Gamergate, Feminisim, and Journalistic Ethics

[Ostroeuropa]

You joke about it, but it's really so.
But it's NOT about removing men from politics!
It's just only about removing patriarchy.
I already wrote that I would OPPOSE the thought of a government with 100% females.
And, trust me, I'm pretty vocal when I oppose something.
Feminism is a struggle for equality, and it'll benefit even men.

You never answered the question:

If men are to be excluded from feminism, then would you support men in forming a parallel organization to feminism in order to deal with the ways that Patriarchy oppresses men?

Dependent on whether they acknowledge it as Patriarchy or not i'll bet. Personally I think it's bollocks.

[Chessmistress]

You never answered the question:

If men are to be excluded from feminism, then would you support men in forming a parallel organization to feminism in order to deal with the ways that Patriarchy oppresses men?

Why not?
If it's not misogynist nor for pushing backward the rights of women.
Indeed, feminists ALREADY SUPPORT MEN in their efforts to deal with the negative outcomes of patriarchy (minuscule because I despise it)
http://goodmenproject.com
Supported by Everyday Feminism
http://goodmenproject.com/author/everyday-feminism/

[Glorious KASSRD]

No they won't. According to them, all problems for men are from the patriarchy, and by removing us from politics they shall instantly solve our "minor issues". Somehow.

You joke about it, but it's really so.
But it's NOT about removing men from politics!
It's just only about removing patriarchy.
I already wrote that I would OPPOSE the thought of a government with 100% females.
And, trust me, I'm pretty vocal when I oppose something.
Feminism is a struggle for equality, and it'll benefit even men.

But you want feminists to be in control of the government, no?

[Lyrian Oligarchic Royal Empire]

Good Men Project.

Heh.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Why not?
If it's not misogynist nor for pushing backward the rights of women.
Indeed, feminists ALREADY SUPPORT MEN in their efforts to deal with the negative outcomes of patriarchy (minuscule because I despise it)
http://goodmenproject.com
Supported by Everyday Feminism
http://goodmenproject.com/author/everyday-feminism/

Does that mean that you'll actually take articles about mens rights issues from the GMP seriously? If so...

http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values ... -movement/

The Issues:

Men have no reproductive rights throughout what we would call the Political West. Men have no right to choose if they are ready for parenthood post-conception, even though women have that right (and staunchly defend it). While the morality of letting men abandon pregnant girlfriends is left in question, the base inequality of the current situation is not. We have a blatant legal double standard, based solely on the sex of the person involved. Either give men the same rights as women, or restrict women’s rights to equal those of men—I don’t care which. But to fail to do so is to promote sexism as official government policy.

As the Department of Health and Human Services concedes,”historically, unmarried fathers have had fewer rights with regard to their children than either unwed mothers or married parents.” For example, as an unintended consequence of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, which required single mothers seeking public assistance to identify the father and put states in charge of collecting child support, millions of men across the U.S. were declared dads by “default judgment.” As Matt Welch wrote in a 2004 issue of Reason magazine:

[W]hen the government accuses you of fathering a child, no matter how flimsy the evidence, you are one month away from having your life wrecked. Federal law gives a man just 30 days to file a written challenge; if he doesn’t, he is presumed guilty. And once that steamroller of justice starts rolling, dozens of statutory lubricants help make it extremely difficult, and prohibitively expensive, to stop—even, in most cases, if there’s conclusive DNA proof that the man is not the child’s father.

Many states have since passed reform bills, but paternity fraud is still a problem.

While we’re talking about family court, how about those child support tables? They were based in part on hysteria created when sociologist Lenore Weitzman concluded, in a 1985 report, that after a divorce women’s standard of living went down 73 percent, and men’s went up 42 percent. “For several years after the publication of her book, she did not make her data available to other researchers,” according to the Associated Press. In 1996, she admitted that her calculations were faulty. A re-analysis of her numbers “found a 27 percent decline in women’s post-divorce standard of living and a 10 percent increase in men’s—still a serious gap, but not the catastrophic one that Weitzman saw.”

But by that time it was too late. According to the 1996 AP report, Weitzman’s bogus statistic had already been cited in 348 social-science articles, 250 law review articles, 24 appeals and Supreme Court cases, and in President Clinton’s 1996 budget. “This has been one of the most widely quoted statistics in recent history,” said Anne Colby, director of Radcliffe College’s Murray Research Center at the time.

http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values ... en-hesaid/

Feminism hurts men.

That’s not an original sentiment, but it has rarely been articulated so painfully, and with such good faith, as in a recent blog comment by MIT computer science professor Scott Aaronson. In a long, impassioned post, Aaronson explains that he was a nerdy guy in high school and beyond, and that his reading of feminist literature (especially Andrea Dworkin) left him with a paralyzing fear that his sexual desire would harm women.

“Here’s the thing: I spent my formative years — basically, from the age of 12 until my mid-20s—feeling not “entitled,” not “privileged,” but terrified. I was terrified that one of my female classmates would somehow find out that I sexually desired her, and that the instant she did, I would be scorned, laughed at, called a creep and a weirdo, maybe even expelled from school or sent to prison. You can call that my personal psychological problem if you want, but it was strongly reinforced by everything I picked up from my environment: to take one example, the sexual-assault prevention workshops we had to attend regularly as undergrads, with their endless lists of all the forms of human interaction that “might be” sexual harassment or assault, and their refusal, ever, to specify anything that definitely wouldn’t be sexual harassment or assault. I left each of those workshops with enough fresh paranoia and self-hatred to last me through another year.”

Aaronson says he actually begged a doctor at one point to chemically castrate him so that he could focus on math and science, and not be tormented by the terrible, terrifying threat of desire.

Laura Pennie had a compassionate response in which she argued that Aaronson’s anguish was the result of patriarchy, not of feminism—and Aaronson, who is himself strongly pro-feminist, agreed (albeit somewhat ambivalently). But neither of them really explain why Aaronson’s problems stem from patriarchy. After all, Aaronson’s fear of his body and his desire came from reading Andrea Dworkin. That sounds like feminism’s fault, not patriarchy’s. As Aaronson says, “the notion of ‘Patriarchy’ is sufficiently elastic as to encompass almost anything about the relations between the sexes that is, or has ever been, bad or messed up.”

If patriarchy is so diffuse, of what use is the concept? And how can it really explain Aaronson’s torment?

