Faowri.4159 Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 > @"Tolmos.8395" said: > > @"Windu The Forbidden One.6045" said: > > > @"Laivine.9308" said: > > > > @"phokus.8934" said: > > > > She used sexism as a motivator for the streamers response. What can't you understand? > > > > > > Mansplaining is sexism. What can't you understand? > > > > Mansplaining doesn't exist. It's just a term some women throw around to shutdown men's arguments when they can't come up with a logical argument themselves. > > I might add that very few women throw it around, especially successful professional women. If we were all betting on stuff, I'd bet good money that if you asked random women what mansplaining was, you'd mostly get either confusion or responses negative to the idea of it. > > I've luckily never had the misfortune of meeting someone face to face willing to embarrass themselves by using that term. Oh, it _exists_. I work in IT, I'm a senior developer on a 60% female team and also happen to be a woman. As a senior member of the team I also do a bunch of the recruitment activities. Sit an unhappily common type of male dev in front of an interview panel of female developers and you will see. A lot. Of Mansplaining. That said, having read the twitter thread in question, I don't get that feel here and think it was a fair bit of an overreaction. The dude's reply was fairly inane and not nearly as clever as he clearly thought it was, though. Whole lot of drama over nothing really. Wanted to add: women's experiences in male-dominated fields deserve to be believed and are usually valid, as well as exhaustingly constant. People decrying the "PC brigade" have clearly never had to deal with this on a semi-permanent basis, but at least try to understand that sometimes that feeling of persecution (in the sense of never being taken at your word, always being shot down, argued with, overruled by customers in ways that male colleagues never are, or indeed BY male colleagues) can be overwhelming. If the dev in question got overwhelmed by the day-to-day background noise, I can understand it, but this was not the way to react. Keep your work and your personal social media very separate, folks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manasa Devi.7958 Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 > @"thruine.8510" said: > But fans on the internet... god, I'm so sick of this self righteous crap of mudslinging that goes on then crying about when someone says something to hurt their feelings. Its starting to get pathetic. And it's just as sickening, self-righteous and pathetic if the mudslinging comes from the other side of the fence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einlanzer.1627 Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 > @"saerni.2584" said: > > @"Blocki.4931" said: > > > @"saerni.2584" said: > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > @"Laivine.9308" said: > > > > > > @"phokus.8934" said: > > > > > > She used sexism as a motivator for the streamers response. What can't you understand? > > > > > > > > > > Mansplaining is sexism. What can't you understand? > > > > > > > > No. Accusing someone of mansplaining for stating their opinion or challenging your perspective is sexism. > > > > > > No it isn’t. Explain how you made the leap from “accuse a person of sexism” to “they are sexist.” > > > > > > @"Dashingsteel.3410" > > > > > > Not a woman. Ad hominem. Non sequitur. > > > > > > You can comment on something. I’m suggesting you comment intelligently by understanding her argument and not automatically dismissing it. > > > > He didn't make a leap in logic there because that very leap is what he commented on. Yelling "mansplain" is already sexism because it dismisses a man's opinion or knowledge based on his sex. It's not rocket science and yet people who oppose the entire idea of gendering something like that have to explain it to people who don't see the issue that lies therein > > > > What a laugh > > It’s not based on his sex. It’s a term that describes a common sexist assumption by men that women are inherently less competent and need to have the world explained to them by a man. Even if that man is not at all qualified and the woman is highly skilled. > > It is a term that describes one result of sexism. It uses “man” because the sexism of men towards women is uniquely represented in this behavior. Women don’t tend to do this behavior as part of their learned behavior. > > You are latching onto the use of “man” in “mansplain” to call this sexist. But, this is a red herring that distracts from what she was complaining about—sexism—by making her responsible for a term that uses “man” for no other reason than it accurately describes a socialogical phenomenon. > > This is why I call it a logical leap. You start by associating a common term with her and attribute bias to that term without thinking about why that term is what it is. Mansplain is, in context, not a sexist term. References to sex are not the same as bias against that sex. > > @"Einlanzer.1627" So, by that logic, would you argue that "hysterical", how it was used in the 19th century, was not sexist? Regardless, sorry, but you don't have a winning argument here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffball.8307 Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 Man you guys must be super bored to have hundreds of posts about a _twitter_ message. Go watch a soap opera, and let these forums to be less ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windu The Forbidden One.60 Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 > @"Tolmos.8395" said: > > @"Windu The Forbidden One.6045" said: > > > @"Laivine.9308" said: > > > > @"phokus.8934" said: > > > > She used sexism as a motivator for the streamers response. What can't you understand? > > > > > > Mansplaining is sexism. What can't you understand? > > > > Mansplaining doesn't exist. It's just a term some women throw around to shutdown men's arguments when they can't come up with a logical argument themselves. > > I might add that very few women throw it around, especially successful professional women. If we were all betting on stuff, I'd bet good money that if you asked random women what mansplaining was, you'd mostly get either confusion or responses negative to the idea of it. > > I've luckily never had the misfortune of meeting someone face to face willing to embarrass themselves by using that term. Hence why I said _"Some"_ women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blocki.4931 Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 > @"Fluffball.8307" said: > Man you guys must be super bored to have hundreds of posts about a _twitter_ message. Go watch a soap opera, and let these forums to be less ridiculous. Keep your judgment of what other people like to do in their free time to yourself if it's all you're going to contribute. It's not about that sole message, it's about the person behind it and the behaviour loop that keeps resulting in replies like that as well as the fact that it shouldn't have happened in the first place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tasida.4085 Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > @"Tasida.4085" said: > > Can't be closed fast enough....none of these with same subject. Bring it into forums just to stir people up. Whatever is said in twitter etc wont have ANY BEARING on how we normal players play our game. Plz stop with this already cos most of us aint gonna quit the game regardless. > > It does bleed into the game. > That person is designing the game, and dismissing constructive feedback, on the account she's inconvenienced by it, justifying it with a very sexist remark. > Also, you can see the white knight co-worker coming to the rescue, which points to an institutionalized issue. So yes, it is of concern, if you care about the future of the game, and the quality of it's releases. Again with sexist......If I was so thin skinned I'd complain all the time about being called Bruh, Bro, Dude etc auto when I'm not male. And most of you in these forums are guilty of doing just that in game. That's being sexist by using those words. Instead we (women) ignore and play on. I stand by what I say, what happens in social media (that doesn't directly affect game play) needs to stay there instead of brought here stirring people up. If people want to quit the game over it adios and good riddance cos they are easily replaced daily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kururu.8140 Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 What an absolute embarrassment she is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saerni.2584 Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > @"saerni.2584" said: > > > @"Blocki.4931" said: > > > > @"saerni.2584" said: > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > > @"Laivine.9308" said: > > > > > > > @"phokus.8934" said: > > > > > > > She used sexism as a motivator for the streamers response. What can't you understand? > > > > > > > > > > > > Mansplaining is sexism. What can't you understand? > > > > > > > > > > No. Accusing someone of mansplaining for stating their opinion or challenging your perspective is sexism. > > > > > > > > No it isn’t. Explain how you made the leap from “accuse a person of sexism” to “they are sexist.” > > > > > > > > @"Dashingsteel.3410" > > > > > > > > Not a woman. Ad hominem. Non sequitur. > > > > > > > > You can comment on something. I’m suggesting you comment intelligently by understanding her argument and not automatically dismissing it. > > > > > > He didn't make a leap in logic there because that very leap is what he commented on. Yelling "mansplain" is already sexism because it dismisses a man's opinion or knowledge based on his sex. It's not rocket science and yet people who oppose the entire idea of gendering something like that have to explain it to people who don't see the issue that lies therein > > > > > > What a laugh > > > > It’s not based on his sex. It’s a term that describes a common sexist assumption by men that women are inherently less competent and need to have the world explained to them by a man. Even if that man is not at all qualified and the woman is highly skilled. > > > > It is a term that describes one result of sexism. It uses “man” because the sexism of men towards women is uniquely represented in this behavior. Women don’t tend to do this behavior as part of their learned behavior. > > > > You are latching onto the use of “man” in “mansplain” to call this sexist. But, this is a red herring that distracts from what she was complaining about—sexism—by making her responsible for a term that uses “man” for no other reason than it accurately describes a socialogical phenomenon. > > > > This is why I call it a logical leap. You start by associating a common term with her and attribute bias to that term without thinking about why that term is what it is. Mansplain is, in context, not a sexist term. References to sex are not the same as bias against that sex. > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" > > So, by that logic, would you argue that "hysterical", how it was used in the 19th century, was not sexist? Hysteria was a condition associated with women. However, it was often a placeholder for “upset woman so she must be crazy.” As a medical diagnosis it was a catchall that treated women who complained about being treated poorly (and those with other actual medical problems) as one and the same. So hysteria itself was sexist in how it was applied. For example, women experiencing day post partum depression clearly have a need for medical treatment. But to medicalize all women who are upset is where that crosses into discrimination on the basis of sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vieux P.1238 Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 You know if she get's fired by Anet, .....bet you she gonna call it sexism & she got fired cuz she a woman & sue them for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huskyboy.1053 Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 > @"saerni.2584" said: > > @"Blocki.4931" said: > > > @"saerni.2584" said: > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > @"Laivine.9308" said: > > > > > > @"phokus.8934" said: > > > > > > She used sexism as a motivator for the streamers response. What can't you understand? > > > > > > > > > > Mansplaining is sexism. What can't you understand? > > > > > > > > No. Accusing someone of mansplaining for stating their opinion or challenging your perspective is sexism. > > > > > > No it isn’t. Explain how you made the leap from “accuse a person of sexism” to “they are sexist.” > > > > > > @"Dashingsteel.3410" > > > > > > Not a woman. Ad hominem. Non sequitur. > > > > > > You can comment on something. I’m suggesting you comment intelligently by understanding her argument and not automatically dismissing it. > > > > He didn't make a leap in logic there because that very leap is what he commented on. Yelling "mansplain" is already sexism because it dismisses a man's opinion or knowledge based on his sex. It's not rocket science and yet people who oppose the entire idea of gendering