dev_chieftain: (farron)
I've been involved with / following the stuff going on with the Feminist Frequency Kickstarter. Apparently the latest development is that, since the scare tactics aren't working, the persons who are angry about the project started their own fundraiser to try to one-up FemFreq. Their project is called "Misandry in Videogames", and they're very explicit that they won't need the money to make their webseries, it's 'all going to charity'. The comments are predictably full of obvious attempts to deride, defame, or undermine confidence in Sarkeesian and her project, both on the actual project page and in the comments from the backers.

Here's the thing. I think that, if this project were legitimate, it would be a worthy effort. If these people were looking to improve the interpretation of men in video games by critically analyzing the way that video game companies tell us that we perceive men in their sometimes crappy representations, I'd think this was a pretty good effort. The lack of depth of character and humanity is a serious problem with the entirety of pop-culture. It is no failing of Feminist Frequency that its focus is on addressing the problems in pop-culture representations of women. It would still be great if some other organization devoted to improving the rights of some other oppressed group wanted to do projects to raise awareness and inspire conversation about the problems in pop-culture representations of men.

The fact of the matter is this though: they don't really mean to make videos that are thoughtful critiques, and it shows. They're angry, they have decided for whatever reason that Sarkeesian is false and plans to blow the money she's made on something unrelated to the project she's doing. They don't care about the reality of the situation, they don't care about whether or not they're proving her right-- that there is a problem with sexism in interpersonal relations-- every time they comment in to tell her how much they hate her in their variety of colorful ways that I have no desire to quote here.

What really sucks is actually the backlash to the backlash. The definition of peaceful protest is that it must remain PEACEFUL. If we were putting ourselves in danger to achieve peaceful protest, it would require our maintained innocence-- carrying no weapons, refusing to stoop to the violence that our enemies were waging upon us, willingly making examples of ourselves if necessary to get the message across that this problem is big, and real, and must be fixed.

In the online world, the way to maintain innocence is never to actually insult-- not even through backhanded insults-- and regrettably, Sarkeesian failed to do this from day one by calling the response 'trolls'. It's not her fault, because that is the term we apply to generalized internet harassment ('I'm being trolled'). But the word still festers and rots in the hearts of those who are called it, especially those who, for whatever reason, didn't realize that they WERE trolling, and seriously thought that Sarkeesian was demanding privilege, instead of requesting equality.

I'm not saying these guys are right to be doing such assholish stuff to anyone, ever, and I'm certainly not saying that Sarkeesian is in the wrong. However, to respond to these people by dehumanizing them, referring to them as trolls, or babies, or whiners, or otherwise making mass generalizations about them, is not even REMOTELY helpful. Trolling the trolls back is just fucked up. That is bullying the bully. And you know what? That makes you one of the people in the crowd who's pointing and laughing and doing nothing to solve the problem.

Sarkeesian here is the true victim. She didn't do anything wrong, and she's being bullied. Beyond that, her bullies are being victimized by the people who are looking on and linking their support of Sarkeesian inextricably with statements like:

"and all these 12 year olds need to shut the fuck up"
"haha, poor whiny neckbeards! get out of the basement!"
"don't worry about all those guys with tiny e-peens!"

I can't stress enough how vitally important it is to be aware that SHOWING SUPPORT does not require you to PUT SOMEONE ELSE DOWN. In fact, it severely undermines the support you show if you go out of your way to insult someone else. EVERYONE'S rights matter. This is true. Sarkeesian knows it, and we know it, and shockingly enough, even these 'trolls' know it. They are freaking out because they have the unrealistic expectation that, if Sarkeesian is successful, everyone will turn on them and start bullying them and denying them rights.

This is NOT TRUE. What we want is to be treated as equals. But we'll never be able to get that message across to these guys because instead of reaching out to them and extending patience and tolerance, the people who are supposedly supporting Feminist Frequency are reinforcing that fear every time they make another of these thoughtless, harmful comments.

It would do everyone good to remember: Every bully has probably been bullied before. That nerdy kid who's mean online? There's a chance he gets beaten up for no reason IN CLASS by his classmates, while some teacher who should care, but doesn't, sits around doing nothing. That guy who's really angry and buff, with all those tattoos about murder, who's screaming that you're a faggot in online gameplay? There's a chance he was sexually assaulted by a relative in his youth, and never reported it, let alone came to terms with it.

The reason abuse is SO AWFUL is that it is a cycle. I don't ask you to have sympathy for them-- you don't have to, I know that some people really make it hard and sometimes, that's just detrimental to solving the problem. But DON'T CONTRIBUTE TO THE ABUSE. I don't care how funny it is or how much you want to fit in to what you have perceived as the mob mentality. Abuse is abuse no matter who you are and no matter what your reasons are.