[Ostroeuropa]

You never answered the question:

If men are to be excluded from feminism, then would you support men in forming a parallel organization to feminism in order to deal with the ways that Patriarchy oppresses men?

Why not?
If it's not misogynist nor for pushing backward the rights of women.
Indeed, feminists ALREADY SUPPORT MEN in their efforts to deal with the negative outcomes of patriarchy (minuscule because I despise it)
http://goodmenproject.com
Supported by Everyday Feminism
http://goodmenproject.com/author/everyday-feminism/

Got any example of the MRM pushing backward the rights of women?
Or of popularly supported misogyny in the movement?

[Chessmistress]

Why not?
If it's not misogynist nor for pushing backward the rights of women.
Indeed, feminists ALREADY SUPPORT MEN in their efforts to deal with the negative outcomes of patriarchy (minuscule because I despise it)
http://goodmenproject.com
Supported by Everyday Feminism
http://goodmenproject.com/author/everyday-feminism/

Does that mean that you'll actually take articles about mens rights issues from the GMP seriously? If so...

http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values ... -movement/

The Issues:

Men have no reproductive rights throughout what we would call the Political West. Men have no right to choose if they are ready for parenthood post-conception, even though women have that right (and staunchly defend it). While the morality of letting men abandon pregnant girlfriends is left in question, the base inequality of the current situation is not. We have a blatant legal double standard, based solely on the sex of the person involved. Either give men the same rights as women, or restrict women’s rights to equal those of men—I don’t care which. But to fail to do so is to promote sexism as official government policy.

As the Department of Health and Human Services concedes,”historically, unmarried fathers have had fewer rights with regard to their children than either unwed mothers or married parents.” For example, as an unintended consequence of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, which required single mothers seeking public assistance to identify the father and put states in charge of collecting child support, millions of men across the U.S. were declared dads by “default judgment.” As Matt Welch wrote in a 2004 issue of Reason magazine:

[W]hen the government accuses you of fathering a child, no matter how flimsy the evidence, you are one month away from having your life wrecked. Federal law gives a man just 30 days to file a written challenge; if he doesn’t, he is presumed guilty. And once that steamroller of justice starts rolling, dozens of statutory lubricants help make it extremely difficult, and prohibitively expensive, to stop—even, in most cases, if there’s conclusive DNA proof that the man is not the child’s father.

Many states have since passed reform bills, but paternity fraud is still a problem.

While we’re talking about family court, how about those child support tables? They were based in part on hysteria created when sociologist Lenore Weitzman concluded, in a 1985 report, that after a divorce women’s standard of living went down 73 percent, and men’s went up 42 percent. “For several years after the publication of her book, she did not make her data available to other researchers,” according to the Associated Press. In 1996, she admitted that her calculations were faulty. A re-analysis of her numbers “found a 27 percent decline in women’s post-divorce standard of living and a 10 percent increase in men’s—still a serious gap, but not the catastrophic one that Weitzman saw.”

But by that time it was too late. According to the 1996 AP report, Weitzman’s bogus statistic had already been cited in 348 social-science articles, 250 law review articles, 24 appeals and Supreme Court cases, and in President Clinton’s 1996 budget. “This has been one of the most widely quoted statistics in recent history,” said Anne Colby, director of Radcliffe College’s Murray Research Center at the time.

http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values ... en-hesaid/

Feminism hurts men.

That’s not an original sentiment, but it has rarely been articulated so painfully, and with such good faith, as in a recent blog comment by MIT computer science professor Scott Aaronson. In a long, impassioned post, Aaronson explains that he was a nerdy guy in high school and beyond, and that his reading of feminist literature (especially Andrea Dworkin) left him with a paralyzing fear that his sexual desire would harm women.

“Here’s the thing: I spent my formative years — basically, from the age of 12 until my mid-20s—feeling not “entitled,” not “privileged,” but terrified. I was terrified that one of my female classmates would somehow find out that I sexually desired her, and that the instant she did, I would be scorned, laughed at, called a creep and a weirdo, maybe even expelled from school or sent to prison. You can call that my personal psychological problem if you want, but it was strongly reinforced by everything I picked up from my environment: to take one example, the sexual-assault prevention workshops we had to attend regularly as undergrads, with their endless lists of all the forms of human interaction that “might be” sexual harassment or assault, and their refusal, ever, to specify anything that definitely wouldn’t be sexual harassment or assault. I left each of those workshops with enough fresh paranoia and self-hatred to last me through another year.”

Aaronson says he actually begged a doctor at one point to chemically castrate him so that he could focus on math and science, and not be tormented by the terrible, terrifying threat of desire.

Laura Pennie had a compassionate response in which she argued that Aaronson’s anguish was the result of patriarchy, not of feminism—and Aaronson, who is himself strongly pro-feminist, agreed (albeit somewhat ambivalently). But neither of them really explain why Aaronson’s problems stem from patriarchy. After all, Aaronson’s fear of his body and his desire came from reading Andrea Dworkin. That sounds like feminism’s fault, not patriarchy’s. As Aaronson says, “the notion of ‘Patriarchy’ is sufficiently elastic as to encompass almost anything about the relations between the sexes that is, or has ever been, bad or messed up.”

If patriarchy is so diffuse, of what use is the concept? And how can it really explain Aaronson’s torment?

It depends
First article is worthy:
It's OBIOUVS that first numbers were exaggerated: women losing 73% and men gaining 42% after a divorce isn't realistic.
Women losing 27% and men gaining 10% after a divorce sounds very realistic.
Still, I notice that women are the ones who lose from a divorce, and men are the ones who gain....

The second article is ridicolous.
Aaronson is a misogynist, as rightly pointed out by Amanda Marcotte
http://www.rawstory.com/2014/12/mit-pro ... -to-women/
Her "translation" of Aaronson's thoughts is right:

The eternal struggle of the sexist: Objective reality suggests that women are people, but the heart wants to believe they are a robot army put here for sexual service and housework.

Translation: I reluctantly claim to believe women are equal, but clearly I believe they are a bunch of bitches who have denied me. Denied me.

The notion that women respond with enthusiasm to having someone sexually assault them will not be moved by any number of Hollaback videos. He needs to believe that women did not fuck him not because of anything he did, but because women are fundamentally broken, as a gender. No evidence otherwise will penetrate.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

The second article is ridicolous.
Aaronson is a misogynist, as rightly pointed out by Amanda Marcotte
http://www.rawstory.com/2014/12/mit-pro ... -to-women/
Her "translation" of Aaronson's thoughts is right:

The eternal struggle of the sexist: Objective reality suggests that women are people, but the heart wants to believe they are a robot army put here for sexual service and housework.

Translation: I reluctantly claim to believe women are equal, but clearly I believe they are a bunch of bitches who have denied me. Denied me.

The notion that women respond with enthusiasm to having someone sexually assault them will not be moved by any number of Hollaback videos. He needs to believe that women did not fuck him not because of anything he did, but because women are fundamentally broken, as a gender. No evidence otherwise will penetrate.

Wow... what a ridiculous mischaracterization. What a pile of misandric nonsense.

Aaronson's issues were not about a fear of rejection, but were about a fear of himself becoming the male monster that much of feminist literature describes. This is something I have dealt with myself and can relate to.

But no, he criticizes some aspect of feminist thought, so he must be a misogynistic male monster in disguise!

Amazing...

[The Alexanderians]

The second article is ridicolous.
Aaronson is a misogynist, as rightly pointed out by Amanda Marcotte
http://www.rawstory.com/2014/12/mit-pro ... -to-women/
Her "translation" of Aaronson's thoughts is right:

Wow... what a ridiculous mischaracterization. What a pile of misandric nonsense.

Aaronson's issues were not about a fear of rejection, but were about a fear of himself becoming the male monster that much of feminist literature describes. This is something I have dealt with myself and can relate to.

But no, it critisizes some aspect of feminist thought, so he must be a misogynistic male monster in disguise!

Amazing...

I wonder how common of a grievance this is, the fear of being the monster.

[Ostroeuropa]

The second article is ridicolous.
Aaronson is a misogynist, as rightly pointed out by Amanda Marcotte
http://www.rawstory.com/2014/12/mit-pro ... -to-women/
Her "translation" of Aaronson's thoughts is right:

Wow... what a ridiculous mischaracterization. What a pile of misandric nonsense.

Aaronson's issues were not about a fear of rejection, but were about a fear of himself becoming the male monster that much of feminist literature describes. This is something I have dealt with myself and can relate to.

But no, it critisizes some aspect of feminist thought, so he must be a misogynistic male monster in disguise!

Amazing...

You're still expecting them to engage in an honest discussion.
I gave up on that a long time ago.
All you can hope to do is point out when they lie and also raise awareness of mens issues, as well as the ways in which feminists discriminate against various groups.
I can't tell if i'm being unreasonable or not. Given the amount of misrepresentation (I.E, lying) about their critics they do (An example of which you just gave), the amount of lying about stats they do, the amount of lying about eachother they do, etc, why should I believe them when they say they believe in equality and don't hate men?
No, seriously. I'm asking people who seem to be giving them the benefit of the doubt. Why do you do it?
I think it's far simpler to conclude they are lying about those things too, and are just bigots.

It's like if a Christian runs around constantly peddling false shit about gay people but insists they don't hate gay people.
Why would you believe them? It's clearly just another lie.

They are not arguing in good faith, so it's pointless to engage them. Just point out they are lying when they do it, and carry on. When they are ready to be open minded and not a member of a cult, they'll find a WEALTH of evidence that feminism is full of shit all around them, no need for someone else to get involved.

As soon as you actually start to question feminist assertions, the entire thing falls apart. It's entirely reliant on blind faith, which is why they so viciously censor where they can, and where they can't, resort to character assassination and ostracization to create a climate of fear about questioning their movement.
They know it can't actually stand up to any scrutiny. This thread, like all the feminist threads on NSG, is essentially a rout for them, because they can't control the discourse, and issueing threats would get them banned.

[Glorious KASSRD]

Wow... what a ridiculous mischaracterization. What a pile of misandric nonsense.

Aaronson's issues were not about a fear of rejection, but were about a fear of himself becoming the male monster that much of feminist literature describes. This is something I have dealt with myself and can relate to.

But no, it critisizes some aspect of feminist thought, so he must be a misogynistic male monster in disguise!

Amazing...

You're still expecting them to engage in an honest discussion.
I gave up on that a long time ago.
All you can hope to do is point out when they lie and also raise awareness of mens issues, as well as the ways in which feminists discriminate against various groups.
I can't tell if i'm being unreasonable or not. Given the amount of misrepresentation (I.E, lying) about their critics they do (An example of which you just gave), the amount of lying about stats they do, the amount of lying about eachother they do, etc, why should I believe them when they say they believe in equality and don't hate men?
No, seriously. I'm asking people who seem to be giving them the benefit of the doubt. Why do you do it?
I think it's far simpler to conclude they are lying about those things too, and are just bigots.

It's like if a Christian runs around constantly peddling false shit about gay people but insists they don't hate gay people.
Why would you believe them? It's clearly just another lie.

They don't even know they lie. I'm pretty sure most of them actually believe that "the patriarchy" causes all problems for men and women, and that men are better off in almost all ways. They of course, refuse to explain how the patriarchy does this, actual legitimate ways to remove it, and what "the patriarchy" even is. And if "the patriarchy" is "any time when men have the majority of power" then it's impossible to remove "the patriarchy" without having women be in majority control.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

You're still expecting them to engage in an honest discussion.
I gave up on that a long time ago.
All you can hope to do is point out when they lie and also raise awareness of mens issues, as well as the ways in which feminists discriminate against various groups.
I can't tell if i'm being unreasonable or not. Given the amount of misrepresentation (I.E, lying) about their critics they do (An example of which you just gave), the amount of lying about stats they do, the amount of lying about eachother they do, etc, why should I believe them when they say they believe in equality and don't hate men?
No, seriously. I'm asking people who seem to be giving them the benefit of the doubt. Why do you do it?
I think it's far simpler to conclude they are lying about those things too, and are just bigots.

Honestly? It's called 'giving them enough rope to hang themselves'. By playing into the assumptions of the other side, I can show when the other side is arguing in bad faith. When you just dig in your heels and dismiss them all as liars, it becomes very easy for the uninvolved to simply dismiss your perspective as well.

They are not arguing in good faith, so it's pointless to engage them. Just point out they are lying when they do it, and carry on. When they are ready to be open minded and not a member of a cult, they'll find a WEALTH of evidence that feminism is full of shit all around them, no need for someone else to get involved.

