Can we talk about the misogyny ?

Unknown

Xiltyn wrote:

I decided to go back to the story mode to find the line in question in the interest of having an informed viewpoint to try and contribute to the conversation. Imagine my surprise when I finally got to the mission in question, and the enemy team is comprised of two spies and a lieutenant. Now unless I'm completely wrong here, the character of the spy looks female to me. So how is it sexist to say "Hello, ladies." to women? Then I thought, maybe I have the wrong mission, and continued looking, but that was the only one I could find where Widow uses that line. In the fight following that, she says "Hello, gentlemen." To a group of soldiers.

They do sometimes mess around with the enemy composition in events I think. This may be case here, possible from a Heroic, and they never even considered the dialog that went with it, which would be pretty typical of how things operate around here.

Regardless, it doesn't change the validity of the conversation that it's started, even if how it started might be somewhat dicey. Just like the comics, think of it as the "What if...?" edition.

Xiltyn

Thugpatrol wrote:

[
Here's the catch, the sexist taunt has to stay and the scene can't be fundamentally altered: our imaginary ruthless female agent for whom the dialog and underlying motivation is completely in character uses the sexist taunt against the male goons to throw them off their game and then defeats them in combat. I tossed out the possibility of adding a thought bubble following the sexist taunt as a way of qualifying her intent, or adding some post fight dialog to that same end. I'm curious what other thoughts on the subject are.

First, I want to say that I agree, context is always important when looking toward motivation. However, you have the context wrong. The goons in the scene are female. (Well, at least two of the three are.)

Unknown

Thugpatrol wrote:

Xiltyn wrote:

I decided to go back to the story mode to find the line in question in the interest of having an informed viewpoint to try and contribute to the conversation. Imagine my surprise when I finally got to the mission in question, and the enemy team is comprised of two spies and a lieutenant. Now unless I'm completely wrong here, the character of the spy looks female to me. So how is it sexist to say "Hello, ladies." to women? Then I thought, maybe I have the wrong mission, and continued looking, but that was the only one I could find where Widow uses that line. In the fight following that, she says "Hello, gentlemen." To a group of soldiers.

They do sometimes mess around with the enemy composition in events I think. This may be case here, possible from a Heroic, and they never even considered the dialog that went with it, which would be pretty typical of how things operate around here.

Regardless, it doesn't change the validity of the conversation that it's started, even if how it started might be somewhat dicey. Just like the comics, think of it as the "What if...?" edition.

So in the actual game, Black Widow says "Hello ladies" to a group of three enemies, two of whom are female. This prompts a thread titled, "Can we talk about the misogyny?" A sizable portion of the thread is devoted to a discussion of sexist taunts *that never happened in the actual game* and what horrible things that says about the MPQ devs, Marvel fans, and western society in general.

On a scale of 1 to even, I can't.

Unknown

Xiltyn wrote:

Thugpatrol wrote:

[
Here's the catch, the sexist taunt has to stay and the scene can't be fundamentally altered: our imaginary ruthless female agent for whom the dialog and underlying motivation is completely in character uses the sexist taunt against the male goons to throw them off their game and then defeats them in combat. I tossed out the possibility of adding a thought bubble following the sexist taunt as a way of qualifying her intent, or adding some post fight dialog to that same end. I'm curious what other thoughts on the subject are.

First, I want to say that I agree, context is always important when looking toward motivation. However, you have the context wrong. The goons in the scene are female. (Well, at least two of the three are.)

Again if the 3rd character was a female than it wouldn't be an issue (hey thugpatrol there is your change), the fact that one of them is male than makes it a sexist taunt. If you notice the male then responds to being called a woman highlighting the fact that it is a sexist taunt. This is the problem us ladies are having.

Thugpatrol thinks it is some how not sexist because a strong woman says it, that some how the fact that we are to win the battle negates the impact of the use of the taunt. Nevermind the fact that there are 3 characters used in a battle and depending on what point the match is played & the roster selection, it is possible that bw gets killed off quickly & have the men (again depending on selection) actually win the match. This then would actually add to the begitive impact of taunt used earlier. How is that for a contextual example?

