The human female Follow

I'm not judging anyone who doesn't want to watch it - it IS long.

But it wouldn't be possible for me to explain anything that well or that concisely without actually wasting far more of everyone's time. Or with such authority, period.

It's a discussion of systemic issues with the entire industry. It can't really be done well in 3 minutes without too many gross over-generalizations.

Maybe I'll take a trip through his blog, later, and see if I can find some choice posts that might do some justice to the issue, though.

Retired lawyer here. We wrote that play. The saying is that if you let me define the terms, I'll win the case every time. You're trying to manipulate the language to conform to a set of rules that you have chosen to apply to a thread about the human female in WoW. You're points, while not entirely invalid, have wandered far, far afield from both the thread and the forum.

From a modeling perspective, I can think of several things I'd complain about first. Want to play an African or African American looking character? Take that white guy over there and put him in black face. Hispanic, Middle Eastern, Asian, even Mediterranean? Hey, we let ya pick different skin tones and hair styles, use your imagination!

From the perspective of portrayals? How about we look at the controversy over things like the Red Skins, now look over there at the Tauren. Now, let's listen to those Goblins. You wanted to play an African American? Would you accept Jamaican? You can be a Troll. The list goes on.

On the other hand, when we go too far down that road, we'll find Maine **** cats removed from the game, leading me back to agreement with Mazra.

Yeah, cultural appropriation is also a problem. As is racial under- and mis-representation.

Cultural appropriation, for those who don't know, is the term for when the cultural traits, mannerisms, objects, etc. of a culture are used without due deference and without equal exchange by another culture, usually in a case of severe power differences. (Spoiler expands this definition, in case people are interested, but I have relatively little interest in discussing appropriation. For one, because I'm not equipped to really teach it, and two, because it's super hard to talk about without a pre-existing, basic understanding)

SpoilerSome obviously racist examples are things like Native American baseball mascots, with their headdresses and such. Less obvious examples are things like using dream catchers as decorations, when those are meaningful spiritual objects to another group. Or maybe the Swastika, appropriated and abused.

It's a difficult concept, because things get into the shades of grey territory REALLY quickly. For instance, dream catchers as a simple decoration is appropriation, demeaning the significance of that symbol to its originating culture. But using Chopsticks to eat sushi isn't, really.

And then it's further complicated by the audience vs. artist kind of problem. Someone might get a dream catcher tattoo because of a spiritual event or belief that isn't from their culture, but that they still identify with and are commemorating with ink. But to the people SEEING that tattoo, that context is likely lost. So is it appropriation? Cue debates).

And then you have issues with the question of what is appropriation and what is healthy cultural evolution, etc. Oh, and reverse appropriation, when the exchange between groups demeans the less-privileged group through imperialism (for instance, the fact that Asian business leaders were forced to adopt Western garb to become players in the global economy, before they'd be taken seriously).

An example of why it's murky? Native American Casinos - are they a system of appropriation by Western culture? I've read stellar arguments on both sides, and I have no idea where I fall on the issue.

It's a really complicated issue, and it's a headache for people who have studied it extensively. Most people can pretty easily spot the severe cases, with a little bit of education (redskin, black face, geisha costumes, etc). But it gets murky, fast.





THAT SAID, I have literally no interest in the game of "Whose plight is worse?" All that does is encourage opposition between minority groups, by demanding that they compete for attention and change, rather than encourage unity among oppressed groups.

And in essentially EVER situation I have ever seen the argument used, it's being used to take attention away from the issue at hand. There will ALWAYS be a group that has it worse in ways. Life is too dynamic for there not to be.

The terminology I'm using isn't being defined as I go along. It's a basic definition used by multiple fields of academic study. Unless you're taking issue with the idea of establishing definitions in the first place (which I'm assuming you aren't), it shouldn't be an issue.

Those definitions aren't being switched up mid-argument. This isn't a pathetic game of word play. I spent four years studying philosophy, I have no interest in that nonsense. We can call it "A" for all you want.

This is using the same definition from start to finish. Playing fast and loose with the definitions is a serious issue (in legal terms, often things like intent, or interpretation). Setting them is not.

I defined misogyny. Whether or not you agree the definition doesn't match the word doesn't particularly matter. What I'm interested in is the flesh of the argument and whether or not the conclusion follows logically from the parts. If you don't think it does, tell me where my argument goes wrong.

They did do a good job of that. I'd have liked it better if there were more options (that's a constant theme with me...), but they're one of the better ones out there. A couple of the larger models were a plus (hah, unintended pun...) too, and seem to have been surprisingly popular, at least from what I can tell. Certainly adds more realism to the whole experience.

This has the potential to get very tumblr, very fast. Like it hasn't already.

Cross-thread shenanigans!?

Bored Druid Thread: keeping the bar low since 2009.

Telling someone you find them attractive isn't sexual harassment when the information is paid as a compliment and in an environment where it's appropriate. Telling them you think they're sexy when you're their boss? Harassment. In the middle of a meeting? Harassment. Abusing some other relationship to create an opening to interject that information? Harassment. Saying it graphically, when you don't even know if they're receptive (or, god forbid, you know they don't)? Harassment.

Otherwise, you're generally in the clear.



The very nature of an argument involves defining concepts. I defined misogyny very specifically so that anyone would know what I was talking about when I used the term. It's literally impossible for me to get more transparent than that.

But, please, tell me how my definition of misogyny isn't common usage. I clarified the definition to be as clear and exact as I can, because it makes literally no sense not to. Why would I just hope for the best that everyone was on the same page? That's absurd.

Wiki article's first two sentences:


And, again, at the end of the day, the word doesn't matter. Call the concept whatever the hell you like - that's what I'm talking about. But if you have such an adverse reaction to the word misogyny here, I'd probably recommend you do the same thing you're asking me - evaluate your stake. Why is it so important to you that we not call these situations misogynistic?

My "stake" in the argument is that I'm a gamer, and I'm a feminist. At this point, the gaming industry is quickly becoming its own distinct subject in gender studies and sociology programs, because it's one of the best examples of a misogynist industry that we have. **** and politics still eclipse it in terms of studies, but PLENTY of research is going into gaming, particularly in the wake of the social media campaigns of the last few years.

I have no further stake than the belief in equality and desire to see an industry I've actively invested part of my identity into to not be one of the most hostile spaces for women to occupy in our culture.

If you're asking what my stake is as a feminist, not in this particular instance, then it's part the fact the belief that women are people who deserve to be treated as people, and part a belief that patriarchal definitions of gender are damaging to both sexes (which includes my own gender).

My stake in bringing this information here, specifically, is that this is a board I use regularly, with people I regularly interact with. And I have a strong interest in expelling ignorance here that I wouldn't have in other gaming-specific environments (for instance, I don't touch Kotaku comments with a ten foot pole).



C'mon now, this is nothing like tumblr brand social justice. The SJ community on tumblr is primarily a fandom, and they're violent and aggressive in exactly the same ways other fandoms are. And there, the aggression typically comes from fringe areas of SJ theory (radical feminism being one I've already noted).

I've gotten plenty of angry social justice bloggers messaging me. Don't particularly care; I'm more interested in theory grounded in human experience, and not theory born out of a SJ wind tunnel. All I'm talking about here is really, really basic feminist theory. The rabbit hole goes so much deeper, but this is foundational theory for the entire discipline of gender studies.

In other news, the +1 posts were generally because it just gets too confusing to do all this within one post. Trying to figure out if I quoted the right things in the right spots/responded to everyone is making my head hurt.

That's fine. Like I said, I don't really care what the word is, specifically. If people care so much that it not be misogyny, it doesn't matter.

That's why I defined specifically what I was talking about. Regardless of whether or not it annoys Rhode, that's logical reasoning 101. You make what you're talking about as clear and concise as you can, so you can leave things like "Well, does this word mean THIS or does it mean THAT or maybe BOTH..." behind. That does nothing but add confusion.

So if you really hate using the term misogyny there, don't. But that doesn't have any particular bearing one way or the other on my argument, because I set a definition. If you don't like the word going to that definition, give it a new one and just replace every usage of the word misogyny with whatever that is.

Doesn't matter what you choose, because what matters is the concept I defined, not what that concept is called.

See, I'm in agreement with this.

I think they should stop calling everything they don't like "Harassment".

Okay, I hate being treated as a workhorse just because I happen to have male genitalia between my legs. Can I start slapping the "Harassment" label on every girl who asks me to lift 5lb items because they're too lazy to? I hate that crap just as much as girls hate being hit on, or complimented on their appearance. I'm not a damn horse. I can understand, I don't know, a 40, 50, 60lb object, but when girls are asking me to lift 5lb crap, then I'm like "lift the damn thing yourself."

But no, its OK for women to treat us like we're mindless beasts of burden and try to use society rules to force us to do all of their manual labor (and guilt trip us should we resist), but God Forbid we ever compliment one of them, or look at them, or anything. They want all of the good (expecting us to do all of their work for them), and none of the bad (getting hit on, etc) of being a female.

Edited, Jan 30th 2014 3:40pm by Lyrailis

There are occasionally grey moments, which is why we have things like courts that handle sexual harassment claims.

Protip: I don't know a single woman who thinks asking consent isn't sexy. It's awkward and embarrassing, because most guys want to come off so suave. That's mostly because it's a male ideal.

If you're going from "I THINK she likes me" to sending **** pics, it's harassment. Insert Anthony Weiner joke here.

Plus, the line between flirting and harassment is broad enough you shouldn't be accidentally wandering into one from the other (specifically in the last two places, which is what your referenced). I mean, it's pretty much the difference between "Hey Diane, I love your acting bits!" and "Hey Diane, reenact the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction!"

If you think it might be harassment, according to your male sensibilities, then there's a VERY good chance it is harassment, according to female ones.

The power part should NOT be considered grey. If you're her boss or superior, don't flirt with her. It's fully possible she's receptive to it and you two would have no problems. Don't care, don't flirt with her. This isn't a shade of grey area, this is the rare case there MIGHT be an exception. And because you're the one with power in the relationship, the only appropriate response is to wait until she told you (clearly) that she was interested. That's it, that's the ONLY acceptable response. If you don't know, don't flirt.

By all means, if she gets a haircut, tell her you think it looks good. DON'T tell her that she looks sexy.

Really, shades of grey situations are BY FAR the exception.

To be clear, I'm saying this as a guy who has to watch you hormonal beasts make the same mistakes over and over again. This is really, really simple. This isn't feminist!Alex talking, this is gay guy!Alex talking.

I have a male perspective. What I don't have is a perspective of a guy pursuing women. I have the perspective of being the one that has to defend my entire sex when one of you jackasses makes a stupidly obvious bad decision.

OH LOOK, MY PHONE IS VIBRATING, BECAUSE MY FRIEND'S HUSBAND DID SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY STUPID AND DOESN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT HE DID WRONG.

I only have so much patience, straight men. STOP DOING THIS TO ME.

And I'm telling you, if you step back and stop thinking with your ****, the chances of you ending up in an actual shades of grey situation is SUPER UNLIKELY. And if you're thinking with your ****, you really can't blame "unclear definitions."

As for definitions... That's why you don't make them up as you go. You set a definition, and you use it, and that is its own beast. You don't backtrack on that definition, that's not how it works. If you alter the definition part way through, then that definition is only valid from the point of change backwards.

Which means that you are now required to make the groundwork arguments all over again. You don't get to just ride the tide if you're playing fast and loose with your definitions (what gbaji does).

But if the situation changes, if there's some kind of cultural shift, and some part of the definition seems like it no longer applies, and we want to omit it, we can do that. But then you still need to go back and build the entire argument again; you don't get to just pick up where you left off. That's conflating words that don't mean the same thing, and it's bad reasoning.

Did this post make sense? I wrote this out of order...

I just felt this had to be pointed out.