That kinda shit (also deep-seated anger) is why I basically don't bother arguing about feminist shit on the internet if I can help it anymore. It just comes down to stupid gotcha arguments and semantic bullshit while totally ignoring the actual drive of any arguments being made.
See, I opted out of feminism because of it. It's too heavy a term. I'm an egalitarian now, simply because people don't assume anything of me because of it.
Is that like being a falconer, except you raise eagles?
Honestly I think the guy's worst offense in general is that he makes a whole crapload of videos about videogames under the guise that he is funny and interesting, and he's actually not even close to being either of those things.
Was the one video I watched supposed to be funny? It had interesting facts, independent of the person presenting it. The best part was descriptions of fifteen or so different video games.
He said the whole thing is a parody, and I also mean all his other vids are lame as hell too. Guy has a whole youtube channel filled with crappy videos, and obviously thinks highly of his own abilities as an entertainer.
Is that like being a falconer, except you raise eagles?
It's more like being a falconer but call yourself an animal husbandry aficionado. Egalitarianism is simply the belief that everyone should be treated equal. It lacks the connotations feminism has gained through the behavior of its more vocal members and the simple roots of the word. It also has the benefit of being able to be applied to discussions of race and homophobia. It quickly, easily, and succinctly sums up all my opinions on the majority of social issues so that I can move the discussion to something fun like economics.
It quickly, easily, and succinctly sums up all my opinions on the majority of social issues so that I can move the discussion to something fun like economics.
It quickly, easily, and succinctly sums up all my opinions on the majority of social issues so that I can move the discussion to something fun like economics.
How do you feel about egalitarian economics?
I feel that the lack of a good consensus on the meaning (equal opportunity vs. equal outcome) makes it kind of difficult to have an opinion on.
Personally, anytime someone calls themselves an "egalitarian", it reads as MRA, or at least, cowardly. It's certainly not unique or original. So don't think you're getting away without heavy connotation. While feminism ideologically is within egalitarianism, the term feminism mandates viewing social justice through the lens of gendered perspective, as anti-racist uses the lens of racial perspective. In practice, though, egalitarian ends up being a term for people who want to distance themselves from feminism, usually bc of the extreme man-hating straw feminist stereotype. By using a different term, you are, to a degree, reinforcing the belief that feminist == straw feminist, or at least, removing one instance of counter example. /feels
Do MRAs posit themselves as egalitarian? Never heard that before, just thought of it as sort of a deprecated term, like something people said when fighting for women's suffrage.
Do MRAs posit themselves as egalitarian? Never heard that before, just thought of it as sort of a deprecated term, like something people said when fighting for women's suffrage.
Some do, but most are too proud of the Men's Rights label to bother with it.
(The answer to your question ends in favor of rambling about here or so.)
As for most Egalitarians, I've never encountered one who was actually an MRA sort of person. I've encountered a shitload that say - as NFG says, sort of - "I'm an egalitarian, because I don't want to be associated with all the nasty shit that's done and said under the banner of feminism". The closest I've heard to it is basically "Well, I'm kind of a feminist, but really I just want rights for everyone, so I guess I'm an egalitarian instead, but whatever, same result in the end" and sentiments similar.
On the other hand, I've also never encountered anyone who was disassociating themselves from feminism in favor of the label "Egalitarian" because of extreme Man-hating Feminists - I refuse to call them straw feminists, because they do exist, even if they're not nearly as common as the times when people like Dworkin were the figureheads of feminism, and when you're a doggedly inclusive ideology, you don't get the convenience of just ignoring their existence when you want to be all smiles and warm fuzzy-wuzzys.
Also, if you ever even doubt that they exist, Go check out SRS or the Social justice section of tumblr. I don't give a shit what they stand for, I've never, ever seen a more vicious, nasty, rage-filled, dismissive, backstabbing and toxic movement in my life(even crazy MRAs pale in comparison), and hope I never see another - it's not that they hate men, they hate everybody that isn't themselves, and frankly, they're eyeing everyone else in the movement cautiously for signs they should exclude them and dump upon them the same bitter venom that they dump on everyone else.
Most people I've encountered who favor the term egalitarian generally can point to specific examples, attitudes, or give reasonable explanations as to why they feel the feminist label isn't for them, and frankly, I don't see how that's a problem.
What I do see as a problem is the grab for support I've seen lately from some feminists, by trying to katamari up other movements into their cause. "Oh, you're against Racism? Well, you're a feminist, because we hate that kind of discrimination too!" "Oh, you're for men's rights, but you're not a crazy MRA nutcase? Well, don't you know it's just THE PATRIARCHY that's taking away those rights and making you out to be the evil one, so you're a feminist!" "Oh, you don't like cheese because you're lactose intolerant, but you're also a militant vegan? Well, don't you know milk comes from female cattle who are killed for their meat when they don't produce enough milk anymore, and this slavery of those female beings is reprehensible, you're actually a feminist!"
