Joss Whedon is sexists!!111!

[Hecatoncheires]

I blame Mel Gibson.

 

[Jorick]

I blame Mel Gibson.

I do too, not even a little bit joking. Fuckin' Braveheart. Decent movie, but it had far too many goofballs thinking it was historically accurate.

 

[Hellis]

I blame Mel for alot of things.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

Braveheart was a fun movie, I wouldn't treat it as a history lesson though.

 

[Marionette]

I haven't seen the movie yet and am not particularly interested in what appears to be a pretty one-sided debate, but y'all should keep in mind that he did not delete his twitter because of feminists. He deleted it because he's a writer and writers have to write. Twitter is super distracting. :P He also noted that Anita Sarkeesian was one of the first few people to ask him if he was alright when he deleted and defended her for putting up with way more frequent and virulent harassment.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

I haven't seen the movie yet and am not particularly interested in what appears to be a pretty one-sided debate, but y'all should keep in mind that he did not delete his twitter because of feminists. He deleted it because he's a writer and writers have to write. Twitter is super distracting. :P He also noted that Anita Sarkeesian was one of the first few people to ask him if he was alright when he deleted and defended her for putting up with way more frequent and virulent harassment.

This was mentioned earlier.
It's just that if he was actually kicked off or not wasn't the main focus, but if Black Widow was actually sexist or not.

Also, feminism has so many sub-groups to it now that Anita checking on him doesn't really amount to too much.

 

[Marionette]

This was mentioned earlier.
It's just that if he was actually kicked off or not wasn't the main focus, but if Black Widow was actually sexist or not.

Also, feminism has so many sub-groups to it now that Anita checking on him doesn't really amount to too much.

Ah, sorry, I looked over the thread but must have missed it. Carry on, then. I'm just a little tired of people freaking out that omg evil feminists drove Joss away when it's just not true. The points of one side of the Black Window debate are being mostly reduced to "angry tumblr" and social justice being mentioned in the context of an insult, so even after I see the film, I'm not terribly motivated to to engage. It seems like most people have made up their minds already.

And yes, that's certainly true (the fact that feminism isn't a monolith is something even he seems to miss with the "snake hath et its tail" bit). But I'm seeing a lot of blanket "crazy feminists" statements surrounding this situation (again, treating it as a monolith when it's not) and the aligning of anyone who has issues with his work and gross people who send death threats. Sarkeesian is likely the most widely hated internet feminist for ~ruining media~ with her criticisms, yet she's pals with Whedon and they respect each other, so she's a good example of the fact that criticizing sexism (as you see it) is not the innate insult and harassment people make it out to be.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

But I'm seeing a lot of blanket "crazy feminists" statements surrounding this situation (again, treating it as a monolith when it's not)

Personally when I say "Crazy Feminist" I'm referring to strictly to those who go out of there way to be offended.
Individuals like that exist among too many camps of Feminism them for me to call them out individually.
And if I did call out groups individually I'm also including those in said groups who aren't like that.
So Crazy is basically a quick way to describe certain individuals among several groups without accidentally including others.

and the aligning of anyone who has issues with his work and gross people who send death threats.

I'm not sure anyone in this thread has said that.
Most people seem to disagree with the criticisms, but I think everyone here knows better than to assume that everyone who holds said criticisms is launching said attacks.

Sarkeesian is likely the most widely hated internet feminist for ~ruining media~ with her criticisms, yet she's pals with Whedon and they respect each other, so she's a good example of the fact that criticizing sexism (as you see it) is not the innate insult and harassment people make it out to be.

Anita has never really been one to send out death threats and such herself though, so I'm not too surprised.
I disagree with her arguments strongly, I find her to be a skilled con artist at faking harassment, faking sexism etc.
But she's not the worse human being (or feminist) to walk the earth, she has her limits.

Sexist? Yes. Racist? Yes.
But not violent.

 

[Marionette]

Personally when I say "Crazy Feminist" I'm referring to strictly to those who go out of there way to be offended.
Individuals like that exist among too many camps of Feminism them for me to call them out individually.
And if I did call out groups individually I'm also including those in said groups who aren't like that.
So Crazy is basically a quick way to describe certain individuals among several groups without accidentally including others.

I'm not sure anyone in this thread has said that.
Most people seem to disagree with the criticisms, but I think everyone here knows better than to assume that everyone who holds said criticisms is launching said attacks.