As soon as you actually start to question feminist assertions, the entire thing falls apart. It's entirely reliant on blind faith, which is why they so viciously censor where they can, and where they can't, resort to character assassination and ostracization to create a climate of fear about questioning their movement.
They know it can't actually stand up to any scrutiny. This thread, like all the feminist threads on NSG, is essentially a rout for them, because they can't control the discourse, and issueing threats would get them banned.

I still think that feminism has the potential to make useful contributions, but that the nature of the discourse has to change for that to continue.

[Ostroeuropa]

You're still expecting them to engage in an honest discussion.
I gave up on that a long time ago.
All you can hope to do is point out when they lie and also raise awareness of mens issues, as well as the ways in which feminists discriminate against various groups.
I can't tell if i'm being unreasonable or not. Given the amount of misrepresentation (I.E, lying) about their critics they do (An example of which you just gave), the amount of lying about stats they do, the amount of lying about eachother they do, etc, why should I believe them when they say they believe in equality and don't hate men?
No, seriously. I'm asking people who seem to be giving them the benefit of the doubt. Why do you do it?
I think it's far simpler to conclude they are lying about those things too, and are just bigots.

It's like if a Christian runs around constantly peddling false shit about gay people but insists they don't hate gay people.
Why would you believe them? It's clearly just another lie.

They don't even know they lie. I'm pretty sure most of them actually believe that "the patriarchy" causes all problems for men and women, and that men are better off in almost all ways. They of course, refuse to explain how the patriarchy does this, actual legitimate ways to remove it, and what "the patriarchy" even is. And if "the patriarchy" is "any time when men have the majority of power" then it's impossible to remove "the patriarchy" without having women be in majority control.

We're in the gamergate thread. Which is basically a shitstorm caused by feminists lying.
A lot of the posters here are MRAs.
Who became invested in anti-feminism because feminists lied about them to derail their movement.
It isn't a question of believing in silly shit like the patriarchy, that's not lying, that's just being wrong.
It's a case of willfully making shit up about your opponents, about issues, and about themselves. They do it constantly.

[Ostroeuropa]

You're still expecting them to engage in an honest discussion.
I gave up on that a long time ago.
All you can hope to do is point out when they lie and also raise awareness of mens issues, as well as the ways in which feminists discriminate against various groups.
I can't tell if i'm being unreasonable or not. Given the amount of misrepresentation (I.E, lying) about their critics they do (An example of which you just gave), the amount of lying about stats they do, the amount of lying about eachother they do, etc, why should I believe them when they say they believe in equality and don't hate men?
No, seriously. I'm asking people who seem to be giving them the benefit of the doubt. Why do you do it?
I think it's far simpler to conclude they are lying about those things too, and are just bigots.

Honestly? It's called 'giving them enough rope to hang themselves'. By playing into the assumptions of the other side, I can show when the other side is arguing in bad faith. When you just dig in your heels and dismiss them all as liars, it becomes very easy for the uninvolved to simply dismiss your perspective as well.

They are not arguing in good faith, so it's pointless to engage them. Just point out they are lying when they do it, and carry on. When they are ready to be open minded and not a member of a cult, they'll find a WEALTH of evidence that feminism is full of shit all around them, no need for someone else to get involved.

As soon as you actually start to question feminist assertions, the entire thing falls apart. It's entirely reliant on blind faith, which is why they so viciously censor where they can, and where they can't, resort to character assassination and ostracization to create a climate of fear about questioning their movement.
They know it can't actually stand up to any scrutiny. This thread, like all the feminist threads on NSG, is essentially a rout for them, because they can't control the discourse, and issueing threats would get them banned.

I still think that feminism has the potential to make useful contributions, but that the nature of the discourse has to change for that to continue.

Fair enough. So long as you aren't actually expecting to make a connection with them or change their mind.
The difference is, I have proof they are liars. Ample proof.
Buttloads of proof. Mountains of the stuff. A veritable fucktonne of it.

Further, you don't even need to call them liars necessarily.
Just ask people to fact check everything feminists say, and to use non-feminist sources for that fact checking. That's reasonable enough, and it usually ends up showing them up.

[Tahar Joblis]

Whedon is not actually a feminist hero if one looks at his works.

Mainly? He has a weird obsession with rape storylines.

(At one point in Buffy, Xander sexually assaults her. ... and Giles points out he wasn't actually 'out of control' but keeps that to himself, and they all pretend it didn't happen. Which is just one example of fucked up weirdness, like Buffy basically never having a non-abusive relationship.)

First rape storyline in Buffy: Season 1, episode 4. "Teacher's Pet." The victim: Xander.

Bet you weren't thinking of that one. It's two episodes before "The Pack."

You have, by the way, seriously misrepresented "The Pack." Xander was possessed by hyena spirits and was out of control. He attempted (but did not succeed) to rape Buffy while possessed by hyena spirits and very clearly acting unlike his normal self. Giles does not say he was in control of his actions.

Buffy: Well, it wasn't really you.
Xander: Well, I remember I was goin' on the field trip, and then goin' down to the Hyena House, and next thing some guy's holding Willow and he's got a knife.
Willow: You saved my life.
Xander: Hey! Nobody messes with my Willow. (gives her a hug)
Buffy looks on and smiles. Willow smiles, too.
Buffy: This is definitely the superior Xander. Accept no substitutes.
Xander: I didn't do anything else, did I, around you guys or anything embarrassing?
The girls smile, and Buffy considers what to tell him.
Buffy: (shakes her head) Nah!
Willow: Not at all.
Buffy: (to Willow) C'mon. We're gonna be late. (takes her hand and they go)
Willow: (to Xander) See you at lunch.
Xander: Cool! Oh, hey, goin' vegetarian! Huh?
He gives them two thumbs-up. Willow turns and smiles at him. So does Buffy. Xander starts to head the other way when he is met by Giles.
Giles: I've been reading up on my, uh, animal possession, and I cannot find anything anywhere about memory loss afterwards.
Xander: Did you tell them that?
Giles:

(leans to Xander's ear)

Your secret dies with me.
Xander: Shoot me, stuff me, mount me.
Giles pats him on the shoulder as he shakes his head and starts walking along the balcony. He leans on the railing and watches Xander go. Xander can't believe what has happened to him.

