Is anime a media that is particularly prone to objectify women?

[Fizix]

Originally Posted by Nightbat®

So I shut down the discussion when I address that 1st world women's rights problems are of lesser concern than what is happening in the 3rd world with women

Yet you do exactly the same when male rights are addressed since they are of lesser concern than a women's

If I can't point at people having it worse, neither should you and start treating the problems equally
Even a common cold can kill you if you igore it too long

Nice try but no.

I am not comparing, I'm saying that using another group of people's problems as a tool to detract from the point of discussion or downplay the group being discussed isn't something I'm willing to get into.

I'll be frank about it, you're deliberately using them to create a kind of pissing contest between who is more important. That's just wrong, especially when you're doing it to shut down discussion and its unfair towards the people you're using as you bastardise their cause by doing so.

Whatever the underlying intent, that's the net result.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Eragon

LMAO. Of course Hoff gets quoted as some sort of factual(real) feminist here. Might want to re-evaluate your position if you are going to rely on a pro-GG supporter as a source for authentic view on feminism or feminist values.

This thread is ridiculous!

I'm pro-GamerGates too. what's wrong with that?

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by Dawnstorm

It's Twitter. When was the last time you read on Twitter, "You know, two days ago..."? Voicing your grievances these days is a strange mix of private and public. Someone's going to start it, and then it'll just unwind. This isn't putting anything ahead; it's the modern equivalent of yelling at the screen. Smart phones, easy internet access, social media. The timing has little to do with feminism, or a planned activity, or anything. If you wear a shirt like that, someone's going to call you out on the internet. These are simply the times we live in.

That's not extremism. That's venting on the web.

I don't see why it can't be considered both.

Let's say we call it "venting". In her venting, the tweeter that 0utf0xZer0 linked to made a choice. She chose to focus on the shirt that Doctor Taylor was wearing instead of on the major scientific accomplishment that he was a key part of.

I think that choice suggests a certain degree of extremism. Let me clarify, though - By extremism, I don't necessarily mean something like "far right" or "far left", but rather just being extremely political-focused in general. What I find with some of modern feminism is that it's developed a bit of a tendency to politicize almost everything, which I think sometimes runs the risk of losing sight of the bigger picture. That's what I'm inclined to think happened with Shirtgate (given the scientific discoveries that could arise from a probe researching a comet directly).

To tie this all back into anime, one of the things I like about anime is that much of its ideas and themes actually have a certain degree of universality that transcends cultures and politics. For example, some anime shows deal with topics of friendship, of loss, of love, of coming of age, and of hopes and dreams in general. The works of Gen Urobuchi often raises philosophical questions that are potentially applicable to us all, not just people of a particular nation, sex, or ethnicity.

There's a certain parochialism that I see in some of modern feminism that concerns me a bit.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Fizix

Now @Ringstar and this Factual Feminist video blog.

We've had three videos from that source, I'm going to add a 4th:

Thats how factual and balanced she really is. Hoff here seems to have some interesting views on this subject, generally.

Here is an analysis:
https://familyinequality.wordpress.c...tual-feminist/

What is your point then. Because i couldn't find anything so misleading about Sommer's video. Just different take on the issue. Basically even in the article the disagreement has came down to (as in conclusions):

In other words, if feminists argue over whether women’s perception of involuntary sex matches the legal definition, then we lose the ability to explain that unequal sex is systematic rather than deviant. It may not be that one-in-five women has experienced rape according to the definition within criminal law (though that is certainly within the realm of possible). But if that many women have had sex involuntarily, and many more have experienced sexual coercion of various kinds, isn’t that bad enough?

.... which basically down to the take of the definition of rape in this case, where one side based on "sex involuntarily — from their perspective" which as stated in there "understandable that this measure produces higher estimates than the criminal law". While the other based it's on legal definition and consider the statistics to be inflated.

