So if a society decides that a thing is right then it is right? That seems circular to me.

That is pretty much how it works, yeah. The good news is, if it isn't working for enough of the people in a society, then it will likely change. That is why morality can be very fluid over time. The other major source is religion, but we probably shouldn't get into that.

EDIT: Anyway, societal norms are really about what is right so much as what is, well, normal.

What part is confusing to you? To clarify: it's not really a society deciding that something is right, so much as the conditions for a certain kind of society being present, the society adapting to those conditions, and then accepting that that is the best way to do things. If the conditions persist, then the society typically stays the same. If the conditions change, over time the society will evolve to be something else. It's possible to push change a little, but generally things will take their course. Social engineering is an incredibly difficult thing to accomplish (and I have my doubts as to how ethical it is).

Feminism flourished because the conditions for it were right- these being industrialisation (and its concomitant improvements in healthcare, life expectancy, quality of life, etc.), and the ideology of personal fulfillment borne out of, in part, capitalism.


Yeah. Just like 100 years ago we had very different ideas of what was "right", a 100 years from now we'll have other ideas about what's "right", and these ideas will be significantly different from what they are now.

Thunderfoot just released a video debating this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJeX6F-Q63I

That misses my point. Just because a society decides on a specific thing it doesn't make it right, in either a strict logical or moral sense, as it's just a decision for good or bad. I would say that it was amoral or merely a system of desires. Such a principle justifies anything a society deems worthy at a given time, and anything cannot be justified simply by will alone.


I'm confused by the circularity of reason when we say: We deem this right: it is right.

There is no such thing as an objective morality ... Humans create all sorts of convoluted reasoning to do the things they want to do. Why do you think there are so many different schools of philosophy, so many different religions, so many different personal interest groups?

I know what morals and ethics I subscribe to, but there's no way I could possibly claim that what's good for me is good for everyone else, because that's just logically not a possibility. Edit: moreover, if my life had gone even a little differently, I probably would have a significantly different set of morals and ethics.


Welcome to the world of humans. We're fallible, inconsistent, arbitrary little creatures.


This is brilliant.

They AREN'T.

Holy hell, my ENTIRE income is tutoring english, and the most common customer? Russian women studying business. They're all out there ready to make some coin.
In NO WAY does it hinder them. I've never met a russian woman who said "I'm gonna sit on my butt and wait for a man to take care of me." (though of course, I'm sure there are some, as with any culture) All I'm saying is that most of my students say that ONCE they find a man and get married, yes, they would like to be a housekeeper and depend on him with him being the boss. This doesn't mean they believe themselves incapable of taking charge or earning income or attending a university, it's simply that they think a traditional family structure with men working and women being housekeepers is superior and the "proper" household structure.

I've NEVER met a russian woman who was "limited" by this culture.


And to be brutally honest, with issues like this? I subscribe to Taoism. You know what the Yin-Yang sign is? It says that for EVERY action you take has a good result and a bad result. The good may outweigh the bad or the bad may outweigh the good, but there's no such thing as a -PURELY- good change. In that sense, I PROMISE you that if we addressed this issue, a NEW issue would arise (men feeling limited? Hell if I know) and we'd be preaching about how we need to do something about that issue.

There are many philosophers who not only believe that an objective moral system is possible but have also put forward their systems for criticism -- some of which cannot undermine the entire edifice of said systems. While talking of societies deciding what is right, it seems fairly straight forward that, in all probability, a society will agree to those things that benefit it. And that is all well and good as long as all of society has an equal say. Without that equality in decision making, some or even many, may find society ignores their desires. Democracy is such a system; Democracy can make very bad decisions based on a simple majority, and that is a system that aims to meet certain moral norms. So an appeal to a majority isn't a justification of a thing being right.


Speak for yourself by all means, but me, well I'm an ...

There is not a single philosophy that doesn't have problems with its premise. Each individual basically makes this stuff up for themselves as the need arises, and just glosses over the holes in whatever philosophy they adopt.


I didn't say it's a justification of a thing being right. There is no such thing as "right", hence the quotation marks. If you're looking for an objective morality/ethic against which to measure all civilisations, good luck with that. You'll have to play catch-up every few decades to revise your conception of justice for just one society, let alone all of them. I'll re-iterate the point I made above, but this time as it relates to you: the only reason you have the philosophy you do is because you grew up in an environment that fostered it. If your circumstances were different, you'd be different.

So yeah. If you're unlucky enough to not be in the mainstream, it svcks to be you. Sorry. Life isn't fair. There will always be outcasts who don't get to have the life they want. Unfortunate but unavoidable.

Ha, I love it. But he's so much more intelligent than her, I feel he's wasting his talent on a troll. Sarkeesian is not worth all this trouble. It's like debating the trumped up ego of a 12 yr old. She got into this gig for the cash moniez, nothing more. That's what her kickstarter was all about.

Him responding to Sarkeesian's output is extra satisfying, for me anyway. It's always refreshing to see people respond coherently to this kind of feminist's gibberish, but from him it's got a little extra sting.

