Potty Mouth Princesses (OR) How to Undermine Your Message 101

“What the fuck? I’m not some pretty fucking helpless princess in distress,” they shout." 

So...yeah:
Step one: stop treating girls like victims who need to be protected and saved from themselves. When we accept responsibility of making our own choices, we also implicitly accept the consequences when we make bad ones. Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand, implying that we are now responsible for our own safety as well. I don't need a man to protect me, I don't need a husband to keep me in line, and I don't need the government telling me what to do with my body. But I also accept that sometimes decisions have disastrous results and horrific unintended consequences. Does this mean that someone was asking for it? No. Absolutely not. Rape is never appropriate nor justified.
But, "teach men not to rape" doesn't address the problem. People who rape others don't do it because they think it's okay. They do it because they don't care about the differences between right and wrong, and they're just interested in getting what they think is theirs to take. This isn't a gender issue.

"Don't lock your doors! Teach burglars not to steal!"
"Don't tell kids not to talk to strangers! Teach strangers to stop kidnapping kids!"
"Don't teach people to not walk around with a wad of cash in a dangerous neighborhood! Teach muggers not to mug people!"

Pretty stupid, right? Am I missing something?

Of course, it would be helpful to note that a new study has found that under the current definition, men are raped as often as women BY WOMEN. Men are also raped by men. Women are also raped by women. Did you also know that men are also just as likely to be victims of domestic violence as women, but you know...facts are apparently the patriarchy. Instead, we're going to just keep drinking that kool-aid. Good on you. Ignore facts. They never did anything for you anyway.
 
I don't get to abdicate my responsibility to and for my own body for any reason. I don't need a man to protect me. I will protect myself. I will do so by making choices that are wise and vigilant. When I ask society to protect me for me, I've returned to the image of the meek housewife who faints at the mention of masturbation.
 
"When you constantly point at other factors as being completely at fault--the patriarchy, discrimination, sexism, even sexual predators--what you end up with is a whole group of people who may feel empowered, but they aren't, and subconsciously they know that they've been further disenfranchised on a deeply human level. If you are never held accountable for your decisions, you're being told that you're essentially as ineffectual as a child."

I couldn't have said it better myself. 


Furthermore, I like sex. I embrace my sexuality and I'm not offended or patronized or insulted when another human being expresses appreciation for my body unsolicited whether I find that person attractive or not. Sure, these people can be crass, but that's not illegal. And neither do I have any defined right to go through life never feeling offended.
 
"The sexual revolution gave women control over their sexual destiny by letting them conduct their sexual lives based on their own individual risk-reward assessment without being stigmatized as prudes or sluts. Its promise never was and never will be to guarantee complete safety — an impossible goal. What's more, this revolution managed to deliver its gains without sacrificing liberal norms of justice. It is implausible and dangerous to suggest that after all these gains these norms now must be trampled for further progress."

The world is offensive. Read "All Quite on the Western Front" if you want to experience offense, or better yet, take a general breadth course in world history - that should give you a good dose of offense. Someone on the street that I'm likely never going to see again saying, "Hey baby, can I get those digits?" is not offensive, even if it makes you feel uncomfortable. You have no protected right to go through life never feeling uncomfortable. Life is uncomfortable. Embrace the uncomfortable and grow.

And one more thing: we already teach children about consent. We teach them that their body is their own and no one has a right to touch them, even if they're being nice. Leave it at that and stop driving divides between our youth. Let them just see their friend as their friend - don't bait and force them to identify their differences for the sake of pacifying your own guilt and lame attempts at nullifying your own prejudice.

A Whole Lotta NOPE Going On (OR) This is what selection bias looks like (OR) Anita Sarkeesian is a HACK (OR) Oppression Olympics FTW!

This is a note I made on Facebook months and months ago and I feel it needs to be revisited:

Would be nice if Anita Sarkeesian gave any sources, allowed for peer review or academic discussion about her assertions...but apparently, even a thumbs up and thumbs down system would be harrassment.

She also selectively chooses her material on the basis of supporting her argument, cherry picking scenes but eclipsing the overarching plot of the story such as her use of the Psychonauts character Lili Zanatto. Lili is abducted and saved by the main character, Raz, this is true, but what Sarkeesian conveniently fails to mention is that Raz is forced to save essentially every other camper (male, female, adult and child) at the Whispering Rocks Psychic Summer Camp. At the end of the game, Raz does not accomplish the final goal alone, rather Lili is by his side as an active participant in the victory. This is selection bias at it's finest, but apparently, you don't need context to see how much misogyny is threated throughout this video game (ugh). This is an academically dishonest use of source material, pure and simple.

To me, it seems as though Sarkeesian is expecting the audience to simply accept that violence against women in video games is inherently more damaging than violence in general. These videos pay no mind to the fact that the majority of video games has the protagonist (male or female) plowing through hundreds of faceless, nameless male peons to reach the boss battle. Instead, Sarkeesian seems to allude to the notion that violence against women should be taboo simply because those killed or trapped are women. Her exploration of the "female in the refrigerator" device suggests that had the character who is sacrificed to move a main character plot forward been male, the death would be more acceptable. If equality is truly what we pursue as a society, then such distinctions cannot and should not be made. Surely the death of any supporting character would have the similar impact of driving the story, regardless of gender - rather it is the value of the relationship that the main character shares with the sacrificed character which determines the audiences reaction. The generic structure of a male character losing a spouse would be for the husband to lose his wife, not because the video game creators are perpetrating violence against women, but because the predominant demographic of video game players are male. There is an inherent, biological desire to protect women and THAT is the truth about male/female relations. These are tropes only insomuch as they represent the devastation of a loss so deep - that of a parent/spouse/child - that the protagonist cannot help but relate.

These revenge plots, wherein the male protagonist is avenging the death of someone other than his wife/daughter/mother/sister, are a fundamental story arch that is used in literature, film, and theater and is not inherently misogynist because of the gender of the individual person who dies. That the sacrifice is a female should have no different impact on the audience than if the sacrifice is male. Revenge quests are always preceded by the death of some character and yet, Sarkeesian takes particular issue with those quests which are preceded by the deaths of women while again making little mention of those story lines wherein the sacrifice is male or the roles reversed entirely, saying only that such games are virtually nonexistent. This is factually untrue. A brief survey of video games reveal a wealth of female protagonists who are engaged specifically in revenge quests. Some examples of this reversal are Jill Valentine from the Resident Evil series, Samus from Metroid whose entire family was killed preceding her revenge quest, Chun-Li avenges the death of her father in Street Fighter, Annie from Wild Guns shares a similar plot with True Grit but with a female playable protagonist, Ayame from Tenchu has her entire village killed as well as the male lead until Tenchu III and so she takes up the yoke of avenging everyone she knew and loved. There are numerous examples of women in the revenge roles and I only wish to point out the flaw in Sarkeesian's selective arguments. 

The reason such plot lines are predominant are because they are compelling and relatable, not necessarily because they function as a male power fantasy. Such stories are just as compelling with a female protagonist avenging the death of a male family member. Yes, such plots are an easy fall back as the backbone of a story, but the fact remains that many video games are structured around generally violent concepts and the reason for that is pretty simple: violence sells as evident by the 20 or so variations and sequels of the Call of Duty franchise. You cannot frame a strong argument about "violence against women" and then discredit those women in video games who are presented on equal footing with their male counterparts claiming them to be exempt because they undermine the argument you are attempting to present as valid. Unfortunately, I cannot evaluate this claim effectively because Sarkeesian makes the assertion and then moves on without any discussion, just as she does with the assertion that some of the tropes "cross the line into blatant misogyny" without giving us a single example.

The Grand Theft Auto III example that Sarkeesian uses is yet another misrepresented video game, fitting in nicely next to her Psychonauts reference. In the opening scenes of this game, Maria Latore shoots the main character (because I cannot use the word protagonist to discuss any GTA game - ask anyone, I find the series detestable) in the head, putting him in prison and the revenge is set in motion from that point on. The entire plot line hinges on the death of Maria - shooting her was the goal in the very beginning. Her death was not because she was talking about "girly things" as Sarkeesian asserts. It's not misogyny when the Latore character was the crux of the plot line - she SHOT YOU IN THE HEAD.

Then she moves onto the cut scene vs. active participation in the killing of a female character for "their own good". Many of these women are in the midst of transforming into a monster and are literally begging to be put out of their misery or are voluntarily sacrificing their lives to serve the common good. In the circumstances in which the player is asked to kill a female character at all, these scenes are accompanied by a sense of reservation and remorse - the mercy killing is a better option than the fate that is inevitable should you not pull the trigger. Unless, of course, she was a villian from the beginning of the story, in which case there should be no distinction made. Anita again seems to argue that the violence perpetrated against women is inherently worse than violence perpetrated against men. One powerful example of this implicit in Sarkeesian's assumptions as there is now extensive documentation of serious conflating of statistical analysis surrounding the development of annual domestic violence rates. Turns out, the truth is a lot more complicated.

Sarkeesian pays no mind to the hundreds of men that you slaughtered to get to the cut scene, they are simply an obstacle to be destroyed and never thought of again. Additionally, there are plenty of games wherein the more ridiculous or unnecessary the means by which a man dies at the players hands is not only acceptable, but rewarded - such as in Dishonored where you can slow down time and allow a man to be shot by his own bullet earning the player various achievements. I see no outcry for that, but force a player to make a morally ambiguous and difficult decision about killing a woman and suddenly, the entire feminist community is frothing at the bit to rally and point out the misogyny of the industry.