something like that have to explain it to people who don't see the issue that lies therein > > > > What a laugh > > It’s not based on his sex. It’s a term that describes a common sexist assumption by men that women are inherently less competent and need to have the world explained to them by a man. Even if that man is not at all qualified and the woman is highly skilled. > > It is a term that describes one result of sexism. It uses “man” because the sexism of men towards women is uniquely represented in this behavior. Women don’t tend to do this behavior as part of their learned behavior. > > You are latching onto the use of “man” in “mansplain” to call this sexist. But, this is a red herring that distracts from what she was complaining about—sexism—by making her responsible for a term that uses “man” for no other reason than it accurately describes a socialogical phenomenon. > > This is why I call it a logical leap. You start by associating a common term with her and attribute bias to that term without thinking about why that term is what it is. Mansplain is, in context, not a sexist term. References to sex are not the same as bias against that sex. > > @"Einlanzer.1627" Ok so let's lay out the assumptions here: 1. It's not based on his sex. 2. Women don’t tend to do this behavior as part of their learned behavior. 3. References to sex are not the same as bias against that sex. Reality: 1. In using "man" in the term "mansplain," it is based on his sex. The non-gendered term is "explain," to say "mansplain" is to explicitly mention the person's perceived gender. 2. Can you back this up with data or high-quality studies (i.e. large sample size, published in a reputed scientific journal, results have been replicated)? Any man can tell you that women are condescending just as men are. 3. In general, this is true. If I said "women are, on average, shorter than men" then I am not being sexist, as that is a verifiable fact that is founded on hard data. However, when a person starts giving special treatment to a person based on their gender/sex (e.g. using "mansplain" instead of "explain), that is the definition of sexism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffball.8307 Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 > @"Blocki.4931" said: > > @"Fluffball.8307" said: > > Man you guys must be super bored to have hundreds of posts about a _twitter_ message. Go watch a soap opera, and let these forums to be less ridiculous. > > Keep your judgment of what other people like to do in their free time to yourself if it's all you're going to contribute. It's not about that sole message, it's about the person behind it and the behaviour loop that keeps resulting in replies like that as well as the fact that it shouldn't have happened in the first place My contribution is that this thread is incredibly petty and it's gumming up the forums with something completely not related to the game. I'm allowed to contribute that just as much as you guys are allowed to have your soap opera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashen.2907 Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 > @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said: > It is disappointing, but not surprising, to watch the antagonism and anger directed toward Jessica Price, and ArenaNet in general, at the moment. Given that, I wanted to take the time to say this: > > I stand with Jessica Price. Her behaviour was reasonable, and appropriate, and is entirely within the bounds of appropriate professional and personal behaviour. > > The "constructive criticism" is valuable if, and only if, you accept the underlying assumption that she, and the ANet writers in general, have not considered one of the most basic possible options for handling the players subjective view of character of the lead of the story. > > I have worked in several of the worlds most recognized companies, places where literally everyone you meet has some sort of opinion about what they do, how they do it, and how it could be better. In many cases, this comes with the same underlying assumption: if only the people there had considered this extremely obvious idea, which is either currently, or has previously, been discussed to death, and which has obvious shortfalls -- or which has literally been done, and failed to achieve those results. > > This is even less interesting, or productive, when this has played out in public. Where a decade or more of publicly available information about the debate is available, and where these ideas have been extensively addressed. Where the shortfalls of the proposed magic bullet are well known, and well understood. > > The idea that responding to ideas and "criticism" that would barely make the cut in a first year "introduction to X" university course, because they are so obvious, and so well documented, with a significant investment in education -- when a trivial amount of time with Google would answer them in more detail than we are ever likely to -- is entitlement at work. Thinking that you are owed time, and your ideas are owed serious consideration, despite being the most shallow and obvious ... well, despite what you were told all your life, you are not really a brilliant and unique thinker, creating amazingly radical ideas in every sphere you touch, and that suggestion is concrete proof of that. > > This is no more, and no less, true regardless of the breadth of the discussion. The venue, or the form, or the accessibility of the medium, do not change the obligation to treat you seriously in any way. If you want to have a meaningful discussion, try addressing your commentary at a level that assumes the person you are talking at has the skills, and the abilities, and the knowledge to do their job *well*. Don't try and explain the basics to them. You won't get a good response, and it doesn't matter if this is Twitter, or a question at a convention, or a professional conference on the subject. > > None of those oblige an expert to spend their time responding to your tedious rendition of the basic 101 question that they have been asked by a hundred other people, some of whom are just well intentioned amateurs who can't distinguish between "I don't know" and "nobody knows", and some of whom are other industry professionals that assume, for whatever reason, you may never have considered the most basic and obvious possibilities. > > > I'm no less guilty than others of this: it is an easy trap to fall into. I far too often get seduced into commenting on technical implementation issues around GW2, when I should be avoiding them because I literally