Unknown

Can we please stop bumping this thread back up to the top... I do realize that by posting this, it's going back up to the top. however, it was already 5 threads from the top, so I'm not doing much damage here.

Unknown

AngryHulk wrote:

Can we please stop bumping this thread back up to the top... I do realize that by posting this, it's going back up to the top. however, it was already 5 threads from the top, so I'm not doing much damage here.

Nobody is bumping the topic. That implies shamelessly moving it up the board without adding content. People are posting here because, like any topic people post on, they have something to say. If you've lost interest, or never had any interest, feel free not to read the topic. Or to put it in South Park terms for you, since you seem to like that, "I'm sorry! I thought this was America!"

Unknown

eris-wtga wrote:

Xiltyn wrote:

First, I want to say that I agree, context is always important when looking toward motivation. However, you have the context wrong. The goons in the scene are female. (Well, at least two of the three are.)

Again if the 3rd character was a female than it wouldn't be an issue (hey thugpatrol there is your change), the fact that one of them is male than makes it a sexist taunt. If you notice the male then responds to being called a woman highlighting the fact that it is a sexist taunt. This is the problem us ladies are having.

Or she could have been talking to the women and completely dismissing the man, not addressing him in any way. Sort of like you did every time I brought up context. I would think this idea would appeal to you. Meathead responds because he's dumb and takes it the wrong way.

The problem is it's a comic panel, and not even a full comic panel at that. It's a pre-fab character cut-out spouting one line of dialog. We don't have a lot of information so everyone is filling in the pieces differently. You're very sensitive to this issue, so you read it one way. That's not how everyone is going to read it. To which I agree with you speaks highly of the danger of using this kind of language when it's left open to so much interpretation. But that still doesn't mean saying it's sexist and horrible and should never appear anywhere is the best solution.

eris-wtga wrote:

Thugpatrol thinks it is some how not sexist because a strong woman says it, that some how the fact that we are to win the battle negates the impact of the use of the taunt. Nevermind the fact that there are 3 characters used in a battle and depending on what point the match is played & the roster selection, it is possible that bw gets killed off quickly & have the men (again depending on selection) actually win the match. This then would actually add to the begitive impact of taunt used earlier. How is that for a contextual example?

How's that for context? Not bad, but frankly any movement on this front is an improvement at this point so I'll take it. As for your point about the actual game battle, who you select is part of the game logic not the story logic. You can almost always take characters into battle that make almost no sense whatsoever. I frequently bring Daken to fight other DA members, or CMags who's classified as a "villain". Trying to smash the actual match-3 portion into the story context is a bit of a stretch. If you think the fact that people might interpret it that way is the problem, then we need more information in the scene to clarify. See above.

Unknown

Thugpatrol wrote:

Or she could have been talking to the women and completely dismissing the man, not addressing him in any way.

You know she isn't because the male then has a bubble showing that in the context the line is meant to be a taunt

Thugpatrol wrote:

Sort of like you did every time I brought up context. I would think this idea would appeal to you. Meathead responds because he's dumb and takes it the wrong way.

How is there any other way to take it? That a man would be so put off by calling him what I am, that it allows him to get his **** kicked. Why ever would that piss me off?

Thugpatrol wrote:

problem is it's a comic panel, and not even a full comic panel at that. It's a pre-fab character cut-out spouting one line of dialog. We don't have a lot of information so everyone is filling in the pieces differently. You're very sensitive to this issue, so you read it one way. That's not how everyone is going to read it. To which I agree with you speaks highly of the danger of using this kind of language when it's left open to so much interpretation. But that still doesn't mean saying it's sexist and horrible and should never appear anywhere is the best solution.

I fail to see how there us any other way to take it. Please explain how calling a man a woman as a taunt is anything but sexist? The context? All the context does is explain why it would be used. The problem is that it is perfectly accceptable/believable that it is a good taunt to call a man a woman, to take him down a peg, make him less than a man.

You said it doesn't exist in a vacume, you are right on that, society still has it what women are the 2nd sex. This just back that idea up, and thanks to things like cognitive dissidences it is hard to change that mental schema that women are less then men.

Would it be acceptable if it was a gay taunt? A racist one? Why is it ever OK to use women like that?

