Don't do this if it its a pain, but because each character "sprite" is a different size, it'd be easier to use if it was broken up. Like a zip with each character having their own png file. Just a suggestion, and again don't do it if its a bother though. Great job btw and thanks for the work.
>>The threats and name calling against Adria aren't debate, they're just tactics used to silence people.
Very true. I guess what I’m saying is more- when you have such an already nasty and heated debate, you not going to get a nice calm response from the internet- but that doesn’t mean there isn’t an underlying issue. Yeah, I admit I’m wayyyy more on the MRA side- but I’m just trying to show how these are two very different ideologies. You can’t have a call of moderation, of the middle ground, when you have a ton of people who don’t believe in a middle ground. And it’s an arms race- her picture got him fired, it worked; their DDOS and complaints got her fired. As soon as one side stops- the other gains enormous political and economic power. Yeah it makes each side look a little nutty, but nutty people get stuff done. I'm a bit glad it happened, not in the sense getting two people fired and name calling is productive, but it shines some light on the debate. Where does one person's rights end and another begin?
>>There are of course moderate and radical MRAs, although while I've met plenty of feminists who categorically decry the views of the radical wing of feminism, I have yet to see a moderate MRA publicly criticize radical MRAs. Perhaps you can point me to an instance of this happening.
If you seriously believe that the academically stratified femenism is less monolithic than the chaotic mess of opinions of MRAs, where people argue and disagree with each other on internet forums… well, actually that makes me kinda jealous. One of the main reason why I’m annoyed with MRAs- is because they never stop arguing with each other. I’ve never read one feminist attack more radical feminists, but I’m sure it happens all the time... but I don't really care. I want to know which one is right and which one is wrong on each issue.
The part I find fascinating about all this, the issue, not just your post- is I often see blindness to the heated debate happening about gender rights, roles and the nature of equality. It’s as if someone didn't know there was an abortion or religion debate. You step into this debate; you're going to get immense flak.
Let me outline the main sides:
1- Radfems believe that there is a prevalent social construct in the western world, called Patriarchy, that effectively suppresses all women everywhere- due primarily to misogyny (hatred of women). And they define misogynistic speech broadly- as essential anything that ever offends a single women- because it promotes an ‘unsafe’ atmosphere. What a joke or opinion says about women is not important to feminists. Logic is something like:
Men make statement or a joke. This offends a woman or multiple women. This drives women away. (‘controls’) This creates male only spaces. (Like segregated golf courses)
If it doesn’t offend a woman, it won’t create a male only space; if it does, it will. Essentially, Anita feeling offended is sufficient evidence of misogyny and repression.
Furthermore, standing up to (and shutting down) any of the tiniest misogynistic/offensive speech is a part of a worldwide crusade against Patriarchy and to liberate women.
Joan of Arc is a very apt view of how they see themselves.
2- MRA's on the other hand- see the suppression of women's rights in the past as due to the exact opposite repressive over-protective love: a "Benevolent Sexism." E.g. the same men and WOMEN who would have found a women working outside of the home to be improper (like in a factory) are exactly the same people who would shame you, or physically harm you(a slap or punch in the face) for making a sexual joke around a woman. These men and women would say: when a woman enters the room you stand up and tip your cap, when a ship sinks you give your lifeboat seat up for a women, and you don’t let women work 16 to 20 hour shifts in iron foundries. The woman’s rights movement under this view- is not a cultural phenomenon at all, but simply that society, and in particular workplaces have become easy and safe enough for benevolent sexists to allow women more freedom.
From an MRA view:
The Middle East dresses women in hijabs not because of misogynist hatred of women or their bodies, but an insane obsession to protect them from rape. Essentially to protect them from ‘objectification’ and misogyny.
If someone talks about gender equality or misogyny in the tech field, but they don’t seem to care about the lack of women coal mining - then they don’t care about equality, they care about protecting women over men.
If you don’t want people to say, “make me a sandwich,” but you don’t really care that 99% of workplace deaths are male- then you don’t care about gender equality, you care about protecting women over men.
So from an MRA view, a lot of talk about 'misogyny' is not only sexist to women (let’s wrap women in pink bubble wrap) White Knight prattle, but also fuel for the feminist agenda which casts women in perpetual victimhood to constantly milk more economic, legal, and parental rights. MRA’s want people to stop babying women- and instead encourage them to put on their ‘big girl pants’ and act like adults. To some MRAs defending women too stronger from misogynistic speech is counterproductive, hurtful to men's rights and women's agency, sexist to both, and when including jokes- very offensive to those who value comedy and free speech.
I’ve way over simplified both sides, and the debate goes much deeper, issues like how feminists tend to want equality of results where MRAs tend to want an ‘equal playing field.’ But what’s important to understand, this is much more than mob mentality- this is a serious and heated ideological debate. Calling it ‘mob mentality’ is insulting to both sides. Mob mentality is a word we use when theres lots of people acting in a way we don't agree with and don't understand. If you think people are mindlessly following one side or the other without thinking about it- then you’re completely ignorant- these are issues people obsess over.
These are issues people murder each other over.
These are issues people kill themselves over (including dousing themselves with gasoline and self-immolating).
Again, I’m not saying two job losses is good, or this wasn’t a terrible overreaction. However, writing a post saying essential- ‘Hey guys calm down’ is a bit like telling the Nazis and Soviets or Israelis and Palestinians to just ‘get along.’ Okay the last examles were too extreme, but you do have two large groups of people that don’t agree on a bunch of serious issues.
If anything there needs to be an even wider and more public debate.