Anita has never really been one to send out death threats and such herself though, so I'm not too surprised.
I disagree with her arguments strongly, I find her to be a skilled con artist at faking harassment, faking sexism etc.
But she's not the worse human being (or feminist) to walk the earth, she has her limits.

Sexist? Yes. Racist? Yes.
But not violent.

The idea that feminists "go out of their way to be offended" is pretty harmful in general. It's used to dismiss every issue with sexism one could possibly have and ignorant of the fact that as a woman, every day is touched by institutionalized sexism. It's impossible to escape. Having a different opinion from you, informed by different life experiences, and seeing problems you might not is not "crazy."

You also also acknowledge that your problem is with individuals and not the entire groups, yet instead of targeting abusers, you still use the word "feminists." "Crazy" isn't a useful distinction here because so many people, again, view all feminists that way (and it's not really an accurate description of abusers in general, who know exactly what they're doing). Whether you view it this way or not, you're playing into verbiage that automatically dismisses a very large and diverse group of people who experience real problems that need to be addressed. This, and the boiling down of arguments to "angry tumblr" is what I'm talking about. It's shorthand that conveniently ignores issues by putting them down... ad hominem stuff.

Faking death threats and harassment? That's pretty hilarious. Back when she had comments open on her videos, I personally witnessed hundreds of violent threats and severe insults (they're off now for a reason). It's nigh impossible that she would even be able to fake all of these, and to ignore it is straight up ignoring the reality of harassment of women (especially young women and public figures) online, which is common, virulent, and, yes, sexist. This isn't just my opinion (though it is my experience). The thing is, when it happens to Anita, the gravity of it is controversial and she's "faking" and people will go to the ends of the Earth to disprove it. When it happens to Joss (on, he admits himself, a much lesser scale), it's evil crazy feminists! When it happens to Anita, it's just trolls or she needs to toughen up. When it happens to Joss, evil crazy feminists!

But Anita isn't what this thread is about, and I initially just wanted to clarify the error in the first post (didn't realize someone had mentioned it already).

 

[Brovo]

he did not delete his twitter because of feminists.

fyi: "The Mary Sue" is not a good source for news articles concerning feminism, or anything really. It's painfully biased, and blatantly steals news articles from other sites. Probably one of the most biased news sites I've ever seen, only beaten out by Jezebel. Barely. Sadly, Buzzfeed is a more reliable source. Mainly because TMS ripped it straight from Buzzfeed word for word and then proceeded to try and use it as evidence to bash Gamergate some more--something which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

As for everything else? Going off topic, but it can basically be summarized as thus. If you think that's maddening: Welcome to feminism, there's multiple factions within it that have struck off to many wildly varying places on the political scale. Mainly because it's akin to a hashtag movement: Anyone can call themselves a feminist and do things in the name of feminism. There's no feminist inquisition that tries to prove if you're a real feminist or not, though some feminists groups actually try, and the results flip between hilarious and tragic. We've even got a bit of that on site here: I know some pretty chill n' awesome people who are feminists, and other people who have gone completely insane and allowed it to consume their lives.

I like to use a guiding yardstrick, a rule of thumb: If you switched the genders, would you be offended by the actions happening to the character, or by the character? If the answer is no, it's probably not sexist. It's probably just poor writing, or, you don't enjoy that kind of writing.

It's good to listen to people with grievances, sometimes they can show you something you couldn't have perceived before. Just don't listen so intently that your brain falls out, cuz' often times people with grievances are just bitching about something they don't like and slapping an accusatory label on it: Like sexism, or racism, or classism, or ableism(???), or so on.

 

[Marionette]

fyi: "The Mary Sue" is not a good source for news articles concerning feminism, or anything really. It's painfully biased, and blatantly steals news articles from other sites. Probably one of the most biased news sites I've ever seen, only beaten out by Jezebel. Barely. Sadly, Buzzfeed is a more reliable source. Mainly because TMS ripped it straight from Buzzfeed word for word and then proceeded to try and use it as evidence to bash Gamergate some more--something which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

As for everything else? Going off topic, but it can basically be summarized as thus. If you think that's maddening: Welcome to feminism, there's multiple factions within it that have struck off to many wildly varying places on the political scale. Mainly because it's akin to a hashtag movement: Anyone can call themselves a feminist and do things in the name of feminism. There's no feminist inquisition that tries to prove if you're a real feminist or not, though some feminists groups actually try, and the results flip between hilarious and tragic. We've even got a bit of that on site here: I know some pretty chill n' awesome people who are feminists, and other people who have gone completely insane and allowed it to consume their lives.

