[The E]

There is likely no good can come from me engaging with you, but I will clarify something. It is not about misogynism. It is about and I will quote Bobboau again

being taught the value of fantasy and having fun

No. The fact that you chose to emphasize this piece of Bob's comment:

cynical no-fun-allowed woman

shows what you were talking about. Also, I don't think Ms Sarkeesian "needs to be taught the value of fun".

As for her name... it's her name.

It's her first name. Are you calling the President of the US "Barack" in debates? Are you generally referring to people you talk about only by their first name?

As for other rational people, well that thumbs down vote is creeping up. Be careful what you say...

What, you think a popular vote on a gaming forum is somehow right? That your "position", laughable as it is, is somehow strengthened by the mere fact that there are people who agree with you (Very little of whom, I must add, have shown any inclination to actually debate the issue?)?

You just, in essence, said "She needs to get laid, so she isn't so uptight."

I. Did. Not.

I neither said, nor thought such a thing. Don't put words in my mouth that I haven't spoken.

I wonder what other filthy motives you're applying to me that are not so.

I think Anita could use a manic pixie dream guy...

Pray tell, what were you saying then? I mean, sounded to me like you were saying "I think she could use a fun-loving, shallow, high-energy man in her life as her love interest". Which is functionally equivalent to "She needs a man in her life", which is functionally equivalent to "If she had a man in her life, she wouldn'T be so *****y all the time".

It's almost like you do not think about what you write, and how your statements can be read.

[Lorric]

We're done here. You don't understand me. You think the worst of me. And I'm not having my day consumed over a joke.

However, if anyone besides "the trio" does not like my joke, I am willing to speak of it.

One thing though:

"(Very little of whom, I must add, have shown any inclination to actually debate the issue?)?"

I had intended to wait two weeks since the inception of this poll, but I believe the reason I basically am the only one debating on my side is simply the others do not want to. And it is because of you, NGTM-1R and Battuta. You do not make debates fun and constructive. The sharing of learning and ideas that helps people grow. You try to dominate people and assert the superiority you believe you have over people. At best, you're not worth their time and energy. At worst, they fear you.

[Dilmah G]

Gonna chime in here once more and say that I'm on the side of everyone else, but am simply not saying anything because they're more educated on the topic than I am. I'm usually a pretty tolerant bloke with this kind of stuff, but Jesus Christ man, you're just not getting it. You are ****ing exactly what Sarkeesian is talking about bro.

It's not a matter of NGTM-1R or Battuta being dicks, they've spent like 6 pages trying to help you. It's a matter of it just not clicking in your brain. It's not just a joke, that's the point! That's the point of their posts and what Sarkeesian's series is about! As was posted in another thread on here, something to the effect of 'it's not what you intend, it's what you're communicating'. You're communicating a pretty sexist (and consequently, dumb) viewpoint, even if you didn't mean to. That's the point. If you want more in depth, refer to this entire THREAD.

[Phantom Hoover]

Oh, and Bobboau: Same goes for you.

??? bobboau didn't say anything particularly offensive, don't take your lorric rage out on him

oh and also jesus christ lorric what the ****

[haloboy100]

I don't expect anyone to listen to my opinion, but;
It's just a joke. and whether or not he is genuinely sexist in stating it shouldn't be relevant. It's not against any law to hold such views. Perhaps it's a genuinely passive-aggressive stab at women, or maybe it's just for the sake of a joke. How can you know for sure? On the internet, you simply cannot. So causing a fuss over it is pretty immature in itself.

I am a rather strongly felt male feminist, but I'm not going to get offended when someone makes jokes like that. There are lot of people (especially in my right-wing community that I live in) that are genuinely misogynistic, and I don't care how much they trash on women. I'll voice my opinion that I strongly disagree and give my reasons I deem valid as to why I hold it, but I'm not going to pass moral judgement on their views because all they're doing (as far as me or any other reaasonable person knows) is what Lorric did: passive commentary and idle jokes. Maybe he's a wife-beater when he's not posting, but the truth value of that proposition is utterly irrelevant here. Don't treat it like he just slapped the girl.

and seriously; trying to ascertain intent based on the naming convention he used to refer to her? That's just bigoted. Whether I call him "Barrack" or "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. II" should have absolutely no relevance to my political views or personal disposition on the man.

[BloodEagle]

As for other rational people, well that thumbs down vote is creeping up. Be careful what you say...

What, you think a popular vote on a gaming forum is somehow right? That your "position", laughable as it is, is somehow strengthened by the mere fact that there are people who agree with you (Very little of whom, I must add, have shown any inclination to actually debate the issue?)?

I'd like to point out that the poll itself has very little to do with what's being discussed.

It is a poll asking if you liked or disliked a particular video, on the Internet, for any reason.

I agree with quite a bit of what The E et al are saying, but voted 'disliked' in the poll about the video.

--

Oh, and Bobboau: Same goes for you.

??? bobboau didn't say anything particularly offensive, don't take your lorric rage out on him

I'll second this.

--

I would like to present as evidence, "Miracle on 34th Street" the story of a cynical no-fun-allowed woman being taught the value of fantasy and having fun by a guy. This description can work for both of the main subplots of the movie, but I focus more on the relationship between Fred and Doris as it has the whole romantic angle to it.

I think Anita could use a manic pixie dream guy...

I took that to mean 'she needs to get laid'.  Just FYI, most people will.

And even if they don't.  It's still offensive as it is.

--

I don't expect anyone to listen to my opinion, but;
It's just a joke. and whether or not he is genuinely sexist in stating it shouldn't be relevant. It's not against any law to hold such views. Perhaps it's a genuinely passive-aggressive stab at women, or maybe it's just for the sake of a joke. How can you know for sure? On the internet, you simply cannot. So causing a fuss over it is pretty immature in itself.

Knowingly entering a debate like this and telling a 'she needs to get laid / she needs to get a man' joke is about the same as entering a Catholic church and telling jokes about pedophiles, during Mass, with a megaphone.

and seriously; trying to ascertain intent based on the naming convention he used to refer to her? That's just bigoted. Whether I call him "Barrack" or "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. II" should have absolutely no relevance to my political views or personal disposition on the man.

I'll let someone a little more well-versed in history and social norms cover this one.

[haloboy100]

I don't expect anyone to listen to my opinion, but;
It's just a joke. and whether or not he is genuinely sexist in stating it shouldn't be relevant. It's not against any law to hold such views. Perhaps it's a genuinely passive-aggressive stab at women, or maybe it's just for the sake of a joke. How can you know for sure? On the internet, you simply cannot. So causing a fuss over it is pretty immature in itself.

Knowingly entering a debate like this and telling a 'she needs to get laid / she needs to get a man' joke is about the same as entering a Catholic church and telling jokes about pedophiles, during Mass, with a megaphone.

Catholic churches restrict free speech that is contrary to their beliefs. I'd like to think that the HLP forums are not like this. If such a statement should be censored here, it is because it is deliberately offensive, not just rude or inconsiderate.
But of course there's already discussion about that going on already, so I digress.
It's a joke. There is no proof of intent (and thus genuine sexism), regardless of what anybody says. This is the internet; jokes are only harmful if you want them to be. and I don't need to remind people that wanting to be harmed is a fundamental aspect of immaturity.

If the administration/moderators believe it to be so offensive, then I won't attempt to argue of it, but that's only because I have no power to excersize in doing so.
Once again we're veering off topic, so that's the last I'll input about this issue.

[The E]

The issues under discussion here all deal with casual misogynism. All the little ways in which our culture accepts and condones violence (verbal and otherwise) against women without so much as a blink. Saying that something "is just a joke" is a part of this problem.

[Lorric]

I shall address the joke in more detail, it may be useful. It’s just a joke. It has no sinister hidden meaning behind it. When I saw the part I bolded in the original joke post, I just thought what a perfect description of Anita that is. She is very cynical. And there is no lightness to her videos at all. It’s all cynical and dead serious and preachy. Seriously, if you want, just keep those words in mind (cynical, no fun allowed) and watch one of her videos. It fits so well.

I thought nothing of her needing to be laid or to have a man in her life. I don’t even believe in such things, I mentally roll my eyes when I hear people suggest such things about people. I just read about the way the manic pixie dream guy transformed the woman in the film, and thought wouldn’t it be nice if the same could be done for Anita. The manic pixies do not transform their partners by dragging them into bed. So why would anyone think otherwise? It’s got nothing to do with gender.

I reiterate that I am not at all sexist, and oppose those who are.

@ haloboy100

Thank you.

[Scourge of Ages]

I reiterate that I am not at all sexist, and oppose those who are.

This entire thread says otherwise, and that is the only thing that we're trying to communicate to you. You may THINK you aren't, but your actions indicate that you are, and that's the problem.

[Lorric]

I reiterate that I am not at all sexist, and oppose those who are.

This entire thread says otherwise, and that is the only thing that we're trying to communicate to you. You may THINK you aren't, but your actions indicate that you are, and that's the problem.

If I'm telling people I'm not and they don't believe me, that's their problem. No one has ever accused me of being sexist in my life.

I don't think I'm not sexist, I know I'm not sexist. I don't want to be sexist. I control what I am and am not. So I am not sexist.

[Phantom Hoover]

I control what I am and am not.

No you don't. Nobody does. Notions of 'sexism' etc. are mostly extrinsic, which is why I don't think the way they're thrown around in these discussions is particularly helpful. You may not think you're sexist, you may honestly not want to be sexist, but your actions can still play into and reinforce a sexist gender system. What you can do is keep track of those actions and try to keep them in check, which is precisely the opposite of what you're doing in this thread.

[NGTM-1R]

If I'm telling people I'm not and they don't believe me, that's their problem. No one has ever accused me of being sexist in my life.

I don't think I'm not sexist, I know I'm not sexist. I don't want to be sexist. I control what I am and am not. So I am not sexist.

People lie all the time. To themselves, to others, to authority, to lack of authority, to their face, on the internet. Some lies happen because they don't wish to tell the truth, some lies happen because they don't give a damn, some lies happen because they don't understand, some lies happen because they don't want to understand.  There's plenty of reason not to take things said at face value in the face of contrary evidence.

And that's all assuming you're a purely rational actor.

Which you and nobody else here is.

[Lorric]

If I'm telling people I'm not and they don't believe me, that's their problem. No one has ever accused me of being sexist in my life.

I don't think I'm not sexist, I know I'm not sexist. I don't want to be sexist. I control what I am and am not. So I am not sexist.

People lie all the time. To themselves, to others, to authority, to lack of authority, to their face, on the internet. Some lies happen because they don't wish to tell the truth, some lies happen because they don't give a damn, some lies happen because they don't understand, some lies happen because they don't want to understand.  There's plenty of reason not to take things said at face value in the face of contrary evidence.

And that's all assuming you're a purely rational actor.

Which you and nobody else here is.

Try believing what I say. Because it's the truth. See where it takes you. I think you'll like it.

[NGTM-1R]

Women are naturally more sensitive, more empathic. They can relate to the female character better.

And right now people are fighting against sexism. Let's hope their opponents, who believe things like

Women are naturally more sensitive, more empathic. They can relate to the female character better.

don't win out.

People who fight against real sexism, good luck to them. Are you honestly saying my second quote is not true? It is true. It's as true as saying men are physically stronger than women. I'm not saying it applies to every single woman and every single man if that's what you're thinking, people should be taken as they come, but when you lump them all in together, it's true.

It is factually untrue. There is no scientifically established cross-cultural historically robust empathy gender gap rooted in biology.

What differences we do detect in our culture are often (perhaps always) the result of nurture and cultural factors. Women are taught that they should be more empathic, so they think more empathically.

You don't need scientific proof. It is obvious.

[NGTM-1R]

So basically it's not the truth and also I don't particularly feel like following you down the garden path because I don't think yours goes anywhere terribly fun even if you were harmless, which considering some of your past behavior I kind of doubt.

You're still the dude who decided to draw Isa in bondage gear with obscene stuff scribbled on her, crying, and what the hell, wave your freak flag high man, but don't act like nobody's gonna call you on it.

[Lorric]

The last two quotes are not the full story of that dialogue. I did not realise Battuta's links were links, and you can click the quotes to go and see this.

The first three, If you think this makes me sexist, then we have a different definition of the word sexist.

[The E]

To be fair to him, he retracted that statement (Not that he actually commented on whether or not his beliefs have changed as a result of reading the linked research).

Now, I remember that you said something along the lines of "I am not influenced by advertisement" earlier, Lorric. The thing is, I completely believe that you believe it when you say that. That does not actually mean it is true, because even though it is easy to say "I make this commercial decision on the basis of rational fact", actually doing that is near impossible. The second you make an impulsive buy, even one you rationalize later, the second you just do something on a whim, that's where advertisement has shaped your decision making in some way. Even the complete rejection of anything that is actually advertised is still a reaction to advertisement.
Economic theory is full of examples how we aren't rational actors in that space. Assuming us to be capable of being rational actors in any other field of human endeavour is a folly. We can, occasionally and with great effort, act rational. Most of the time, we're just following our impulses and try to rationalize them after the fact.

You may ask what this little excursion has to do with feminism and the issues we're talking about here. Just as it is easy to spot the big shouty advertisements, it is easy to spot big, overt ways in which women are made to be less than men, and thus very easy to avoid those, to make statements to combat these great ills, and then be happy and secure in the knowledge that you did your part for the greater cause of equality.

But this concentration on the big issues lets all the smaller ways in which inequality harms us slip away. By allowing the existence of these little jokes, we subconsciously accept the picture of women they convey. By dismissing an opinion we do not like by saying "Well, s/he just needs to get laid", or by saying things like "This isn't a woman's/a man's job", we restrict the way we're accepting people.

That, more or less, is why I am such a fervent supporter of Ms Sarkeesians' efforts. That is why I criticize you for only referring to her as "Anita". By denying her even the most basic of courtesies, you belittle this person in a way she does not deserve.

[NGTM-1R]

To be fair to him, he retracted that statement (Not that he actually commented on whether or not his beliefs have changed as a result of reading the linked research).

A retraction usually implies some kind of acknowledgement of error of the original statement; all he did is say he'd read them, he never acknowledged error directly or implicitly so I'm not inclined to give him the benefit of a retraction.

[Lorric]

To be fair to him, he retracted that statement (Not that he actually commented on whether or not his beliefs have changed as a result of reading the linked research).

Now, I remember that you said something along the lines of "I am not influenced by advertisement" earlier, Lorric. The thing is, I completely believe that you believe it when you say that. That does not actually mean it is true, because even though it is easy to say "I make this commercial decision on the basis of rational fact", actually doing that is near impossible. The second you make an impulsive buy, even one you rationalize later, the second you just do something on a whim, that's where advertisement has shaped your decision making in some way. Even the complete rejection of anything that is actually advertised is still a reaction to advertisement.
Economic theory is full of examples how we aren't rational actors in that space. Assuming us to be capable of being rational actors in any other field of human endeavour is a folly. We can, occasionally and with great effort, act rational. Most of the time, we're just following our impulses and try to rationalize them after the fact.

You may ask what this little excursion has to do with feminism and the issues we're talking about here. Just as it is easy to spot the big shouty advertisements, it is easy to spot big, overt ways in which women are made to be less than men, and thus very easy to avoid those, to make statements to combat these great ills, and then be happy and secure in the knowledge that you did your part for the greater cause of equality.

But this concentration on the big issues lets all the smaller ways in which inequality harms us slip away. By allowing the existence of these little jokes, we subconsciously accept the picture of women they convey. By dismissing an opinion we do not like by saying "Well, s/he just needs to get laid", or by saying things like "This isn't a woman's/a man's job", we restrict the way we're accepting people.

That, more or less, is why I am such a fervent supporter of Ms Sarkeesians' efforts. That is why I criticize you for only referring to her as "Anita". By denying her even the most basic of courtesies, you belittle this person in a way she does not deserve.

Thank you.

I truly am practically immune to advertisements, in terms of advertisements swaying me. But when I say it, I mean in a negative way, as in making a purchase and then being unhappy with it and thinking “Why on Earth did I buy this?!” It just doesn’t happen. However, if you mean advertising something that I do want, then that can happen. I remember a lot of years ago, I set out into town to buy Kessen 2. But I found Dynasty Warriors 3 as well. And I only had the money to buy one game. Well, as you may have seen on here, Dynasty Warriors is my favourite game series, so I took Dynasty Warriors 3. I had enough money back home to buy both, so went home and then came back and bought Kessen II as well. I had no internet then, so I had no way to know what was coming out besides the once in a blue moon purchase of a games magazine or TV programme. Other than that I just had to look at the boxes in the shops. And the box told me this was something I would want very much.

Advertisement could perhaps work to tell me of a cheaper/better product that I already had. But it’s all about facts for me. The flash I just ignore it. I am not immune to impulse buys, but honestly when I go shopping, I usually go in with a list of things in mind that I need/want, and walk out with only things on that list and nothing else. Once in a while though I just might pick something up that looks nice, but it is rare. Oh, and I can buy things that I like and normally buy that are on the cheap that weren‘t on my list. Advertisements can make me aware of something's existence, but nothing more. I don’t know if this stuff is any use or interest to you, but please don’t bite my head off if it’s not. This latest post of yours is nicer than usual and I’d like it to stay that way.

I never say such things as “ "Well, s/he just needs to get laid" or "This isn't a woman's/a man's job" ”

Why don’t you go after the more overt things? I would start with the most overt (and to me biggest issues) and work down.

This naming thing is strange to me. Honestly, I see nothing wrong with it. I call everyone bar my immediate family by their first name. And some people even refer to parents and grandparents by their first name. Everyone else in my life or who has been in my life I have called by their first name. Exceptions I can think of are teachers, doctors and police officers. I don’t see what the problem is. She has made her name available to the public and I am using it. I am just using it to identify who I am talking about. I generally refer to Obama as Obama. I’d probably use his first name if it was easier to type than his second name. Same in vice-versa for Anita. I don’t mean any disrespect by it. If she was in the thread in person and didn’t like it, I wouldn’t do it. Oh, and everyone calls me by my first name. No one has ever called me anything else, and it doesn’t bother me. Except when I go to the bank and I get called “sir”. No one has ever not liked me calling them by their first name.