Don't do this if it its a pain, but because each character "sprite" is a different size, it'd be easier to use if it was broken up. Like a zip with each character having their own png file. Just a suggestion, and again don't do it if its a bother though. Great job btw and thanks for the work.
>>The threats and name calling against Adria aren't debate, they're just tactics used to silence people.
Very true. I guess what I’m saying is more- when you have such an already nasty and heated debate, you not going to get a nice calm response from the internet- but that doesn’t mean there isn’t an underlying issue. Yeah, I admit I’m wayyyy more on the MRA side- but I’m just trying to show how these are two very different ideologies. You can’t have a call of moderation, of the middle ground, when you have a ton of people who don’t believe in a middle ground. And it’s an arms race- her picture got him fired, it worked; their DDOS and complaints got her fired. As soon as one side stops- the other gains enormous political and economic power. Yeah it makes each side look a little nutty, but nutty people get stuff done. I'm a bit glad it happened, not in the sense getting two people fired and name calling is productive, but it shines some light on the debate. Where does one person's rights end and another begin?
>>There are of course moderate and radical MRAs, although while I've met plenty of feminists who categorically decry the views of the radical wing of feminism, I have yet to see a moderate MRA publicly criticize radical MRAs. Perhaps you can point me to an instance of this happening.
Of course- http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/x4vop/this_needs_to_stop_now/
If you seriously believe that the academically stratified femenism is less monolithic than the chaotic mess of opinions of MRAs, where people argue and disagree with each other on internet forums… well, actually that makes me kinda jealous. One of the main reason why I’m annoyed with MRAs- is because they never stop arguing with each other. I’ve never read one feminist attack more radical feminists, but I’m sure it happens all the time... but I don't really care. I want to know which one is right and which one is wrong on each issue.
The part I find fascinating about all this, the issue, not just your post- is I often see blindness to the heated debate happening about gender rights, roles and the nature of equality. It’s as if someone didn't know there was an abortion or religion debate. You step into this debate; you're going to get immense flak.
Let me outline the main sides:
1- Radfems believe that there is a prevalent social construct in the western world, called Patriarchy, that effectively suppresses all women everywhere- due primarily to misogyny (hatred of women). And they define misogynistic speech broadly- as essential anything that ever offends a single women- because it promotes an ‘unsafe’ atmosphere. What a joke or opinion says about women is not important to feminists. Logic is something like:
Men make statement or a joke.
This offends a woman or multiple women.
This drives women away. (‘controls’)
This creates male only spaces. (Like segregated golf courses)
If it doesn’t offend a woman, it won’t create a male only space; if it does, it will. Essentially, Anita feeling offended is sufficient evidence of misogyny and repression.
Furthermore, standing up to (and shutting down) any of the tiniest misogynistic/offensive speech is a part of a worldwide crusade against Patriarchy and to liberate women.
Joan of Arc is a very apt view of how they see themselves.
2- MRA's on the other hand- see the suppression of women's rights in the past as due to the exact opposite repressive over-protective love: a "Benevolent Sexism." E.g. the same men and WOMEN who would have found a women working outside of the home to be improper (like in a factory) are exactly the same people who would shame you, or physically harm you(a slap or punch in the face) for making a sexual joke around a woman. These men and women would say: when a woman enters the room you stand up and tip your cap, when a ship sinks you give your lifeboat seat up for a women, and you don’t let women work 16 to 20 hour shifts in iron foundries. The woman’s rights movement under this view- is not a cultural phenomenon at all, but simply that society, and in particular workplaces have become easy and safe enough for benevolent sexists to allow women more freedom.
From an MRA view:
The Middle East dresses women in hijabs not because of misogynist hatred of women or their bodies, but an insane obsession to protect them from rape. Essentially to protect them from ‘objectification’ and misogyny.
If someone talks about gender equality or misogyny in the tech field, but they don’t seem to care about the lack of women coal mining - then they don’t care about equality, they care about protecting women over men.
If you don’t want people to say, “make me a sandwich,” but you don’t really care that 99% of workplace deaths are male- then you don’t care about gender equality, you care about protecting women over men.
So from an MRA view, a lot of talk about 'misogyny' is not only sexist to women (let’s wrap women in pink bubble wrap) White Knight prattle, but also fuel for the feminist agenda which casts women in perpetual victimhood to constantly milk more economic, legal, and parental rights. MRA’s want people to stop babying women- and instead encourage them to put on their ‘big girl pants’ and act like adults. To some MRAs defending women too stronger from misogynistic speech is counterproductive, hurtful to men's rights and women's agency, sexist to both, and when including jokes- very offensive to those who value comedy and free speech.
I’ve way over simplified both sides, and the debate goes much deeper, issues like how feminists tend to want equality of results where MRAs tend to want an ‘equal playing field.’ But what’s important to understand, this is much more than mob mentality- this is a serious and heated ideological debate. Calling it ‘mob mentality’ is insulting to both sides. Mob mentality is a word we use when theres lots of people acting in a way we don't agree with and don't understand. If you think people are mindlessly following one side or the other without thinking about it- then you’re completely ignorant- these are issues people obsess over.
These are issues people murder each other over.
These are issues people kill themselves over (including dousing themselves with gasoline and self-immolating).
Again, I’m not saying two job losses is good, or this wasn’t a terrible overreaction. However, writing a post saying essential- ‘Hey guys calm down’ is a bit like telling the Nazis and Soviets or Israelis and Palestinians to just ‘get along.’ Okay the last examles were too extreme, but you do have two large groups of people that don’t agree on a bunch of serious issues.
If anything there needs to be an even wider and more public debate.