Oh dear, that's a rather damning view of philosophers. I can assure you that they don't just make this stuff up and run with it. Many devote their entire lives to the use of reason in solving (or at least attempting to solve) questions such as the one we're discussing. They also devote their time to criticising proposed systems, and not out of any sense of ego but only to produce a better system.



Is it right to eat and to take fluids? Is it right to not jump off of tall objects? I see many things that are right. Is it morally right to not murder an innocent person, or to not lie or steal or cheat?

Societies change; that much can be true, but when they change they do not drop all that came before them and each time start a new. Principles that are deemed moralistic can be carried on or dropped or revised as you suggest. But among those revisions can remain core principles that last for millennia. The philosophies that I have were not fostered by the society that I live in; some of them weren't even the product of the society of which I am a member. Yes, many of my culture's philosophical principles are taught and encouraged by the state, but that is not to say that I am devoid of free thought or that my society openly shuns free thinking. Would you dis-empower me so very much?

Technically speaking, this is less than high school level. In high school they teach you not to use scaffolding dialogue eg( in this essay I will prove and explore the tropes of women in video games). Her intro is all scaffolding dialogue, if you handed this in as a Grade 11 high school student, you'd get a 60 at most.

What are you TALKING about? There are PLENTY of women willing to be subservient. Barring the nutty ones who will do it for abusive lovers, plenty of women will do it because they love their significant other. That's like saying some gender norms are wrong because some men are happy to fulfill traditional stereotypes. But this is false.

I find myself wondering what university she attended that she managed to pass with this level of essay writing.


I was not referring to philosophers with that comment, but everyday folks.


The bolded is the important bit. They've attempted and failed. There does not exist a philosophy currently that doesn't have fatal flaws.


Exactly. Demanding that societies, that have developed over centuries basically independently of each other, suddenly come around to the one "right" approach is madness. I'm sure that as I type, somewhere, people are discussing how ludicrous the West is, and their arguments have just as much merit as ours.


You're interpreting that a little too rigidly. You believe what you believe because you've been allowed to expose yourself to whatever it is you've exposed yourself to and adopted. You live in a culture that doesn't mind plurality, or something has caused you to rebel against the monoculture in which you find yourself. That's directly led to your finding whatever philosophy it is you espouse.


Well, I am a determinist, so ...

Anyway, I think we've veered far too much from the topic at hand.

I think he was calling the part where I imply they're beyond reproach false.
Which again, 1) who are we to sit here and say cultures where women gladly take the subservient role are "wrong," (leave dramatically sixist ones like some middle eastern countries out of this, refer to my example with russian women here) and 2) I say offer a PRACTICAL solution, otherwise the entire discussion is pointless. Hence why we sit here and criticize those videos, because they get nothing done beyond saying "hey guys the sky is blue."



On a side note, I'm very familiar with russian women because, well, let's just say that despite being half-german, I don't get along with Germans just fantastically. I've had lots of discussions about different cultures with russian women.
One topic that came up? Russian mail-order bride services are SURPRISINGLY successful in both the US and China, having lower divorce rates than "normal" weddings, and there have been studies done to find out why. The conclusion? Basically, the subservient attitude russian women have is basically EXPECTED from russian men. The result is that by comparison (doesn't mean russian-russian relationships fail), russian women suddenly feel MORE appreciated than they ever have before when married to an American or Chinese guy, who haven't come to expect such an attitude. Meanwhile, can't speak for China specifically, but the US does have a more active feminist culture to it. You know why the American man is more appreciative of his russian wife? Because he's used to the speeches about equality, and suddenly he has a wife that treats him like a king. The result is he feels like he's being worshipped as a king because what used to be fantasy is sorta being fulfilled while simultaneously she feels like a queen because she's now receiving MORE appreciation for something that's like second-nature for her.

This is ALSO part of the reason why I refer to Taoism with this issue, with any changes we make creating as many problems as it does solutions. -IF- we were to "repair the misogynist problem," then I guarentee you that we'd be having a conversation about how men are oppressed/underappreciated by whichever culture we've now created. Yes there are negative effects of the culture we have, but I'm willing to bet there'd be negative effects to ANY culture we create. I mean hell, you DON'T think there are men frustrated with society's expectations of them to be working men that support their wives, completely unsupportive of the idea of the MAN being the subserviant house-husband? And if we make them equal, we'll have men that aren't having their testostorone drive for power fulfilled, and women who don't feel properly desired.



I say that this discussion is simply moot UNTIL the feminist side can:

1) Give proper reasoning as to WHY the current state of affairs is OBJECTIVELY inferior to what they're suggesting.
2) Offer a realistic solution on how to make it happen.

I'm saying it likely won't happen because there's entire countries that are completely unwilling and unhappy when supporting such a cause (btw, also doesn't help that since the feminist movement, women on the whole have become more depressed on average; yes this is proven with an actual study), and even if you DID get everyone on board, you have 2000 years of misogynism that won't undo itself and DOES influence how future generations see the world.

Continuing to watch, I have further comments, Particularly regarding her thoughts regarding Princess Peach.

IN all but one of the Platformer Mario games, Peach is the Damsel in Distress. Not a playable character, so she is used as an object per se or a plot device instead of being treated as an actual person. Fair enough, except that the game needs a plot and having a Damsel in Distress and recyling the same story is an easy path to do it on. What irks me more is the horrible writing and designers who basically created the same platormer and same story 14 times in a row.

But Sarkeesian then goes on to say that Peach was included in all the Fighting games and all the Mario Party games. But those don't count, it's still sixist that Peach is a part of the plot in the 13 platformers. Apparently the countless fighting games, and the two dozen Mario Party games don't count. I get that when writing an essy you only pick points that make your argument look good, but why would you bring up the fact that Peach is a playable character in two and a half dozen games, while trying to prove that video game designers always put the female character into sterotypical roles, particularly the Damsel in Distress.

Why do those games not count? Would be the main question I would ask. Obviously they do count, and the number of games where Peach is a playable character and Protagonist far exceed the number where she is shuffled into stereotypical roles, but according to Sarkeesian they don't.

So we continue to improve our philosophy and not abandon all hope and resign ourselves to the "might is right" of Thrasymacus. Or to put it another way, the computer I use has fatal flaws in its OS but I don't abandon computing all together. No, I demand that it is improved, and I do so with justification as I still see merit in computing. No one is demanding an overnight change. That is unrealistic. People put forward proposals for change that are anolysed, debated and decided upon. Even if change is glacial it's still worth working toward. I can't agree with the assertion that my thoughts are nothing more than a product of my circumstances. I don't think this is off topic; I think we're just starting to get to the heart of the matter. But as you're destined to write what you write what use would a discussion be? I'm off to work. It was nice chatting for a while.

She excuses it because they aren't "core" games of the franchise. Never mind that the "side" games sell more than the main line. It's just disingenuous argumentation all 'round. She has a point and she's going to make it, damn it, logic and facts be damned.


It was, thanks.

No, in a debate or when trying to forward one's own agenda, you only present topics that make your case look good. This doesn't mean however that you should NOT be able to address them. Law students aren't taught to blatantly ignore evidence that works against them, they have to address it. Likewise, yeah your paper will get a bad grade if it has a giant hole in it that you fail to address. This is, in essence, an essay, and she fails to address dozens of points named by dozens of people.

That's part of the reason why, subject matter aside, I think she's a horrible representative for her cause. She does not and CANNOT address counter-arguments and points.
TheAmazingAthiest (a guy I usually don't like, cause holy crap I shouldn't be able to visually see one's ego) actually made an interesting point where he stated that, ironically, by not addressing any counter-arguments and disabling video comments and turning the other way from all the criticism and acting like it's the worst thing in the world that someone on the internet told her "[censored] or gtfo," (newsflash: it's the internet), she's -ACTUALLY- making herself into a damsel in distress, because she fails to take responsibility and defend her own argument, and thus leaves the work up to her fans. AKA, she needs rescuing because her argument is so blatantly full of unaddressed holes and she fails to do anything about it.

What? The very opposite is true. Clearly stating your conclusions, summarising the structure and presentation of your argument, and establishing the relevance of your paper are important aspects of a good introduction to an essay.

Anyway, this debate went right off the deep end once moral relativism was brought up. All bets are off once someone says "Yeah, but morality is subjective, so what's good for some isn't what's good for others". Why even argue about the morality of gender stereotypes, in that case?

You seem to give her stance a semblance of credibility.

Depends what you mean by "stance". Does she say a lot of true things about gender bias in video games? Yes. Does she always say those things for the right reasons? No. Could she better advertise and explain the relevance of her videos? Yes.

Well, this is about at post limit. I think it's been a good conversation thus far, but I'm asking the other moderators for input as to whether or not this threads has run it's course or whether we'll allow another one after this.

To sum up my own feelings (and, I feel, paraphrasing some others in this thread) media (videogames, specifically, as it relates to this discussion) can be viewed as a barometer to guage public opinion and our advancement as a society, in this case sixism in the real world. If there continues to be sixism in videogames then it's only because there continue to be sixist views within our society (and there's always going to be room for improvement.) I feel like an examination of sixist trends in gaming deserves at least some acknowledgement, at least insofar as... I feel like if you're a game designer and you do make a game with a "rescue the princess" storyline, then it probably helps to at least be aware of the issues.

And here's where I see the disconnect in regards to this topic overall: To my understanding, there's nothing "evil" about any of these games discussed, when taken individually. Donkey Kong being a reenactment of a classic male power fantasy doesn't make it a bad or harmful game in and of itself. But when viewed as a whole, if it's used enough to become a trope, then that emerges as a symptom of underlying faults in our society. The "solution" isn't to stop making videogames with that plot, but more accurately that a "healthier" society would, as a byproduct, be making games that are more sensitive to issues of gender.

As I see it, the best approach to "end" all sixism in videogames (which would require ending all sixism everywhere, I'd imagine - see above,) is more about promoting positive moves in the industry than trying to limit negative influences.

While it is a waste of his intelligence, he seems to have gained a personal liking of tearing down feminist arguments. Honestly I like it because some one needs to point out how ridiculous they are.