I like to use a guiding yardstrick, a rule of thumb: If you switched the genders, would you be offended by the actions happening to the character, or by the character? If the answer is no, it's probably not sexist. It's probably just poor writing, or, you don't enjoy that kind of writing.

Oh, oops, I actually thought I had linked the Buzzfeed version. I was trying to find it again and had several articles open in several tabs, so I must've copied the wrong one. My bad. I don't entirely agree on the Mary Sue (the quality varies), but that's another tangent.

I'm not sure of the point of the video or that entire paragraph. I agree with the video, and it doesn't seem to really address anything I've said. What about that contradicts the idea that feminism is not a monolith and treating it as such is inaccurate?

I really disagree with this yardstick. Sometimes things that would not be problematic with a male character absolutely are with a female character because of pervasive double-standards. This, I think, actually intersects with the feminism vs. egalitarianism video. If you're treating characters exactly the same without regard to social climate and pre-established media trends that lock female characters into specific stereotypical roles, you're not really seeing the whole picture. Nor is a male character likely to be treated the same way. Within a certain work, if they are, then I'm much more inclined to see it this way.

 

[Brovo]

What about that contradicts the idea that feminism is not a monolith and treating it as such is inaccurate?

Because merely saying that you are a feminist adds additional weight and credence to your argument, even if it's completely insane. The guy in the video is arguing against equality, in the name of feminism, and you don't seem to see anything wrong with that. Isn't feminism supposed to be about achieving equality?

Sometimes things that would not be problematic with a male character absolutely are with a female character because of pervasive double-standards.

You don't dismantle double-standards by forcing writers to create static bricks. A perfect example is the damsel in distress trope, often seen as objectifying women. Except, as a pair of role players, let's break that trope down to its base parts.

• There are male damsels in distress. The trope is named "damsels" because it's traditionally a female role, but nothing stops anyone in the modern day from portraying a man in need of saving.
• Damsel is defined as: A young woman or girl; a maiden, originally one of gentle or noble birth. Not all women are maidens, not all women are of gentle or noble birth. Ergo, the trope by default, even at its traditional roots, does not include all women and cannot be used as a be all, end all example of women.
• When one saves a damsel in distress, the motivation is typically out of a sense of selflessness, loyalty, honour, chivalry, love, or otherwise noble qualities. It should also be noted that the person who saves a damsel in distress needn't necessarily be male, which is especially true in modern film. So it's not even a trope about dehumanizing women: It's a trope about their inherent value as people.

By feminist logic, we should stop using damsel in distress tropes with women because women traditionally dominate the role. Except, all this does is limit what it is a writer can and cannot create as a story. Is Star Wars any less amazing because Princess Leia required rescuing? Han Solo also needed to be rescued when he was frozen in carbonite, and Luke Skywalker when he was hanging precariously over a gas giant's inner atmosphere from some kind of communication antenna. In fact, I think Luke Skywalker needed saving more often than anyone else in the three films. Is Lord of the Rings any less amazing because it had a soft, frail elf chick fall in love with Aragorn, or because of Eowyn falling in love with Aragorn and being shunned? She goes on ahead to stab a lord of darkness in the face. These books were released 1954.

Heck, to rear this at least somewhat back on topic: Every single hero in the Avengers has had their low points, been beaten to a pulp, lost things they've cared about, and become introspective as a result. Iron Man fell in love with his assistant, and Thor needed help from a human woman to figure out how not to be a violent, vengeful asshole like his brother. Captain America fell in love with a woman and visited her decades later when he was unfrozen, when she was elderly. He has to live with the fact that the love of his life when he was young is now a decrepit old woman that moved on with her life while he was frozen.

Now, Black Widow has a moment of introspection, of weakness, and gets upset because she can't have kids. Suddenly, this is now sexist.

Do you see what I mean? That it's ridiculously insulting to say that because certain tropes get used more often with one gender or another, that it's sexist when that trope is played straight? If anything, we should be praising and encouraging people to get creative with gender roles and tropes, rather than screaming at people who play them straight and traditional. There's nothing inherently wrong with traditional roles, so long as the author is aware of the reality of the modern world, which the vast majority are.

