Best products from r/SRSsucks

Long Rant... You've been warned.

Let me preface this statement: I'm a woman, I'm a minority, and I'm a feminist, which means I want equal rights for everyone. Based on my experience in a large city with a high minority population working in an occupation typically run by white males, it's still clear that equality needs to be addressed - not every white person is trying to oppress people and not every minority is a saint and shocking some perpetuate racism and sexism. You typically have little gauge for how an employer will behave based on age or race, however I've noticed women have a higher tendency to be more aggravating to work with because of insecurity. Women and men who are insecure bosses have nearly the same behavioral patterns, but one occurs more frequently than the other because of historical and current social norms. I unfortunately was gifted with a stereotypical "redditor" personality and spent a lot of time feeling alienated and twisted all over the place.

The fact that feminist writers/bloggers were receiving so many fucked up messages after the PyCon shows that there are still significant issues that need to be addressed. But going after the video game industry strawman in this way is a hugely hypocritical. In her analyses of characters, she doesn't touch on the fact that it's female romance authors which provide the pivotal negative female stereotypes while male writers have been in equal force in creating feminist characters. The entire damning existence of the biggest publishing genre of romance that constantly reinforces the anti-feminist sentiment on a magnitude so much greater than the video game industry.

Both the romance book industry and video gaming industry are profiting along the lines of gender separation, and both have their own wishfulfillment fantasies. Just glance at Kindle's bestseller list, and the most damning evidence of how feminism hasn't met its goals is staring you in the face with tripe stories about how the secretary wants to hop into bed with her millionaire/billionaire boss who may or may come from a culture where women are second class citizens or one of those "old-fashioned types." Women are buying these types of stories in large amounts. Where does someone like Sarkeesian and others like her get off throwing one industry under the bus and blatantly ignoring the other, which I think denotes that they're not as objective as they claim to be. Video gaming isn't as large of a media platform as movies, books and television.

I read her Buffy vs. Bella article, (which I mostly enjoyed and agreed with) and I noticed that she doesn't put out there that it was when a male wrote Buffy, it changed how so many young women viewed themselves in power. Even men have an easier time identifying with Buffy because it opened the idea of a female heroine who wasn't weak and was capable of handling herself. Bella was written by a female author and launched into its pop culture status not by a mixed gender group but a majority female group. It demonstrates that there is a problem of authorship and other layers of how most women are conflicted about how their sexual fantasies are fulfilled. If women get to find comfort in that arena through romance novels and stories, why are we going after men for the same thing? How do you justify going after men buying a video game where the girl needs to be rescued when you have books like The Billionaire's Obsession in the Top 10 of the Kindle Bestsellers List? (Note: I'm not criticizing this book or its author or the romance genre as I read and enjoy romance novels and media; my point is that there's a hypocrisy of where to judge the use of gender tropes.) How can the feminist cause be taken seriously when it's showing these sorts of conflicting market data? It's an embarrassment that Twilight, which looks like it was written by a 9th grader who just failed summer school English wrote it, has so much more market value to young women than other novels where the female character is empowered. I don't think video games (which is still a new industry) had very much of a factor in that, even when accounting for the levels of patriarchy.

TL;DR: Redressing the video game industry before going after the romance industry is a effort in futility. Why are women allowed to profit from the gender archetypes but men are not? We talk about empowerment, but all this time we don't use what clout we do have to empower ourselves, we pervasively wait for men to act as agents of change we want to see in ourselves. Sarkeesian is technically doing what she's accusing the video game industry of doing - she's waiting for men to be agents of action and change in feminism. It shifts back to the fact that men change the dialog because when women are left to do so, they fall back into traditional gender norms for storytelling.


EDIT: I loved KiteTales video reply to Anita.

> a) many Jews felt polish and were quite proud to contribute. I don't know why but I believe many liked it there in Poland, more than other eastern european countries, maybe has to do with the fact Poland is one of the few that didn't have a time where it expelled them.

Well, Poland wasn't a paradise but as you said, antisemitism in Poland wasn't as bad as in the rest of the Europe. If you were a Jew at that time where would you want to live? In the least antisemitic country I bet. I think that in the context of how world looked at that time Poland was a rather nice place for Jews (but for sure not as good as it is today).

Also joining a university is a natural way for an educated person that values knowledge so for Jews joining university was, well, a natural thing to do. Seriously, removing Jews from unis seems so silly like nowdays removing/blocking men so there would be more place for women.

About b) you would have to tell me more, because I don't follow what you want to tell.

You might be interested in that book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendel_Gda%C5%84ski

Can't find english translation though... it might be here: https://www.amazon.com/Stranger-Our-Midst-Images-Literature/dp/080148104X

but I have no acces to the part I would like to check.