Forcing a player to fight the loved one of the protagonist is prevalent, again, because it is compelling - because you, as the player, do not want to engage in this fight, but in order to save yourself, save the world, right the wrongs, etc, you must. Sarkeesian asserts that these types of fights are indicative of the justification of domestic violence perpetrated by men against women to return the women to their senses and connects it to the "real life epidemic of violence against women…on the planet" without any consideration to the reverse. Fortunately, I have done the research on the reverse and while the nature of violence is historically linked to a masculine energy, this assumption is inherently flawed as research has shown and continues to show that women are equally as likely to be violent and/or aggressive in intimate relationships. In fact, according to Dennis Hines et al, four conclusions can be made about the roles of men and women in domestic violence situations: “(1) the majority of women do not cite self-defense as a motive for their violence against their male partners, but rather anger, jealousy, retaliation for emotional hurt, efforts to gain control and dominance, and confusion; (2) half of all violent arguments are initiated by women; (3) in approximately 50% of violent relationships the violence is mutual, in approximately 25% the violence is perpetrated by only the male, and in approximately 25% the violence is perpetrated only by the female and; (4) on average, men do not have more power than women in American families.” (Hines, D., Brown, J., & Dunning, E. (2007). Characteristics of Callers to the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men. Journal of Family Violence, 22(2), 63-72. Web.) Hey - look at that, a source...

Sarkeensian makes the observation that video game developers are “[un]concerned about the struggles of women in navigating the mental, emotional and physical ramifications of violence” - to which I must reply: such dialogues are not explored for either gender for the obvious reason that such a transaction would make for a miserably boring video game.

The video in question (only watch it if you really, really must):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toa_vH6xGqs

"A 13-Year-Old's Slavery Analogy Raises Some Uncomfortable Truths in School" (penned by Liz Dwyer)

So, this happened.

And I have some thoughts to share.

"Attempting to silence Williams by branding her a troublemaker and driving her off campus isn't the answer. Now she is walking away from this controversy convinced that white teachers don't want to educate black students at all."

With this, I absolutely agree. The response of the school district was wholly unjustified. What should have occurred is a legitimate evaluation as to why this student feels that students must be compelled to "start making these white teachers accountable for instructing you" and challenged teachers to do their jobs." These teachers are often overworked and underpaid, which isn't an excuse for the piss poor experiences of many students (of all backgrounds), but a symptom of a pedogical and methodological failure in the system of schools and a failure of districts, states, and federal governments to TREAT education as 1)a public good, 2) a human right, and 3) the best possible means of social mobility for all students. Instead, it is relegated to one of the first things to be attacked when cutting budgets and results in schools that are literally falling apart. (See Williams vs. State of California, 2007)

I'm not saying that the teachers bear no responsibility or that her experiences and observations aren't valid, but her analogy is as reductionist and flawed as saying we could fix it if we just spent more money. That's incomplete, too. (Of course, she is 13, so her analysis is still worthy of the attention and the dialogue it will create. For her insight, I applaud her.)

The most insightful part of this, I feel, is her recognition that "instead of truly teaching, most teachers simply 'pass out pamphlets and packets' and then expect students to complete them independently...[failing] because 'most of [her] peers cannot read and or comprehend the material that has been provided.'" But, this has very little to do with race. I see myself in her classrooms because these are the same recognitions I had when I was in middle and high school. Most of my classmates could barely read at a 5th grade level by 10th grade.

Having worked in many classrooms with children of all races and backgrounds, from infant stages to high school, I can attest that the more appropriate response to educational differences is individual, rather than asserting that white teachers "have a responsibility to figure out how to be effective with children of color." Teachers have a responsibility to effectively teach all children, regardless of color, and that begins at the beginning. That begins by not passing a student because you just want to get them through the system. That begins by promoting passion and interest. That begins by seeing the school as a community hub that does more than impart facts, but rather serves as a system of support ensuring a child is prepared to learn, share, and contribute. That means providing the basic necessities so that a child is not distracted by hunger, by violence, by fear, by prejudice, by pain. (I'm a crazy socialist, remember.) That means ensuring that a classroom is equipped with textbooks and technologies that reflect our current reality. That means ensuring the safety and well-being at the most base level. Because family does not end where blood is not shared - it is a state of mind and these children are my family, just as you are my family - and we have a responsibility to each other. The suffering of one is the suffering of all.

Do we need to engage in serious reflection on the practices of teachers? Absolutely. It is not, however, going to 'fix' anything by outright condemning an individual stuck in a broken system without addressing that system as well. The students have no support and neither do teachers.