 

[Marionette]

@Brovo Let me see if I can clarify it: he's not saying people shouldn't be equal or that feminism isn't about achieving equality (it is). He's saying that people are currently not equal, so giving everyone equal amounts of support starting now is not going to help address the inequality that already exists. Say you have 6 on one side and 2 on the other. You add 2 to both sides. Are they equal now? No, they're not. In order to actually achieve equality, you have to admit that there is a difference.

His problem is not with equality, which is a really over-simplistic reading that doesn't take into account what he actually said. This is why I really don't like getting into debates like this, honestly. I feel like my points are glossed over in favor of knee-jerk reactions.

The problem with these tropes is not that they are innately always terrible and that people can never enjoy them. However, this is not a vacuum. If you're not examining something's wider context, again, you are not seeing the whole picture. It's again like sticking to the idea that adding 2 to two different numbers will make them equal without taking into account that one number is already lower than the other. When you complain about limiting the ability of writers, the thing is, not examining these tropes and their usage critically limits the roles available to women in stories. When you see women appearing in just as varied roles as men do across all media, just as often, then this argument might have more credence. That is not the case right now, and widening women's roles in media is actively fought against because it is culturally ingrained that this is the role women should occupy in stories. People are not being encouraged to get creative with gender roles. There is backlash against emphasizing women in media, especially in ways that aren't stereotypical.

 

[Brovo]

Say you have 6 on one side and 2 on the other. You add 2 to both sides. Are they equal now? No, they're not.

Six of what unit? Two of what unit? There are minorities of all shapes and sizes who have achieved greatly in anything: From politics, to economics, to art, to science, to fiction, and all the way back again. The US has a black president, the UK had a female prime minister in the 80's, and there have been women murdering top tier bosses of evil in best selling, genre-defining fiction since 1954. As an individual human being, you are capable of achieving anything you set your mind towards. Ergo, it is illogical to suppress one group, and artificially prop another. It may take more work as a result of being part of minority X or Y, but as an egalitarian I can assure you that our position would be to improve the system so that inequality is no longer present on an individualistic basis.

In essence: If black discrimination is a problem (which it is), or female representation in fiction is a problem (which it isn't), egalitarians will stand up and fight it wherever it rears its ugly head. Whether that be reactionary or radical. I mean, the guy in the video even puts it pretty clearly: Extremist egalitarianism is... Treating everyone as equals regardless of their background. Rich or poor, white or black, man or woman. Allowing anyone to achieve the utmost of their potential as individuals. Why would this be a bad thing? Wouldn't feminists for equality support the idea of individual merit being paramount? Because that's how you generally resolve inequality: By giving those in unequal status the ability to obtain equality of their own merit, rather than trying to give it to them. Because Canada and the US tried to simply give equality to Native Americans via money and land: Now they live in squalour despite living on tax-free land. You cannot give someone freedom, you can only allow freedom to grow and hope that people will work hard enough to obtain it.

In short: If person A has six dollars and person B has two dollars, person B has less money. Giving person B three dollars by taking three dollars from person A doesn't create equality: It creates dependence. You don't solve inequality by giving a man a fish, you solve inequality by opening the pond to person B and teaching him how to fish. You have to work hard and want a better life to get one.

This is why I really don't like getting into debates like this, honestly. I feel like my points are glossed over in favor of knee-jerk reactions.

Understandable, but that's why I'm not simply going "durr hurr look at muh freedom" and trolling you. You're being quite earnest. We're having a dialogue.

If you're not examining something's wider context,

I did. I dissected the trope to its base components and drew in the entire Avengers movie catalog of their various one-offs: Thor movies, Iron Man movies, Captain America movies, et cetera. We're talking about the Avengers, so I used Avengers material ultimately as the crux of my example.

It's again like sticking to the idea that adding 2 to two different numbers will make them equal without taking into account that one number is already lower than the other.

It's like I never proposed this in the first place, because I believe in equality of opportunity. I also believe that if the system is equal and there's enough given incentive and leeway, group B can gain more of [arbitrary unit] by themselves of their own merit to achieve parity to group A. So long as they both have the equal opportunity to achieve, I won't even remotely entertain the idea of artificially limiting one group or artificially propping another based on gender: All you do is punish individuals in the unbalanced system. If you want to talk wealth? Sure. If you want to talk societal issues? I'll even grant that there can be work done there. If you want to talk about a movie? No. I sincerely doubt that the Avengers, or a trope, is contributing to any kind of women's rights issue.