And as a whole, it seems about as harmless as some woman offering girls advice about how not to look like clowns when putting on makeup.

Or how to dress so they feel sexy.

The fact is, on average, women tend to like men that look a certain way. Of course when you say this, a few women will jump in and adamantly swear that it's not like that for them at all.

As if they're trying to save the honor of all womanhood:

>"No, women aren't swayed by sexual things as men's bodies. Women are far better than you lustful men and your focus on sex and certain kinds of bodies."

Fortunately with the rise of the internet, more and more women can speak their mind anonymously without nearly as much tone policing of the above female "White Knights"

Have there been any studies done on this or are you just talking mostly about trans feminists? I'd be much more interested in the experiences of trans people who don't have a vested interest in a certain gender narrative.

There was an article on some major news sites about a lesbian woman who dressed up, acted like, and pretended to be a man for a year and a half to see how men really act and how other people treat men. I think she was even a self described feminist. She became good friends with a group of guys she joined a bowling league with. She was shocked by how much more badly she was often treated as a man and realized how many problems she faced living as a man. Ultimately she said it made her her realize that she was actually privileged to live as a woman.

Edit: here's the book she wrote about it

http://www.amazon.com/Self-Made-Man-Womans-Year-Disguised/dp/0143038702

And here's the ABC article:

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Entertainment/story?id=1526982

But when her formerly liberal and secular father set out to produce a documentary about the WBC, his detached interest gradually evolved into fascination, and he moved the entire family to Kansas to join the church and live on their compound.

I feel like those assumptions are, at least in part, backed up by the experiences of transgender people. I've read accounts of transgender women (MTF) who talk about how they're shocked to find just how often people start making passes at them. And nearly every transgender woman who writes about her transition ends up talking about how they're shocked at how much more often they're told to smile.

Julia Serano writes about this in her book Whipping Girl - the part about smiling is in chapter 19, but the whole book's filled with fascinating stuff, even if you don't endorse her more radical conclusions.

http://www.amazon.com/Clickers-J-F-Gonzalez/dp/193638342X

Really? I'm glad I'm squatting against such a book. You should really reevaluate your taste in literature. I have some books on feminist theories if you'd like to read them, instead.

Well, she did have to actually make the videos with non-horrible production quality. That would require an investment in a prosumer camera, external field recorder with timecoding and some lighting that you could totally buy at Harbor Freight... That only leaves enough money for a brand new BMW, a nice used Cessna 172 and a few pairs of expensive shoes.

For anyone who hasn't read it, Sokal wrote a book with Jean Bricmont that goes in depth on this stuff, and it is glorious.

No excuse for this, period. Being raised without a father doesn't mean you become a Nazi and run someone over at a rally.

There's a great book that changed my worldview on this subject:

https://www.amazon.com/Mans-Search-Meaning-Viktor-Frankl/dp/080701429X

Let's actually do the math. Here is 36 tampons:

http://www.amazon.com/Playtex-Unscented-Tampon-Regular-Absorbency/dp/B003V08GMU

Let's presume that women have seven days a month of menstruation. Every day, they change their tampon four times. That works out to 28 tampons a month. Within a year, then, that requires 336, or ten boxes of these. The total cost of this expense, in one year, is $69.50. At a tax rate of 4%, this works out to the grand total of $2.78.

To reach a $10 expense per year, you'd need to buy just under 36 boxes of these.

If you're curious about a "survey overview" of postmodernism from conception to today, check out Explaining Post-Modernism. It's only $4 + change on kindle.

"Explaining postmodernism: read it, and feel all logic and sense drain away."
~ Prof. Jordan B. Peterson, U of Toronto.

I don't think they took the name. Postmodern is a label that gets thrown at anyone whose thinking has evolved since 1950.

Rand is mental poison, man. That woman's thinking is purely toxic. Her ideal man was a pedorapist killer. She was fucked in the head.

You want a good intellectual foundation for libertarianism, go read some Robert Anton Wilson. Try his book T.S.O.G. - The Thing That The Constitution. Much better for your brain.

Isn't that the premise of this book?

This one ought to do.

Snapshots:

1. This Post - 1, 2
   
   ^(I am a bot.) ^([Info](/r/SnapshillBot) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=\/r\/SnapshillBot))

> That means the video was from 2000 (if this story takes place this year)

> So, uh. That means he couldn't have taken it with a digital camera.

Oh, you younguns.

http://www.amazon.com/Logitech-961121-0403-QuickCam-Express/dp/B00001U0AJ

Date first available at Amazon.com: October 15, 1999. I was stationed in Germany in 1998 and used a web cam almost exactly like this one to talk to my parents back home.

I know! It's crazy! We had the internets and everything!

Well it's not us that outputs this type of shit:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Sexual-Politics-Meat-Feminist-vegetarian/dp/1441173285