don't know. The speculation isn't valuable, because I can't know, and most of my suggestions ... well, if they are obvious enough to make from the outside, they are obvious enough that people thinking about this every day are well aware of them. > > None of that, and none of my expert knowledge in other areas, even closely related ones, gives me any more right to expect to be taken seriously, or gently educated, rather than told "buddy, we considered that, shut up". It is easy to make these assumptions, and hard to avoid them. I can't even claim a right to politeness in those responses, should they show up. It'd be nice, sure, but ... I have days when I'm snappy, and conversations where someone rolls out the same tired and foolish trope, and I just can't even. > > > Since it is fairly simple to identify my current and previous employers, the standard and what should be obvious disclaimer applies: I am speaking for myself, as Jessica was, and my comments do not reflect the company. (even if they are highly likely to reflect the individual beliefs of many other employees of the same companies.) > @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said: > It is disappointing, but not surprising, to watch the antagonism and anger directed toward Jessica Price, and ArenaNet in general, at the moment. Given that, I wanted to take the time to say this: > > I stand with Jessica Price. Her behaviour was reasonable, and appropriate, and is entirely within the bounds of appropriate professional and personal behaviour. > > The "constructive criticism" is valuable if, and only if, you accept the underlying assumption that she, and the ANet writers in general, have not considered one of the most basic possible options for handling the players subjective view of character of the lead of the story. > > I have worked in several of the worlds most recognized companies, places where literally everyone you meet has some sort of opinion about what they do, how they do it, and how it could be better. In many cases, this comes with the same underlying assumption: if only the people there had considered this extremely obvious idea, which is either currently, or has previously, been discussed to death, and which has obvious shortfalls -- or which has literally been done, and failed to achieve those results. > > This is even less interesting, or productive, when this has played out in public. Where a decade or more of publicly available information about the debate is available, and where these ideas have been extensively addressed. Where the shortfalls of the proposed magic bullet are well known, and well understood. > > The idea that responding to ideas and "criticism" that would barely make the cut in a first year "introduction to X" university course, because they are so obvious, and so well documented, with a significant investment in education -- when a trivial amount of time with Google would answer them in more detail than we are ever likely to -- is entitlement at work. Thinking that you are owed time, and your ideas are owed serious consideration, despite being the most shallow and obvious ... well, despite what you were told all your life, you are not really a brilliant and unique thinker, creating amazingly radical ideas in every sphere you touch, and that suggestion is concrete proof of that. > > This is no more, and no less, true regardless of the breadth of the discussion. The venue, or the form, or the accessibility of the medium, do not change the obligation to treat you seriously in any way. If you want to have a meaningful discussion, try addressing your commentary at a level that assumes the person you are talking at has the skills, and the abilities, and the knowledge to do their job *well*. Don't try and explain the basics to them. You won't get a good response, and it doesn't matter if this is Twitter, or a question at a convention, or a professional conference on the subject. > > None of those oblige an expert to spend their time responding to your tedious rendition of the basic 101 question that they have been asked by a hundred other people, some of whom are just well intentioned amateurs who can't distinguish between "I don't know" and "nobody knows", and some of whom are other industry professionals that assume, for whatever reason, you may never have considered the most basic and obvious possibilities. > > > I'm no less guilty than others of this: it is an easy trap to fall into. I far too often get seduced into commenting on technical implementation issues around GW2, when I should be avoiding them because I literally don't know. The speculation isn't valuable, because I can't know, and most of my suggestions ... well, if they are obvious enough to make from the outside, they are obvious enough that people thinking about this every day are well aware of them. > > None of that, and none of my expert knowledge in other areas, even closely related ones, gives me any more right to expect to be taken seriously, or gently educated, rather than told "buddy, we considered that, shut up". It is easy to make these assumptions, and hard to avoid them. I can't even claim a right to politeness in those responses, should they show up. It'd be nice, sure, but ... I have days when I'm snappy, and conversations where someone rolls out the same tired and foolish trope, and I just can't even. > > > Since it is fairly simple to identify my current and previous employers, the standard and what should be obvious disclaimer applies: I am speaking for myself, as Jessica was, and my comments do not reflect the company. (even if they are highly likely to reflect the individual beliefs of many other employees of the same companies.) I am not sure that I can agree that abusing another, a business partner and a customer at that, can accurately described as professional or appropriate. You make some very good points. She did not owe him a response, and could very easily have ignored his question. She could even have deflected his comments from a position of authority. Instead she made personal attacks and accusations against him in a public forum. I think that you will have to search long and hard to find a profession where attacking your customers and partners is considered professional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manasa Devi.7958 Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 > @"Fluffball.8307" said: > > @"Blocki.4931" said: > > > @"Fluffball.8307" said: > > > Man you guys must be super bored to have hundreds of posts about a _twitter_ message. Go watch a soap opera, and let these forums to be less ridiculous. > > > > Keep