When you complain about limiting the ability of writers, the thing is, not examining these tropes and their usage critically limits the roles available to women in stories.

Except for, you know, one of the biggest fantasy stories of all time, released in 1954, featuring a woman stabbing a lord of darkness in the face while stating the line "I'm no man".

When you see women appearing in just as varied roles as men do across all media, just as often, then this argument might have more credence.

Here's 34 examples from Buzzfeed. How many more do you need? In all seriousness: Attempting to achieve absolute parity and stringing every single author to the actions and behaviours of every other author is extremely limiting. What if Author A uses a damsel in distress trope? Does that mean that Author B can't now, in order to enforce parity?

That is not the case right now, and widening women's roles in media is actively fought against because it is culturally ingrained that this is the role women should occupy in stories.

I don't think anyone of any merit is actively protesting against Samus Aran, Laura Croft, Eowyn stabbing a dude in the face, and so on. I'm fairly sure people are protesting against dictating what a woman can and cannot be: Weak or strong, beautiful or ugly, good or evil, living or dead. I've never heard anyone (save abjectly disturbing individuals) attempt to state that women "should only be X", or "can't do Y".

This is why I'm saying "we should encourage diversity" and "not punish traditional roles", because you'll get a lot further in your goal of parity by attracting bees with honey instead of vinegar.

People are not being encouraged to get creative with gender roles. There is backlash against emphasizing women in media, especially in ways that aren't stereotypical.

The Walking Dead features a black woman with a katana who cuts zombie's heads off, nobody of any merit seems irritated by that unless they're generally irritated by the whole show. There's a dragon lady in Game of Thrones who can do pretty baller shit too. (Avoiding spoilers there.) Glee is a show that goes out of its way to show people from all walks of life and generally gets praised for it. The Big Bang Theory has an unattractive nerdy girl in the show that nobody seems to mind being there. The new Star Wars film appears to have a woman on some kind of speeder vehicle, nobody's offended by that. There was greater backlash about a black guy in a stormtrooper outfit, which everyone else found insanely disturbing and weird, but that doesn't seem to be stopping JJ Abrams from going through with it anyway.

One of my favourite TV shows of all time is called Babylon 5. It was a sci-fi space opera show that aired in the 90's. It featured characters like Lyta Alexander and Susan Ivanova, who were badass women that did badass things. Ivanova was a Rusian, even. Nobody complained about them existing. There's even a badass lady who has red skin with black dots, a race called the Narn, who straight up beats the shit out of a professional assassin with her bare hands. The fifth season featured a lesbian captain outright, and nobody complained about that.

This is one show out of hundreds that featured diversity. Given more time and encouragement, we can have more diversity. Think about it: If people react poorly to criticism (vinegar), use encouragement (honey), and you'll get a lot more people on board. Absolute parity shouldn't be the goal: That just creates boring, stale stories with very predictable twists. What should be the goal is the idea that it shouldn't matter what the skin tone of gender of the protagonist is to accomplish things. Whether that's being a badass lesbian space captain, or being part of a superhero team who gets to fuck with Loki's head by subverting the damsel in distress trope. Because I totally agree, Black Widow's character arc is fucking shitty. I don't think it's shitty because of sexism, though, I think it's shitty because she doesn't really get anything out of it aside from a romance. If BW was a male, I'd still think it was shitty.

 

[Jorick]

@Brovo Let me see if I can clarify it: he's not saying people shouldn't be equal or that feminism isn't about achieving equality (it is). He's saying that people are currently not equal, so giving everyone equal amounts of support starting now is not going to help address the inequality that already exists. Say you have 6 on one side and 2 on the other. You add 2 to both sides. Are they equal now? No, they're not. In order to actually achieve equality, you have to admit that there is a difference.

His problem is not with equality, which is a really over-simplistic reading that doesn't take into account what he actually said. This is why I really don't like getting into debates like this, honestly. I feel like my points are glossed over in favor of knee-jerk reactions.

