Cliff Bleszinkski responds to 'Tropes vs. Women' furor
215 replies, posted
[QUOTE=jiggu;39890565]No doubt. But she's also overstepping the facts she presents with her own opinion which at several times have been proven to be uneducated and stupid. I don't think the idea of the video series is wrong, I just don't think she's doing a good job in any way.[/QUOTE]
And that's perfectly fine. It's your opinion and you're entitled to it. The problem is when people start saying that the video shouldn't have been made because "it's been said many times before" or "it's just how it works" or whatever other silly excuse they might come up with to justify their apathy towards such a big problem (if they recognize there is a problem at all).
[editline]in any case[/editline]
The fact is, there was a goal here: to spark debate about the representation of women in videogames. It was achieved. Not all critcism can take the form of "this is wrong and here's how you fix it" because sometimes it's just not that simple. There are many conflicting opinions and ideas to create any significant impact, so the best way is to have the audience exchange those ideas and hopefully change for the best.
guys
i'm just going to leave this here
crit·i·cism
/ˈkritəˌsizəm/
Noun
The expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes: "he ignored the criticisms of his friends".
The analysis and judgment of a literary or artistic work: "methods of criticism supported by literary theories".
no where does this mention betterment, that would come under constructive criticism
[QUOTE=NoDachi;39890721]Okay the second one is a review full of ~criticism~ as you so suggested with your movie analogy.
But how the fuck could you possibly call the first one a review. I'm very interested in finding out.
[sp]brotip: Its also from the Norton Anthology, under criticism. But seriously, tell me.[/sp][/QUOTE]
Both look deeper into a work split it up in parts and discuss around it, that's a review. First one doesn't really contain much criticism though. You didn't really explain the difference between "Criticism and criticism"
[editline]12th March 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39890746]yea but the difference is that you seek improvement by increased consciousness and awareness, not traditional goals. the goal is simply to show how society is flawed, not how society should be structured or organized.[/QUOTE]
But that is a goal in itself, you're trying to change the world by letting it see its own "flaws", but it's up to the world itself to judge what is the flaws and what is not. It's still improvement.
This is seriously just discussing semantics which is silly, we could do this for years.
[QUOTE=jiggu;39890806]Both look deeper into a work split it up in parts and discuss around it, that's a review. First one doesn't really contain much criticism though. You didn't really explain the difference between "Criticism and criticism"[/QUOTE]
No it is nothing of the sort.
It is an accomplying introduction from an editor which is common in nearly every instance of printed Criticism.
Without sounding too rude: have you ever read an academic book before?
[QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;39890747]And that's perfectly fine. It's your opinion and you're entitled to it. The problem is when people start saying that the video shouldn't have been made because "it's been said many times before" or "it's just how it works" or whatever other silly excuse they might come up with to justify their apathy towards such a big problem (if they recognize there is a problem at all).
[editline]in any case[/editline]
The fact is, there was a goal here: to spark debate about the representation of women in videogames. Not all critcism can take the form of "this is wrong and here's how you fix it" because sometimes it's just not that simple. There are many conflicting opinions and ideas to create any significant impact, so the best way is to have the audience exchange those ideas and hopefully change for the best.[/QUOTE]
I agree that there are problems in this society with widespread sexism. But I disagree that society is supporting this, media is bashing all sexism, nobody openly supports it. The existance of rape culture just proves that ignorant people don't understand the subject, and throwing in rape culture in the discussion neither supports nor strikes down any arguments done here. And I don't think that games in any way creates more sexism, it's an existing problem but games are not the cause.
[editline]12th March 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=NoDachi;39890834]No it is nothing of the sort.
It is an accomplying introduction from an editor which is common in nearly every instance of printed Criticism.
Without sounding too rude: have you ever read an academic book before?[/QUOTE]
Are you even going to attempt to explain where you think Criticism and criticism differ?
Oh and throwing around dumb ratings whenever someone disagree with you doesn't really help getting your point across.
Eh whatever, you're not even trying to give arguments. Since we're just falling into the same circle we did with the rape discussion I'm just going to go to bed instead.
i like these 2 videos they're pretty calm and considered
[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=LpFk5F-S_hI[/URL]
[video=youtube;p6gLmcS3-NI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6gLmcS3-NI&list=PLA99BA14B8860EE67&index=6[/video]
[SUB][SUB][SUB]fuck this broken ass video embeding[/SUB][/SUB][/SUB]
[QUOTE=jiggu;39890841]Are you even going to attempt to explain where you think Criticism and criticism differ?[/QUOTE]
Haven't you read any of the last several posts on the matter? Like yawmwen's?
[QUOTE=jiggu;39890841]Eh whatever, you're not even trying to give arguments. Since we're just falling into the same circle we did with the rape discussion I'm just going to go to bed instead.[/QUOTE]
Pathetic cop-out
It's funny because you couldn't even grasp the concept that I was [I]showing[/I] you the difference, rather than [I]telling[/I].
Maybe you're just bad a [I]critical[/I] thinking. Who'da thought.
[QUOTE=jiggu;39890841]I agree that there are problems in this society with widespread sexism. But I disagree that society is supporting this, media is bashing all sexism, nobody openly supports it. The existance of rape culture just proves that ignorant people don't understand the subject, and throwing in rape culture in the discussion neither supports nor strikes down any arguments done here. And I don't think that games in any way creates more sexism, it's an existing problem but games are not the cause.[/quote]
Society doesn't openly support sexism, yes. But it subtly (though not necessarily purposely) perpetuates it through constructs and more recently, the media. Games are similar in that regard, no one makes a game with the intention of being sexist but certain ideas (for instance the damsel in distress trope) within them perpetuate sexist beliefs within their audience subconsciously.
I still have trouble understanding some aspects of feminism. Pay differences between men and women, rape, sexual harassment, absolutely, but fighting tropes in video games?
Like said earlier in the thread: Feminine women are insulting, "genderless" women are boring, and masculine women are also insulting. I understand how sexualization of women is seen as a negative, but when people criticize the newest Tomb Raider for being insulting I can't help but wonder what the fuck the feminist movement really wants women in video games to be like. Lara Croft went from a massively overly-sexualized walking ditzy brainless trope to a character with realistic proportions, strong characterization, and actual emotion. Lara Croft has a feminine frame because she's a woman and women have feminine frames, but Tomb Raider managed to make her into a believable character and created a strong woman protagonist and it's still attacked for being sexist.
Women are feminine, men are masculine - that's not an insult, that's the exact definition of the words masculine and feminine. Feminists don't want excessively sexualized or feminine women, but they also don't want excessively masculine ones.
Society will cater to what people want. Until recently, video games were pretty far shifted to the male side of the spectrum, and males want to look at tits because that's what they like doing in real life. Feminism should focus on more pressing issues, such as rape and pay inequality, before worrying about petty things like damsel-in-distress tropes.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;39891150]I still have trouble understanding some aspects of feminism. Pay differences between men and women, rape, sexual harassment, absolutely, but fighting tropes in video games?
Like said earlier in the thread: Feminine women are insulting, "genderless" women are boring, and masculine women are also insulting. I understand how sexualization of women is seen as a negative, but when people criticize the newest Tomb Raider for being insulting I can't help but wonder what the fuck the feminist movement really wants women in video games to be like. Lara Croft went from a massively overly-sexualized walking ditzy brainless trope to a character with realistic proportions, strong characterization, and actual emotion. Lara Croft has a feminine frame because she's a woman and women have feminine frames, but Tomb Raider managed to make her into a believable character and created a strong woman protagonist and it's still attacked for being sexist.
Women are feminine, men are masculine - that's not an insult, that's the exact definition of the words masculine and feminine. Feminists don't want excessively sexualized or feminine women, but they also don't want excessively masculine ones.
Society will cater to what people want. Until recently, video games were pretty far shifted to the male side of the spectrum, and males want to look at tits because that's what they like doing in real life. Feminism should focus on more pressing issues, such as rape and pay inequality, before worrying about petty things like damsel-in-distress tropes.[/QUOTE]
thats because you're just seeing the ""anti-sex"" side
see : [URL="http://youtu.be/LpFk5F-S_hI?t=3m6s"]burqa beach party[/URL] @ 3:00
[QUOTE=Eltro102;39891177]thats because you're just seeing the ""anti-sex"" side
see : [URL="http://youtu.be/LpFk5F-S_hI?t=3m6s"]burqa beach party[/URL] @ 3:00[/QUOTE]
ffs do you know what sex-positive feminism is?
no one has ever actually explained this to me.
[editline]12th March 2013[/editline]
people say "oh anita sarkeesian is sex-negative or anti-sexuality" and "sex-positive" feminism is SO much better but no one seems to coherently explain what it is.
[QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;39889143]You see that's actually hilarious because your example of child custody is a perfect example of how sexist gender roles also harm men. That happens because society views women as the caretakers for the family, taking care of the kids, the family home and assorted domestic shit, while men are supposed to be the providers for the family.
Next time you make an argument try not to use an example that contradicts what you're saying.[/QUOTE]
I...so because of one part of his entire opinion, one that is independent of the rest, all his argument is wrong? Honestly, I don't know what side to agree with, but your lazy discounting of an argument through exaggerating one fallacy is terrible.
[QUOTE=Eltro102;39891177]thats because you're just seeing the ""anti-sex"" side
see : [URL="http://youtu.be/LpFk5F-S_hI?t=3m6s"]burqa beach party[/URL] @ 3:00[/QUOTE]
Actually a fantastic video, thanks for that.
And I'd say that sex-positive feminism is the type of feminism that does not see sex as a negative thing to be avoided. Sex-negative feminism or anti-sex feminism thinks that ALL sexual portrayals of women are inherently insulting and offensive, and that women should fight against their own sexuality, while sex-positive feminism is the type of feminism that embraces sexuality and would only see certain sexual portrayals of women (e.g. rape) as insulting and offensive. I'll side with the sex-positive because sex is great and rape isn't.
EDIT: In fact he defines sex-positive feminism in the video, around 4:30.
[QUOTE=parsimony;39891428]I...so because of one part of his entire opinion, one that is independent of the rest, all his argument is wrong? Honestly, I don't know what side to agree with, but your lazy discounting of an argument through exaggerating one fallacy is terrible.[/QUOTE]
I never said his entire argument was wrong, I just thought that part was funny because of how ironic it is. I can see how it could look that way, though.
[QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;39891483]I never said his entire argument was wrong, I just thought that part was funny because of how ironic it is. I can see how it could look that way, though.[/QUOTE]
Oh, well okay then. I think that "offensive" media should be able to coexist with people who are offended, what I'm getting out of this is "offensive materials in media help propagate negative stereotypes", and that is likely true, but I think that the way to allow coexistence is having parents not allow their children to pick up these offensive stereotypes, and should instead teach their children themselves.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;39891456]Actually a fantastic video, thanks for that.
And I'd say that sex-positive feminism is the type of feminism that does not see sex as a negative thing to be avoided. Sex-negative feminism or anti-sex feminism thinks that ALL sexual portrayals of women are inherently insulting and offensive, and that women should fight against their own sexuality, while sex-positive feminism is the type of feminism that embraces sexuality and would only see certain sexual portrayals of women (e.g. rape) as insulting and offensive. I'll side with the sex-positive because sex is great and rape isn't.[/QUOTE]
sex-positive feminism is a reaction to feminism that placed pornography as the center of women oppression. sex-positive feminism believes women should be in charge of their own sexuality and free will.
this has NOTHING to do with misogynistic portrayal of women in video games. sarkeesian doesn't explicitly state she is against pornography or against sexuality, only that women are sexualized in our culture.
sex-positive feminism is irrelevant to "tropes vs. women", and is just a way to try and discredit sarkeesian with little evidence.
[editline]12th March 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=parsimony;39891551]Oh, well okay then. I think that "offensive" media should be able to coexist with people who are offended, what I'm getting out of this is "offensive materials in media help propagate negative stereotypes", and that is likely true, but I think that the way to allow coexistence is having parents not allow their children to pick up these offensive stereotypes, and should instead teach their children themselves.[/QUOTE]
that means children cannot play video games, go to school, watch television, read books, or anything besides be taught by their parents.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39891561]sex-positive feminism believes women should be in charge of their own sexuality and free will.[/QUOTE]
But but but what about my artificially created sexualised female characters!
They have every right to be in control of their own sexualit... oh.
And sex-positive feminism is the actual path to equality. Sex-negative feminism wants to censor anything offensive, and restrict artistic content because of its portrayal of women. If you want freedom and equality, you don't censor and restrict. That's not how it works.
Besides, misogyny is really not all that prevalent in video games. Sure, there's heavily overly-sexualized flukes like Lollipop Chainsaw, but the transition of Tomb Raider from oversexualized to realistic is an example that sexist behavior in video games is already changing. Not because of Anita Sarkeesian's efforts - not remotely. They're changing because the consumer base is changing. More and more women play games now than in the past, and it's more profitable to create games with women characters. It's an unintentional side effect of the consumer base. Tropes exist not because of people trying to push sexist thoughts onto gamers, they exist because the concept of strong-narrative video games is still in its infancy. When you have physical limitations akin to the original Mario, of course you're not going to have much story. Games started in arcades, and story was nonexistent. It's maybe in the last 15 years that we've seen the emergence of video games with strong stories and narratives.
I wish I could ask Anita Sarkeesian if she's against classic nude art or the artistic nude. It's not sexual, it's art. Not every portrayal of a women has sexual undertones. LA Noire has you crouching over dead naked raped women, and that isn't remotely sexual because it's a realistic, artistic recreation of crime. Video games are becoming an artistic medium and they're still in infancy. Not to mention that they developed from a male-dominated background and sexual behavior is to be expected when that happens.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;39888776]I don't think that's wholly true since there's even a debate about what constitutes rape. Some people honestly believe that getting a girl completely smashed and then having sex with her when she otherwise wouldn't is completely fine.[/QUOTE]
True. There are people who think they did no wrong when they raped, even though they think rape is wrong, and then there are people with no concept of morality, but those are a minority. I still think my point is unchanged, though.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;39891717]And sex-positive feminism is the actual path to equality. Sex-negative feminism wants to censor anything offensive, and restrict artistic content because of its portrayal of women. If you want freedom and equality, you don't censor and restrict. That's not how it works.
Besides, misogyny is really not all that prevalent in video games. Sure, there's heavily overly-sexualized flukes like Lollipop Chainsaw, but the transition of Tomb Raider from oversexualized to realistic is an example that sexist behavior in video games is already changing. Not because of Anita Sarkeesian's efforts - not remotely. They're changing because the consumer base is changing. More and more women play games now than in the past, and it's more profitable to create games with women characters. It's an unintentional side effect of the consumer base. Tropes exist not because of people trying to push sexist thoughts onto gamers, they exist because the concept of strong-narrative video games is still in its infancy. When you have physical limitations akin to the original Mario, of course you're not going to have much story. Games started in arcades, and story was nonexistent. It's maybe in the last 15 years that we've seen the emergence of video games with strong stories and narratives.
I wish I could ask Anita Sarkeesian if she's against classic nude art or the artistic nude. It's not sexual, it's art. Not every portrayal of a women has sexual undertones. LA Noire has you crouching over dead naked raped women, and that isn't remotely sexual because it's a realistic, artistic recreation of crime. Video games are becoming an artistic medium and they're still in infancy. Not to mention that they developed from a male-dominated background and sexual behavior is to be expected when that happens.[/QUOTE]
who says sarkeesian wants to censor anything?
Why give this the attention it looks for? game news are becoming celebrity trash feeds.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;39888884]There are two types of feminists today. Plenty of them are reasonable. Some of them think thinks like Rape Culture are a real thing. But maybe where you live, it is. Here in Quebec, education on everything from slut shaming to pay grades to the definition of rape begins as early as grade 6. Kids are 11-12 when they are taught these things in the public education system.
Some women getting raped does not mean we have a rape culture, just as much as some people getting killed does not mean we have a culture of murder. Rape is a serious problem, MRAs can be just as insane as feminists, and nobody ever "asks for it". All obvious stuff really. As for the response to Anita Sarkeesian, she was hoping for it. She has a bachelor's degree in Communications Studies, she knew exactly where and how to provoke the (still incredibly retarded) response she got, and then used it to boost her fame. Not going to apologize for these idiots, but she played everyone like a PR person would.
The study is called [I]I’ll Make a Man Out of You: Strong Women in Science Fiction and Fantasy Television[/I], and I highly encourage you to read it, because it shows how skewed her view of reality really is. Considering that representations of men and women in a form of media is both the topic of her master's thesis and her current videos, this is definitely not an Ad Hominem attack as Nodachi thinks it is. By the way, ever since it was first publicly criticized, she has removed the paper from her webiste and any references to it. I wonder why?
People "get killed" or "get murdered". They "get hit by a drunk driver". That's just the way it is said.
You think people think it's completely acceptable? You're going to need to back that statement up.[/QUOTE]
1. I know people who live in places that are better about these things than the USA. Does not change how shitty it is for the women I know, however. It is still a problem in places like Quebec, you've probably not looked hard enough.
2. A quarter of women are raped in many places, and a third of women are abused in some way world wide. That is one billion people you fucknut. One billion women. That is Rape Culture.