Thugpatrol wrote:

How's that for context? Not bad, but frankly any movement on this front is an improvement at this point so I'll take it. As for your point about the actual game battle, who you select is part of the game logic not the story logic. You can almost always take characters into battle that make almost no sense whatsoever. I frequently bring Daken to fight other DA members, or CMags who's classified as a "villain". Trying to smash the actual match-3 portion into the story context is a bit of a stretch. If you think the fact that people might interpret it that way is the problem, then we need more information in the scene to clarify. See above.

Well I finally get what you meant by context. Still doesn't change anything. Please see above.

Unknown

eris-wtga wrote:

Thugpatrol wrote:

Sort of like you did every time I brought up context. I would think this idea would appeal to you. Meathead responds because he's dumb and takes it the wrong way.

How is there any other way to take it? That a man would be so put off by calling him what I am, that it allows him to get his **** kicked. Why ever would that piss me off?

Because if she's ignoring him and directing her dialog to the women, but he assumes that she is addressing him and it's a taunt, then he has taken the intent of her words incorrectly. In that case she's not taunting him at all, she's dismissing him, and he's being egocentric. The fact that he would take it as an insult in that situation doesn't make the line sexist, it makes him a sexist for thinking being called a woman is an insult. If you think that even having sexist villains who then get their **** kicked is bad for the cause then we're really going the wrong way. You continue to confuse what you think, what fictional characters' thoughts and motivations are, and what a reasonable person reading this might think. Everyone does not view things and process information the same way and draw the same conclusions.

eris-wtga wrote:

I fail to see how there us any other way to take it. Please explain how calling a man a woman as a taunt is anything but sexist? The context? All the context does is explain why it would be used. The problem is that it is perfectly accceptable/believable that it is a good taunt to call a man a woman, to take him down a peg, make him less than a man.

My explanations are already on the record. I've explained my interpretation more than once in other places. I have explained repeatedly how and why context can change the entire meaning of the words and the scene and that personal perspective plays a big role as well. I'm not going to continue to repeat myself because you demand it. It seems again like you don't understand what I'm saying or you're just stubbornly disagreeing by saying the same thing over and over again. Either way we're going in circles. If you have something new to say I'll address it, but I'm getting off this particular ride. It's making me dizzy.

eris-wtga wrote:

Well I finally get what you meant by context. Still doesn't change anything.

A victory for context, followed swiftly by a loss for common sense. Can't win them all I guess. I'll take it.

Unknown

Thugpatrol wrote:

A victory for context, followed swiftly by a loss for common sense. Can't win them all I guess. I'll take it.

So my desire to eliminate things that reinforce the idea that I'm something less then an equal member of society is a lack of common sense? I guess its cus I'm just a girl & should know my place & just learn to deal with sexism cus a video game store is more important than mine (& and all other women's) place in society...

Now as I'm sure you will ignore the above satment like you have so often times before when I bring up the larger context (now there is some irony). Let's say I grant you that some people can view it the way you have posted in this last point. OK fine. But what are the odds that some people are going to read it the same way as I have (just in calling a guy a girl as a taunt)? Probably just as good, if not better than your current interpretation (why you ask? Because it is a regular occurrence and sadly is not out of place). So those who read it the way I do & who aren't as sensitive to it (again as I have said I am sensitive to it as it is something I have to deal with on a daily basis) they read the line & think nothing of it, but that part of their brain that has sexual stereotypes is reinforced. It is subtle and damaging, that is why it needs to be called out on & not dismissed.

Unknown

eris-wtga wrote:

Thugpatrol wrote:

A victory for context, followed swiftly by a loss for common sense. Can't win them all I guess. I'll take it.

So my desire to eliminate things that reinforce the idea that I'm something less then an equal member of society is a lack of common sense? I guess its cus I'm just a girl & should know my place & just learn to deal with sexism cus a video game store is more important than mine (& and all other women's) place in society...

First I want you to stop for a second and look at what you just said: "I guess its cus I'm just a girl & should know my place." What you have there is a sexist statement that reinforces negative sexist stereotypes and you just used it to try and make a point. Now I read sarcasm into it, but that's just my interpretation. I could just have easily read it literally and said, "Yup. That's right. Just some dumb chick. She should get back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich." This is exactly everything I've been trying to make you see all rolled up into one and it came out of your own mouth (figuratively of course). So thank you for that. I would also like to point out that this is an indication that what I wrote was meant to be taken in jest. It was a bit of a barb, but it was intended to be a good-natured one.