Xander pretends he doesn't remember what he did while possessed by hyena spirits. Giles keeps that secret. The fact that he remembers it doesn't at all imply that he was, in fact, just pretending to be possessed by hyena spirits. So you've just grievously misrepresented the episode in two ways.

First, you said "sexual assault" and "rape" as if to imply that Xander actually raped Buffy. This is not technically inaccurate under all meanings of "sexual assault," as attempted rape may be classified as "sexual assault." This is a misrepresentation in that there's a very dramatic difference, in terms of content, between "rape" and "attempted rape," in particular in terms of Buffy's representation as an unbeatable hero. Essentially, what we learn on close reading of the episode is that Buffy was holding herself back to avoid causing Xander serious injury until it was clear that the possessed version of Xander wasn't going to listen to persuasion.

What you said implied completed rape to someone not already familiar with the episode. That is to say, someone ignorant of what happened in the episode would, on reading what you said, come away with an inaccurate synopsis of what happened in the episode, meaning that's a misrepresentation of the work.

Second, much more egregiously, you said that Xander was in control of his actions, by virtue of Giles saying so. This is neither what Giles said in the episode, and we have absolutely zero reason to assume that Xander was not, in fact, possessed by hyena spirits, and all the reasons in the world to assume he was. This is not merely a rhetorical misrepresentation; you put in quotation marks a phrase that Giles did not, in fact, say, and you used that phrase to support a claim about the episode that is very clearly false.

This was your starting example. What is it? Nothing more and nothing less than an egregiously inaccurate hatchet-job.

For that matter, Whedon does, in fact, have some (at times quite heavy-handed) feminist messaging in his work. That's what makes the sudden turn of the Tumblrites against Whedon so absurd: Whedon is more guilty of anti-male sexism in his work than anti-female sexism, and has a lot more pro-feminist messaging than anti-feminist messaging.

[Ostroeuropa]

Whedon is not actually a feminist hero if one looks at his works.

Mainly? He has a weird obsession with rape storylines.

(At one point in Buffy, Xander sexually assaults her. ... and Giles points out he wasn't actually 'out of control' but keeps that to himself, and they all pretend it didn't happen. Which is just one example of fucked up weirdness, like Buffy basically never having a non-abusive relationship.)

First rape storyline in Buffy: Season 1, episode 4. "Teacher's Pet." The victim: Xander.

Bet you weren't thinking of that one. It's two episodes before "The Pack."

You have, by the way, seriously misrepresented "The Pack." Xander was possessed by hyena spirits and was out of control. He attempted (but did not succeed) to rape Buffy while possessed by hyena spirits and very clearly acting unlike his normal self. Giles does not say he was in control of his actions.

Buffy: Well, it wasn't really you.
Xander: Well, I remember I was goin' on the field trip, and then goin' down to the Hyena House, and next thing some guy's holding Willow and he's got a knife.
Willow: You saved my life.
Xander: Hey! Nobody messes with my Willow. (gives her a hug)
Buffy looks on and smiles. Willow smiles, too.
Buffy: This is definitely the superior Xander. Accept no substitutes.
Xander: I didn't do anything else, did I, around you guys or anything embarrassing?
The girls smile, and Buffy considers what to tell him.
Buffy: (shakes her head) Nah!
Willow: Not at all.
Buffy: (to Willow) C'mon. We're gonna be late. (takes her hand and they go)
Willow: (to Xander) See you at lunch.
Xander: Cool! Oh, hey, goin' vegetarian! Huh?
He gives them two thumbs-up. Willow turns and smiles at him. So does Buffy. Xander starts to head the other way when he is met by Giles.
Giles: I've been reading up on my, uh, animal possession, and I cannot find anything anywhere about memory loss afterwards.
Xander: Did you tell them that?
Giles:

(leans to Xander's ear)

Your secret dies with me.
Xander: Shoot me, stuff me, mount me.
Giles pats him on the shoulder as he shakes his head and starts walking along the balcony. He leans on the railing and watches Xander go. Xander can't believe what has happened to him.

Xander pretends he doesn't remember what he did while possessed by hyena spirits. Giles keeps that secret. The fact that he remembers it doesn't at all imply that he was, in fact, just pretending to be possessed by hyena spirits. So you've just grievously misrepresented the episode in two ways.

First, you said "sexual assault" and "rape" as if to imply that Xander actually raped Buffy. This is not technically inaccurate under all meanings of "sexual assault," as attempted rape may be classified as "sexual assault." This is a misrepresentation in that there's a very dramatic difference, in terms of content, between "rape" and "attempted rape," in particular in terms of Buffy's representation as an unbeatable hero. Essentially, what we learn on close reading of the episode is that Buffy was holding herself back to avoid causing Xander serious injury until it was clear that the possessed version of Xander wasn't going to listen to persuasion.

What you said implied completed rape to someone not already familiar with the episode. That is to say, someone ignorant of what happened in the episode would, on reading what you said, come away with an inaccurate synopsis of what happened in the episode, meaning that's a misrepresentation of the work.

Second, much more egregiously, you said that Xander was in control of his actions, by virtue of Giles saying so. This is neither what Giles said in the episode, and we have absolutely zero reason to assume that Xander was not, in fact, possessed by hyena spirits, and all the reasons in the world to assume he was. This is not merely a rhetorical misrepresentation; you put in quotation marks a phrase that Giles did not, in fact, say, and you used that phrase to support a claim about the episode that is very clearly false.

This was your starting example. What is it? Nothing more and nothing less than an egregiously inaccurate hatchet-job.

For that matter, Whedon does, in fact, have some (at times quite heavy-handed) feminist messaging in his work. That's what makes the sudden turn of the Tumblrites against Whedon so absurd: Whedon is more guilty of anti-male sexism in his work than anti-female sexism, and has a lot more pro-feminist messaging than anti-feminist messaging.

Speak of the devil...
A feminist misrepresenting something?
Noo, say it isn't so. Unheard of.

I see you're doing well with the "Fact check everything they say" strategy.

As for them turning on Whedon, it's because he's a male who wasn't completely in lockstep with the current groupthink.
Women can get away with occasionally divergent opinions in the movement, men can't.
Doesn't matter if he's just as sexist against men as the rest of them, the moment he says something out of line he goes back to being a viable target.

I actually like Whedons work, by the way. Buffy is pretty great, from what I remember. I expect if I watched it again I might cringe at some parts, but mostly, yeh. That episode seemed ok, from what I remember. It was always nice when they gave Xander or Willow something to do.

I prefer female protagonists (as do a lot of MRA's apparently.) specifically because i'm sick of watching men risking their lives to save women and it's nice to see the reverse. Among a bunch of other tropes that get reversed by having a female protagonist, such as (Unless it's a Chick Flick) women pursuing romantic interests instead of being an object, etc.
Hell, my favorite book is in my signature and that's got a female protagonist. Male victim of DV too.
...
I feel like watching Buffy.

[Seangoli]

It depends
First article is worthy:
It's OBIOUVS that first numbers were exaggerated: women losing 73% and men gaining 42% after a divorce isn't realistic.
Women losing 27% and men gaining 10% after a divorce sounds very realistic.
Still, I notice that women are the ones who lose from a divorce, and men are the ones who gain....

You do realize that the article was published in 1985, which was thirty years ago. And that it likely used data from the mid to late 70's. The article's information is about as relevant to the current issues going on today as the Vietnam War is. Data on social trends that comes from the era from when Disco and New Wave was all the rage is utterly useless for current purposes.

A significant deal has changed in the mean time, and new data sets are required before anything can be said. Significantly more single and married women are in the workforce than previously, particularly at higher level and better paying positions. This was published at a time when a wife going holding down a job was considered downright strange. That just isn't the case anymore.

So even *if* we can trust the author at all after they fudged the data so hard, it doesn't even matter any more. The article is about as useful as a daily Newspaper from 1985 for today's purposes.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

As for them turning on Whedon, it's because he's a male

I shortened that for you.

Really, I think it comes down to the fact that he's male means to a lot of feminists that he must be a misogynist and he must be poisoning his work with his misogyny, and so they'll comb through his hundreds and hundreds of episodes (Whedon is one of the most prolific pop culture writers of our era) to find anything that confirms that narrative.

[Ostroeuropa]

As for them turning on Whedon, it's because he's a male

I shortened that for you.

Really, I think it comes down to the fact that he's male means to a lot of feminists that he must be a misogynist and he must be poisoning his work with his misogyny, and so they'll comb through his hundreds and hundreds of episodes (Whedon is one of the most prolific pop culture writers of our era) to find anything that confirms that narrative.

You're giving them too much credit. All of that sounds like hard work.
They'll just do what Sus did and find something they can misrepresent to sound misogynist, preferably in the first season so they don't have to go too far into it, and go home early for lunch.
Ultimately, it's stuff like that that makes them so easy to argue against.

It's like, i'm sure they could find, if they tried hard enough, an actual misogynist quote from Warren Farrel.
But instead they have to make shit up about his incest study. I don't understand these people sometimes.

[Galloism]

Whedon is not actually a feminist hero if one looks at his works.

Mainly? He has a weird obsession with rape storylines.

(At one point in Buffy, Xander sexually assaults her. ... and Giles points out he wasn't actually 'out of control' but keeps that to himself, and they all pretend it didn't happen. Which is just one example of fucked up weirdness, like Buffy basically never having a non-abusive relationship.)

First rape storyline in Buffy: Season 1, episode 4. "Teacher's Pet." The victim: Xander.

Bet you weren't thinking of that one. It's two episodes before "The Pack."

You have, by the way, seriously misrepresented "The Pack." Xander was possessed by hyena spirits and was out of control. He attempted (but did not succeed) to rape Buffy while possessed by hyena spirits and very clearly acting unlike his normal self. Giles does not say he was in control of his actions.

Buffy: Well, it wasn't really you.
Xander: Well, I remember I was goin' on the field trip, and then goin' down to the Hyena House, and next thing some guy's holding Willow and he's got a knife.
Willow: You saved my life.
Xander: Hey! Nobody messes with my Willow. (gives her a hug)
Buffy looks on and smiles. Willow smiles, too.
Buffy: This is definitely the superior Xander. Accept no substitutes.
Xander: I didn't do anything else, did I, around you guys or anything embarrassing?
The girls smile, and Buffy considers what to tell him.
Buffy: (shakes her head) Nah!
Willow: Not at all.
Buffy: (to Willow) C'mon. We're gonna be late. (takes her hand and they go)
Willow: (to Xander) See you at lunch.
Xander: Cool! Oh, hey, goin' vegetarian! Huh?
He gives them two thumbs-up. Willow turns and smiles at him. So does Buffy. Xander starts to head the other way when he is met by Giles.
Giles: I've been reading up on my, uh, animal possession, and I cannot find anything anywhere about memory loss afterwards.
Xander: Did you tell them that?
Giles:

(leans to Xander's ear)

Your secret dies with me.
Xander: Shoot me, stuff me, mount me.
Giles pats him on the shoulder as he shakes his head and starts walking along the balcony. He leans on the railing and watches Xander go. Xander can't believe what has happened to him.

Xander pretends he doesn't remember what he did while possessed by hyena spirits. Giles keeps that secret. The fact that he remembers it doesn't at all imply that he was, in fact, just pretending to be possessed by hyena spirits. So you've just grievously misrepresented the episode in two ways.

First, you said "sexual assault" and "rape" as if to imply that Xander actually raped Buffy. This is not technically inaccurate under all meanings of "sexual assault," as attempted rape may be classified as "sexual assault." This is a misrepresentation in that there's a very dramatic difference, in terms of content, between "rape" and "attempted rape," in particular in terms of Buffy's representation as an unbeatable hero. Essentially, what we learn on close reading of the episode is that Buffy was holding herself back to avoid causing Xander serious injury until it was clear that the possessed version of Xander wasn't going to listen to persuasion.

What you said implied completed rape to someone not already familiar with the episode. That is to say, someone ignorant of what happened in the episode would, on reading what you said, come away with an inaccurate synopsis of what happened in the episode, meaning that's a misrepresentation of the work.

Second, much more egregiously, you said that Xander was in control of his actions, by virtue of Giles saying so. This is neither what Giles said in the episode, and we have absolutely zero reason to assume that Xander was not, in fact, possessed by hyena spirits, and all the reasons in the world to assume he was. This is not merely a rhetorical misrepresentation; you put in quotation marks a phrase that Giles did not, in fact, say, and you used that phrase to support a claim about the episode that is very clearly false.

