Damsel in Distress (mouhaha)

[Klumpen]

There will always be sexist assholes masculin AND feminin and you have to be aware, that the trends are very different everywhere.

What these critics most often lack is differentiation.

By saying that sexism is a masculin thing, you are a sexist yourself.

 

[_wb_]

there are many examples of her saying stupid far fetched shit - I think I have posted examples before - if not, they are not hard to find.

You gave the example about her analysis the immaculate conception story being "stupid far fetched", but you didn't reply to me when I looked at it in some more detail and revealed that what she actually said was not that stupid nor far fetched at all.

Example, in the video below, Anita says the song "All I want for Xmax is you" by Mariah Carey - is saying that all women need men to complete them, she then goes on to say that mens version of the song are bordering stalkerish .


Long Bow much ?


The song is about the words people always say to loved one at Xmas - ie that all they want for Xmas is for whoever to be there and not some present - that's it, not the sensationalist long bow BS she comes up with. In fact Mariah has said she wrote the song with the view of writing something wholesome and christian in spirit.

As happens so often with song lyrics, there are multiple possible interpretations. I don't think Sarkeesian's interpretation or analysis of those lyrics is particularly far-fetched. Maybe it is controversial and thought-provoking, and makes you uncomfortable, and maybe you disagree with the analysis or maybe you remain unconvinced, but it is not "stupid far-fetched".

"Stupid far-fetched" would be a good description though for that anonymous conspiracy theory website Klumpen posted here.

 

[vcoleiro1]

^ if you think what she said about the song isn't sensationalist or drawing a long bow then there is no point arguing about it any more, as it doesn't get more obvious than that. I mean really. That comment she made re the song was so ridiculous she tried to back step away from it herself in an update in the vid comments.


As for her other video about conception, these videos are all about negative sexist "in her mind" stuff against women. Don't believe me, look at the song video again, see any mention of sexist in the title or description - no, watch until the end and see what she calls the final #1 example. Yes calling out the immaculate conception in the context of sexist tropes which her videos are all about is wrong and stupid IMO

 

[moxie]

Lets not forget the classic she says in one of her videos where she talks about the worst sexist story in history, then shows a video depiction of it.
Yes folks , she calls out the immaculate conception of Jesus the most sexist mystical conception trope in history. Followed by the famous Anita rolling of the eyes to say how sexist was that. 

That's who your defending people, it's best you do your research on someone before commenting.

What? Even though this is quite obviously not what she is saying (as _wb_ has pointed out), and even though you're wrong about the doctrine of immaculate conception (look it up), even if she had said that this is "The most sexist mystical conception trope" (What does this mean? "The mystical conception" is possibly a literary trope, and it is arguably sexist, but the immaculate conception is something else, and...), how could this be controversial (apart from possibly doing an ordering of "most/least sexist")?

The idea of the immaculate conception is that womenkind is so dirty in itself that in order to take part in Gods plan for the world it isn't enough that Mary is mystically impregnated by the holy spirit, but Mary herself must also be born in the same way, in order to not be part in womankinds sinful ways. This is unarguably sexist. How can this be controversial? I don't get it.

 

[vcoleiro1]

^ wrong word choice to include the immaculate word, everything else I said about what she said in that video stands.


to mention the conception of jesus christ in a video series about sexist tropes is just plain wrong. You need to understand that it wasn't a video with tropes with no view point or meaning. As I said in the previous post, all of these trope vids of hers are about sexism in her mind. Look at the example of the songs video, it just mentions a particular trope until the end when she gives it away about them being sexist by saying the last one was the worst sexist trope of the lot.


And again, you cannot deny she says some sensationalist , long bow stuff to try and shoe horn some sexism out of nothing. The song vid was a good example.

 

[_wb_]

to mention the conception of jesus christ in a video series about sexist tropes is just plain wrong.

Please explain. Why is it "just plain wrong" to include bible stories in a video series about sexist tropes? The bible contains plenty of sexism, which is not surprising (even progressive books from the early 20th century tend to be very sexist and racist to modern standards, so why would a progressive book from the 1st or 2nd century be any different?), and it is unquestionably a very influential piece of literature, so it would be kind of surprising not to use examples taken from it.

Unless of course you believe that the bible was written by God himself and it would therefore be "just plain wrong" (read: blasphemous) to subject it to literary analysis? In that case, allow me to make the equally valid claim that Sarkeesian's videos are in fact the Holy Messages of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and I am utterly offended by your blasphemy.

 

[vcoleiro1]

^ explain to me where I mentioned all bible stories are not sexist. Oh , that's right we were just talking about the conception of Jesus and made no reference to all bible stories.


Are you saying the conception of Jesus was sexist in your opinion?

 

[_wb_]

^ explain to me where I mentioned all bible stories are not sexist. Oh , that's right we were just talking about the conception of Jesus and made no reference to all bible stories.

I was assuming that your objection to mentioning Jesus' conception in a video series about sexist tropes would generalize to an objection to mention other bible stories in such a video series. Now I understand that you only object to this specific bible story.

Are you saying the conception of Jesus was sexist in your opinion?