The problem there is that the guy in that video does not actually understand what egalitarianism is. His explanation of it is the real over-simplistic reading. Egalitarianism is the belief that people are inherently of equal value, therefore they should be treated equally in politics, economics, and society. The egalitarian solution to inequality is not throwing 2 units to each side, it's to make the scales balanced. Seriously. Just as the legit feminists (ie not the crazy people who have hijacked the name) have the end goal of making sure men and women are actually equal on all levels, so too do egalitarians. The main difference between the two is that egalitarians have always been about making all people of every type have equal standing in the world, but feminists just got around to that relatively recently with intersectionality and the concept of the kyriarchy. Another difference is that egalitarians tend to pursue equality of opportunity rather than equality of circumstance, meaning for example that women have the exact same level of choice and freedom to pursue an engineering degree as men, not to make it so there are an equal number of male and female engineers. People should be free to pursue their own interests, not forced into things to make the numbers equal, and that's one point where a lot of feminists seem to diverge with actual egalitarians.

The guy in the video is arguing against a fundamentally mistaken idea of what egalitarianism is. For the sake of comparison, it's essentially the same thing as if I were to go make a video about how egalitarianism is better than feminism by acting like feminism is actually all about hating men. If you think that would be nonsense and do nothing at all to discredit feminism, then you now hopefully understand why Brovo posted that video as an example of nonsense.

 

[Marionette]

@Brovo I do agree that we're having a dialogue, and I'm appreciative of that, but I'm still not sure my points are getting across. I am attempting to remedy that by expressing them more clearly, of course. Burden on the author and all that.

It's not that the complexities of human life can be boiled down to something as simple as an arithmetic problem. That's just silly. :P It's just an illustration of the point he's making on the clearest and most basic level I can manage. We're not talking about just numbers that need to be rectified here but behaviors (he addresses this as well). Furthermore, no one is suppressing any group for the sake of an oppressed group, nor did my example ever mention taking anything away from anybody! That was your own imposition. My example explores not giving one group enough support under the guise of "treating equally," not taking support away from one group to give to the other. Criticizing the behavior of a priveleged group =/= suppressing them. Saying "I don't agree with this" =/= "it should be illegal." And it never will be.

Female representation in fiction is a problem though, and if we're not at least level on that, then I'm not sure how far we can go here. You named a lot of individual examples, but even 34? 34 over a span of years is a drop in the bucket compared to the total number of productions. Sure, I can think of tons of singular pieces of media that are awesome at female representation. But by and large, this is not the thrust of media.

There is a very big representation problem that must be addressed. Despite being roughly equal proportions of the human population and of consumers (actually 52% of movie-goers according to the MPA), there are both fewer female voices and fewer female characters (even fewer leads) in mainstream movies and games. Stats, examination, stats, examination, stats (worldwide). That last one is very good, but it's also very long. And this situation isn't really getting much better. There are fewer female leads today than 10 years ago, and the drop has been steady. These mainly focus on film, but here are some statistics on video games in which the studies with larger samples (though still smaller than the film samples) find an even worse ratio. The only one there that didn't was the one that analyzed only 12 games. I am not talking about a handful of pieces. I'm talking about entire industries. And these are just characters that are female, not characters that are necessarily well-written and varied.

Now take into account the perspective that powerful forces in these industries have on female characters. Quoth Jean-Max Morris (creative director of Remember Me), "We had some [publishers] that said, 'Well, we don't want to publish it because that's not going to succeed. You can't have a female character in games. It has to be a male character, simple as that." And then you have that recently leaked Sony email in which Ike Perlmutter went down the list of several very old, very poorly written movies with female leads. There isn't a lot of context here, but these are movies I've seen used as examples for why female heroines do not succeed time and time again. Anyone who wants to seriously argue that Catwoman wasn't successful because the lead was female has some issues, yet it happens. This is not the perspective on, say, Green Lantern or the most hated Batman and Superman films.

Keep in mind that representation influences the way that people see themselves and their place in the world. TV boosts the self esteem of white boys but causes black boys' and all girls' self esteem to decrease, for example. This is related not only to the amount of similar characters depicted but the roles which they receive when they are depicted.

What I'm not going for is absolute parity. The point here is not that things aren't numerically, perfectly equal all the time but that they are unbalanced on a very large scale. There is a problem with that, and diversification is not being encouraged.