This was your starting example. What is it? Nothing more and nothing less than an egregiously inaccurate hatchet-job.

For that matter, Whedon does, in fact, have some (at times quite heavy-handed) feminist messaging in his work. That's what makes the sudden turn of the Tumblrites against Whedon so absurd: Whedon is more guilty of anti-male sexism in his work than anti-female sexism, and has a lot more pro-feminist messaging than anti-feminist messaging.

This is the most fuck-ass specific post about Buffy the vampire slayer ever.

[Ostroeuropa]

First rape storyline in Buffy: Season 1, episode 4. "Teacher's Pet." The victim: Xander.

Bet you weren't thinking of that one. It's two episodes before "The Pack."

You have, by the way, seriously misrepresented "The Pack." Xander was possessed by hyena spirits and was out of control. He attempted (but did not succeed) to rape Buffy while possessed by hyena spirits and very clearly acting unlike his normal self. Giles does not say he was in control of his actions.

Xander pretends he doesn't remember what he did while possessed by hyena spirits. Giles keeps that secret. The fact that he remembers it doesn't at all imply that he was, in fact, just pretending to be possessed by hyena spirits. So you've just grievously misrepresented the episode in two ways.

First, you said "sexual assault" and "rape" as if to imply that Xander actually raped Buffy. This is not technically inaccurate under all meanings of "sexual assault," as attempted rape may be classified as "sexual assault." This is a misrepresentation in that there's a very dramatic difference, in terms of content, between "rape" and "attempted rape," in particular in terms of Buffy's representation as an unbeatable hero. Essentially, what we learn on close reading of the episode is that Buffy was holding herself back to avoid causing Xander serious injury until it was clear that the possessed version of Xander wasn't going to listen to persuasion.

What you said implied completed rape to someone not already familiar with the episode. That is to say, someone ignorant of what happened in the episode would, on reading what you said, come away with an inaccurate synopsis of what happened in the episode, meaning that's a misrepresentation of the work.

Second, much more egregiously, you said that Xander was in control of his actions, by virtue of Giles saying so. This is neither what Giles said in the episode, and we have absolutely zero reason to assume that Xander was not, in fact, possessed by hyena spirits, and all the reasons in the world to assume he was. This is not merely a rhetorical misrepresentation; you put in quotation marks a phrase that Giles did not, in fact, say, and you used that phrase to support a claim about the episode that is very clearly false.

This was your starting example. What is it? Nothing more and nothing less than an egregiously inaccurate hatchet-job.

For that matter, Whedon does, in fact, have some (at times quite heavy-handed) feminist messaging in his work. That's what makes the sudden turn of the Tumblrites against Whedon so absurd: Whedon is more guilty of anti-male sexism in his work than anti-female sexism, and has a lot more pro-feminist messaging than anti-feminist messaging.

This is the most fuck-ass specific post about Buffy the vampire slayer ever.

You've clearly never visited the Tv-Tropes forums.

[The Alexanderians]

This is the most fuck-ass specific post about Buffy the vampire slayer ever.

You've clearly never visited the Tv-Tropes forums.

A fellow troper! But seriously though Tv tropes started as a buffy fan site.

[New Edom]

As I said before, I think the entire approach of Feminist Frequency is wrong, whether you agree with their concern about sexism or not. The issue really with games/movies/media in general when it comes to depiction of anyone is more a matter of greed/ignorance/laziness/complacency than systemic anything, in my opinion. While racism or sexism may be issues, they are more the result, in my opinion, than the actual reason for why some things are regressing or not changing fast enough.

Companies make what sells and trying to shoehorn stuff that you feel is 'pro-woman' something which, it's quite clear that no matter what they do will never appease them. (Seriously a game actually put in almost everything they wanted about women and they STILL called them sexist) therefore what will eventually happen is that companies will just stop putting women in games period simply so the likes of FF won't have anything to talk about.

This will put women in gaming backwards.

As I mentioned before, in the late eighties there was a surge of rather egalitarian perspectives both in games and in popular media. Games increasingly offered female characters (Mortal Kombat for instance) that were tough, interesting and so on; movies offered entirely egalitarian perspectives such as the movies "Aliens", "Terminator II" "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome" and others.

Several RPGs of the 90s had some powerful women too back then. SNES era square liked having female characters in their games, and while many times the women were support characters they were no less awesome in their own right. Final Fantasy VI is one example off the top of my head, the majority of the plot of the first half of the game used a male(Locke) as the primary character, the majority of the plot revolved around the girl you started out playing(Terra), then when the second half of the game rolls around the player character primarily ends up revolving around the second main female character(Celes) with the previous male character being completely optional to winning. The very way the game is set up actually pushes both girls into being the most well balanced and strongest characters in the game, which is very contrary to the RPG expectations back then of women mostly being devoted to being 'medics'.

Really, one thing that is argued about these games is that the women all seem to be attractive and they claim sexism is why. What is far more likely is that the fanservice in games is less a fault of sexism and more the fault of better graphics engines.

In other words, once "Breast Physics" became a thing it was inevitable that fan service would grow to be more important.

The key to getting around some elements of unfairness is sometimes simply making sure that good talent goes forward. I'm not discounting other knids of activism, but focusing on whether or not sexism is systemic or not to me misses the point in this arena. It is more about the fact that if you show a good story and a good set of characters, it will cause people generally to appreciate them, history seems to show.

Really, one of the funny things about Gamergate is that for all the claims that they're "Trying to drive women out of gaming" they actually are the ones who made sure that SeedScape and Afterlife Empire became possible. SeedScape was made by a female game developer who sided with gamergate, which caused the supposed 'pro-feminist' antis to try and get her game kicked off Steam. (So much for supporting women) Gamergate got her game greenlit on steam. The latter game is the one made possible by TFYC*s. Meanwhile on the anti-side, how many up and coming developers they have promoted? None.

Yet they gave thousands of dollars for John to have Anita bitch about games.

*For anyone who still wants to claim that they're 'not really feminists' I invite you to read their page where they state their endorsement of the theories of Dorothy Edith Smith, Sandra L. Bartky, Judith Butler, and Naomi R. Wolf.

There will be holdouts and traditionalists but gaming in particular is a field where people want newer, better, faster, more interesting, more fun. This is what the battleground should really be, providing and encouraging the development of the best games that more people will enjoy.

