Tropes vs. Women / #GamerGate Conspiracies

[Nabeel Ansari]

but when evidence that demonstrates correlation is presented - as seen in this thread - detractors point out that correlation does not imply causation, and promptly disregard it

 

We're not disregarding it, we're more or less saying "make a better argument before we join you".

 

Burden of proof falls on the people making the claim; if someone is making a claim, and they can't substantiate it, that doesn't make the claim wrong, no, but just because the claim has the potential to be right doesn't mean we should go ahead and validate it without the proper thought.

 

Is women's portrayal in games a problem? Abso-fucking-lutely. Even if you argue that there's nothing wrong with objectification, there are people who feel attacked by this kind of stuff, and their voices need to be heard. Pretty much anyone besides white males has the potential for having a problem with their representation in media, and that's fine, because it's okay to want a fair equal society.

 

But that's not the issue we're attacking here. Anita is making a claim that we can't validate, which is that the stuff we see in games is translating to sexist thought processes and solidifying the poor treating of women in society. Is this an outlandish claim? Absolutely fucking not, it's absolutely plausible to believe that could be a thing, knowing what we know about human society and how much media can affect us on a deeper level. It's also an incredibly strong claim with profound implications, so it needs to be treated as such and scrutinized as such.

 

So don't spread it around if it hasn't actually been proven and mask it as if it has been proven. That's stupid. Because even if you get the dregs of Tumblr following your shitty logic, you won't get people who know how to think twice to follow you. I'm not a fucking asshole, and if it needs to be said, if there was evidence (that Anita mentions but never shows) for her claims, I would say "yeah, that's kinda messed up. I'm on your side."

 

Instead I don't really take her seriously because while her intentions are good, I can't really have a peace of mind that the specific details of what she's doing are in any way valid or helpful. I don't really right now personally think that fixing game representation is in any way going to have any impact on commonplace social misogyny in real life, so I don't really care about fixing games. Because ultimately, it will do nothing, because my understanding of art/history serves me the idea that art is symptomatic of cultural problems (absolutely the opposite of being one of the roots, if not the root). It could be a feedback loop (between art feeding culture and culture feeding art back) in some circumstances, but again... the claim that big boobed characters somehow connects to passive breeding of real life misogyny seems like something that needs some serious review.

 

She disagrees, but is offering nothing I can latch onto for her to persuade me. The "we don't need you anyway" argument is laughable. If you're trying to do good, and you need to build a cause, you need all you can get.

 

So that's a bad thing if she's right all along. Because damaging her credibility damages her cause.

 

I think she has her causation backwards, and I think she has her cause backwards. I think to fix game representation, we need to focus on methods to fix misogyny in society. Things like improving education for kids and whatnot, both in clinical/health areas and better social conditioning. The art will naturally improve by consequence.

[zircon]

If someone uses bad reasoning, and (more critically) inflates & overstates the certitude of studies, but stops short of advocating censorship, they are in a sense endorsing those rhetorical methods, are they not? Lending them support? I agree that the conclusion matters, and might even agree that it matters the most, but you lose me on it being completely & totally okay to abuse science in the name of rhetoric in the exact same fashion that censors have, and that not being a problem that is RELATED to censorship, because I think it strengthens those weapons & perpetuates those misunderstandings...

I wouldn't say flawed rhetorical methods are "okay", since arguments and opinions should ideally be based on fact, reality, and logic. Their use should be called out and refuted. I think you've done a good job of that throughout the thread. BUT, and this is just my take on it, I think it's not a good use of time or effort to go after people using that kind of rhetoric who aren't prescribing anything harmful, when there are people & organizations out there doing much worse. Like university curricula being censored for 'triggering' material, leading to actual book bans. THAT stuff is really, really bad. Those organizations flat-out saying, "We want to ban this material" are far bigger problems.

I suspect also that a great many people AREN'T in such vehement disagreement with Anita (to the point of direct harssent) because of her rhetorical methods, but because they simply don't like her opinions. Imagine she didn't talk about the influence of media on culture at all, and just focused on videos about the tropes themselves and why she personally doesn't like them. I really, truly think that most of her detractors would hate her just as much. Obviously you're not in this category though.

 

I mean it comes down to the question of should a noble goal be carried out with crappy or shaky methods using things like bad rhetoric or logic?