Well yes, the Roman Catholic dogmas about the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, and the virgin birth of Jesus are in my opinion sexist: their main underlying assumption is that getting pregnant and giving birth are sinful acts, which is in my opinion a very extremist and sexist position.


You still haven't explained why you think that "to mention the conception of jesus christ in a video series about sexist tropes is just plain wrong."

Is it "just plain wrong" because according to you, it is so obviously non-sexist that it should not be mentioned in such a video series because it is obviously irrelevant? I'm just taking another guess here; it would help if you would just clarify your reasoning. Are you using the word "wrong" in its ethical/moral sense, or do you mean "factually incorrect"?

 

[vcoleiro1]

^ because it plain isn't sexist, and to conclude otherwise is just trying to shoe horn sexism out of nothing. That was my point from the beginning. The thing is, you can draw any conclusion out of any statement, when you do it to shoe horn a view point from something that clearly isnt explicitly sexist. Then you are trying to just shoe horn or be sensationalist as she does at times.


And if you said sex was dirty, that's not directly a statement that women are dirty. Remember , Jesus was still born via Mary. So how is that sexist?


In regards to you thinking the conception of Jesus is sexist, well , to be honest I find highly offensive.

 

[moxie]

I was writing a reply, and then _wb_ wrote what I struggled to express a lot better. So, I'll just quote these bits:

Well yes, the Roman Catholic dogmas about the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, and the virgin birth of Jesus are in my opinion sexist: their main underlying assumption is that getting pregnant and giving birth are sinful acts, which is in my opinion a very extremist and sexist position. 

Exactly that. It might be added that it is not particularly surprising: The society in which the gospel stories were written was a very patriarchal and sexist society, and the society and general environment where the dogmas of the immaculate conception of Mary and the virginal conception of  Jesus appeared was, as well (it is notable that neither of these ideas are really evangelical, but have a later date). As _wb_ says, many of the biblical writings are very progressive given their time and place of origin. That doesn't change the fact that to modern eyes, they are rather sexist.

Do note that neither me nor Sarkeesian are saying "The conception of Jesus was sexist", as you ask. We are saying "The dogma/stories about the conception of Jesus is sexist". That is two rather different things. Sarkeesian is then putting this in a progression with other stories of mystical conceptions which are also based on rather murky underpinnings.

^ because it plain isn't sexist, and to conclude otherwise is just trying to shoe horn sexism out of nothing. That was my point from the beginning. The thing is, you can draw any conclusion out of any statement, when you do it to shoe horn a view point from something that clearly isnt explicitly sexist. Then you are trying to just shoe horn or be sensationalist as she does at times.


And if you said sex was dirty, that's not directly a statement that women are dirty. Remember , Jesus was still born via Mary. So how is that sexist?

When your argument is "Well, it plain isn't, and that is that. It clearly isn't. So there", then perhaps you should work with them a bit? Are you aware of the reasoning behind the establishment of these dogma?

 

[vcoleiro1]

^ did you read what I said after that comment?


The only argument to say it might have been sexist was to say sex might be dirty, that doesn't directly imply sexism against women, in fact Jesus was still naturally born through a woman. Happy with that explaination, or do you wish to continue to piss off the whole catholic community.


The fact of the matter is that Sarkeesian does at times say stupid sensationalist shit. Does she deserve abuse, absolutely not. Does that also mean you cannot mention some of the crap she says, absolutely not. The things are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Exophase]

As a male in the current society, I'm privileged!

When I go outside with good looking clothes, no one start to talk to me to fuck me, or harass me to get my phone number, or even worse.

When I shout at somebody because he is irritating, no one say that it must be because it's "that time of the month".

When I say that I like Star Wars, Star Trek, comics, video games, …, no one start to question me about every little details to find me at fault and label me as a fake geek girl instead of welcoming me and help me to know more about those subjects.

When I try to defend my opinions, no one say that I should shut up because I'm just an hysterical feminist.

And if I keep talking, no one say that he is going to gag me with his - male anatomy part -, or nice things like these.

(I could keep going for a while, but I guess it's already enough, isn't it?)

So yes, feminists like Anita Sarkeesian are needed more than ever IMHO

I don't disagree with your points but it easily works both ways. Consider in counter to each of what you said:

- As a male you're expected to take 100% of the initiative in asking women out and showing interest (and things like proposing for marriage), more of the pressure of rejection lies on males and you can be prepared to be called a creep or a loser and get laughed at if women don't like you. This is exemplified on dating sites.

- When you shout at someone because they're irritating, you're typified as an aggressive and competitive pig who lacks the delicate patience of a female

- When you say that you like typically feminine things (I could rattle a long list here) prepare to be ostracized or called gay

- As an aside to the "fake geek" thing, women are much less likely to be made fun of for being geeks or nerds, males often find that attractive, the biggest reason why the "fake geek" backlash goes around is precisely because women wear it as a badge of honor and receive positive attention over it, while men are more likely to receive it as an insult

- When you try to bring up any instances of misandry in society you get looks like you're crazy, because everyone knows only misogyny exists (as an interesting point, guess which of these two words my web browser didn't recognize)

- If a woman keeps talking in irritation, no one is going to for a second suspect them of being a violent rapist

Here's some extra stuff that doesn't really parallel your points:

- If a man reports a woman for domestic violence it's happened that HE goes to jail because the police doesn't believe his story and thinks he's the perpetrator instead

- Women have full rights to do whatever they want with the child, but if the child is born the man must pay child support no matter what

- Men are more subject to involuntary military conscription

I think that gender issues are a real problem but you really have to look at it from a greater perspective and see how it impacts all people, not just about providing more privilege to women.

