Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Here we go again (Score 1) 951

Ok - so Meg Lanker-SImmons fabricated a death threat against herself and this means...? What exactly. That Anita must have too? And so have all the other women (and there are very very many) have fabricated theirs also? And no-one ever makes foul and inexcusable death and rape threats against women on the internet?

I think there's just one AC on this thread, and it's you, and you should probably take a good hard look at yourself and quit posting lies and half-truths. Or at least get an account and stand behind what you say.

Comment: Re:*Dons asbestos suit* (Score 1) 951

These two videos are about Lego:

http://www.feministfrequency.c...
http://www.feministfrequency.c...

This video is about movies:

http://www.feministfrequency.c...

Funny, you don't get a massive backlash against those ones. Gamers seem to be quite touchy on the subject, which suggests that she's hit a bit of a nerve. Methinks the industry doth complain too much...

Comment: Re:*Dons asbestos suit* (Score 1) 951

Actually the evidence that she does not play video games - to the extent that it's even a relevant question - is a lecture she gave in 2010 during which she says "I am not a gamer". Now, not being a 'gamer' does not mean that one does not play video games. The term gamer can mean a little more than that, to say one is 'not a gamer' might actually mean that one does not sit indoors all day playing video games. My kids aren't 'gamers' either, but they sure play alot of video games.

The lecture clip is also given without any context, so it's really impossible to say what she intended her statement to mean.

In addition, some guy on youtube - who rather creepily uses a synthesized voice to narrate his videos, but whatever, maybe he's mute - has put together a whole series of videos which attack her statement that she plays videogames. This guy has apparently read every tweet she's written, and every facebook update she's made - which is a bit obsessive but again whatever, maybe he's got plenty of spare time - and claims that her lack of videogame-related social media output is evidence that she doesn't play videogames. During the time that I had a facebook account, I also didn't made any video-game related comments. But I sure played alot of video games. And I would also have said of myself that I was "not a gamer".

All this seems typical of the response to her position - as far as I can tell no-one has actually engaged with her points. It's all been "she's an attention-whore" or "she's professionally offended" or whatever. No-one seems to try to intelligently counter her points, they just attempt to discredit her character.

Comment: Re:Her work (Score 1) 951

That makes no sense. A death threat isn't a threat any longer once an attempt has been made. It's become an attempted murder.

A credible death threat would be a matter of opinion to some extent - but there are plenty of crazy people out there, and judging by many of the comments on this thread, there's a extremely disturbing undercurrent of anti-women sentiment going on. I mean all this woman has done is made a series of videos that suggest that strong and harmful gender stereotypes exist in the videogame world. I thought that this was pretty much the accepted wisdom, but apparently not only am I wrong, but to claim so would make me an 'attention-whore'.

And what's that about a 'price on someone's head'. What governments do that? I don't understand that at all.

Comment: Re:Her work (Score 1) 951

self-contradictory bitching and bullshit accusations

Please - stand up behind your accusations and show us all which parts of her videos are self-contradictory. Because I've watched them, and found her position to be extremely considered, consistent, and much more intelligent than I was expecting.

And I really don't understand your complaint about how she spent the kickstarter money. She asked for donations to make a series of videos, alot of people donated with the understanding that she would make the video series, she made the video series. Are you suggesting that she should have taken that money and done something else with it? Wouldn't that be borderline fraud? Would you do that?

The "liar" part is trivially proven

Actually, from what I've read on this thread, no-one has 'trivially proven' this. If she'd made the a game instead of the videos, that would have made her a liar. But she didn't, she stuck to what she said she was going to do. So again, please, back up your idle accusations with quotes from her (helpfully transcribed) videos.

Comment: Re:Her work (Score 1) 951

What I am saying is that the world is controlled right now by politically correct, professionally offended people.

What a completely extraordinary thing to imagine. If this were the case, there wouldn't be any gender stereotyping in video games and Lego and all the rest of it. But there is - the medium is awash with it even though in your imagination it's all run by politically correct and professionally offended people.

Wut?

Comment: Re:Her work (Score 1) 951

She is not professionally offended. She doesn't receive money for the videos, except as donations, there are no advertisements on her page. So she's not 'professional'. And she is not 'offended' either - she is very intelligently pointing out very real gender stereotypes in a series of extremely articulate videos. Watch the one that other guy linked, the one about Lego. It's so on the money that it's not even funny.

Put more simply. She is right.

Comment: Re: Her work (Score 1) 951

Permit me to reply to myself.

I have now watched the entire video, and you know what. She is absolutely and completely right in every single point she made. Regular Lego is marked to boys. Girl lego is completely barbie-doll and rubbish. In the toy store down the road here, the 'boy' and 'girl' lego is even on display in different isles. This is not a good thing.

I do not understand how you can have missed this point. And if you didn't miss it, I do not understand how you could disagree with it. Please enlighten me.

Comment: Re: Her work (Score 1) 951

This is what she actually says - and is the only mention of testosterone in the entire thirteen minutes: (from her transcript)

They can start by deemphasizing the macho testosterone and the combat, and create universally appealing sets that include occupations and adventure scenarios for children of all genders.

I am struggling to understand how this is suggesting that testosterone is evil. She additionally - and correctly - notes how women do not appear in their advertising playing with lego. She most certainly does not suggest that fathers and sons playing together is a bad thing - she instead suggests that there is a very strong gender bias going on in the Lego world. And she is right of course - with an 18-1 ratio of male to female minifigs I fail to see how any other conclusion could be reached.

There was one thing that annoyed me though - she kept on referring to Lego as 'Legos'. Americans. Please stop doing this.

Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. -- Francis Bacon

Working...