@Jorick But Brovo agrees with the presentation of egalitarianism in the video, if I'm interpreting his words correctly: "I mean, the guy in the video even puts it pretty clearly: Extremist egalitarianism is... Treating everyone as equals regardless of their background. Rich or poor, white or black, man or woman. Allowing anyone to achieve the utmost of their potential as individuals. Why would this be a bad thing?" And my answer is that a society like this would great, but this technique is not going to work if you try to apply it to our current society where such deep inequalities exist. I can agree that this isn't the sole definition or function of egalitarianism, which, like feminism, isn't a monolith and shouldn't be treated as such.

But the "why is this a bad thing?" bit seems to still miss the point that is being made -- that in a world where this were actually happening already, it would be ideal, but in a world where inequalities exist, you cannot simply say you "treat everyone equally" when what you mean is "I treat everyone exactly the same without regard for their situations." If you have a problem with this being called egalitarianism, that's fine (I have seen this attitude, just like you've seen abusive feminists, but that doesn't mean it's the whole group). What I'm seeing in Brovo's post though is the argument that egalitarianism, in the video's assessment, is is a good thing. I see this also in the idea that if you can role reverse something and it's not sexist, there must be no problem with it in the context of women, because this again assumes that the two situations are equal when they are not.

I do agree that feminism has historically failed at intersection and has lots of things to address there. We won't get anywhere by ignoring them.

 

[Brovo]

@Brovo I do agree that we're having a dialogue, and I'm appreciative of that, but I'm still not sure my points are getting across. I am attempting to remedy that by expressing them more clearly, of course. Burden on the author and all that.

Interesting. You bring a lot of numbers and citations that work with maths rather than feelings. I concede to your superior argument, it appears I have some reading to do. Thank you for this discussion, it has been enlightening.

 

[Dervish]

I'm enjoying reading both sides of this discussion. It's civil, pleasant, and it gives me stuff to think about long after I finish reading it.

 

[Rare]

Wait, Joss Whedon helped made Avengers 2: Age of Ultron?

Man, I need to stay for the credits and read it.

 

[Jorick]

@Jorick But Brovo agrees with the presentation of egalitarianism in the video, if I'm interpreting his words correctly: "I mean, the guy in the video even puts it pretty clearly: Extremist egalitarianism is... Treating everyone as equals regardless of their background. Rich or poor, white or black, man or woman. Allowing anyone to achieve the utmost of their potential as individuals. Why would this be a bad thing?" And my answer is that a society like this would great, but this technique is not going to work if you try to apply it to our current society where such deep inequalities exist. I can agree that this isn't the sole definition or function of egalitarianism, which, like feminism, isn't a monolith and shouldn't be treated as such.

But the "why is this a bad thing?" bit seems to still miss the point that is being made -- that in a world where this were actually happening already, it would be ideal, but in a world where inequalities exist, you cannot simply say you "treat everyone equally" when what you mean is "I treat everyone exactly the same without regard for their situations." If you have a problem with this being called egalitarianism, that's fine (I have seen this attitude, just like you've seen abusive feminists, but that doesn't mean it's the whole group). What I'm seeing in Brovo's post though is the argument that egalitarianism, in the video's assessment, is is a good thing. I see this also in the idea that if you can role reverse something and it's not sexist, there must be no problem with it in the context of women, because this again assumes that the two situations are equal when they are not.

I do agree that feminism has historically failed at intersection and has lots of things to address there. We won't get anywhere by ignoring them.

Ehhhh, he didn't agree with that whole thing as far as I can tell, mainly with that one statement as a good explanation of the end goal of egalitarianism. Just before that part you quoted he said that egalitarians will fight discrimination wherever it pops up, and given that context I don't think he was saying "everyone is currently exactly equal so they should be treated as such," but rather that opportunity is pretty much equal currently so giving special treatment to one group now could upset that balance. I really can't speak for his opinions though, so I'll just have to give you my own thoughts on things.