No, I'm sorry, that's nonsense. Words mean particular things. Those can change over time, but you don't get to radically redefine what they mean just because you fucking feel like it, and want to be a little more popular. Feminism is fighting for the rights of women. That's that. If you cross over into something else, say, fighting against racism, that doesn't mean that not being a racist automatically means that you're a feminist, it just means you also don't like racism, as well as being a feminist. Fun facts - you can be more than one thing, or wear more than one label, as long as those things are not contradictory.
If you have a pathological need of one overriding label for all the things you like and another for the things you hate, you don't need a cause, you need professional help.
No, I'm sorry, that's nonsense. Words mean particular things. Those can change over time, but you don't get to radically redefine what they mean just because you fucking feel like it, and want to be a little more popular. Feminism is fighting for the rights of women. That's that. If you cross over into something else, say, fighting against racism, that doesn't mean that not being a racist automatically means that you're a feminist, it just means you also don't like racism, as well as being a feminist. Fun facts - you can be more than one thing, or wear more than one label, as long as those things are not contradictory.
If you have a pathological need of one overriding label for all the things you like and another for the things you hate, you don't need a cause, you need professional help
That point ignores the problem of intersectionality. Most discrimination is not additive it is multiplicative. So the different experiences for a black women than other women because there are other stereotypes and roles that it can fit in. It is that intersectionality that made some of the second wave falter to an extant. It is something that had been blind spot has now attempting to be patched. It is not like you can be above society or not influenced by it's systems. Not wanting to be associated with certain leadership styles and movements is okay but they still effect you.
On a separate not equalitarian mostly seems to me not necessarily to code MRA but to code as not helping. They kinda agree that there are things wrong but do bring change to gender and its' expressions.
You made an html error I have never seen before. It's kinda fascinating and I'm curious how you did it. You meant to write < blockquote rel="Churbs" >but wrote < /blockquote > instead. I'm impressed.
The new video is better than the previous ones. I feel like she has an actual thesis about these games, which makes sense as she's now talking to modern developers rather than pointlessly going over the history we all know.
Well, yes. But her audience is primarily gamers and game developers who she wants to educate. People outside games don't need to know how old games are sexist. They know these things, and it's a contributing factor as to why many don't get involved.
I think the 'Damsel' trope can be used well in fiction. What's important is that the damsel in question be sufficiently interesting. Like Anthy from 'Utena' or Mytho from 'Princess Tutu'. There is no solution to lazy writing; it exists in every era.
I'm bored of anything predictable. Any story that is cliché heavy is bound to be un-enjoyable.
Especially if the other facets of story aren't done well. I can enjoy watching a film like Avatar for all it's Weta Digital CG. The story, the characters can piss off.
If you're going to contextualised a video game with a story, why not make something truly unique. Otherwise what's the point?
But if you make your damsel well rounded, interesting and with her own objectives and agency, she stops being a damsel.
Doesn't his or her primary objective tend to be to escape? Also noticed your use of the words 'her' and 'she'. The Damsel is not a gendered concept. Narratively speaking, the taken damsel gives the protagonist something to lose. It gives stakes to the story. The damsel is never going to disappear. You're never going to cease to see a character who's captured or endangered for the sake of playing on the audience's empathy. It's really best to stop thinking in terms of: "How can we eliminate damsels?" And start thinking in terms of: "What's the best way to do a damsel?" And the best way to write a damsel that the audience cares about is to write them as well-rounded and interesting; after all, they're meant to inspire an empathetic feeling from the audience.
But if you make your damsel well rounded, interesting and with her own objectives and agency, she stops being a damsel.
Doesn't his or her primary objective tend to be to escape? Also noticed your use of the words 'her' and 'she'. The Damsel is not a gendered concept. Narratively speaking, the taken damsel gives the protagonist something to lose. It gives stakes to the story. The damsel is never going to disappear. You're never going to cease to see a character who's captured or endangered for the sake of playing on the audience's empathy. It's really best to stop thinking in terms of: "How can we eliminate damsels?" And start thinking in terms of: "What's the best way to do a damsel?" And the best way to write a damsel that the audience cares about is to write them as well-rounded and interesting; after all, they're meant to inspire an empathetic feeling from the audience.
True, but the harmful trope damsel is identified by whether or not the story would be impacted in any way be replacing her with an inanimate object. You're allowed to have female characters who are captured and subsequently rescued in a story but it is sexist for them to exist solely as (or be reduced to over the course of the story) a reward for a male hero to win.
But if you make your damsel well rounded, interesting and with her own objectives and agency, she stops being a damsel.
Doesn't his or her primary objective tend to be to escape? Also noticed your use of the words 'her' and 'she'. The Damsel is not a gendered concept. Narratively speaking, the taken damsel gives the protagonist something to lose. It gives stakes to the story. The damsel is never going to disappear. You're never going to cease to see a character who's captured or endangered for the sake of playing on the audience's empathy. It's really best to stop thinking in terms of: "How can we eliminate damsels?" And start thinking in terms of: "What's the best way to do a damsel?" And the best way to write a damsel that the audience cares about is to write them as well-rounded and interesting; after all, they're meant to inspire an empathetic feeling from the audience.
True, but the harmful trope damsel is identified by whether or not the story would be impacted in any way be replacing her with an inanimate object. You're allowed to have female characters who are captured and subsequently rescued in a story but it is sexist for them to exist solely as (or be reduced to over the course of the story) a reward for a male hero to win.