your judgment of what other people like to do in their free time to yourself if it's all you're going to contribute. It's not about that sole message, it's about the person behind it and the behaviour loop that keeps resulting in replies like that as well as the fact that it shouldn't have happened in the first place > > My contribution is that this thread is incredibly petty and it's gumming up the forums with something completely not related to the game. I'm allowed to contribute that just as much as you guys are allowed to have your soap opera. You're part of it. You just bring a different kind of "outrage" to the table. You are part of the soap, a bit actor doing everything you accuse others of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dashingsteel.3410 Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 She was just following pc dogma. In the pc hierarchy of victimhood, men are at the bottom. Following the pc logic that makes men the natural oppressors of all those above them in the victim hierarchy. How dare he make a comment to a woman! Doesn't he know his place. Jessica righteously defended her victim status and is obviously convinced of her sanctimony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tolmos.8395 Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 > @"Huskyboy.1053" said: > > @"saerni.2584" said: > > > @"Blocki.4931" said: > > > > @"saerni.2584" said: > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > > @"Laivine.9308" said: > > > > > > > @"phokus.8934" said: > > > > > > > She used sexism as a motivator for the streamers response. What can't you understand? > > > > > > > > > > > > Mansplaining is sexism. What can't you understand? > > > > > > > > > > No. Accusing someone of mansplaining for stating their opinion or challenging your perspective is sexism. > > > > > > > > No it isn’t. Explain how you made the leap from “accuse a person of sexism” to “they are sexist.” > > > > > > > > @"Dashingsteel.3410" > > > > > > > > Not a woman. Ad hominem. Non sequitur. > > > > > > > > You can comment on something. I’m suggesting you comment intelligently by understanding her argument and not automatically dismissing it. > > > > > > He didn't make a leap in logic there because that very leap is what he commented on. Yelling "mansplain" is already sexism because it dismisses a man's opinion or knowledge based on his sex. It's not rocket science and yet people who oppose the entire idea of gendering something like that have to explain it to people who don't see the issue that lies therein > > > > > > What a laugh > > > > It’s not based on his sex. It’s a term that describes a common sexist assumption by men that women are inherently less competent and need to have the world explained to them by a man. Even if that man is not at all qualified and the woman is highly skilled. > > > > It is a term that describes one result of sexism. It uses “man” because the sexism of men towards women is uniquely represented in this behavior. Women don’t tend to do this behavior as part of their learned behavior. > > > > You are latching onto the use of “man” in “mansplain” to call this sexist. But, this is a red herring that distracts from what she was complaining about—sexism—by making her responsible for a term that uses “man” for no other reason than it accurately describes a socialogical phenomenon. > > > > This is why I call it a logical leap. You start by associating a common term with her and attribute bias to that term without thinking about why that term is what it is. Mansplain is, in context, not a sexist term. References to sex are not the same as bias against that sex. > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" > > Ok so let's lay out the assumptions here: > > 1. It's not based on his sex. > 2. Women don’t tend to do this behavior as part of their learned behavior. > 3. Mansplain is, in context, not a sexist term. References to sex are not the same as bias against that sex. > > Reality: > 1. In using "man" in the term "mansplain," it is based on his sex. The non-gendered term is "explain," to say "mansplain" is to explicitly mention the person's perceived gender. > 2. Can you back this up with data or high-quality studies (i.e. large sample size, published in a reputed scientific journal, results have been replicated)? Any man can tell you that women are condescending just as men are. > 3. In general, this is true. If I said "women are, on average, shorter than men" then I am not being sexist, as that is a verifiable fact that is founded on hard data. However, when a person starts giving special treatment to a person based on their gender/sex (e.g. using "mansplain" instead of "explain), that is the definition of sexism. I'm actually kind of a fan of the term, because it acts as a big neon sign that ignorant and bigoted people can wear when they use it, and is usually one of the topics that bring men and women together for a single cause. There's almost always pretty quick condemnation when a prejudiced person uses a term like "mansplaining" to try to silence the voice of another person, which is always a good feeling. And it helps to remind people that true feminists are focused on equality, not some odd "superiority" like internet trolls try to push. Honestly, I prefer for bigotted people to out themselves with phrases like this. It's much easier to identify them if they wear it like a badge of honor, and I'd like to know who I'm dealing with. And it always feels good to see the rational people come together to condemn them in short order after. +1 for faith in humanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffball.8307 Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said: > > @"Fluffball.8307" said: > > > @"Blocki.4931" said: > > > > @"Fluffball.8307" said: > > > > Man you guys must be super bored to have hundreds of posts about a _twitter_ message. Go watch a soap opera, and let these forums to be less ridiculous. > > > > > > Keep your judgment of what other people like to do in their free time to yourself if it's all you're going to contribute. It's not about that sole message, it's about the person behind it and the behaviour loop that keeps resulting in replies like that as well as the fact that it shouldn't have happened in the first place > > > > My contribution is that this thread is incredibly petty and it's gumming up the forums with something completely not related to the game. I'm allowed to contribute that just as much as you guys are allowed to have your soap opera. > > > You're part of it. You just bring a different kind of "outrage" to the table. You are part of the soap, a bit actor doing everything you accuse others of. I definitely agree, and considered not posting at all because of that. My disgust at the people that are feigning outrage finally encouraged me to call everyone on the fact this is a soap opera caused by boredom and probably the content lulls we've been having. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miraude.2107 Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 > @"Tolmos.8395" said: > > @"miraude.2107" said: > > I understand holding someone to standards on social media, however I also see her frustration in having unsolicited advice, constructive or not, expressed at her on her personal account instead of posting it straight to the game or using official channels. I'm sure most of you would get frustrated and wear thing if the customers you dealt with constantly bombarded you with questions about your work on your personal twitter and facebook after working the hours that they work. > > This is one of the reasons that most devs in games are starting to make their personal accounts private, have two accounts or just delete them is because of things like this. Honestly this constant posting over and over again akins to a witch hunt. LOOOK, LOOK AT WHAT THIS ANET PERSON DID, EVEN THOUGH THE ADVICE WAS UNSOLICITED, IT WAS ~CONSTRUCTIVE~! SHAME SHAME! Let's ignore that anet is probably already reviewing and considering options since there was a holiday, let's just publicly execute this developer here and now, force their hand and make them fire someone they may not be able to replace at this time. > > If you tag your employer all over your personal feed, make an in-depth analysis about the work you do at that company on a public feed for thousands of people to see, and then become enraged when someone replies to it... you're doing twitter wrong. That's not how social media works. It hasn't worked that way in the past, it doesn't work that way in the future. > > If you want privacy, there is a button for that. If you want anonymity, don't put your name, picture and employer all over it. If you want people to not give constructive replies to a conversation about a topic that you both mutually share interest in, don't post that topic. > > This reminds me of a guy I used to work with. We had a table at the company that was used to give stuff away; the "give away" table. Put something there, and it's gone within an hour; everyone used it to get rid of old stuff they didn't want. So, anyhow: one day, this guy puts a box of stuff on the table. The box was actually a donation box, where we were supposed to put stuff INTO the box... but he didn't tell anyone that. So, he put the box on the table and it gets cleared out within a couple of hours, causing him to go into a rage when he found out, demanding justice and wanting people fired for stealing from the donation box. It didn't matter that he put it on the give-away table, with no context that it was not a give away box... the fact that HE knew no one was supposed to take anything was enough. > > What you're describing feels similar to that. If you make a public post, on a public forum, about a topic that many people who follow you share interest in, it seems a bit counter productive to become enraged when someone hits the "reply" button. Doubly so if you claim they hit the "reply" button because they hate you for your gender, only. And triply so when the person replying is one of the most helpful and well known members of the community related to that topic. Privacy buttons exist sure and it's feeling like more devs need to start using them. It's funny, I remember in cata WoW people saying we needed more access to the devs and when Ghostcrawler obliged, he just got eviscerated over and over again over things that he just stopped posting on the forums. This incident and how everyone is just blowing it could easily result in Anet just going 'everyone stop talking.' Then they wouldn't have to worry about anything. That analogy is more lack of communication then this situation. I work with a woman who has 8 years of experience running a forklift. 8 years of maneuvering around aisles, employees, avoiding customers, pulling product down, putting product up and loading/unloading the product. Now imagine 8 years of running that machinery and every single day someone telling you how to do your job. Telling you how to load that pallet of block onto a trailer over and over. Telling you how to run that forklift because they have one at home, work with one, etc. She finally snapped at a guy and said 'I know how to do my job!' that spent twenty minutes lecturing her over how to turn the forklift on, how to lift the forks, how to put it into gear. His response was that he was helping and she didn't need to be a bitch over it. Making public posts are all well and good however, looking beyond that and realizing that maybe they don't know the company's policies, how they handle things internally, nor what the company deems okay or not is presumptuous as well. He has a right to state his opinion, she has a right to get angry. Both have consequences however is should be the company deciding, not us being judge, jury and executioner. As I said, I understand her frustration and why she blew up multiple times at people. However not everyone shares everything on social media so I still think we should stop witch hunting and let Anet handle this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windu The Forbidden One.60 Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 > @"Tolmos.8395" said: > > @"Huskyboy.1053" said: > > > @"saerni.2584" said: > > > > @"Blocki.4931" said: > > > > > @"saerni.2584" said: > > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > > > @"Laivine.9308" said: > > > > > > > > @"phokus.8934" said: > > > > > > > > She used sexism as a motivator for the streamers response. What can't you understand? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mansplaining is sexism. What can't you understand? > > > > > > > > > > > > No. Accusing someone of mansplaining for stating their opinion or challenging your perspective is sexism. > > > > > > > > > > No it isn’t. Explain how you made the leap from “accuse a person of sexism” to “they are sexist.” > > > > > > > > > > @"Dashingsteel.3410" > > > > > > > > > > Not a woman. Ad hominem. Non sequitur. > > > > > > > > > > You can comment on something. I’m suggesting you comment intelligently by understanding her argument and not automatically dismissing it. > > > > > > > > He didn't make a leap in logic there because that very leap is what he commented on. Yelling "mansplain" is already sexism because it dismisses a man's opinion or knowledge based on his sex. It's not rocket science and yet people who oppose the entire idea of gendering something like that have to explain it to people who don't see the issue that lies therein > > > > > > > > What a laugh > > > > > > It’s not based on his sex. It’s a term that describes a common sexist assumption by men that women are inherently less competent and need to have the world explained to them by a man. Even if that man is not at all qualified and the woman is highly skilled. > > > > > > It is a term that describes one result of sexism. It uses “man” because the sexism of men towards women is uniquely represented in this behavior. Women don’t tend to do this behavior as part of their learned behavior. > > > > > > You are latching onto the use of “man” in “mansplain” to call this sexist. But, this is a red herring that distracts from what she was complaining about—sexism—by making her responsible for a term that uses “man” for no other reason than it accurately describes a socialogical phenomenon. > > > > > > This is why I call it a logical leap. You start by associating a common term with her and attribute bias to that term without thinking about why that term is what it is. Mansplain is, in context, not a sexist term. References to sex are not the same as bias against that sex. > > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" > > > > Ok so let's lay out the assumptions here: > > > > 1. It's not based on his sex. > > 2. Women don’t tend to do this behavior as part of their learned behavior. > > 3. Mansplain is, in context, not a sexist term. References to sex are not the same as bias against that sex. > > > > Reality: > > 1. In using "man" in the term "mansplain," it is based on his sex. The non-gendered term is "explain," to say "mansplain" is to explicitly mention the person's perceived gender. > > 2. Can you back this up with data or high-quality studies (i.e. large sample size, published in a reputed scientific journal, results have been replicated)? Any man can tell you that women are condescending just as men are. > > 3. In general, this is true. If I said "women are, on average, shorter than men" then I am not being sexist, as that is a verifiable fact that is founded on hard data. However, when a person starts giving special treatment to a person based on their gender/sex (e.g. using "mansplain" instead of "explain), that is the definition of sexism. > > I'm actually kind of a fan of the term, because it acts as a big neon sign that ignorant and bigoted people can wear when they use it, and is usually one of the topics that bring men and women together for a single cause. There's almost always pretty quick condemnation when a prejudiced person uses a term like "mansplaining" to try to silence the voice of another person, which is always a good feeling. And it helps to remind people that true feminists are focused on equality, not some odd "superiority" like internet trolls try to push. > > Honestly, I prefer for bigotted people to out themselves with phrases like this. It's much easier to identify them if they wear it like a badge of honor, and I'd like to know who I'm dealing with. And it always feels good to see the rational people come together to condemn them in short order after. > > +1 for faith in humanity. That certainly is an interesting way to look at it and I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zedek.8932 Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 > @"Tolmos.8395" said: > [...] it really drives home just how little the opinions of those who play this game matter to the actual employees at the company. I can only imagine how player Feedback > is viewed internally: just a bunch of amateurs telling professionals how to do their jobs, and any negative reaction towards a decision made in the game[...] This was pretty obvious in the "Censorship" thread already. The lack of Gaile's comments on the outrage was clear and simple and very obvious. The same with the unnecessary Deadeye rework. Today the plea of any further information has been ignored. It's all there, compact in a thread that a player, that does not get paid (but pay) for all that matter, can read trough in 20 minutes. I've been told it's not this way at aNet. Well then...? This is a different subject, but this stuff - as much as I do not really care about anymore, what company **really** cares about the customers out there right now? - shines some light in a shady topic that has a wider range if you think about it as a whole. Excelsior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tolmos.8395 Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 > @"miraude.2107" said: > That analogy is more lack of communication then this situation. I work with a woman who has 8 years of experience running a forklift. 8 years of maneuvering around aisles, employees, avoiding customers, pulling product down, putting product up and loading/unloading the product. Now imagine 8 years of running that machinery and every single day someone telling you how to do your job. Telling you how to load that pallet of block onto a trailer over and over. Telling you how to run that forklift because they have one at home, work with one, etc. She finally snapped at a guy and said 'I know how to do my job!' that spent twenty minutes lecturing her over how to turn the forklift on, how to lift the forks, how to put it into gear. His response was that he was helping and she didn't need to be a kitten over it. Heh, I'm a software developer so I definitely know that feeling, especially from non-developer managers/executives. But I have two contentions to that here: A ) She started a conversation about the methods used in her job, and the constraints that she faces doing that particular task. Someone responded with an alternative viewpoint where they believe a different solution is possible. That isn't an attack, nor telling her how to "do her job". That's called conversation; something that tends to happen when you post on a public forum about a topic B ) You can do a job wrong for 8 years; many people do. Ask a well trained Master Electrician how many times they have followed up on the work of another licensed electrician who did a lot of things you simply aren't supposed to do. That licensed electrician could have been doing this for 15 years... meaning they were making the same mistake for 15 years. That's why discussion exists: so that you can express your opinion and knowledge, and others can add their own. It's foolish to believe that you have