 

[moxie]

What Exophase says here, I would characterize as the other side of the patriarchal society. We all stand to win by moving towards a society with more open options for both genders.

 

[vcoleiro1]

Well, I think we can all agree to that. Equal rights and treatment for all.


One day we will get there.

 

[moxie]

^ did you read what I said after that comment?


The only argument to say it might have been sexist was to say sex might be dirty, that doesn't imply sexism against women, in fact Jesus was still naturally born through a woman. Happy with that explaination, or do you wish to continue to piss off the whole catholic community.

Yes, I read that. That's why I asked if you were aware of the reasoning around the times the dogma was established? The reasoning isn't that "Sex is dirty", the reasoning is that womankind, through Eve, are especially fallen and sinful in their actual nature. The debate at the times was how The Son of God could have actually been naturally born from a woman, since womankind were by nature un-godly (and possibly not actually properly human at all, according to contemporary thought). The dogma of the Immaculate Conception came about as a way to theologically make Mary holy (literally: Apart) from the rest of women, to explain how Jesus could be born from her and not be tainted by her womanhood.

And before you say "it plainly isn't" again, do check the sources. Remember that this is at around the same time that there was a serious debate as to whether women actually had souls, or was more like animals.

 

[vcoleiro1]

^ once again I gave an explanation.


We were talking about the conception of Jesus, not the immaculate conception, That's all Anita mentioned, not the dogma or immaculate conception or anything Else. Just the conception . Anita says the conception was an example of violation. Don't twist what she said .


This is a direct quote from her to set the record straight


"The Mystical Pregnancy is a trope writers use to create drama and terror by invading, violating and exploiting women’s reproductive capabilities."

 

[moxie]

...and as for the gender roles in pop music, I won't even start, cuz I won't be able to stop. The only thing I can't decide is whether it is the male or the female characterisations that are the worst. I.e. the passive, submissive female whose life revolves around The Man, or the "romantic males" who exhibit all the characteristics of really, really creepy stalker personalities (cue Bruno Mars). Horrible, the lot of it. 

 

[moxie]

^ once again I gave an explanation.


We were talking about the conception of Mary, not the immaculate conception, That's all Anita mentioned, not the dogma or immaculate conception or anything Else. Just the conception . Anita says the conception was an example of violation. Don't twist what she said .

This time it is me who is a bit careless. Both the Virgin conception and the Immaculate conception was dogma-ized as a response to questions about how Jesus could be not-tainted. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception is a lot later, though (it wasn't properly recognized until well into the 18th century). It is the establishment of the dogma of the Virgin Conception of Jesus ( and the dogma of Marys eternal virginhood) I'm talking about in the above.

 

[Exophase]

Yes, I read that. That's why I asked if you were aware of the reasoning around the times the dogma was established? The reasoning isn't that "Sex is dirty", the reasoning is that womankind, through Eve, are especially fallen and sinful in their actual nature. The debate at the times was how The Son of God could have actually been naturally born from a woman, since womankind were by nature un-godly (and possibly not actually properly human at all, according to contemporary thought). The dogma of the Immaculate Conception came about as a way to theologically make Mary holy (literally: Apart) from the rest of women, to explain how Jesus could be born from her and not be tainted by her womanhood.

And before you say "it plainly isn't" again, do check the sources. Remember that this is at around the same time that there was a serious debate as to whether women actually had souls, or was more like animals.

I'm not seeing anything like that in any definition I can find of Immaculate Conception (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception)

There's nothing about women in particular being more sinful or dirty, just that all people are born sinful and need redemption, except Mary wasn't somehow. I can only see it as a way of explaining how Jesus could be born of a person and not be tainted by her humanity (ie, Original Sin), nothing specific about womanhood.

Maybe this has been sanitized for more modern conception but nothing in the classical quotes suggests sexism to me either. Even Original Sin itself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin) is generally blamed on both Adam and Eve.

Not to say the Bible and traditional Church dogma isn't full of sexism, I'm just not seeing it in this very specific example.

 

[vcoleiro1]

As I said above, Anita is saying the conception of Jesus is an example of a story which describes an event of


" terror by invading, violating and exploiting women’s reproductive capabilities."


Has nothing to do with immaculate conception.


Can I ask you Moxie, are you seriously supporting her view above. I mean do you really not see that at best it is an example of sensationalism or shoe horning sexism?


Do you not also see that she does say some stupid shit at times like with the "all I want for Xmas is you" vid?


She does make good points in her vids as I mentioned before. But for me and some main stream feminists, there's to much sensationalist stuff that ultimately hurts feminism.