4 ms·

"Um. I feel that the article could have done without this snipe." I don't know if the article could've done without this, actually. The entire article seems to

"Um. I feel that the article could have done without this snipe." I don't know if the article could've done without this, actually. The entire article seems to argue that, due to abusive interactions and power dynamics are mostly commonly dealt with in a feminist lens, the strategies of analysis of intersectional interactions under a feminist framework will provide a better context to generate workable, functioning logistics on redefining the human-phone relationship. In that context, that gamergate's main targets of hate were women is relevant.

teddyh 7y ago
I can see the tie to misogyny, sure. It was the “far-right” connection I questioned, which I feel the article absolutely could have done without.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  "far-right" sentiments are often against what are typically understood as feminist sentiments. Eg. Abortion access, social services, access to contraception, implementing regulations around pregnant women and the pay gap (as well as the implication that the pay gap exists and can partially be rooted in sexism)...
  - teddyh 7y ago
    Yes, I know what you mean, but that can’t have been the reasoning; the article stated that gamers went from misogyny to far-right, using misogyny as a “gateway drug”. Why would the article have used the term “far-right” as a euphemism for “anti-feminist”, when it already postulated misogyny to start with? I think that interpretation makes no sense. The sentence only parses sensibly if you interpret “far-right” as something inherently bad, and something worse than misogyny. It’s hard to tell, though, since the article doesn’t use this connection again. The rest of the article mostly uses misogynists as the antagonists in its analogy to phones, and that’s fine and makes sense using the reasoning present in the article. It was that random connection to left/right politics which was unnecessary, since the “misogynist” label would have worked just as well, as evidenced by the rest of the article, which doesn’t use the “far-right” connection at all; this is why I called it a “snipe”.
- traderjane 7y ago
  From a feminist perspective, are right and left the same choice on matters of abortion, access to reproductive services, education on sex and condoms, or workplace rights?

teddyh 7y ago

I can see the tie to misogyny, sure. It was the “far-right” connection I questioned, which I feel the article absolutely could have done without.

SolaceQuantum 7y ago
"far-right" sentiments are often against what are typically understood as feminist sentiments. Eg. Abortion access, social services, access to contraception, implementing regulations around pregnant women and the pay gap (as well as the implication that the pay gap exists and can partially be rooted in sexism)...
- teddyh 7y ago
  Yes, I know what you mean, but that can’t have been the reasoning; the article stated that gamers went from misogyny to far-right, using misogyny as a “gateway drug”. Why would the article have used the term “far-right” as a euphemism for “anti-feminist”, when it already postulated misogyny to start with? I think that interpretation makes no sense. The sentence only parses sensibly if you interpret “far-right” as something inherently bad, and something worse than misogyny. It’s hard to tell, though, since the article doesn’t use this connection again. The rest of the article mostly uses misogynists as the antagonists in its analogy to phones, and that’s fine and makes sense using the reasoning present in the article. It was that random connection to left/right politics which was unnecessary, since the “misogynist” label would have worked just as well, as evidenced by the rest of the article, which doesn’t use the “far-right” connection at all; this is why I called it a “snipe”.
traderjane 7y ago
From a feminist perspective, are right and left the same choice on matters of abortion, access to reproductive services, education on sex and condoms, or workplace rights?