Don't poison the good thing that Anita Sarkeesian is trying to do by countering abuse with abuse.

Edited to add: Shakesville also has a good article about this:

Saying "it's just the internet" enables the abusers and harassers. That phrase is their ally, their justification. It lets them off the hook for behavior that could be considered criminal if done in person. It shifts the blame to the victim of the abuse by suggesting they just need to, say, "grow a thicker skin" because it's somehow not real because pixels and wifi and anonymous commenting ability.
dev_chieftain: (opinions)
The reason being that Sweden's got some potential to be moving towards gender equality, which is a cause I think is worthy.

Of course, the article itself can't abstain from the doubt that comes of most people thinking about a world in which, gasp, gender is forcibly NOT permitted to be used as a discriminating factor. The comments, even worse, are like poison; nobody gives a shit if women are granted equality, or people who do not identify with any traditional gender roles are given the opportunity to develop from youth.

The article goes to great lengths to say "What about the children?"-- yes, what about the toddlers, who are too young to say they would prefer to be treated as men or women?

Well, what about them in the current set up, assholes? Parents are indoctrinated from THEIR birth to treat girls one way and boys another. Studies have shown that if you tell a parent that the baby they're holding is female, they'll be more overprotective of it and keep it closer. If it's male, they'll be more likely to encourage it to explore. It doesn't matter what gender the child actually is-- both are just as likely to want to stay close or go ranging-- but the parent, who is already socially conditioned, has notions that are transmitted to the child.

The article cites, as if this is proof of some great crime against these lucky toddlers, that some schools in Sweden have removed certain types of interaction or toys because they found that the children would revert to existing societal roles that they're working hard to abolish, otherwise. I don't see this as proof that the kids just love being jammed into the existing social stereotypes-- on the contrary, the parents of these children will have grown up in a society that still gave them the same bias that every other society already has. In the home, the teacher has no control, no ability to help give all children an equal opportunity to speak.

Having grown up in a world where I was always shunned a little bit for being willing to speak in a public forum (a shameful thing for a girl, who is societally expected to shut up and listen when the men are talking), for being eager and quick to learn (how dare I make men feel threatened by being intelligent), for preferring to do sports as a kid to playing with the other girls, whose two-faced nature repelled me, I can honestly say I would have loved a school environment that was as free and open as my home environment. My parents put no expectations on me. Two-year old Dev wore coveralls and had short, curly hair; five-year-old Dev had long hair because it was Cool, swam constantly, and played with dinosaurs and sandcastles in the backyard; nine-year old Dev was pals with the boys, played basketball every day during lunch, was ostracized by her female peers with the exception of one or two girls, and struggled confusedly with the concept that she should already have a boyfriend, which didn't seem desirable or to make any sense. At school, I had to deal with things that didn't make sense to me; when my grandparents visited, I had to deal with old-fashioned and inaccurate expectations of what it meant for me to be a little girl. But at home, with just my parents and my brother, I was who I was. I liked things from both sides and as it turns out, both genders appeal to me.

So to heck with all this fear of the unknown. Anyone who thinks making an actual, concerted effort to change the world so that women get true equality is a bad idea doomed to obvious failure because "gender identity" is "hardwired" by your sexual organs is just afraid of what might happen. They're repulsed by the idea of a world that, to them, is so different from their comfortable norm.

I think they can deal with being slightly uncomfortable and learn to accept it. Moreover, I think they should.

And I think I might have to consider the merits of someday moving to Sweden. You know, if I ever make it as a successful author, or something. That'd be kinda nice.

Edited to add unrelated notes: Man! So I bought these amazing chicken-stuffed-with-spinach-and-cheese things from the grocery store for my lunch. It's just grilled chicken + spinach, cheese and tomatoes, and it was totally delicious. They were on sale, so I'll be having those for lunch at work for a while. Also probably great to have at home for dinner with Danny, so I'm keeping that in mind.

The way they're made is a little clumsy, though. Having had flank steak with peppers and cheese actually cooked inside the meat, I think I could probably do something similar with chicken and whatnot and get to choose what goes in. Sounds like a good choice for experimentation-- stuff 'em with garlic, spinach and onions instead, maybe. I do like the cheese, but I think these'd go best with a small side salad, and cheese is filling, so it wouldn't be totally necessary, per se.

Tonight we're going to be making tacos for dinner, which both Danny and I are looking forward to.

Profile

dev_chieftain: (Default)
dev_chieftain

May 2020

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
2425262728 2930
31      

Style Credit

Page generated Tuesday, August 12th, 2025 07:35 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios