Quote from: Warboss Squee;795502Funny, I watch porn for the exact opposite reason.

Gender feminists tend to have a remarkably poor understanding of male psychology. Like other cultural Marxists they would rather construct theoretical castles in the air than make any examination of how actual men actually think. When contradictions get too obvious they declare 'false consciousness', so their castles-in-the-air are unfalsifiable by evidence.

Quote from: TristramEvans;795494This premise requires an article of faith: namely, that art/entertainment influences behaviour. Most credible scientific research does not support this theory, nor does statistical analysis, but belief in it is necessary to accept radfem critiques as viable or, to thier mind, necessary as a means of dealing with Point #1.

Certainly there's some debate about how much art and entertainment influences behaviour. But are you really suggesting it doesn't influence it at all? Have you never seen children imitate things they've seen in a movie or TV? So  parents should start letting their young kids watch the Walking Dead and surfing the net for hardcore porn - what harm could it do?

Quote from: S'mon;795500Misogyny = hatred of women. So according to him, watching porn = hates women.

No, I said that feminist media critics are targeting their critiques at men who watch "problematic" media, but who aren't hardcore misogynists and therefore beyond reason. That was obvious from my original post, you've just chosen the least charitable interpretation. I watch porn occasionally and have watched some abusive porn - I'm not a misogynist. As mentioned upthread, I have gotten freaky with NPCs in Skyrim (mostly female) and did feel somewhat dirty afterwards, but I'm not a misogynist. I suspect I'm part of the target audience for feminist critiques, because I'm interested in actively eliminating the misogynistic streaks in my media consumption.

Quote from: TristramEvans;795494So, right now, in regards to geek media, radfem critics are engaging en masse in examining comicbooks, vieogames, RPGs, etc., to identify things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society (i.e. influencing and engendering misogyny). You'll notice this is the first half of the definition of a censor. At this time, radfem critics have no means of removing these things from a position of authority, legal or otherwise.

But beyond simple theorywanking, can we agree that the point of these activities is to effect social change in order to remove these "harmful elements" that support The Patriarchy?

Not just "radfem" critics - your bolded sentence above is what feminist critics do, period. That's "feminist media criticism" in a nutshell. Would they like the problematic media removed? Sure, but their goal isn't to have them banned (except in the case of things like extremely abusive porn like Max Hardcore or Khan Tusion); it's to lower consumer demand until market forces cause the the offending content to disappear.

Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;795515you've just chosen the least charitable interpretation

Yes, I wanted to make clear what they are saying - that these acts (watching porn, having sex with female characters in Skyrim) are acts of misogyny, and misogyny means a hatred of women. Their strategy requires a certain degree of obfuscation to work, so it is necessary to state the meaning clearly - ie 'uncharitably'.

Edit:  I bet you didn't feel any hatred - or even mild dislike - of women, even in the midst of watching porn or having Skyrim-sex. The gender feminist's language equates 'male gaze objectification' with 'hatred'. This is a highly skewed understanding of male psychology. But I don't think they have any real desire to understand; in cultural Marxism words are used as weapons, not to further understanding.

Edit 2: To be fair, they are building here on Kantian classical Liberalism - Kant's reasonable idea that people should be treated as ends not means was easily extended to a much less reasonable idea that any 'objectification' at all is immoral, which makes pornography immoral. Which gives a Liberal justification for traditional morality.

Quote from: S'mon;795517Yes, I wanted to make clear what they are saying - that these acts (watching porn, having sex with female characters in Skyrim) are acts of misogyny, and misogyny means a hatred of women. Their strategy requires a certain degree of obfuscation to work, so it is necessary to state the meaning clearly - ie 'uncharitably'.

As I mentioned above, Sarkeesian stated emphatically that she supports sex in videogames, just not abusive sex. The vast majority of feminist porn critics target abusive porn, not all porn (although many argue the "norm" for porn is increasingly trending towards the abusive).

Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;795518As I mentioned above, Sarkeesian stated emphatically that she supports sex in videogames, just not abusive sex. The vast majority of feminist porn critics target abusive porn, not all porn (although many argue the "norm" for porn is increasingly trending towards the abusive).

Hahaha, someone get Zak's ass in here. I just threw butter on some popcorn.

Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;795518As I mentioned above, Sarkeesian stated emphatically that she supports sex in videogames, just not abusive sex. The vast majority of feminist porn critics target abusive porn, not all porn (although many argue the "norm" for porn is increasingly trending towards the abusive).

Well, I guess it depends what they mean by abusive. Plenty of feminists claim Page 3 is misogynistic, purely because it 'objectifies' the Page 3 girl through the 'male gaze'. Conversely videogame rape murder of prostitutes by the protagonist does sound misogynistic to me, by the actual dictionary definition.  There probably are examples of actual misogyny - hatred of women - in video games. American culture does contain a fair bit of misogyny as well as misanthropy (hatred of men), and Britain too seems to have become more like America in recent years.
 
But the SJWs cast their net far, far wider than actual misogyny - and obviously they don't care about misanthropy - often they themselves are among the worst offenders.

Going by Herr Arnulfe's logic, McCarthy was not a censor. He never after all outright censored anyone, just branded them as "problematic people" that shouldn't be published.

Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;795518As I mentioned above, Sarkeesian stated emphatically that she supports sex in videogames, just not abusive sex. The vast majority of feminist porn critics target abusive porn, not all porn (although many argue the "norm" for porn is increasingly trending towards the abusive).

Seeing the amount of handwriggling  over Bayonetta, a Strong Independent Sexy Woman, yeah right.

Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;795518As I mentioned above, Sarkeesian stated emphatically that she supports sex in videogames, just not abusive sex. The vast majority of feminist porn critics target abusive porn, not all porn (although many argue the "norm" for porn is increasingly trending towards the abusive).

Then she shouldn't be citing Dworkin and trotting out arguments from sex-negative 2nd wave feminists.

Quote from: Will;795456I guess I was unclear.

When she presented as woman she was constantly belittled, harassed, and found getting a job 10x as hard and realized how much privilege had blinded her to things.

She is, however, either fatalistic or resigned or has other things that occupy her. She only mentions this and transphobic stuff (like being physically assaulted) when people say these things don't happen. At which point she says 'uh, yes, they do, actually.'

Huh. Here's an anecdote. I was out on a smoke break, and I'm currently working a contract at (BIG TECH COMPANY X). I was talking to some of the smokers from (ANOTHER TECH COMPANY) in the next building, and one woman did mention that after a spat of unemployment, she finally got on contract with the other company and said, and I'm paraphrasing, "Luckily, I'm a woman."

I didn't press her to explain because 1. Smoke breaks are short convos, and 2. I think I understand the gist of her statement.

Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;795473Here's a mission for you: post a recent feminist call for censorship in any media besides pornography. If censorship is their ultimate goal, they're being awfully quiet about it. The vast majority of gender feminists are content to make men contemplate (and feel bad about) their misogynistic impulses. Which is a good thing IMO because not enough misogynists feel bad on their own initiative.

And that is the key to their censorship. They can't make laws to make looking at bewbies illegal, so they call everyone misogynist and make them feel bad about looking at bewbies.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;795538And that is the key to their censorship. They can't make laws to make looking at bewbies illegal, so they call everyone misogynist and make them feel bad about looking at bewbies.

And here's my point of disagreement - "making people feel bad" is not censorship in any way, and comparisons to McCarthy and the Salem witch trials are stupid.

Likewise, to TristramEvans point, finding something offensive and/or harmful to society in a book does not make one "half a censor" or mean that one's ultimate goal is censorship.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;795537Huh. Here's an anecdote.

Yeah, see, I'm relating anecdotes that fit into a large pattern and observation made over my entire lifetime. They are illustrative, not 'proof' in of themselves. I also find the trans woman example particularly interesting because... well, it's like that 'black like me' experiment -- walking on each 'side' of the line and see how experiences change (dramatically).

There is every evidence that women (and minorities) face, generally, a large number of stresses and barriers that straight white men, generally, do not.

The thing is, men are often unaware of this because when it's something you face constantly and when you get defensiveness or things getting worse if you bring it up, hey, guess what, people don't want to talk about their problems so much.

Thus things like that 'street harassment' video.

Quote from: Haffrung;795511Certainly there's some debate about how much art and entertainment influences behaviour. But are you really suggesting it doesn't influence it at all? Have you never seen children imitate things they've seen in a movie or TV? So  parents should start letting their young kids watch the Walking Dead and surfing the net for hardcore porn - what harm could it do?

Studies show that a child primarily takes thier behavioural cues from thier parents, and its only in the lack or absence of parental guidance that they look for cues to behaviour in media. A child has not yet developed skills of discernment, so yes, they can be influenced by media portrayals. I was speaking of adults, as attacks on gamers are aimed at adults. A child should not be exposed to things on thier own and media exposure should always be accompanied by a parent to explain things and give the child a proper sense of context. A child "raised on TV" is, in effect, a neglected child. That's a whole other conversation though.