My statement about common sense has nothing to do with your desire to eliminate sexism. If you've actually read even half of what I've posted I'm not advocating sexism in any way, hell I've made your point about reinforcing sexism for you better than you have. What I'm trying to point out is that there's more going on here than "Sexism bad!" You need to really stop and think about what I'm saying and what you're saying and stop coming back with the same hypersensitive knee-jerk reaction to everything. You're not attempting to have a conversation or address the issue. You're just attempting to defend your own very black and white view of the world without any real attempt to see any other perspective besides your own.

eris-wtga wrote:

Now as I'm sure you will ignore the above satment like you have so often times before when I bring up the larger context (now there is some irony).

Didn't ignore it, wouldn't really be that ironic, and when have you ever brought up context? You stopped denying its existence only five minutes ago, and I'm still not convinced you really believe it's relevant. So let's not act like you're the champion of larger context now. That's extremely disingenuous.

eris-wtga wrote:

Let's say I grant you that some people can view it the way you have posted in this last point. OK fine. But what are the odds that some people are going to read it the same way as I have? Probably just as good, if not better than your current interpretation. So those who read it the way I do & who aren't as sensitive to it they read the line & think nothing of it, but that part of their brain that has sexual stereotypes is reinforced. It is subtle and damaging, that is why it needs to be called out on & not dismissed.

Who's ignoring who now? It's not my fault if you don't read what I'm writing in response to you or other people. I'm taking it from all sides at this point. When have I ever not agreed that sexism could be subtle or damaging, or been dismissive of it any way? Read what I said about thinking the scene needs more information and get back to me. I even posed the same question about what could be done to the scene to "fix" it that I asked you before, which you didn't put much effort into addressing then either.

Stop. Read what's already been said. Think about it. I mean really actually think about it, not just react to it. Then come back and offer something to this conversation other than a tired regurgitation of the same narrow minded rhetoric. These issues improve when people open their minds and talk about them in their entirety, when people start to see perspectives that are not their own, not just stomp their feet and repeat how terrible it is until everyone gets bored and wanders off.

Unknown

thugpatrol, i have been reading what you have been saying (maybe i dont always understand exactly what you are talking about, but i am trying, i just dont happen to agree with it) and you have said that sexism is bad, but then go on to discount it because of the context, you have said that the story demands its, basically saying that the story is more important that not reinforcing sexual stereotypes. and it isnt rhetoric, it is my reality. Do you honestly belive that someone who has schema that women are less then men are going to take the alternate explanation of the sceen that you have presented? Even you, who says sexism is wrong took 4 pages to change to this new idea. You started off saying it was sexist but failed to link it to the screen, BTW perfect example of cognitive dissonance.

I get the feeling that you know that sexism is bad, but you dont actually know what it means, that impact that it has every day. you think that it is just some tiny off comment that really doesnt have that much impact, and as a stand alone it doesnt, but it doesnt stand alone, it feeds the bigger idea that women are less then men. you want to dismiss all of this as rhetoric? congratulations you are part of the problem.

Rusalka

Thugpatrol wrote:

So, humor me here. I tried to ask before, I'll try again. What needs to be changed about the scene to get your take away closer to my take away? To make it empowering and leave a positive image on the reader rather than reinforcing a sexist stereotype?

Here's the catch, the sexist taunt has to stay and the scene can't be fundamentally altered: our imaginary ruthless female agent for whom the dialog and underlying motivation is completely in character uses the sexist taunt against the male goons to throw them off their game and then defeats them in combat. I tossed out the possibility of adding a thought bubble following the sexist taunt as a way of qualifying her intent, or adding some post fight dialog to that same end. I'm curious what other thoughts on the subject are.

