https://www.resetera.com/threads/th...irings-of-guild-wars-2-writers-read-op.54662/
It's mentioned quite a lot in that one as justification for her treating customers like shit.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Era's Woman Problem (Read OP)
- Thread starter Persephone
- Start date
- Status
It's mentioned quite a lot in that one as justification for her treating customers like shit.
The problem is the dismissal and diminishing of those perspectives though. I don't think anyone is saying "don't think critically" or asking people to be automatons, rather it's "please take what minorities are saying into consideration before you make a declarative statement". That is a part of thinking critically, like you said. If someone comes into a thread with an opinion about minorities that has been or is rebutted by a minority poster and chooses to double down on their opinion anyways, that isn't any good, it just shows an unwillingness to listen. Asking questions to better inform yourself and opinion is one thing, but doubling down is entirely different. Part of it is sometimes people don't read threads (sometimes they can be long, I get it) so they might miss a lot of that.
Okay, so if a bunch of women are telling you how it is mansplaining, and you explain to them how it isn't mansplaining, how are you not yourself mansplaining? Do you believe that a woman maybe has a better understanding of what that entails than you do as they have to live it constantly? What is the worst that could happen if you were to change your mind on the issue?
Well she has life experience of being talked down to by men in an industry where women are assumed to be not as capable.
What you got?
This was the main one I followed: https://www.resetera.com/threads/th...irings-of-guild-wars-2-writers-read-op.54662/
Mansplaining was discussed on probably every page. It was a core part of the argument that Jessica Price's actions were not deserving of any kind of negative reaction (or at least not firing) by her employer.
I'm not sure why you need to be an expert on the subject matter being discussed to establish if the language being used by people discussing it is condescending/patronizing.
I'm a native English speaker who has the ability to recognize condescending/patronizing tone.
If a woman says "he's mansplaining me" then yes, I have to take her word on it. That's how she feels, I can't tell her that her opinion is invalid because I don't think it to be true.
So it's ok for you to recognize tone and feel a way, but not for her? You realize what you're doing here right?
you don't have to be an expert but you should trust people who have more experience with it than you
also you're missing the main point. mansplaining happens specifically because a man is talking to a woman. its not just any old talking down to, its one where someone treats someone less knowledgeable due to being a woman and you would not have ever experienced that.
She gets to determine how she feels about it. If it feels like mansplaining to her then it's mansplaining to her. You don't have the authority of asserting, objectively, that her opinion is wrong, though that doesn't mean you need to share it. Both you and Price are going with your gut feelings, none of this counts as "irresponsible and stupid".
It's not always overtly condescending or even overtly patronizing though.
I don't understand the point of longer bans. If the idea is for them to reflect, a week sounds like enough. If they're banning someone for a month, at that point, might as well just permaban them.
When did I say she's not free to feel a way? She absolutely can.
I can also feel that she's wrong.
You're effectively saying she is wrong and shouldn't think of it as mansplaining.
Sure. It's mansplaining to her. That's well and good.
Suggesting that I'm obligated to feel the same way, not well and good.
I'm obligated to at least look into it (assuming I want to have an opinion on it), but I don't have to agree.
I believe that the deluge of men that want women to know this is a part of why they feel uncomfortable.
In that situation? Yeah, I think she was wrong.
She's still entitled to feel a way about it.
Well I do hate myself quite frequently. My gender has been the bane of my existence since I was born ;)
Guess my black cousin hates himself too when he use racist words to describe himself and his family.
Again, this is progressive bullshit. I am giving examples of how people recognizes they are flawed and are working towards being better. I uses to use word I am not proud of in the past. I don't anymore. I only used them in private conversation with family to make fun of myself. I accept one pod caster using a few bad words, because his overall character and thoughts towards the rest of humanity out weigh his bad humor.
Full agreement.
*Where "treating like shit" is actually "calling out their mansplaining", which, to some people, seems to be considered worse than actual troublesome behavior. How odd.
But hey, you, some dude, decided it can't be mansplaining, so women aren't allowed to think otherwise. Kinda fills the textbook definition of mansplaining, but I'm sure you're going to tell us that it's not, and since you said so, it can't possible be. As a dude, you're definitely the authority on mansplaining, after all. Not women experiencing it a lot themselves. That'd be extreme.
This, too, is extreme.
ly correct.
she's entitled to feel fired i guess. important part is you can agree to disagree clearly
You don't need to feel the same way, but you need to feel that she's entitled to feel how she does and that your disagreement does not impact the validity of her feelings. That just because you don't feel the same way, her concerns about her situation are not real and don't merit discussion.
You still have yet to construct an argument for why taking her at her word is "irresponsible and stupid", only tried to justify your view of the Price-Deroire situation.
Because forming an opinion based on one side of a story (in this case, Price saying something is mansplaining) is always going to be irresponsible. Assuming you're participating in a dialogue about the issue at least.
I mean, what people in this situation were basically suggesting was "don't even bother reading the tweet, she says it was mansplaining so it was".
Sorry, that's laughable and irresponsible to me. Especially when there's another persons reputation on the line.
It's irresponsible and stupid because if everyone took that accusation at face value, then Deroir would be universally known as an asshole and a bigot who disrespects women.
Anyway, there's a thread with almost 4,000 posts that had a lot of people participating in the discussion at the time and goes into this in far more detail than we should here.
Now you're just talking crazy. That shit sounds like.... empathy.....
If you're a guy you've never actually experienced "mansplaining" and so your opinion on it is entirely irrelevant.
User Banned (Permanent): Dismissive and condescending attitude towards sensitive issues, long history of infractions.
Yeah, no. Gonna disagree there.
I'm not going to label someone as a mansplaining sexist just because one person felt that way.
Its a pretty black and white issue. You aren't obligated to feel a certain way, but its absolutely fair to judge you for where you come down on the matter.
I think the phrase 'taking someone at their word' is more listening and trying to see things from their point of view than blind acceptance. Obviously we each come to our own conclusions about it, but we acknowledge that this person feels this way about it and they feel it is important to express and that someone is there to listen and make the effort to understand their concerns.
So I guess basically it's about having empathy and reaching out to understand someone, rather than taking what they say as gospel. It's a semantics thing, but here it's kind of important to distinguish since people are caught up in it.
So I guess basically it's about having empathy and reaching out to understand someone, rather than taking what they say as gospel. It's a semantics thing, but here it's kind of important to distinguish since people are caught up in it.
I love that this whole thread is about woman and allowing them to speak, and discuss, yet you're in here saying that a woman is wrong for how she is thinking. This is not some thing of 2+2=3 and you're proving it false. She is explaining how she read the text, interpreted and felt based on that. It is literally her feelings on the matter and you're insisting that she is wrong. Yes yes yes I know you said she is entitled to her opinion, we get it but the issue by you making that statement and following up with "i read it and think she's wrong" you're effectively cancelling your previous statement out.
Yeah sorry I went off track, to dial it back a bit:
This article from the New Yorker was posted some pages back, most people overlooked it but I'll bring up an applicable good quote:
In trying to approach every situation "neutrally", you're committing the mistake of thinking the scales are balanced at all when they're lopsided in most contexts and you have the responsibility of accounting for that balance in your opinions. There is a sociological backing for this.
The reason why we, socially, should take oppressed people at their word is to counterbalance a society that diminishes the importance of their world, effectively social affirmative action. Trying to view every situation "neutrally" (neutral doesn't exist in fact, only in imaginations) is one of the ways by which oppressor groups stall or hamstring attempts to raise awareness of oppressed voices. There isn't anything "irresponsible or stupid" about this, the irresponsible and stupid thing to do is actually pretending we can approach each situation neutrally as though they exist in a vacuum. For me, the reasons behind Price's firing did not so much matter as how the firing fits into the greater internet culture war between GamerGate types and progressive elements in the industry.
This article from the New Yorker was posted some pages back, most people overlooked it but I'll bring up an applicable good quote:
https://www.newyorker.com/books/pag...vents-white-americans-from-confronting-racism
In trying to approach every situation "neutrally", you're committing the mistake of thinking the scales are balanced at all when they're lopsided in most contexts and you have the responsibility of accounting for that balance in your opinions. There is a sociological backing for this.
You don't have to label anyone, you have to understand that you as a man have a very limited perspective, and accept when people who have the perspective you lack are telling you something. You aren't being forced to label anyone. And in what scenario is it one person? the thread you are talking about had multiple women who thought it was sexist.
I think the problem comes up when someone is being accused of a really shitty thing and held up as an example of the nonsense that women have to endure on a daily basis because of their gender. It would be irresponsible to take those claims at face value and just condemn the accused person as some were absolutely trying to do in those threads.
It's been really good having this discussion in the open and we think that the opportunity to have the dialogue has benefited the community overall. At this time however it seems to have run its course; the conversations are going in circles and becoming overshadowed by increasing hostility. We mentioned previously that we would lock the thread if it came to that point and that point appears to have come.
We hope that everyone will look past any personal animus and think seriously about the issues and perspectives raised by this thread. We certainly will.
We hope that everyone will look past any personal animus and think seriously about the issues and perspectives raised by this thread. We certainly will.
- Status