what the person has to say.


Rather amusing video to watch at any rate

[karajorma]

Jezebel is a subset of Gawker. http://jezebel.com/behind-every-bullied-woman-is-a-man-yelling-about-free-1629502544

Oh I know that, but don't they have basically different editorial staff or something?


That said. I love this ****ing double standard.

http://jezebel.com/behind-every-bullied-woman-is-a-man-yelling-about-free-1629502544 - Men justify the leak of women's pictures based on freedom of speech.
http://gawker.com/a-judge-told-us-to-take-down-our-hulk-hogan-sex-tape-po-481328088 - We justify our continued posting a transcript of the Hulk Hogan tape (after taking down the video which was filmed without his consent) based on freedom of speech.

[deathfun]

I've always found it amusing how people seem to think Freedom of Speech applies in these situations. It only does where the Government is involved, not people telling you you can't do this as it violates the Right to Privacy

Right to Privacy on the other hand, restrains both the Government and *private party actions* and is subject to legal action