Frankly, I think it would need a lot more set-up than you could put into a throwaway cut scene in a mobile game. Just to start with, you'd need a whole lot of set up to make it beleivable that a team of professional killers would be thrown off their game by a schoolyard taunt. I mean, I know HAMMER is supposed to be a bit of a fly-by-night operation here, but surely Osborne can afford at least minimal competence? If "hello, ladies" is all that it takes to rattle these guys -- and if this particular weakness of theirs is so obvious or so well-known that our hypothetical female agent can take one look at them and instantly know that this one line is all it'll take to win her the mission -- they should've been dead long before they faced anyone of Black Widow's caliber. (I mean, "hired killer" is not a profession I would imagine to be dominated by politeness and social enlightenment. This can't be the first time these guys have heard a sexist insult from an opponent. ) Then, our imaginary female agent's character and methods have to be well-established as well. Some additional thought bubbles or dialogue could do it, yes, but that would require some awareness and thought on the part of whoever wrote the scene. And frankly, I think the writers of this game have spent more deep, serious thought on deciding which whales Deadpool should whack his enemies with then they did on deciding whether any given line of dialogue is sexist and needs more context.

Basically, it's not that object I to depiction of sexism in fiction, it's that I think writers should be aware when they're depicting sexism in fiction, as opposed to just thoughtlessly throwing in sexist language because it feels normal to them. The normalization of sexism is precisely what makes it so insidious and so difficult to fight.

Unknown

eris-wtga wrote:

thugpatrol, i have been reading... (snip snip....stuff we're not going to talk about right now...snip snip)...

Oh no no no. You're not getting off that easily. I'm not touching anything else until we talk about this again:

eris-wtga wrote:

I guess its cus I'm just a girl & should know my place...

And by talk about it again, I mean talk about it at all, because you seem to have glossed over it in your post. And by glossed over I mean omitted completely. This whole thing started with the notion of Black Widow saying "Hello, ladies," to a bunch of male goons. What would you have done if you saw the line, "I guess its cus I'm just a girl & should know my place," coming from Black Widow? I'm guessing your head would have exploded. But now it's okay for you to use it sarcastically to make a point? Or is it sexist and context doesn't matter?

eris-wtga wrote:

i have been reading what you have been saying (maybe i dont always understand exactly what you are talking about, but i am trying, i just dont happen to agree with it)

Okay, let's take a look here then...

eris-wtga wrote:

you have said that sexism is bad, but then go on to discount it because of the context

I have never discounted sexism in any way. I have pointed out there's more to it than isolated words. That's not even close to the same thing.

eris-wtga wrote:

you have said that the story demands its, basically saying that the story is more important that not reinforcing sexual stereotypes

No, I didn't. I never said the story demanded it. It was the choice of the writers, and probably a bad one. I never said story was more important, I said addressing issues is better than pretending they don't exist. Again, not even close to the same thing.

eris-wtga wrote:

Even you, who says sexism is wrong took 4 pages to change to this new idea

First of all, in the second post I made on this topic, my first response to you, I acknowledged that the line in its general sense, removed from any context, was a sexist taunt. It did not take me four pages to "come around". And second of all, most of the time between here and there was spent arguing with you over the mere existence of relevant context, which you spent that entire time denying.

You may be reading what I'm posting, and you may be trying to understand it, but you are falling way, way short of the mark. You're all over the map, drawing conclusions and making connections that aren't here anywhere. Forget about opinion and perspective, you're just plainly wrong on almost everything you've tried to attribute to me. I'm not even sure what to do with it at this point.

eris-wtga wrote:

You started off saying it was sexist but failed to link it to the screen, BTW perfect example of cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance? What? No. For starters, I don't think you're even close to using that term properly, and in any case I'm not struggling to come to terms with anything contradictory. What buzz-word laden pop-psychology guru did you borrow that from? My money's on Dr. Phil. I hear he's very popular.

eris-wtga wrote:

I get the feeling that you know that sexism is bad, but you dont actually know what it means, that impact that it has every day. you think that it is just some tiny off comment that really doesnt have that much impact, and as a stand alone it doesnt, but it doesnt stand alone, it feeds the bigger idea that women are less then men.

Just stop right there. Don't pretend you know me. Not everyone wears their personal life on their sleeves the way you do and talks about their personal struggles all the time. You have no idea what I may have been through, or who my friends and family may be, what struggles they may have had. The "you're not <insert oppressed group here> so you don't understand" defense is as weak now as it's ever been. You're right, I'm not a woman. But that doesn't mean I don't know what bias is or the effects it can have, or haven't experienced different forms of it myself. You're so caught up in your own struggle you think nothing else matters and nobody understands. Simply put, you're wrong.

eris-wtga wrote:

you want to dismiss all of this as rhetoric? congratulations you are part of the problem.

Your rhetoric that I was referring to was your mantra of "It is sexist. Sexism is bad. Nothing else matters. Listen to a story about how it effects me personally." It is almost exclusively what you have had to add to this conversation since the very first moment you dropped in. You know what sexism is? It's a form of bias, and it's not the only one. You are so far on the other end of the spectrum that you are guilty of bias yourself, and you're so wrapped up in your own narrow view of the world that you can't see anything else. Not everything is about you. The sooner you realize this, open yourself up to other ideas, and actually learn to listen to what other people have to say, the sooner you will realize that I am about the farthest thing from a problem you have.

Unknown

Rusalka wrote:

Thugpatrol wrote:

So, humor me here. I tried to ask before, I'll try again. What needs to be changed about the scene to get your take away closer to my take away? To make it empowering and leave a positive image on the reader rather than reinforcing a sexist stereotype?

Frankly, I think it would need a lot more set-up than you could put into a throwaway cut scene in a mobile game... (snip snip....story time story time yay story time...snip snip) And frankly, I think the writers of this game have spent more deep, serious thought on deciding which whales Deadpool should whack his enemies with then they did on deciding whether any given line of dialogue is sexist and needs more context.

Basically, it's not that object I to depiction of sexism in fiction, it's that I think writers should be aware when they're depicting sexism in fiction, as opposed to just thoughtlessly throwing in sexist language because it feels normal to them. The normalization of sexism is precisely what makes it so insidious and so difficult to fight.

Simply stated, I agree. It's a serious topic that if addressed in fiction should be done so seriously, not used thoughtlessly and lazily.

Anyway, thank you for humoring me.

Unknown

Thugpatrol wrote:

And by talk about it again, I mean talk about it at all, because you seem to have glossed over it in your post. And by glossed over I mean omitted completely. This whole thing started with the notion of Black Widow saying "Hello, ladies," to a bunch of male goons. What would you have done if you saw the line, "I guess its cus I'm just a girl & should know my place," coming from Black Widow? I'm guessing your head would have exploded. But now it's okay for you to use it sarcastically to make a point? Or is it sexist and context doesn't matter?

yes it is sexist, and yes in this context is used to highlight the damaging effects. here is the crux or our disagreement, you see the line as somehow the same thing, when we see it as just lazy story writing. now you have said you are trying to see it from both sides, ok so if someone can see it as an empowering statement, then they probably dont need to have that reinforced, BUT if someone has the mental schema that says "women are less than men" isnt the damage greater of that being reinforced? or is story more important?

Thugpatrol wrote:

I have never discounted sexism in any way. I have pointed out there's more to it than isolated words. That's not even close to the same thing.

yes & no, go goggle cognitive dissidence (just one of many theories out there), the line can exist as a stand alone in the minds of some people, reinforcing a damaging thought pattern

Thugpatrol wrote:

No, I didn't. I never said the story demanded it. It was the choice of the writers, and probably a bad one. I never said story was more important, I said addressing issues is better than pretending they don't exist. Again, not even close to the same thing.

actually you have, you said the line cant be changed. we are not pretending it doesnt exist, we are more then aware that it exists. the line in this game does nothing to try and challenge the consept, it is just as you said, bad (id actually call it lazy myself) writing

Thugpatrol wrote:

First of all, in the second post I made on this topic, my first response to you, I acknowledged that the line in its general sense, removed from any context, was a sexist taunt. It did not take me four pages to "come around". And second of all, most of the time between here and there was spent arguing with you over the mere existence of relevant context, which you spent that entire time denying.[/qutore]

because i dont feel it matters, the damage is done with just that line as i have tried to explain on a few occasions but you have glossed over

Thugpatrol wrote:

You may be reading what I'm posting, and you may be trying to understand it, but you are falling way, way short of the mark. You're all over the map, drawing conclusions and making connections that aren't here anywhere. Forget about opinion and perspective, you're just plainly wrong on almost everything you've tried to attribute to me. I'm not even sure what to do with it at this point.
Cognitive dissonance? What? No. For starters, I don't think you're even close to using that term properly, and in any case I'm not struggling to come to terms with anything contradictory. What buzz-word laden pop-psychology guru did you borrow that from? My money's on Dr. Phil. I hear he's very popular.

actually its from my schooling, i have a BA in psyc (explains the job in retail ). and when i bring that up im not talking about just you, see the comment i made above. i bring it up becasue you say that context matter, that it changes the sexist nature of the comment. I bring up cognitive dissonance because it comes into play against your argument. If someone has that schema that women are less then men, that line is going to reinforce that view the rest of it is going to be ignored because the alternate doesnt fit into the readers view. this is why i am saying context doesnt matter, the damage is done despite the context.

Thugpatrol wrote:

Just stop right there. Don't pretend you know me. Not everyone wears their personal life on their sleeves the way you do and talks about their personal struggles all the time. You have no idea what I may have been through, or who my friends and family may be, what struggles they may have had. The "you're not <insert oppressed group here> so you don't understand" defense is as weak now as it's ever been. You're right, I'm not a woman. But that doesn't mean I don't know what bias is or the effects it can have, or haven't experienced different forms of it myself. You're so caught up in your own struggle you think nothing else matters and nobody understands. Simply put, you're wrong.

you're right i dont know you, i am basing that comment off of what you have been saying. "i know that sexism is bad but its ok because..." that is what you are coming off to me. if you truly understand, than why would you think it ok to continue?

Thugpatrol wrote:

Your rhetoric that I was referring to was your mantra of "It is sexist. Sexism is bad. Nothing else matters. Listen to a story about how it effects me personally." It is almost exclusively what you have had to add to this conversation since the very first moment you dropped in. You know what sexism is? It's a form of bias, and it's not the only one. You are so far on the other end of the spectrum that you are guilty of bias yourself, and you're so wrapped up in your own narrow view of the world that you can't see anything else. Not everything is about you. The sooner you realize this, open yourself up to other ideas, and actually learn to listen to what other people have to say, the sooner you will realize that I am about the farthest thing from a problem you have.

no i have tried to explain the damaging nature of the comment that you have either ignored or passed off as pop-psychologist. i have used examples from my own life to highlight the read world implications,but, please explain what is the other half i am not getting?

Unknown

Ok, I'm gonna say this while this thread is second from the top so I'm not doing much harm: LET THIS **** THREAD DIE! It's based on a few oversensitive people who refuse to look at the context surrounding a simple two word phrase and insist on calling sexism where there is none. Thank you

Unknown

eris-wtga wrote:

Thugpatrol wrote:

I never said the story demanded it.

actually you have, you said the line cant be changed.

I'm going to start here, because this has really become a problem for you. Go ahead and find for me where I ever said the line can't be changed. I went back and looked and I sure as hell couldn't find it, and that's because I'm pretty sure I never said it, just like I never said many of the other things you said I did. While you're at it, try to pay attention to some of the things I did say. You seem to have missed a lot of them on your first pass. I'm not even sure who you're arguing with at this point, because judging by your responses it seems to be someone who is not me.

The only thing I can even imagine you might be referring to are my comments on how using a taunt was valuable for defining the character, and that any taunt used would likely be offensive to someone. If that is what you're referring to, you have grossly misrepresented what I said. You can't carry on a "debate" if you can't be troubled to actually pay attention to what people are saying and just decide to argue with some random things that you made up.

eris-wtga wrote:

I bring up cognitive dissonance because it comes into play against your argument. If someone has that schema that women are less then men, that line is going to reinforce that view the rest of it is going to be ignored because the alternate doesnt fit into the readers view. this is why i am saying context doesnt matter, the damage is done despite the context.

You're very attached to this theory, but I still think you're applying it wrong. The theory as I understand it is that when faced with two contradictory beliefs a person will feel stress to remove the source of that contradiction, causing them to take some action to do so. If your inference from this theory is that every person who reads one isolated line of a sexist nature is in danger of suffering from cognitive dissonance and so sexist language can never appear anywhere, you have applied a theory meant to describe a small subset of behavior with an unbelievably broad brush. I have been on-board with the danger of reinforcing negative stereotypes, but that's just unreasonable. If you want to believe it go right ahead, but if that's the basis for everything you've been going on about you are on very shaky ground.

Thugpatrol wrote:

eris-wtga wrote:

So my desire to eliminate things that reinforce the idea that I'm something less then an equal member of society is a lack of common sense? I guess its cus I'm just a girl & should know my place & just learn to deal with sexism cus a video game store is more important than mine (& and all other women's) place in society...

First I want you to stop for a second and look at what you just said: "I guess its cus I'm just a girl & should know my place." What you have there is a sexist statement that reinforces negative sexist stereotypes and you just used it to try and make a point. Now I read sarcasm into it, but that's just my interpretation. I could just have easily read it literally and said, "Yup. That's right. Just some dumb chick. She should get back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich." This is exactly everything I've been trying to make you see all rolled up into one and it came out of your own mouth (figuratively of course).

And so we come back to this. Yes, I'm trotting this back out again, from my first post on it since it was more to the point, because you tap-danced so nicely around it last time. If everything you've posted here from the very beginning is based on this idea of cognitive dissonance, how can you justify using this language yourself to make a point? If anything of a sexist nature, even taken out of context, is so terrible that you can't stand for it to appear anywhere for fear of the psychological damage, how is you saying "I guess its cus I'm just a girl & should know my place," even remotely okay? Now I'm not a psych major, but I do like words. So here's a word for you: hypocrisy.

GothicKratos

This thread is just Tumblr 101.

Unknown

Thugpatrol wrote:

I'm going to start here, because this has really become a problem for you. Go ahead and find for me where I ever said the line can't be changed. I went back and looked and I sure as hell couldn't find it, and that's because I'm pretty sure I never said it, just like I never said many of the other things you said I did. While you're at it, try to pay attention to some of the things I did say. You seem to have missed a lot of them on your first pass. I'm not even sure who you're arguing with at this point, because judging by your responses it seems to be someone who is not me.

The only thing I can even imagine you might be referring to are my comments on how using a taunt was valuable for defining the character, and that any taunt used would likely be offensive to someone. If that is what you're referring to, you have grossly misrepresented what I said. You can't carry on a "debate" if you can't be troubled to actually pay attention to what people are saying and just decide to argue with some random things that you made up.

Thugpatrol wrote:

Here's the catch, the sexist taunt has to stay and the scene can't be fundamentally altered....

Thugpatrol wrote:

You're very attached to this theory, but I still think you're applying it wrong. The theory as I understand it is that when faced with two contradictory beliefs a person will feel stress to remove the source of that contradiction, causing them to take some action to do so. If your inference from this theory is that every person who reads one isolated line of a sexist nature is in danger of suffering from cognitive dissonance and so sexist language can never appear anywhere, you have applied a theory meant to describe a small subset of behavior with an unbelievably broad brush. I have been on-board with the danger of reinforcing negative stereotypes, but that's just unreasonable. If you want to believe it go right ahead, but if that's the basis for everything you've been going on about you are on very shaky ground.

And so we come back to this. Yes, I'm trotting this back out again, from my first post on it since it was more to the point, because you tap-danced so nicely around it last time. If everything you've posted here from the very beginning is based on this idea of cognitive dissonance, how can you justify using this language yourself to make a point? If anything of a sexist nature, even taken out of context, is so terrible that you can't stand for it to appear anywhere for fear of the psychological damage, how is you saying "I guess its cus I'm just a girl & should know my place," even remotely okay? Now I'm not a psych major, but I do like words. So here's a word for you: hypocrisy.

to borrow from you, context, basically my comment was embedded in a huge discussion about sexism and dripping with sarcasm and pretty damn blunt. the context of the game, the positive context you are champion is very sublet and easy to over look, and i highly doubt that the writer was looking to make some grand statement about sexual stereotypes. you want to call me a hypocrite, fine go ahead (i doubt you cant say the same), but i have never said that sexist language should never be used, though i do think it does need to be used in a very limited capacity not just a throw away line in a video game.