Jump to content
IGNORED

Gender Diversity / Politics in games (was Tropes Vs. Women)


Unofficial Who
 Share

Recommended Posts

Leccy is right, to be fair - the most common reaction to being told you have some form of privilege is 'Fuck you I have a hard life'. Because most people do. We don't see the ways in which our lives are made easier, just the things that get in our way. Which is the whole point of privilege - it's invisible to those who have it.

And people think that it means it's their fault, that they're guilty of something, even if it's just of being born white. Which isn't the point at all. The point is to do exactly what Leccy said - be aware of what privileges you have and of how it affects those without them. And hopefully stand up and do something about it, too.

Why we can't call it what it is, though, I do not know :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably because it implies they're the cause or at least part of the problem even though they might be well meaning.

It doesn't. Unfortunately people in a position of privilege tend to assume that when people seek to normalise the social situation by, for example, seeking less egregious depictions of women in the media, they're being persecuted (see the hilarious-if-it-didn't-make-me-want-to-kill-myself-in-shame "Men's Rights Movement").
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It silences or invalidates people's opinions. People in general don't like to not be reasoned with.

If the goal is to expand a movement then it's a tactic I would not use. You need allies and power in numbers for a movement to be successful... it's a great shame ( to me ) that a number of leading feminist intellectuals and journalists subscribe to the check your privilege argument.

I'm not exactly going to shout "reverse racism!" Every time I hear or read it, as that's not an accurate model, but the similarities to judging people's opinions by their colour, creed or persuasion are implicit in the statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It silences or invalidates people's opinions. People in general don't like to not be reasoned with.

If the goal is to expand a movement then it's a tactic I would not use. You need allies and power in numbers for a movement to be successful... it's a great shame ( to me ) that a number of leading feminist intellectuals and journalists subscribe to the check your privilege argument.

I'm not exactly going to shout "reverse racism!" Every time I hear or read it, as that's not an accurate model, but the similarities to judging people's opinions by their colour, creed or persuasion are implicit in the statement.

I've highlighted the bullshit so you can sit down and have a think about it. More specifically:

- No-one is being silenced or invalidated, that I can see.

- What is this "check your privilege" argument? Because I've never heard of it or anything like it. What do you mean by "check your privilege"?

- What? Are you shitting me? Are you honestly comparing acceptance of the idea that your viewpoint is being influenced by your place of privilege in society to racism and homophobia?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rudeness and strawmen.

You've still not answered a genuine question about your argument, "what do you mean by "check your privilege?".

And this a paraphrasing of your own words: "the term [which I have not explained] 'check your privilege' [that I claim is used by feminist theorists but again have not explained or given an example of] while not a direct replacement for the term 'reverse racism' has comparable features to racism, religious persecution and homophobia that are implicit in the statement [a statement whose meaning I am yet to explain]." Show me the straw man, please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I got bored waiting and Googled it. This is what I got:

The phrase suggests that when considering another person’s plight, one must acknowledge one’s own inherent privileges and put them aside in order to gain a better understanding of his or her situation.

Yeah, I can see why that would be infuriating, accepting that you've maybe found yourself through no fault or effort of your own in a position that places you better off than others and that putting yourself in someone else's shoes may help you realise how we treat certain people differently. It's such a vicious, horrible sentiment that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spacehost: it's not in my methods to be rude when asking someone to source or back up their arguments. Clearly this is not something we have in common. I did not clarify my position enough, perhaps I do need to revisit the concept.

I specifically stated that people should be mindful of others opinions and societal hardships in a post I made previous page and then you summarised my opinion with the opposite. If that is not a strawman I don't even have a basis for communication with you, which is no loss to me and I suspect no loss to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I specifically stated that people should be mindful of others opinions and societal hardships in a post I made previous page and then you summarised my opinion with the opposite. If that is not a strawman I don't even have a basis for communication with you, which is no loss to me and I suspect no loss to you.

This is a direct quote from you:

I'm not exactly going to shout "reverse racism!" Every time I hear or read it, as that's not an accurate model, but the similarities to judging people's opinions by their colour, creed or persuasion are implicit in the statement.

Those words mean in the context of the sentence, "when I see the term 'check your privilege' I don't automatically think 'this is being racist to white people' [which I assume is what you mean by the absurd "reverse racism", unless you meant "everyone getting along swimmingly"], but there are plenty of links between that statement and judging someone on the basis of their race, religion or sexuality that are implicit in the aforementioned statement 'check your privilege'".

I mean, am I misunderstanding you when I'm writing that? No?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why the hell shouldn't I act pissed off? We've gone through this exact dance, what, fifteen times in this thread now? Someone goes, "oh, I don't see how any of this discussion of the issues of the representation of women in media are a problem and I don't think [one or more feminists including Anita Sarkeesian] are really making arguments that are necessary and I don't see how I'm missing anything", then we spend ten pages going over the same tedious explanations of why they're wrong, explanations that a cursory watch of the videos or reading a couple of Wikipedia pages would replace. And then when we're done, oh, here comes Captain Insight with his Truth Ray to reveal how silly all this is, because EXACTLY THE SAME THING THE LAST GUY SAID.

This isn't a discussion; you need to engage with the material for it to be one of those. It's a conveyor belt of people coming in with exactly the same ignorance making the same comments over and over. Read. The Fucking. Thread.

Jesus.

you have broken the most important rule: 'be polite'

after all this is just a parlour discussion, why would anyone be passionate about it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.