Except it's very clear that many on the other side don't believe games should be fun, the people who made up of Gamergate have had spokespersons who have literally said "Games should stop being about fun and more about pushing social issues." They believe that games that don't support their views should be suppressed or excluded until all games meet their approval.

That is unacceptable, gaming is big enough for everyone and every thing, from powerful female characters, to damsels in distress, to heartless villains, to even a walking cliche.

If "Feminists" and "Social Justice Warriors" believe that they should have the right to decide what should be socially acceptable in gaming and that they cannot stand the fact that their ideas are being rejected?

Then they have only their own intolerance to blame.

Generally you make good points. I think it was pointed out too that some aspects of some games is simply realism. SJWs frequently though seem to have an issue with that--like for instance some of them get upset about seeing bigotry or strict gender roles in a historical drama.

I brought up shoehorning before because of that kind of thing--like the "Hobbit' team thinking they needed to shoehorn a female warrior into the story and others agreeing with them. This would be like saying "there isn't enough violence in Little Women" or "We need some Chinese people in this autobiographical film about Beethoven". But otherwise intelligent people agreed with this. And I agree with you, I think this kind of thing actually undermines equality.

[Oppressorion]

Whedon is not actually a feminist hero if one looks at his works.

Mainly? He has a weird obsession with rape storylines.

(At one point in Buffy, Xander sexually assaults her. ... and Giles points out he wasn't actually 'out of control' but keeps that to himself, and they all pretend it didn't happen. Which is just one example of fucked up weirdness, like Buffy basically never having a non-abusive relationship.)

First rape storyline in Buffy: Season 1, episode 4. "Teacher's Pet." The victim: Xander.

Bet you weren't thinking of that one. It's two episodes before "The Pack."

You have, by the way, seriously misrepresented "The Pack." Xander was possessed by hyena spirits and was out of control. He attempted (but did not succeed) to rape Buffy while possessed by hyena spirits and very clearly acting unlike his normal self. Giles does not say he was in control of his actions.

Buffy: Well, it wasn't really you.
Xander: Well, I remember I was goin' on the field trip, and then goin' down to the Hyena House, and next thing some guy's holding Willow and he's got a knife.
Willow: You saved my life.
Xander: Hey! Nobody messes with my Willow. (gives her a hug)
Buffy looks on and smiles. Willow smiles, too.
Buffy: This is definitely the superior Xander. Accept no substitutes.
Xander: I didn't do anything else, did I, around you guys or anything embarrassing?
The girls smile, and Buffy considers what to tell him.
Buffy: (shakes her head) Nah!
Willow: Not at all.
Buffy: (to Willow) C'mon. We're gonna be late. (takes her hand and they go)
Willow: (to Xander) See you at lunch.
Xander: Cool! Oh, hey, goin' vegetarian! Huh?
He gives them two thumbs-up. Willow turns and smiles at him. So does Buffy. Xander starts to head the other way when he is met by Giles.
Giles: I've been reading up on my, uh, animal possession, and I cannot find anything anywhere about memory loss afterwards.
Xander: Did you tell them that?
Giles: (leans to Xander's ear) Your secret dies with me.
Xander: Shoot me, stuff me, mount me.
Giles pats him on the shoulder as he shakes his head and starts walking along the balcony. He leans on the railing and watches Xander go. Xander can't believe what has happened to him.

Xander pretends he doesn't remember what he did while possessed by hyena spirits. Giles keeps that secret. The fact that he remembers it doesn't at all imply that he was, in fact, just pretending to be possessed by hyena spirits. So you've just grievously misrepresented the episode in two ways.

First, you said "sexual assault" and "rape" as if to imply that Xander actually raped Buffy. This is not technically inaccurate under all meanings of "sexual assault," as attempted rape may be classified as "sexual assault." This is a misrepresentation in that there's a very dramatic difference, in terms of content, between "rape" and "attempted rape," in particular in terms of Buffy's representation as an unbeatable hero. Essentially, what we learn on close reading of the episode is that Buffy was holding herself back to avoid causing Xander serious injury until it was clear that the possessed version of Xander wasn't going to listen to persuasion.

What you said implied completed rape to someone not already familiar with the episode. That is to say, someone ignorant of what happened in the episode would, on reading what you said, come away with an inaccurate synopsis of what happened in the episode, meaning that's a misrepresentation of the work.

Second, much more egregiously, you said that Xander was in control of his actions, by virtue of Giles saying so. This is neither what Giles said in the episode, and we have absolutely zero reason to assume that Xander was not, in fact, possessed by hyena spirits, and all the reasons in the world to assume he was. This is not merely a rhetorical misrepresentation; you put in quotation marks a phrase that Giles did not, in fact, say, and you used that phrase to support a claim about the episode that is very clearly false.

This was your starting example. What is it? Nothing more and nothing less than an egregiously inaccurate hatchet-job.

For that matter, Whedon does, in fact, have some (at times quite heavy-handed) feminist messaging in his work. That's what makes the sudden turn of the Tumblrites against Whedon so absurd: Whedon is more guilty of anti-male sexism in his work than anti-female sexism, and has a lot more pro-feminist messaging than anti-feminist messaging.

Oh, wow, that's what I was going to write but much, much better. And I'll add that Buffy's relationship with Riley was perfectly normal, and guess what? The fans didn't like him. And even then, saying "all her relationships have been abusive" means nothing without context.

Did the story ever treat Buffy as less than a human being for Angelous or Parker? Nope, the trauma was treated just as seriously as with a male protagonist - in fact, a man getting a one-night stand could be played for comedy. After that, I'll point out that she broke up with her next boyfriend because she saw that she was using him for sex and escapism, not the other way around. It's true that that relationship was a more physical one, for both parties, but are you claiming that BDSM, for example, is abusive?

[Ostroeuropa]

As for the good men project:

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/goodmenproject.com

oh look at what a great job they are doing at being inclusive to men in gender equality!
(The vast majority of their readership are women. That should tell you something. Compare that to the mensrights reddit.)

This is, in my opinion, because they insist on a gynocentric narrative that panders to women. (I.E, patriarchy, misogyny hurts men too, misandry don't real, etc, and revolves around how men need to change to end their problems, rather than systemic changes needed in institutions and government, as well as many women AND mens attitudes and behaviors.)