Do you think the hero or heroine of a story would characterize their connection to a loved one they're trying to rescue that way? As a 'reward'? When a damsel or dude is uninteresting, why is it immediately sexism rather than just bad writing? Another thing to consider is: "How much time in a story is there to characterize the damsel or dude?" If the focus is on the hero, there likely aren't a lot of new developments to be mined from following them unless we're learning about the villain who has them, finding out about their motivation, evil plans, etc. Continued characterization in that situation is tricky but it can be done with proper balance. I don't think writing a character who gets captured and then doesn't do much after is inherently sexist, and I'd be wary about projecting my own presumptions onto a story as a result of my own prejudices.
Comments
(The answer to your question ends in favor of rambling about here or so.)
As for most Egalitarians, I've never encountered one who was actually an MRA sort of person. I've encountered a shitload that say - as NFG says, sort of - "I'm an egalitarian, because I don't want to be associated with all the nasty shit that's done and said under the banner of feminism". The closest I've heard to it is basically "Well, I'm kind of a feminist, but really I just want rights for everyone, so I guess I'm an egalitarian instead, but whatever, same result in the end" and sentiments similar.
On the other hand, I've also never encountered anyone who was disassociating themselves from feminism in favor of the label "Egalitarian" because of extreme Man-hating Feminists - I refuse to call them straw feminists, because they do exist, even if they're not nearly as common as the times when people like Dworkin were the figureheads of feminism, and when you're a doggedly inclusive ideology, you don't get the convenience of just ignoring their existence when you want to be all smiles and warm fuzzy-wuzzys.
Also, if you ever even doubt that they exist, Go check out SRS or the Social justice section of tumblr. I don't give a shit what they stand for, I've never, ever seen a more vicious, nasty, rage-filled, dismissive, backstabbing and toxic movement in my life(even crazy MRAs pale in comparison), and hope I never see another - it's not that they hate men, they hate everybody that isn't themselves, and frankly, they're eyeing everyone else in the movement cautiously for signs they should exclude them and dump upon them the same bitter venom that they dump on everyone else.
Most people I've encountered who favor the term egalitarian generally can point to specific examples, attitudes, or give reasonable explanations as to why they feel the feminist label isn't for them, and frankly, I don't see how that's a problem.
What I do see as a problem is the grab for support I've seen lately from some feminists, by trying to katamari up other movements into their cause. "Oh, you're against Racism? Well, you're a feminist, because we hate that kind of discrimination too!" "Oh, you're for men's rights, but you're not a crazy MRA nutcase? Well, don't you know it's just THE PATRIARCHY that's taking away those rights and making you out to be the evil one, so you're a feminist!" "Oh, you don't like cheese because you're lactose intolerant, but you're also a militant vegan? Well, don't you know milk comes from female cattle who are killed for their meat when they don't produce enough milk anymore, and this slavery of those female beings is reprehensible, you're actually a feminist!"
No, I'm sorry, that's nonsense. Words mean particular things. Those can change over time, but you don't get to radically redefine what they mean just because you fucking feel like it, and want to be a little more popular. Feminism is fighting for the rights of women. That's that. If you cross over into something else, say, fighting against racism, that doesn't mean that not being a racist automatically means that you're a feminist, it just means you also don't like racism, as well as being a feminist. Fun facts - you can be more than one thing, or wear more than one label, as long as those things are not contradictory.
If you have a pathological need of one overriding label for all the things you like and another for the things you hate, you don't need a cause, you need professional help.
No, I'm sorry, that's nonsense. Words mean particular things. Those can change over time, but you don't get to radically redefine what they mean just because you fucking feel like it, and want to be a little more popular. Feminism is fighting for the rights of women. That's that. If you cross over into something else, say, fighting against racism, that doesn't mean that not being a racist automatically means that you're a feminist, it just means you also don't like racism, as well as being a feminist. Fun facts - you can be more than one thing, or wear more than one label, as long as those things are not contradictory.
If you have a pathological need of one overriding label for all the things you like and another for the things you hate, you don't need a cause, you need professional help
That point ignores the problem of intersectionality. Most discrimination is not additive it is multiplicative. So the different experiences for a black women than other women because there are other stereotypes and roles that it can fit in. It is that intersectionality that made some of the second wave falter to an extant. It is something that had been blind spot has now attempting to be patched. It is not like you can be above society or not influenced by it's systems. Not wanting to be associated with certain leadership styles and movements is okay but they still effect you.
On a separate not equalitarian mostly seems to me not necessarily to code MRA but to code as not helping. They kinda agree that there are things wrong but do bring change to gender and its' expressions.
But her audience is primarily gamers and game developers who she wants to educate. People outside games don't need to know how old games are sexist. They know these things, and it's a contributing factor as to why many don't get involved.
Especially if the other facets of story aren't done well. I can enjoy watching a film like Avatar for all it's Weta Digital CG. The story, the characters can piss off.
If you're going to contextualised a video game with a story, why not make something truly unique. Otherwise what's the point?