3. I bet she took away references to her peer reviewed paper for the same reason she disabled ratings and comments on her video: because of assholes like you. I bet the paper perfectly shows how many strong female characters are just guy's parts played by women, and not truly strong women roles. It sounds far fetched, but it can happen a lot when you have mostly male writers trying to write a strong woman character. They just make them the same as men.
4. Wording can make all the difference in the world. When a woman "is raped", the inflection is away from the aggressor and firmly on the victim, which makes it easier to shift blame upon the victim. By making rape passive, you ignore the active role the rapist plays.
[editline]12th March 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=omggrass;39889045]I think this argument is so multifaceted and complexe it's touching on just about every god damn wall of philosophy, what is right/wrong, who decides which way society runs, self-choice, how does our actions/in-actions change our society, how much do we limit a persons freedom of expression, and in the end does it really matter at all. i mean feminists seem unable to comprehend how frightening this subject is for men and especially white men. i was raised by my dad to be chivalrous and kind, that i would be able to settle down with a female, get married and raise a family. however it seems this is not the case, and i can understand how people like me, a white male who's just turned 21 is freaking out because everything we have been taught is apparently offensive and wrong. At this point i have no idea what i should do with my life, i can't write books, movies, or even games because everything i have to work with from the past is inherently sexist. are some white males angry about feminism? i'd say so, because being told that "everything you have been taught is wrong and you are a terrible person for existing" would make anyone angry. to this point is like poking a sleeping dog with a sharp stick and then saying it's the dogs fault when it bites. Lipstick feminists want the understanding of femininity to remain while breaking down and removing the idea of masculinity, all the while marching to the tune of "women are good, men are bad". Young men, me included are left with large amounts of uncertainty and doubt about our futures. i respect the 1st and 2nd wave feminists but at this point 3rd wave feminists are getting really ridiculous. women want more rights than men, societal momentum dictates it. when a mother fights for custody she's a hero and a wonder, but when a father tries to get basic access to his a child he is a MRA hategroup loving kkk praising scumbag.[/QUOTE]
I was going to answer this one too, but then I laughed while trying to parse it for meaning.
If you are trying to make us feel bad for you being a white male, don't. I was raised as a rich, white, Reagan loving male. Do you see me complaining? No. I just discovered what was truly right (which is to say, The Left) when I got to high school, and I did not look back. It was not a moral crisis, I just stopped being an entitled asshole.
[editline]12th March 2013[/editline]
Also, sex positive feminism is better than sex negative, in my opinion, but I really do not see how it factors into what Anita is doing. She is not decrying naked women in video games because she hates sex, she is doing it because it is part of misogynist culture.
I've yet to see a single example of actual misogyny in video games.
Misogyny is hatred of women. Misogyny is not sexualization of women. Is there a single video game that has a genuine example of hating women?
[QUOTE=.Isak.;39891987]I've yet to see a single example of actual misogyny in video games.
Misogyny is hatred of women. Misogyny is not sexualization of women. Is there a single video game that has a genuine example of hating women?[/QUOTE]
[I]Misogyny (pron.: /mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred or dislike of women or girls. Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of women, violence against women, [B]and sexual objectification of women.[/B][1][2] Misogyny has been characterised as a prominent feature of the mythologies of the ancient world as well as various religions. In addition, many influential Western philosophers have been described as misogynistic.[/I]
[QUOTE=NoDachi;39892013][I]Misogyny (pron.: /mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred or dislike of women or girls. Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of women, violence against women, [B]and sexual objectification of women.[/B][1][2] Misogyny has been characterised as a prominent feature of the mythologies of the ancient world as well as various religions. In addition, many influential Western philosophers have been described as misogynistic.[/I][/QUOTE]
That's wikipedia - anyone can edit that definition. If you sexually lust after a woman, you obviously do not hate them. If you want to have sex with a woman, you don't hate them. Hatred is the original definition of misogyny.
Merriam-Webster: a hatred of women.
Dictionary.com: hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women.
Any real definition does not include sexual objectification. That is not hatred, that is lust. The two are on opposite sides of the spectrum.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;39892042]That's wikipedia - anyone can edit that definition. If you sexually lust after a woman, you obviously do not hate them. If you want to have sex with a woman, you don't hate them. Hatred is the original definition of misogyny.
Merriam-Webster: a hatred of women.
Dictionary.com: hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women.