My point is that if we're trying to stop a bad thing (in this case, censorship), going after people who aren't prescribing censorship seems so much less productive and useful than going after people who DO advocate censorship. Even if the first group is using bad rhetoric, they aren't calling for the bad thing itself, whereas the other group is.

Again I really have to compare this discussion to religion & fundamentalism. If someone wants to say that they think homosexuality is a sin because the Bible said so, BUT they believe gay marriage is fine, is it really worth arguing with them...? When there are people who are actively saying it's NOT fine, trying to change the law to discriminate against gay people, etc?

[Nabeel Ansari]

going after people who aren't prescribing censorship seems so much less productive and useful than going after people who DO advocate censorship

 

Not if the former is the champion figurehead that spawns the latter. Going after simply the symptoms and outliers does not overall a cure make.

 

 

I suspect also that a great many people AREN'T in such vehement disagreement with Anita (to the point of direct harssent) because of her rhetorical methods, but because they simply don't like her opinions.

 

Not sure who you're targeting with this, but for one, I don't really disagree with her about her observance of tropes (tropes are tropes after all), I have issues with how poorly she conveys them and makes herself (and by extension the feminist cause) an easy target for harassment ("look how fucking stupid Anita Sarkeesian is feminists make no sense").

[Cash]

I DID miss it, possibly because a good number of those references (Kuchera, etc.) are just op-eds.

 

As for the actual studies, which of those links do you think provides "all the evidence" for a "profound impact"? Point me to the smoking gun that would back that sort of statement up.

 

None of them speak to causation, only correlation... some are with relatively small sample sizes... and as I mentioned, there exist studies that don't even find any correlation (http://kotaku.com/what-to-make-of-a-study-about-gaming-and-sexism-1698543308 - with a relatively large sample size).

 

I was responding to your statement that she didn't cite her sources. I'm not claiming there's a smoking gun, nor am I claiming Anita perfectly represented the availible evidence. I should point out though that 6 out of the 12 links are studies, and 2 of the links (in addition to the 6) are articles about other studies. There is in fact only one opinion piece.

(edit: forgot the other stuff I had written here before)

 

In any case, maybe she shouldn't have used the word "profound", or any words that imply more certitude than is warranted given the evidence. You can certainly make an argument that she overstated the evidence. However, this does not invalidate her points, and I don't think it should cause her arguments to be dismissed outright (which I don't think you're doing, just a general point).

[Nabeel Ansari]

Anita does not claim that stereotypical depictions of women in video games directly cause negative attitudes towards women among gamers, rather that they have an impact on attitudes.

 

I... don't understand what you're saying, I'm sorry. How is "impact" excluded from "causation"? Are you saying that while correlation is absolved from implying causation, it is not absolved from arbitrary degrees of "affecting"?  I feel like that undermines the whole point of the distinction between correlation and causation, which is that just because you see two things share a pattern does not necessarily mean they have anything to do with each other. That's Statistics 101 (like, it actually is, you learn that in Statistics 101).

[MindWanderer]

You find a criticism aimed at someone's exercise of free will & their words and actions equally as offensive as a criticism aimed at someone's race?

 

That's... interesting, to me... especially given a long history of blood & death associated with racial violence which, insofar as I'm aware, tumblr can't really match.

 

I always thought criticizing someone's behavior & speech made the MOST sense, of all the available options...

Yeah, I do. I tend to be more for than against the feminist standpoint, and I'm equally offended at being called an SJW as a kike (I'm Jewish). Both slurs are shorthand for saying, "You're a member of a group who I feel is inferior to my group, and not deserving of equal treatment or respect." Using both terms means, to me, that the speaker has turned their brain off, and the box they've stuck the other person into is the only thing about them that matters. "Tranny" doesn't have an especially long history of blood and death, do you think that makes the term less offensive? Or "dyke" for that matter?

 

Since we've all agreed that the social sciences can't really deliver the type of certitude that would support claims like Anita's, I'd just like to re-float an observation I think I made maybe like fifty pages or so ago: the countries with the most pornography & the most sexualized, objectified advertisements seem also to be the liberal countries that have BETTER track records when it comes to women's rights than the nations who are intolerant of pornography & sexualization and who - often by legal and/or religious decree - cover their women up... it's a complicated puzzle to sort out, and it's another correlation with zero causation, but when you look at the world, what do YOU see?