That's the valid point to discuss upon. Can't see so much wrong with pointing that out

Even based on your quoted articles, the correct way to address that statistics would be: "One in five women have, from their perspective, experienced involuntary sex". But it just does not strike the public as easy as "one in five women will be the victim of rape in their life time", isn't it? Why do you think they quoted it in such a way?

[Fizix]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

What is your point then. Because i couldn't find anything so misleading about Sommer's video. Just different take on the issue. Basically even in the article the disagreement has came down to (as in conclusions):

.... which basically down to the take of the definition of rape in this case, where one side based on "sex involuntarily — from their perspective" which as stated in there "understandable that this measure produces higher estimates than the criminal law". While the other based it's on legal definition and consider the statistics to be inflated.

That's the valid point to discuss upon. Can't see so much wrong with pointing that out

Even based on your quoted articles, the correct way to address that statistics would be: "One in five women have, from their perspective, experienced involuntary sex". But it just does not strike the public as easy as "one in five women will be the victim of rape in their life time", isn't it? Why do you think they quoted it in such a way?

My point was in her outlook which is very conservative and outdated and her approach to it. In her video she demonstrated her stance on the topic as a whole, which is not the stance of someone who has a modern view on rape and attempts to missrepresent the issue in order to fit what she wanted to say. That's my point.


Three important points:

1. On alcohol
Firstly, on the topic of alcohol and drugs, she scoffs at the idea that a woman can be raped if she is intoxicated through drink or drugs.

She even misrepresents the question that was asked by only posing half of the question to the audience (the article tells you what the question actually was).

She then draws her line pretty much at "if the woman is passed out". Those aren't progressive views, those are outdated views and isn't the stance of someone who takes the issue seriously.



2. On her standard for statistics
She jumps to the criminal stats as her standard, which are so well known to be terminally flawed that there is no way on earth she is unaware, but makes no effort to recognise this fact.

This is a huge deal in the whole topic of rape and sexual assault, if you're talking about this topic it's really, really "off" if the problems with her chosen standard aren't addressed on any level what-so-ever.

This also creates a huge hole in her argument. She's picking holes in a figure that's actually reasonable becaue the study isn't perfect and comparing to her standard which is also equally as imperfect and could easily be further from the truth than the study she is criticising.


Picking on a study thats imperfect is fine, but comparing it to something that is also imperfect and ignoring the elephant in the room is not being factual or objective, which is the thing she's trying so hard to present herself.


3. She has issues over coercion
This has been done already, but she doesn't appear to consider sexual acts or intercourse through coercion to be a particularly serious matter, she scoffs at it.



My point is, as a person she is not objective or particularly scientific. She's more concerened with an agenda and has some old fashioned views towards the topic. In other words, it's all fair and well linking her videos in the thread, but to consider her some kind of authority on the topic and a champion of myth busting facts isn't really approriate as she has demonstrated that she is neither honest, reliable or has anything close to modern views.

I mean that too, most of her videos seem to demonstrate views that are regressive.

[0utf0xZer0]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

You can't be both?

Also, is there anything illegitimate with just being dark and edgy, and hence using elements that naturally will disturb people even if you're not commenting much on said elements specifically?

I'm generally find with creators going for dark and disturbing. Or do you think I watch Brynhildr for the social commentary?

What I don't like is when I feel that the nastier bits in a work are there "because it's cool". The use of such elements feels cynical rather than sincere. That tends to leave a foul taste.

And if I feel the creator's social commentary is cynical, that's going to leave a foul taste too.

Originally Posted by Triple_R

I don't think the aim here was to be edgy. I think it's just to stuff in fanservice where a certain plot moment allows for it.

I think the aim is much the same as the fanservice you find in Ikkitousen and shows like it.

Does Ikkitousen also features scenes where a woman is captured by a man, and where that man is clearly enjoying the power trip and proceeds to kick her in the head, causing her boobs to jiggle?

The scene is pretty far removed from the action-fanservice mixes I'm used to seeing in anime and I dislike it intensely - not so much because of my political views, but because of personal ones. And frankly, I had a lot of trouble investing myself into liking Inori as a character afterwards.

Originally Posted by Triple_R

And has any independent study determined that this is in fact going on?

Heck if I know. I'm inclined to believe it more because I've encountered a lot of skepticism regarding woman's abilities among men in tech and I figure it has to manifest somehow.

Originally Posted by Triple_R

Is the best time to comment on it during the very day that the tragic event takes place when people are paying maximum attention? Or is that insensitive to those at the very center of the tragedy, and hence the better time to make your comment is after some time has passed?

Personally I don't think there's an absolute right or wrong approach to this. That said, as much as I'm all for rational discussions, when your concerns aren't being heard via other means, sometimes making your anger known is very effective - and I think drawing attention was the point.

Originally Posted by Triple_R

I hope you can at least see where I'm coming from here. I think a major scientific accomplishment like landing a probe on a comet should take precedence over one of the key scientist's choice of attire on that day. I really, truly do. Which is why…

I think a key determining factor of what you think on this issue is going to be how much you see it as "just a shirt" and how much you see it as indicative of how woman are treated in the sciences in general (in which case you probably see Taylor's apology as important in setting the tone going forward). For those who see it as the latter, it's not a such a small issue and being told their concerns are less important than celebrating an achievement is not going to go over well.

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Definitions are important, it doesn't matter if you feel something is wrong, you can't just ascribe it to something that is universally considered negative just because of that.

This is the kind of process that make people use word like "racism" in the completely wrong contest. Like: "discriminating between young and old people is racists". It makes my eyes roll every time.

You may think that it's wrong for a man to believe that performing sexual acts is part of being a good girlfriend, but that's not sexist as long as the man believes that it is also a part of being a good boyfriend to do the same.

We were discussing the example of a man who thinks that it's a woman's duty to please a man in the relationship, and therefore it's okay for him to apply high pressure tactics if she doesn't.

The usual mindset that accompanies this is "I'm a man, so my sexual desires are more important than her feelings". Which is a whole lotta sexist.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Fizix

My point was in her outlook which is very conservative and outdated and her approach to it. In her video she demonstrated her stance on the topic as a whole, which is not the stance of someone who has a modern view on rape and attempts to missrepresent the issue in order to fit what she wanted to say. That's my point.


Three important points:

1. On alcohol
Firstly, on the topic of alcohol and drugs, she scoffs at the idea that a woman can be raped if she is intoxicated through drink or drugs.

She even misrepresents the question that was asked by only posing half of the question to the audience (the article tells you what the question actually was).

She then draws her line pretty much at "if the woman is passed out". Those aren't progressive views, those are outdated views and isn't the stance of someone who takes the issue seriously.



2. On her standard for statistics
She jumps to the criminal stats as her standard, which are so well known to be terminally flawed that there is no way on earth she is unaware, but makes no effort to recognise this fact.

This is a huge deal in the whole topic of rape and sexual assault, if you're talking about this topic it's really, really "off" if the problems with her chosen standard aren't addressed on any level what-so-ever.

This also creates a huge hole in her argument. She's picking holes in a figure that's actually reasonable becaue the study isn't perfect and comparing to her standard which is also equally as imperfect and could easily be further from the truth than the study she is criticising.


Picking on a study thats imperfect is fine, but comparing it to something that is also imperfect and ignoring the elephant in the room is not being factual or objective, which is the thing she's trying so hard to present herself.


3. She has issues over coercion
This has been done already, but she doesn't appear to consider sexual acts or intercourse through coercion to be a particularly serious matter, she scoffs at it.



My point is, as a person she is not objective or particularly scientific. She's more concerened with an agenda and has some old fashioned views towards the topic. In other words, it's all fair and well linking her videos in the thread, but to consider her some kind of authority on the topic and a champion of myth busting facts isn't really approriate as she has demonstrated that she is neither honest, reliable or has anything close to modern views.

I mean that too, most of her videos seem to demonstrate views that are regressive.

I can't represent her but i can answer your argument from my POV.

1. On alcohol: the point is not "woman can be raped if she was drunk" like you accused. The point is it's an inflated number if you consider "all of the involuntary sex due to alcohol consumption" will be counted as rape. The easiest example is if both party got influenced by alcohol, both got too drunk to give out proper consent for voluntary sex. Would that be counted as rape then? Who is the perpetrator? Are both party in this case counted as rapists? Hence the term "from their perspective, experience involuntary sex" would have been the correct term (instead of rape)
2. On the statistics points. Even if the criminal stat is flawed, it's still the official main figure in most social study. Just like number of traffic accident due to alcohol influenced, the number of murder or assault within a certain population, the number of injuries in work place... Of course there would be unreported case, but you simply can't just use surveying alone to decide how many traffic accidents, how many cases of assault, or murder, or drug trafficking, then pass law or bill to address that. If the official criminal statistic is flaw , the best is to study on why you think that it's flaw and try to fix it rather than just brush it off
3. Finally on coercion. Remember that even in the original NIPSVS report, it was considered that 'sexual coercion to be under the category of other sexual violence — other meaning not rising to the level of rape'. My point is: trying to group and require same reactions from "sexual coercion" as from "rape", will be like to put "domestic violence" in together with "child sexual abuse". Both are horrible in its own, but one is clearly a much worse criminal charge while the other most of the time will be a civil case.

And honestly i rather defend an argument rather than the speaker's own character. If Sommer turned out to be satanist, who murdered women and children as her hobby. Don't think any points she raised previously will be less true or valid on its own.

[Dawnstorm]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

I think that choice suggests a certain degree of extremism. Let me clarify, though - By extremism, I don't necessarily mean something like "far right" or "far left", but rather just being extremely political-focused in general. What I find with some of modern feminism is that it's developed a bit of a tendency to politicize almost everything, which I think sometimes runs the risk of losing sight of the bigger picture. That's what I'm inclined to think happened with Shirtgate (given the scientific discoveries that could arise from a probe researching a comet directly).

I you don't have to be particularly political-minded as a womam in the field to feel excluded by such a shirt. Just a little sensitive, because your skin's worn thin by a lot of similar incidents. It may be politicising to you; it's probably daily life for her. It's more pre-meditated than saying ouch, when someone steps on your foot, but it's the same principle. You say she ruined the occasion, she says he ruined the occasion, and I don't care because the findings are still cool without tedious clebrations (that's just how I roll). People are different.

(Other than the Twitter-thing, I have little to say on shirtgate; consider my signature under every one of Outf0xZer0's posts. He's better at saying those things than I am.)

[dniv]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

I can't represent her but i can answer your argument from my POV.

1. On alcohol: the point is not "woman can be raped if she was drunk" like you accused. The point is it's an inflated number if you consider "all of the involuntary sex due to alcohol consumption" will be counted as rape. The easiest example is if both party got influenced by alcohol, both got too drunk to give out proper consent for voluntary sex. Would that be counted as rape then? Who is the perpetrator? Are both party in this case counted as rapists? Hence the term "from their perspective, experience involuntary sex" would have been the correct term (instead of rape)
2. On the statistics points. Even if the criminal stat is flawed, it's still the official main figure in most social study. Just like number of traffic accident due to alcohol influenced, the number of murder or assault within a certain population, the number of injuries in work place... Of course there would be unreported case, but you simply can't just use surveying alone to decide how many traffic accidents, how many cases of assault, or murder, or drug trafficking, then pass law or bill to address that. If the official criminal statistic is flaw , the best is to study on why you think that it's flaw and try to fix it rather than just brush it off
3. Finally on coercion. Remember that even in the original NIPSVS report, it was considered that 'sexual coercion to be under the category of other sexual violence — other meaning not rising to the level of rape'. My point is: trying to group and require same reactions from "sexual coercion" as from "rape", will be like to put "domestic violence" in together with "child sexual abuse". Both are horrible in its own, but one is clearly a much worse criminal charge while the other most of the time will be a civil case.

And honestly i rather defend an argument rather than the speaker's own character. If Sommer turned out to be satanist, who murdered women and children as her hobby. Don't think any points she raised previously will be less true or valid on its own.

I don't really know that much about the context for this discussion, but I will say one thing. Your first point retort completely missed the point. Fizix's criticism states that she assumes that rape doesn't count if the person is drunk, and you respond by saying that this isn't the point, because the point is that there's an inflated number because the statistics include people who are drunk as being part of rape.

But that's a problem. Fizix and I as well as others assert that you CAN be raped if you are drunk. It is NOT solely your responsibility to not be raped. That's ludicrous. The guy is responsible as well (or if we want to be unbiased then the girl as well).

The point is that the criticism completely destroys her argument because what she asserts is an inflated statistic is already an underreported statistic especially on college campuses. Just watch alcohol edu that many universities make you see when you join them, it explains a lot of these facts to you in a clear manner.

____________________________________________

Now... talking about the thread topic... my short answer is...

YES.

And the response to this phenomenon has been the objectification of men as well to make it less bad. (Kill la Kill... though I suppose that objectification was fake... so NVM).

My longer answer is:

The fan base is mostly guys. They pander to guys. They need sales. They write a story that sends these fictional undercurrents which have no bearing on viewer's opinions or actions in real life except in extreme cases. I don't really think that the problem is THAT terrible, but it certainly exists and needs to be addressed.

But this is just what happens when you have too many writers that have no clue about how intimate relations normally work with the opposite sex (I mean on a friendship level). It makes it much more easy to perpetuate the trend of objectifying women. In this sense, I don't think it's maliciously intended or even dismissive to females. I think it's just all that the writers can handle... in terms of storytelling...

[Eragon]

Holy shit!! Sex without consent is a fucking crime! What the hell is wrong with you ?! The fuck do you think rape is ? And to anyone that is dumb enough to utter garbage like "inflated reports of sexual assualt/rape" here, have something concrete facts for a change,










I'm sure actual statistics are a new thing in your world of making-shit-up.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by dniv

I don't really know that much about the context for this discussion, but I will say one thing. Your first point retort completely missed the point. Fizix's criticism states that she assumes that rape doesn't count if the person is drunk, and you respond by saying that this isn't the point, because the point is that there's an inflated number because the statistics include people who are drunk as being part of rape.

But that's a problem. Fizix and I as well as others assert that you CAN be raped if you are drunk. It is NOT solely your responsibility to not be raped. That's ludicrous. The guy is responsible as well (or if we want to be unbiased then the girl as well).

The point is that the criticism completely destroys her argument because what she asserts is an inflated statistic is already an underreported statistic especially on college campuses. Just watch alcohol edu that many universities make you see when you join them, it explains a lot of these facts to you in a clear manner.

But no one denied the bold statement above. And as far as i know, even Sommer didn't deny it, she was criticised because she missed the "consent" part in her example (or basically she made a wrong example that was already not counted under NIPSVS statistics, as quoted below), not because she claimed raping a woman when she's drunk is OK.

“What about sex while inebriated?” she asks. “Few people would say that sex while intoxicated alone constitutes rape.” Right, and neither does the NIPSVS. The survey asked, “When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, how many people ever…” and then it lists various kinds of penetration. The key phrase there is and unable to consent. They are not saying all drunk or drugged sex is rape.

Either way it's still a valid point through to pointed out that an under-reported statistics is basically a hundred times lower than the inflated statistics. Showing there is a wide gap in understanding between the prosecuted rate, and the number feminists generally believed . The importance is to close down the gap there, and actually prosecute actual rapists/criminals, not drive the public in frenzy using over inflated statistics and led to ridiculous accusation like the case with Columbia University where students were not protected, publicly trialed, harassed without even single ounce of evidence


@Eragon: unfortunately a lots of maps you posted were not facts. Unless they can show their assessment criteria with actual statistics, which i doubt they can find

[relentlessflame]

Can we please stop the arguments about rape statistics?

This is a thread about objectification of women in anime. Please stay on-topic.

[Eragon]

Just as I thought.

[relentlessflame]

Originally Posted by Eragon

Just as I thought.

I don't want it at all to be perceived like I'm "taking his side". I just happened to login to the forum now. If you want my personal opinion, I couldn't disagree more with the scepticism (at least in overall sentiment), but arguing it in this thread will lead only lead us further and further off-topic and result in an all-out flame war. This is the General Anime section, not General Chat.

[risingstar3110]

Anyway trying to link back the earlier discussion with the whole objectification in anime or media in general. What i feared is these inflated number will simply be used as evidences to link modern media's objectification with rape and sexual violences, despite statistics based on prosecuted case indicated the opposite. And there are still insufficient study to prove those points in the first place

Not to mention those skewed standard that disregard different opinions or culture differences. As seen with Edragon map where every nation other than Western developed countries will get a fail rate for rape prevention, or "rape is prevalent, endemic" as quoted.

E.g. ("See how horrible anime is? Turning a developed country like Japan to a rape nation, similar in level to African conflict regions")

[Eragon]

Wasn't talking about your post RF.

[relentlessflame]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

What i feared is these inflated number will simply be used as evidences to link modern media's objectification with rape and sexual violences, despite statistics based on prosecuted case indicated the opposite. And there are still insufficient study to prove those points in the first place

Okay, but if that's really your point, arguing against the validity of the stats is an extremely questionable tactic. Even if the stats were undeniably true, it still doesn't answer the question of what should be done about it. When you argue against the validity of the stats like this, it sure makes it seem like you're trying to deny or downplay the problem itself, rather than being fearful of the consequences of the reaction to the problem.

Earlier in the thread, a list was posted about "things I'd like to see less of in anime" in the context of this discussion. And the problem is that sometimes people will take something like that list and try to look for the quick fix in regulating the content, rather than actually trying to improve the more important underlying problems. Typically because it would be easier to enforce content regulations on the anime/manga/game industry than would be to actually address unreported crime and the social stigmas/pressures that contribute to that lack of reporting. And I think an awful lot of people connected to the anime industry (whether in it or fans of it) would argue that the resulting trade-off of freedom of expression is not worth it.

To this point, Dan Kanemitsu has a (well-timed for our purposes) post up today about The Seduction of the Thought Police, which is partially in response the recent article and program on the BBC (in which he was also featured/quoted).

To me, as I said before, anime is a mirror of society, in addition to being a creative outlet that sometimes explores things wider society can't easily explore on its face. So to me, in addition to government working to address the deeper societal problems, the artistic/creative industries need to continue to find ways to allow new and diverse voices to express themselves in the medium. I think that, as that happens, these elements that to some seem to define the medium will cease to become such a central focus. And to that point, I actually think that there are more voices in anime these days than there have been at many points in the past, and this has actually influenced trends away from some of the things people found pandemic. Trends like crowd-funding provide new ways for anime to be creative that aren't entirely driven by established large commercial interests, and this will continue to result in experimentation and creativity. To be sure, some of it will be content that some will continue to find offensive, but there will also be different things, too. And I personally think that's what will lead to a brighter future more than trying to clamp down on "troublesome content."

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by relentlessflame

Okay, but if that's really your point, arguing against the validity of the stats is an extremely questionable tactic. Even if the stats were undeniably true, it still doesn't answer the question of what should be done about it. When you argue against the validity of the stats like this, it sure makes it seem like you're trying to deny or downplay the problem itself, rather than being fearful of the consequences of the reaction to the problem.

The question is, what is the use of those statistics?

If it's just to raise awareness on sexual violence, then isn't it horrible enough that there are current anywhere between 20,000-100,000 rape victims (by legal definition) in US alone? Isn't that already tens or hundreds thousands too many? The high figure is 5 times the number of reported rape victims in Naking, one of the darkest days in human history. Or it's still a trivia unless the number of rape victims reach ten millions plus?

Means while, by loosely use the rape definition and successful sell the "one in five woman was a victim of rape" statistics, you know what else it does say? A similar number of male (roughly one in five) are walking rapists, hence the overused term "rape culture". Imagine one in every five guys you know, your male relatives, friends, families members...etc... is rapist. Just think, if you sit in your crowd lecture right now, there are twenty rapists in there, one may sit right next to you. Terrified isn't it?

And as it's much easier to control the population by fear (eg "war on terror"). Now it's even easier to campaign against what you don't like, and gains supports for what you don't deserve under feminist tag. The whole smear campaign on GamerGates and the gaming industry is one. The whole "Rape on Campus" incident is another. Then of course all those fake and death rape threat. If they ever touched on anime, there is no doubt Japan will be next labelled as a sexist, misogynist culture full of rapist apologists , if it hasn't already been done by now.

[cyth]

You've opened up the debate to discussing general manipulation. I think that there's a sizeable population of feminists who find manipulative tactics repulsive. But that it isn't protested against is a pattern that's general to the larger society unless another group tries to push against it with comparable strength.

You can argue that there's a large shift to push the feminist agenda and I'm inclined to agree with you, but that's not so wrong as long as it doesn't overextend and hurt society more in the process. Which is something we're all fearful of. But at the end of the day you're jumping to conclusions, however preventative they may be. I'm hoping that sooner or later people susceptible to manipulation will recognize these attempts and understand the counter-arguments. You can't just babysit the crowd with counter-interest groups all the time. An example of that would be privacy-advocates losing their battles and even though enough people are concerned they don't do anything, which is another step required to take. This approach requires us to have little bit of faith in humanity, because honestly that's the only thing we have left.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by cyth

You've opened up the debate to discussing general manipulation. I think that there's a sizeable population of feminists who find manipulative tactics repulsive. But that it isn't protested against is a pattern that's general to the larger society unless another group tries to push against it with comparable strength.

You can argue that there's a large shift to push the feminist agenda and I'm inclined to agree with you, but that's not so wrong as long as it doesn't overextend and hurt society more in the process. Which is something we're all fearful of. But at the end of the day you're jumping to conclusions, however preventative they may be. I'm hoping that sooner or later people susceptible to manipulation will recognize these attempts and understand the counter-arguments. You can't just babysit the crowd with counter-interest groups all the time. An example of that would be privacy-advocates losing their battles and even though enough people are concerned they don't do anything, which is another step required to take. This approach requires us to have little bit of faith in humanity, because honestly that's the only thing we have left.

There are two issues with this approach.

One is it caused much discomfort, stressed and harassment toward those who , frankly caught in the crossfire of their campaign.

Secondly, the manipulation approached eventually will draw counter reaction from those from neutral ground, and will draw bad name and obstruct feminism efforts in the first place. Some of the more radical feminists for example made a lots of enemies over Gamergate# or Taylor's shirt. The Shirtgate is much more straight forward. But one about gaming industries are not. Even when they held the media and control the stories in general public eyes, gamers will always turned to one of their own for gaming news/ opinions. Seriously, do you think people will believe the words of those self-claimed feminists strawmaning people on internet. Or the guy who has taught them about correct practices in gaming industries from both consumers and developers POV?

And that was just game, anime will be a different beast altogether. You dare to insult our waifu and you will immediately face the wrath. No question needed to be asked :P