Anyway, see that part in the quote that I've underlined? That's the equality of opportunity thing I was talking about, and understanding what that means is key to understanding why I and a lot of others disagree with the more mainstream notion of equality of circumstance and all the raging and finger pointing that it causes. Equality of opportunity not about making sure that everyone starts off on the exact same level and that all the jobs and wealth and such are distributed evenly across demographics, which is what most feminists seem to aim for and that I like to call equality of circumstance (there's probably a better term for it out there, I just haven't seen it or saw it and forgot it). This other kind of equality is equality of opportunity, which means that all people, regardless of their sex, gender, ethnicity, sexuality, socioeconomic class, etc., have equal opportunity to pursue and achieve their goals and desires in life. This type of equality acknowledges that people will never truly be 100% exactly equal in circumstance because people will never be 100% exactly identical or have 100% identical experiences. Trying to force everyone to be on the same exact level in their life circumstances is a fool's errand. Trying to get people to be equal in their opportunities though? That's achievable. Sometimes that requires giving special attention and help to a specific group, such as black people in the United States, because there are factors in play that keep them from having the same opportunities as others (such as grossly disproportionate levels of poverty and incarceration and so forth). Some egalitarians may think that we're already at a point where everyone has an equality of opportunity, despite lacking equality of circumstance, thanks to the multitude of laws in place that outlaw discrimination of all sorts, so in that case anything done to give people something nice should in fact be applied equally across all demographics because otherwise it could create a new inequality of opportunity. Other egalitarians (and I'm one of them) may think that there are still things that need to be fixed before everyone actually does have equal opportunity, so efforts need to be made to correct those problems and such efforts will definitely not be like putting 2 units on both sides of the scale. That's part of how egalitarianism isn't a monolith, as you correctly pointed out. The few things that I've noticed as being near universal in egalitarians (and keep in mind that although I say "near universal" it's still limited to my personal experience) are the broad focus rather than honing in on gender or something, the focus on opportunity rather than circumstance, and an annoyance with people who try to say they should identify as feminists because feminism is supposedly the same thing (because the equality/circumstance split makes that rather untrue); everything else is up in the air. I hope that long-winded explanation of the equality of opportunity and how it fits into egalitarianism made as much sense as I think it did, but if not feel free to ask questions and I can try to be more clear.

That thing about treating everyone the same regardless of their situations could totally be called egalitarianism: they would be the kind that think equality of opportunity is already in full effect. The thing to note there is that rather than looking at census information and wages, these folks (and all egalitarians I've talked to) look at whether or not anyone from any given circumstance has a chance to achieve X lofty goal as long as they work for it. Let's say the goal is an engineering degree, since I already mentioned those in my previous post. According to this school of thought, if a poor black lesbian woman from one of the poorest areas in the nation can pursue an engineering degree and achieve it without any major legal or institutional barriers in her way, then that's a strong sign that equality of opportunity is totally in place and working. It doesn't matter that she had to work harder than the rich white straight guy who also got an engineering degree, the point is that she can totally do it despite the circumstantial inequalities in her way, because circumstantial inequalities will always exist so the goal should be to minimize their impact rather than attempting to eradicate them. That's where a lot of people disagree with equality of opportunity, and that's fine, opinions and all that.

As for depictions of men and women, yeah, agreed that just gender swapping isn't enough to say it's not sexist. There are vastly different things that could be considered discriminatory or lazy stereotyping for men and women, so for instance being absolutely obsessed with getting married would be a potentially negative stereotype for a female character but probably not for a male. It's a great way to examine these things though, to figure out why exactly you might be offended by them. Something else to note here is that just because someone got offended by a thing does not make that thing bad and evil and so on. Nowadays when people shout "I'm offended" they act like that is a legitimate argument for why something needs to be changed or removed, when in reality being offended amounts to "I don't like that" and should really be treated as such. Combine that mentality with the fact that every piece of media is examined hypercritically for offending and potentially offending material, then the shouting mob of the internet goes on a tirade to explain why everything is so offensive and problematic and so on, and that's how you get big nonsensical messes like this one. It seems like every piece of media is a problem now, according to the angry internet mob. I'm of the opinion that when you think everything is a problem, then the actual problem lies with you. To bring it back on topic, Age of Ultron was not some oppression machine that will enforce horrible inequalities, as one would be led to believe from the outrage, it was a movie that had some things that made people upset. This raging mob culture is toxic as all hell, and all it really does is make equality movements look bad for being associated with nutjobs who send death threats to a guy because he didn't write flawless female characters. If people want to see better female characters, spewing bile at one of the people in the industry who identifies as a feminist is kind of the opposite of helping. It's just mindless nonsense wearing the cloak of concern about equality, and I hate it.

I'm kind of ranting now, so I'm just gonna cut myself off there. :P