This is actually a really interesting and important point: pornography in different countries is different! I'm only finding one study at the moment (you may have more, I couldn't find a citation for what you're saying, although I've heard the same), but countries in more sexually liberal countries, with better women's rights and outcomes, have pornography less objectifying and demeaning to women. Porn models are more often shown in an equal or dominant position, there's less focus on "perfect" body types, and poses tend to be more naturalistic. To me, this is a really compelling reason to focus on objectification and not mere presence.

(Sidenote: the same thing is true for alcohol, which, since it's easier to study, has been studied more. Countries like the U.S, which simultaneously romanticize and demonize alcohol, have bigger problems with alcoholism, drunk driving, and alcohol-prompted misbehavior than those that treat it as no big deal. One wonders what we'd see if there were any countries that had zero gun control.)

 

How would you conduct an experiment to quantify the potential impact of sexual objectification and/or violence in games as an outlet, as opposed to a source of "inspiration"/aggravation? Have such experiments even been attempted? Granted, their conditions would be just as complex (if not moreso) and their conclusions just as uncertain, but I personally feel like only half of the equation - negative reinforcement - is being studied, because of the agendas/ideologies that permeate the softer sciences.

I don't understand this paragraph. It sounds like you're trying to determine the effect of an effect, with no cause in there. Unless you're talking about catharsis, which is widely debunked. And negative reinforcement (removal of an aversive stimulus as a reward mechanism) hasn't been in the conversation at all, nor any type of operant conditioning.

The studies don't speak to causation because that's not the goal. These studies looked at whether or not the portrayal of women in video games (and other media) has an impact on player's attitudes towards women. Just as Anita does not claim that stereotypical depictions of women in video games directly cause negative attitudes towards women among gamers, rather that they have an impact on attitudes.

This took me a few reads to understand what you were getting at, even though I agree with you. I believe you're trying to describe a distinction between perfect and partial correlation.

Which is worth a mention anyway. Even in "causal" studies, the actual statistics are correlations. Give people a drug and correlate the dose with their improvement. The correlation won't be 1.0--some people will get better on their own, some people won't get better even with a great drug. The same is true for behaviorally causal effects. To choose an example I hope no one will disagree with: if a kid's school is terrible, with unmotivated teachers, outdated books, lots of violence, etc., they're less likely to go on to college and become financially successful. If they go to a great school, with computers and proactive college counselors, the opposite is true. Are there exceptions? Yes, absolutely--the kid's individual traits, their family, friends, other life events, etc. are probably even more powerfully predictive. But is there a causal relationship? Yes.

In other words, just because a thing exists which can influence behavior, maybe there's only a predictive correlation of 0.1 or less. Maybe everything else going on in a person's life (including "free will") is much more important in determining their behavior. But there could still be a causal relationship, and if what it's causing is undesirable, then maybe it's worth looking at.

[Cash]

I... don't understand what you're saying, I'm sorry. How is "impact" excluded from "causation"? Are you saying that while correlation is absolved from implying causation, it is not absolved from arbitrary degrees of "affecting"?  I feel like that undermines the whole point of the distinction between correlation and causation, which is that just because you see two things share a pattern does not necessarily mean they have anything to do with each other. That's Statistics 101 (like, it actually is, you learn that in Statistics 101).

 

This took me a few reads to understand what you were getting at, even though I agree with you. I believe you're trying to describe a distinction between perfect and partial correlation.

 

I'm actually not really sure what point I was trying to make, it made sense when I wrote it. Now that I read it again, it's confusing, so nevermind.

[Bleck]

 How is "impact" excluded from "causation"? Are you saying that while correlation is absolved from implying causation, it is not absolved from arbitrary degrees of "affecting"?  I feel like that undermines the whole point of the distinction between correlation and causation, which is that just because you see two things share a pattern does not necessarily mean they have anything to do with each other. That's Statistics 101 (like, it actually is, you learn that in Statistics 101).

 

 

but when evidence that demonstrates correlation is presented - as seen in this thread - detractors point out that correlation does not imply causation, and promptly disregard it

[Nabeel Ansari]

detractors employ statistically correct logic, how tragic

[Bleck]

dude you just wrote a several paragraph long post that implies that actions are not considered behavior, you're not exactly being "logical" here

[djpretzel]

Yeah, I do. I tend to be more for than against the feminist standpoint, and I'm equally offended at being called an SJW as a kike (I'm Jewish). Both slurs are shorthand for saying, "You're a member of a group who I feel is inferior to my group, and not deserving of equal treatment or respect." Using both terms means, to me, that the speaker has turned their brain off, and the box they've stuck the other person into is the only thing about them that matters. "Tranny" doesn't have an especially long history of blood and death, do you think that makes the term less offensive? Or "dyke" for that matter?

 

Calling someone an SJW is like calling someone a racist, or a sexist, or a misogynist... or a "right-wing conservative fascist" or a "bleeding-heart liberal". Do you agree that those are all slurs used by speakers who have turned their brains off? Sometimes I think those labels are simply.... accurate. Reductionist, as almost all labels are, but not necessarily unfair.

 

These are all labels that describe behavior... in the case of "SJW" the behavior is a pattern of perceived overreaction, hypersensitivity, hypocritical intolerance of competing ideological perspectives, and persecution of anything viewed as offensive. In the case of "sexist" or "racist", the behavior is a pattern of perceived bigotry/intolerance based on sex, or race. I would agree that it is usually easier to establish a "reasonable person" standard for who or what could be labeled "racist," but only because the behavior itself is easier to identify and manifests in ways that we've become accustomed to identifying - at least, MORE accustomed than other forms/labels.

 

All of these labels are based on the perception of behavior; slurs like "kyke" and "dyke" are based on identity. I remain surprised that you would equate the two in terms of offensiveness. I think "tranny" and "dyke" DO have a long history of blood & death, because I think the underlying biological motivators for being transgender or lesbian have been around for thousands of years, and stigmatized/punished the whole time... only now have they been IDENTIFIED and labeled, but the history is there, however buried.

 

This is actually a really interesting and important point: pornography in different countries is different! I'm only finding one study at the moment (you may have more, I couldn't find a citation for what you're saying, although I've heard the same), but countries in more sexually liberal countries, with better women's rights and outcomes, have pornography less objectifying and demeaning to women. Porn models are more often shown in an equal or dominant position, there's less focus on "perfect" body types, and poses tend to be more naturalistic. To me, this is a really compelling reason to focus on objectification and not mere presence.

 

Okay, they compared three countries - Japan, Norway, and the USA. They didn't really look at the types of countries/cultures I was talking about. I'm confused why you would find a single study "compelling" when we just finished a long conversation on how most of these types of studies are inconclusive and/or have reproducibility problems, but that's a tangent to tangent... a quote from the study in question:

 

In conclusion, this research supports the work of anti-censorship feminists and opens an

empirical pathway for the pro-sex approach

.  As Boyle (2000) argues, anti-pornography

feminists may need to eschew the traditional argument that attempts to establish a causal

relationship between pornography and violent behavior, and focus instead on how some

pornography is produced and consumed in ways that are abusive to women.  The present study

shows that some pornography may present women in an empowered role and as possessing

empowering attributes reflective of cross-cultural differences in gender equity.  This result may

perhaps lend support to the argument that not all pornography is inherently harmful.

 

 

Works for me!! Would seem to support almost everything I've been saying... thanks for the link Keep in mind this is ACTUAL pornography they're talking about, as opposed to just large-breasted background window dressing in video games...

 

 

I don't understand this paragraph. It sounds like you're trying to determine the effect of an effect, with no cause in there. Unless you're talking about catharsis, which is widely debunked. And negative reinforcement (removal of an aversive stimulus as a reward mechanism) hasn't been in the conversation at all, nor any type of operant conditioning.

 

"negative reinforcement" was only referring to Andy's "reinforcement of negative cultural attitudes" - I see how that could be confusing.

 

To me, it seems that both the social learning model AND the catharsis model have very little evidence, but the former is simply studied more... I would argue that this is because of the problem I referred to earlier - lack of political diversity in the social sciences. Too many agendas. There HAVE actually been slight cathartic effects observed in recent studies: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130826123134.htm - most of the "debunking" of catharsis theory seems to stem from an influential 1977 study. In a field of study so very far from certitude, I feel like saying that the idea of catharsis has been "debunked" so conclusively is a little... misplaced. I suspect that it's a little more complicated than that.

 

At any rate, I was really talking about a higher-level cultural correlation than could be easily studied on an individual level. Call of Duty: Black Ops III just sold like gangbusters in Japan, and MANY Japanese games aren't exactly pacifist, and the Japanese seem to enjoy video games in general. You can look at America and see all the gun violence and point to violent video games, but how do you reconcile that with Japan? To me, the larger difference seems to be the availability of guns... eliminate the touchy topic of guns, and you've still got a much less violent culture, statistically... what to do, what to do!

 

I liked this article: http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/02/the-wrong-way-to-talk-about-violence-in-movies/283574/

[MindWanderer]

Calling someone an SJW is like calling someone a racist, or a sexist, or a misogynist... or a "right-wing conservative fascist" or a "bleeding-heart liberal". Do you agree that those are all slurs used by speakers who have turned their brains off? Sometimes I think those labels are simply.... accurate. Reductionist, as almost all labels are, but not necessarily unfair.

 

These are all labels that describe behavior... in the case of "SJW" the behavior is a pattern of perceived overreaction, hypersensitivity, hypocritical intolerance of competing ideological perspectives, and persecution of anything viewed as offensive. In the case of "sexist" or "racist", the behavior is a pattern of perceived bigotry/intolerance based on sex, or race. I would agree that it is usually easier to establish a "reasonable person" standard for who or what could be labeled "racist," but only because the behavior itself is easier to identify and manifests in ways that we've become accustomed to identifying - at least, MORE accustomed than other forms/labels.

 

All of these labels are based on the perception of behavior; slurs like "kyke" and "dyke" are based on identity. I remain surprised that you would equate the two in terms of offensiveness. I think "tranny" and "dyke" DO have a long history of blood & death, because I think the underlying biological motivators for being transgender or lesbian have been around for thousands of years, and stigmatized/punished the whole time... only now have they been IDENTIFIED and labeled, but the history is there, however buried.

OK, I understand that perspective. I think perhaps "bleeding-heart commie" would have been a better example of a political slur and opposite of "fascist", which yes, I do think people who use those terms have turned their brains off. And yes, I personally feel like slurs against perceived behavior are just as powerful as slurs against what you call "identity."

First, because once you put a label on someone's position, you stop listening to them. You may have even put them in a box that doesn't really describe them accurately (e.g. "fascist" or "commie" are unlikely to be strictly true). In addition to being denigrating and dismissive to the person themselves, it dismisses their very thoughts and not just their biology. I think that's at least as powerful.

Second, political identity is extremely important these days. People identify very strongly with their political orientation. For instance, here is an article about discrimination against identified conservatives. I've seen many similar articles lately, but this is the one I recall specifically offhand. I think it's fair to say that many people consider being liberal or conservative just as important to their own identity as their race or sex, and it seems that many people think other people's political leanings to be one of the most important things in defining their potential relationship.

 

Okay, they compared three countries - Japan, Norway, and the USA. They didn't really look at the types of countries/cultures I was talking about. I'm confused why you would find a single study "compelling" when we just finished a long conversation on how most of these types of studies are inconclusive and/or have reproducibility problems

I thought that was basically what you were talking about, Norway being a classic example of a sexually liberal country. I seem to have missed your point then.

Note that I said "compelling reason to focus on objectification and not mere presence." I think we're in complete agreement here: Porn (and sexualized representations of women in general) in and of itself is probably not harmful. Where we disagree is whether certain types of porn, heavy on the objectification, is harmful. I believe it is, but that's an opinion and not a demonstrated fact, which could stand to be researched further.

 

There HAVE actually been slight cathartic effects observed in recent studies: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130826123134.htm - most of the "debunking" of catharsis theory seems to stem from an influential 1977 study. In a field of study so very far from certitude, I feel like saying that the idea of catharsis has been "debunked" so conclusively is a little... misplaced. I suspect that it's a little more complicated than that.

This study was specifically among ADHD participants, and without the full text, I'm not sure what they mean bu a "very slight cathartic effect." At the time I was in college, catharsis being an incorrect theory was almost universally supported (lots and lots of studies; there are a few in the Wikipedia article), but it does seem like there are a few more current articles in its favor.

 

You can look at America and see all the gun violence and point to violent video games, but how do you reconcile that with Japan? To me, the larger difference seems to be the availability of guns... eliminate the touchy topic of guns, and you've still got a much less violent culture, statistically... what to do, what to do!

 

I liked this article: http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/02/the-wrong-way-to-talk-about-violence-in-movies/283574/

Very true, and yeah, that's a good article. Context and culture are vitally important and hard to understand. It's not as simple as "X causes Y." Anyone claiming it is is seriously out of touch with reality. There's circular reinforcement, there are tons of mediating and moderating relationships, there's our horrible polarizing two-party system, and that's just the beginning. An isolated decree such as censorship won't solve a darn thing (hello, Prohibition).

[Nabeel Ansari]

dude you just wrote a several paragraph long post that implies that actions are not considered behavior, you're not exactly being "logical" here

 

I will actually PayPal you $10 if you can show me a specific quote that shows "actions" =/= "behavior" (something I never talked about, ever).

 

Otherwise you're doing what you usually do in discussions on OCR, which is derail them by taking sarcastic, unsubstantiated shots and strawmans at everyone you disagree with.

[djpretzel]

This study was specifically among ADHD participants, and without the full text, I'm not sure what they mean bu a "very slight cathartic effect." At the time I was in college, catharsis being an incorrect theory was almost universally supported (lots and lots of studies; there are a few in the Wikipedia article), but it does seem like there are a few more current articles in its favor.

 

Thanks for your response; cleared a lot up, for me. I legitimately find your taking equal offense to behavior-based slurs & identity-based slurs very interesting... I don't think most people think this way, but it might be better if more did, I don't know...

 

Another confounding factor to consider re: catharsis... in at least one study, economists noticed that violent crime decreased on the release dates of violent movies. They didn't attribute this to any sort of cathartic effect, however - their explanation was simpler:

1. violent people tend to enjoy violent films more
2. when violent films are released, violent people go see them, and are thus "removed from circulation" and are not out committing violent acts.

So it's not a measurement of the influence at ALL, but rather a straight-up measurement of how time is spent - pragmatic, and almost completely ignored (i.e. not considered) by most experiments that focus on short-term psychological effects. It doesn't have to be a cathartic effect, it can simply be a "time as a finite resource" effect, in other words...

[Brushfire]

I like that Koei Tecmo is saying that they arent bringing DOAX3 to America because they dont want to give the impression that they promote those subject, when in reality DOAX 2 sold like poop, and wasn't a very good game. 

[AngelCityOutlaw]

I like that Koei Tecmo is saying that they arent bringing DOAX3 to America because they dont want to give the impression that they promote those subject, when in reality DOAX 2 sold like poop, and wasn't a very good game. 

 

That probably plays into it, but I suspect not wanting to deal with social justice warriors is probably a reason as well. I have no intention of playing a shitty volleyball/beach party game, but I agree with Paul Tassi's article for Forbes on the subject that Tecmo should stand behind the game and release it anyway. 

[Bleck]

 

I will actually PayPal you $10 if you can show me a specific quote that shows "actions" =/= "behavior" (something I never talked about, ever).

 

I think to fix game representation, we need to focus on methods to fix misogyny in society.

 

the implication here is that you feel that people creating sexist media is not symptomatic of a sexist society - in essence, you're saying that someone doing a sexist thing is somehow disconnected from society (a.k.a people) being sexist

 

 

 

Otherwise you're doing what you usually do in discussions on OCR, which is derail them by taking sarcastic, unsubstantiated shots and strawmans at everyone you disagree with.

 

and you're doing what everyone usually does in discussions on OCR, where you argue that long posts must be good posts (despite how fond you are of pointing out that correlation doesn't imply causation)

 

 

[Malaki-LEGEND.sys]

I am genuinly amazed (and more than a bit disheartened) that this thread has gone on as long as it has. I don't really have a lot to contribute to the thread itself (nor would I want to), and while I'm sure this isn't a novel thought, I'm sure that this thread would make folks like Leeland Yee and Jack Thompson mighty proud.

[Bleck]

how dare people on the internet talk to each other, on a forum that only exists for that very purpose, ugh!!!

[Nabeel Ansari]

the implication here is that you feel that people creating sexist media is not symptomatic of a sexist society - in essence, you're saying that someone doing a sexist thing is somehow disconnected from society (a.k.a people) being sexist

 

That's not the implication at all; the implication is that people creating sexist media is entirely symptomatic of a sexist society. I'm saying that people are doing sexist things because society is sexist, and that policing sexist actions to try and fix the sexist society (what Anita is trying to do when she judgmentally casts gamers as sick people because they enjoy this stuff) will not work, but that treating the sexist society at the root of its sexism will in fact work.

 

Treating the symptoms (policing media representation) does not treat the illness (people creating sexist representations because society raised them and allowed them to grow up into sexist tendencies and thought processes without consequence).

 

When I point out that correlation does not equal causation, it's not to support the claim that society is disconnected from products of society; it's to re-enable the consideration of a potential conclusion that is the reverse of what Anita suggests (so the correlation may be causation, but the cause and effect are reversed). Anita says that sexist media is what reinforces sexism. I think that's backwards, I think a sexist society reinforces sexist media, and whether both are equally valid or not, I hold the latter is a more practical way to view the issue, and is more reconcilable with trends in the history of human sociology (which is that deep rooted tendencies manifest themselves in expression, not that expression creates deep rooted tendencies).

 

To clarify, I don't fully agree with DJP's view on the issue, which is that these depictions and whatnot in media aren't necessarily unhealthy for society; I think he's got a valid point, but since these depictions and representations bother sums of people, their voices need to be heard as well. And if we want to do something about it, we shouldn't follow Anita down this judgmental pseudo-censorship rabbit hole, because that's a waste of time and human resources.

[Bleck]

your problem here is that you think what a person or group of people "does" is somehow different than what they "are", which is a very widely held belief that doesn't make any sense

 

people are only the sum of what they do - if society is sexist, it's because they do sexist things, not because some magical internal mechanism is set to the wrong setting

 

as such the idea that we should "fix what society is instead of what it does" is specious - society is what society does

[timaeus222]

your problem here is that you think what a person or group of people "does" is somehow different than what they "are", which is a very widely held belief that doesn't make any sense

 

people are only the sum of what they do - if society is sexist, it's because they do sexist things, not because some magical internal mechanism is set to the wrong setting

 

as such the idea that we should "fix what society is instead of what it does" is specious - society is what society does

 

Equating "actions" as being what a person "is" removes his/her deliberation from the equation. Here's what I mean...

 

The actions don't necessarily define (determine the prominent qualities of) the person; they are simply observable expressions by the person. The person, more often than not, deliberates (or ought to), and thus tries to determine his/her courses of action. Society perceives a person's actions as who they are; that happens, but it may be specious and/or rash. We should always consider perception vs. reality when speaking to how a group of people "is" as compared to what they "do", because what a person does is not inherently linked to careful deliberation. Any action that comes about from "improper"* thinking does not account for any action that would come about from more refined thinking. Wouldn't you say that if we refined the thinking of a sexist person, he/she would be less inclined to act in a sexist manner?

 

I think what Neblix wants to do is re-examine any "improper" thinking within society, rather than "waste . . . time and human resources" to address the so-called reinforcement from media (i.e. games) on such thinking, because media is born from a society. Honestly, I think the former is more difficult, though I agree that ideally it should help.

 

* To be more specific, I just mean "acquired from problematic contemplation."

[Bleck]

I don't understand that post

[timaeus222]

Deliberation is essentially a self-constructed thought process one makes within a society. Or, in your words, a "magical internal mechanism." From a philosophical standpoint, [person + some form of deliberation + outside influence] -> decision -> action. Action resulting from improper/unrefined deliberation does not fully account for action resulting from refined deliberation, because deliberation affects the decision made and thus the action made.

 

For instance, a truly sexist person (whom no one else confronts) would likely continue to believe in being sexist, if his/her deliberations tend to consider little about society's reaction to sexism and any negative effects that arise as a result of such actions by said sexist person. Such deliberations, I would consider unrefined.

 

So, addressing the process of deliberation is a pretty good place to start to affect the decision made and thus the action performed. (What may conflict with this approach though, are outside influences like media.)

[Bleck]

that's uh a really protracted way of saying "yes there is" in response to me saying there's no such thing as an internal person

 

your process here assumes that "deliberation" is some kind of separate process from, you know, thinking (it's not), and that the fact that people think must therefore mean that people can be something internally without necessarily affecting their actions (it doesn't)

 

again, people are the sum of their actions; there is no "the real me", and the only reason people tend to claim as much is to imply that there's a certain degree of separation between what people "are" and what people do so as to imply that the way people's actions make other people feel doesn't matter (like, for example, saying that sexist media isn't a problem)

 

saying that we should go after "what people are instead of what people do" is functionally arguing that people's actions aren't capable of being problematic (which implies that you believe that the negative effects of these things don't actually matter, which is probably because you're likely not a victim of them)

 

I should also point out that everyone who ever argues this never actually has any idea on how to actually change "sexist people" at their imaginary cores