Any real definition does not include sexual objectification. That is not hatred, that is lust. The two are on opposite sides of the spectrum.[/QUOTE]
So you're basically reducing an entire umbrella term and complex issue to a 4 word stub definition.
[B]Brilliant.[/B]
Next you'll be saying Racism doesn't exist unless it directly relates to a 'Race'.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;39892058]So you're basically reducing an entire umbrella term and complex issue to a 4 word stub definition.
[B]Brilliant.[/B][/QUOTE]
Definition is defined as "A statement of the exact meaning of a word, esp. in a dictionary."
Exact meaning. Misogyny's exact meaning is, from the EXACT greek root, "hatred of women." There's nothing more to the word.
Greek misogynia, from misein to hate + gynē woman.
It's not an umbrella term. It's a single word with a very clear definition from reputable dictionary sources like Merriam-Webster. Definitions are exact and short. Misogyny is very clearly defined as hatred of women, and almost no video game in existence demonstrates hatred of women. Unless someone can direct me to a game where the purpose is to kill people because of their gender, misogyny is almost non-existent in video games.
Sexual objectification is not. That is a problem, I agree. It's absurd to insinuate that the typical video game market of pre-teen males is misogynistic. No, they're just pumped full of hormones and sexual objectification or lust is an output. It sells, so producers make it. That's how it works. Thankfully, it's changing to a far more mature method where story is a higher focus than virtual tits. Tomb Raider, again, is a perfect example.
And what the fuck, of course racism doesn't exist unless it relates to a race. Racism is prejudice against a race. Racists might have prejudices against blacks, asians, whites, latinos, it doesn't matter. If the entire world was a single race, racism would not exist. The existence of the term racism depends entirely on the existence of different races.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;39892118]Definition is defined as "A statement of the exact meaning of a word, esp. in a dictionary."
Exact meaning. Misogyny's exact meaning is, from the EXACT greek root, "hatred of women." There's nothing more to the word.
Greek misogynia, from misein to hate + gynē woman.
It's not an umbrella term. It's a single word with a very clear definition from reputable dictionary sources like Merriam-Webster. Definitions are exact and short. Misogyny is very clearly defined as hatred of women, and almost no video game in existence demonstrates hatred of women. Unless someone can direct me to a game where the purpose is to kill people because of their gender, misogyny is almost non-existent in video games.
Sexual objectification is not. That is a problem, I agree. It's absurd to insinuate that the typical video game market of pre-teen males is misogynistic. No, they're just pumped full of hormones and sexual objectification or lust is an output. It sells, so producers make it. That's how it works. Thankfully, it's changing to a far more mature method where story is a higher focus than virtual tits. Tomb Raider, again, is a perfect example.[/QUOTE]
Dictionaries are not there to explain the concepts behind the words, merely to remind you of their basic meaning and spelling.
Look up Deconstruction in an academic dictionary.
Are you telling me you can pass an exam on deconstruction based on that definition? No you blithering idiot.
[editline]12th March 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=.Isak.;39892118]And what the fuck, of course racism doesn't exist unless it relates to a race. Racism is prejudice against a race. Racists might have prejudices against blacks, asians, whites, latinos, it doesn't matter. If the entire world was a single race, racism would not exist. The existence of the term racism depends entirely on the existence of different races.[/QUOTE]
[sp]Races don't actually exist, because they are social constructs. Its an old 18th century anthropology throwback. The term 'RACE'ism is meaningless, but are you going to say racism doesn't exist? No.[/sp]
[QUOTE=NoDachi;39892145]Dictionaries are not there to explain the concepts behind the words, merely to remind you of their basic meaning and spelling.
Look up Deconstruction in an academic dictionary.
Are you telling me you can pass an exam on deconstruction based on that definition? No you blithering idiot.[/QUOTE]
The concept behind hatred of women and sexual objectification of women are so absolutely different that fitting them under a single umbrella term is ridiculous. It's ridiculous to define lust and hate in the same word - they're unrelated. Misogyny is hatred of women, and hatred does not extend to lust, because lust is simply sexual
Why am I upsetting myself over dictionary definitions, Christ. Apologies to you - I understand your points. Time for me to abstain from pointless internet debates for a while and focus on the Zen spirituality that I'm doing incredibly poorly on.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;39892118]Definition is defined as "A statement of the exact meaning of a word, esp. in a dictionary."
Exact meaning. Misogyny's exact meaning is, from the EXACT greek root, "hatred of women." There's nothing more to the word.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that's not how words work at all.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.