nothing else to learn because you've been doing something for x number of years, and especially foolish to lash out at anyone who gives a dissenting opinion to yours on that topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saerni.2584 Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 > @"Huskyboy.1053" said: > > @"saerni.2584" said: > > > @"Blocki.4931" said: > > > > @"saerni.2584" said: > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > > > > > > @"Laivine.9308" said: > > > > > > > @"phokus.8934" said: > > > > > > > She used sexism as a motivator for the streamers response. What can't you understand? > > > > > > > > > > > > Mansplaining is sexism. What can't you understand? > > > > > > > > > > No. Accusing someone of mansplaining for stating their opinion or challenging your perspective is sexism. > > > > > > > > No it isn’t. Explain how you made the leap from “accuse a person of sexism” to “they are sexist.” > > > > > > > > @"Dashingsteel.3410" > > > > > > > > Not a woman. Ad hominem. Non sequitur. > > > > > > > > You can comment on something. I’m suggesting you comment intelligently by understanding her argument and not automatically dismissing it. > > > > > > He didn't make a leap in logic there because that very leap is what he commented on. Yelling "mansplain" is already sexism because it dismisses a man's opinion or knowledge based on his sex. It's not rocket science and yet people who oppose the entire idea of gendering something like that have to explain it to people who don't see the issue that lies therein > > > > > > What a laugh > > > > It’s not based on his sex. It’s a term that describes a common sexist assumption by men that women are inherently less competent and need to have the world explained to them by a man. Even if that man is not at all qualified and the woman is highly skilled. > > > > It is a term that describes one result of sexism. It uses “man” because the sexism of men towards women is uniquely represented in this behavior. Women don’t tend to do this behavior as part of their learned behavior. > > > > You are latching onto the use of “man” in “mansplain” to call this sexist. But, this is a red herring that distracts from what she was complaining about—sexism—by making her responsible for a term that uses “man” for no other reason than it accurately describes a socialogical phenomenon. > > > > This is why I call it a logical leap. You start by associating a common term with her and attribute bias to that term without thinking about why that term is what it is. Mansplain is, in context, not a sexist term. References to sex are not the same as bias against that sex. > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" > > Ok so let's lay out the assumptions here: > > 1. It's not based on his sex. > 2. Women don’t tend to do this behavior as part of their learned behavior. > 3. Mansplain is, in context, not a sexist term. References to sex are not the same as bias against that sex. > > Reality: > 1. In using "man" in the term "mansplain," it is based on his sex. The non-gendered term is "explain," to say "mansplain" is to explicitly mention the person's perceived gender. I’ve already addressed why simply including a descriptive word to describe a behavior associated with men is not sexist. This is fairly simple. To reiterate, men assume themselves to be subject matter experts over women even where the woman has qualifications and the man does not. These men do not behave similarly with other men. Rather, they defer to those men’s subject-matter expertise. This male behavior to explain things, poorly, to women and not to men is sexist. > 2. Can you back this up with data or high-quality studies (i.e. large sample size, published in a reputed scientific journal, results have been replicated)? Any man can tell you that women are condescending just as men are. Do you have data or studies suggesting women do this to men? I’m basing this off the reported experience of multiple women in news publications going back over a decade and in conversations with women. Women in this thread have mentioned their own lived experience with this. Women are condescending. Everyone is at some point. But that isn’t the behavior I’m describing above. What I’m describing is the disparate treatment of women by men. Merely being condescending to everyone would not qualify as mansplaining so much as just general rudeness. > 3. In general, this is true. If I said "women are, on average, shorter than men" then I am not being sexist, as that is a verifiable fact that is founded on hard data. However, when a person starts giving special treatment to a person based on their gender/sex (e.g. using "mansplain" instead of "explain), that is the definition of sexism. No. See above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blocki.4931 Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 Just leaving this here for that sub topic that emerged Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nosleepdemon.1368 Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 > @"Vieux P.1238" said: > You know if she get's fired by Anet, .....bet you she gonna call it sexism & she got fired cuz she a woman & sue them for it. Anyone that gets fired for voicing their opinion whether or not it's on "company time" is almost assuredly undeserving of it. Twitter is a total cesspit of humanity and we would all be better off not using it, or paying attention to anything on it. ANet have somehow made their MMO work where so many have failed, so I imagine they have their heads screwed on right. All this dev deserves is a chat with HR followed by everyone in the room laughing the whole thing off for being rightly ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tolmos.8395 Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 > @"nosleepdemon.1368" said: > > @"Vieux P.1238" said: > > You know if she get's fired by Anet, .....bet you she gonna call it sexism & she got fired cuz she a woman & sue them for it. > > Anyone that gets fired for voicing their opinion whether or not it's on "company time" is almost assuredly undeserving of it. Twitter is a total cesspit of humanity and we would all be better off not using it, or paying attention to anything on it. ANet have somehow made their MMO work where so many have failed, so I imagine they have their heads screwed on right. All this dev deserves is a chat with HR followed by everyone in the room laughing the whole thing off for being rightly ridiculous. And Anet updating their apparently woefully inadequate Social Media policy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts