Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I haven't heard of Will Chamberlain but the other two were famous before they were known as promiscuous.

I have no idea what difference this point makes.

^ Which side of that does Kardashian fall under?




Other than Jay Z.

Society has long first tried to know women by who they slept with. It's not really a new thing-- it's been assumed for centuries that it was the only part of a woman's history that mattered.

That this obsession carries on to the modern age is not emblematic of a problem with women, but with society as a whole.

 Melissia wrote:
Society has long first tried to know women by who they slept with. It's not really a new thing-- it's been assumed for centuries that it was the only part of a woman's history that mattered.

That this obsession carries on to the modern age is not emblematic of a problem with women, but with society as a whole.

Yes, but we could start a WHOLE new topic about problems with society as a whole and be talking about that till judgement day.

 Slarg232 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Society has long first tried to know women by who they slept with. It's not really a new thing-- it's been assumed for centuries that it was the only part of a woman's history that mattered.

That this obsession carries on to the modern age is not emblematic of a problem with women, but with society as a whole.

Yes, but we could start a WHOLE new topic about problems with society as a whole and be talking about that till judgement day.

My point is more that the focus on "well how many men vs how many women are known for this" is simply asking the wrong question to begin with.

Then it's a good thing the actual main problem with Zoe Quinn isn't her sleeping with a few random guys.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Then it's a good thing the actual main problem with Zoe Quinn isn't her sleeping with a few random guys.

If you believe that to be the case, perhaps you should try talking about something other than her supposedly sleeping around, then.

The only other criticisms I've seen of her is how she supposedly counter-trolled a bunch of misogynistic jerks (which, if true, means it's two groups of trolls duking it out; excuse me while I put some popcorn in the oven), and how she supposedly had a failing charity shut down.

Neither of which merits this kind of focus or hatred.

Grundz wrote:with some feminists' propensity to milk troll comments for all the sympathy their little wounded gazelles can muster, there are a lot of people that will think this.

You mean like with some dakkanauts propensity to milk feminists' troll comments in a desperate attempt to ridicule the entire movement?

Slarg232 wrote:You will notice with my wording I spoke as though it were hypothetical; Even if she slept with five guys, it's not her fault.

Indeed. It just sounded "undecided", as if there was actually a question.

For the record, though, I don't approve of cheating. To me, it is her fault. If she is a feminist, I'd expect her to accept that she is capable of making her own decisions and thus has just as much agency as the people she's been in a relationship with. According to the BF's own blog, they didn't see each other, so I suppose it was a classic case of "I'm lonely". Doesn't justify her actions, but perhaps puts them into a more relate-able light, in that she might've simply been weak instead of being the evil, man-hating exploitative capitalist whore the internet currently makes her out to be.
As far as her professional image is concerned, however, my amount of care for Quinn supposedly cheating on her BF is about equal to that for Clinton having gotten blowjobs from Lewinsky. Zero.

It'd be different if she was some icon of traditional marriage or Christian values or whatever, but here I don't see the hypocrisy. Cheating on someone has nothing whatsoever to do with feminism or sexism.

Manchu wrote:That seems problematic, to say the least.

I'm just saying that it pays off to look a little bit deeper and consider multiple angles, 's all.

To me, it has already paid off in that I am apparently better informed than several other people in this thread. Without even having had interest in this incident right away.

 Melissia wrote:
If you believe that to be the case, perhaps you should try talking about something other than her supposedly sleeping around, then.

As has already been stated multiple times before? She asked for trouble to come up. She did not get the massive assault because she's a woman. Some of it? Yes. Most of it? No. She lied and brought up a huge part of the internet on her, she purposefully victimized herself and then shouted out "Misogny! MISOGNY!" to shift the blame. Positive sexism at is very best. Or worst, depends on your point of view.

Does that justify all the things happening to her? Hell no. I merely state that she purposefully asked for trouble and got it.

 Lynata wrote:
I'm just saying that it pays off to look a little bit deeper and consider multiple angles, 's all.

Oh I see, I agree with that. I thought you were saying that speaking out made you skeptical of victims. It didn't seem in line with your usual comments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I haven't heard of Will Chamberlain

Wilt Chamberlain, already famous before claiming to have had sex with 20,000+ women.

Somebody posts thread about someone getting threats. Entire thread is "Yeah but she...". Classy as feth guys.*






*"Except the people arguing against that, but the conversation is still framed in terms of evaluating the criticism levied at her, when this is clearly not really the appropriate context to be having that discussion. However there really isn't much you can do to help it, given how aggressively the other side is pushing the point."

 Chongara wrote:
Entire thread is "Yeah but she...".

Be careful how you wave that tar brush around, thanks.

 Manchu wrote:
Wilt Chamberlain, already famous before claiming to have had sex with 20,000+ women.

What? I call bullskin on this!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chongara wrote:
Somebody posts thread about someone getting threats. Entire thread is "Yeah but she...". Classy as feth guys.

What is wrong with it? I don't see anyone actually saying that she deserved it. People have been giving reasons for why they dislike her and / or for why there is such an uproar. There is a difference between justifying actions with reasons and merely pointing out reasons.

He was a hall of famer before making the claim. Or are you saying you doubt he slept with nearly a quarter of a million women?

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Wilt Chamberlain, already famous before claiming to have had sex with 20,000+ women.

What? I call bullskin on this!

Agreed, plus it's quite likely you would lose track of the how many woman you banged with a number that big.

http://www.cracked.com/article_16120_historys-7-most-astounding-sexual-resumes_p2.html

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I haven't heard of Will Chamberlain but the other two were famous before they were known as promiscuous.

I have no idea what difference this point makes.

Just because you don't know who a famous person is does not mean that others do not... and if you don't recall the "Tiger's blood! WINNING!" thing from a couple years back... then I don't know what to say about that. This was, of course, following a situation involving, explicitly, hookers and blow.

lord_blackfang wrote:I'm sorry, at a quick glimpse I didn't catch where the unjust benefits were of them sleeping around. Did they sleep with female directors to get movie roles or something?

"Unjust benefits" was never part of the argument, and has nothing to do with the discussion.

Did these men receive negative attention for sleeping around? No. That's the argument... and part of the problem

 Manchu wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
Entire thread is "Yeah but she...".

Be careful how you wave that tar brush around, thanks.

1) It's a bucket, not a brush.
2) I'll add in an asterisk to the the comment with addendum "Except the people arguing against that, but the conversation is still framed in terms of evaluating the criticism levied at her, when this is clearly not really the appropriate context to be having that discussion. However there really isn't much you can do to help, given how agressively the other side is pushing the point.". I excluded it originally as it didn't sound nearly snippy and indignant, which is kind of what I was going for.
3) I love you too man.
4)

 Sigvatr wrote:

What is wrong with it? I don't see anyone actually saying that she deserved it. People have been giving reasons for why they dislike her and / or for why there is such an uproar. There is a difference between justifying actions with reasons and merely pointing out reasons.

Brah? Are you like stealing my old shtick of just making hyper-exaggerated satire posts endorsing untenable positions? Because if you are you need way more animated .gifs. Like they're central to the whole dynamic brah.

I didn't understand your post.

I assumed that you were serious about your previous post and claimed that everyone stating reasons for why there is such an uproar was just victim-blaming. Therefore, I replied and said that it ain't that simple.

I'm not sure on what you're trying to convey with this post...

 Lynata wrote:

Grundz wrote:with some feminists' propensity to milk troll comments for all the sympathy their little wounded gazelles can muster, there are a lot of people that will think this.

You mean like with some dakkanauts propensity to milk feminists' troll comments in a desperate attempt to ridicule the entire movement?

If the entire movement wasn't largely woe-is-me ridiculousness there'd be a lot less to millk

 Sigvatr wrote:
I didn't understand your post.

I assumed that you were serious about your previous post and claimed that everyone stating reasons for why there is such an uproar was just victim-blaming. Therefore, I replied and said that it ain't that simple.

I'm not sure on what you're trying to convey with this post...

I was saying you need to use more animated gifs in your posts.

The Graphics Interchange Format (better known by its acronym GIF; /ˈdʒɪf/ or /ˈɡɪf/) is a bitmap image format that was introduced by CompuServe in 1987[1] and has since come into widespread usage on the World Wide Web due to its wide support and portability.

Like skulls:


Rotating Skulls:


Flaming Skulls:


Flaming Skulls, that also rotate:


It's just friendly advice. I think they'd help accentuate your points .It doesn't just have to be skulls either. I could be anything, maybe even a dancing banana. Sorry, I'm not trying to be bossy here. I'm just trying to help a brotha out is all.

Oh Chongara.

huggz?

 Chongara wrote:
given how agressively the other side is pushing the point

My main strategy in threads like this is to speak to those who aren't posting.

 Chongara wrote:
I love you too man.

He finally noticed!

 Psienesis wrote:

"Unjust benefits" was never part of the argument, and has nothing to do with the discussion.

Did these men receive negative attention for sleeping around? No. That's the argument... and part of the problem

The problem in this specific case is allegedly using sex for leverage, not promiscuity. You're the only one here talking about promiscuity. So maybe stop reading off the standard white knight crib sheet and actually comment on the topic?

 jreilly89 wrote:
Honestly, my biggest problem with her is in the same vein as Bill O'Reilly. She makes gak up, claims things without evidence, refuses to take criticism, and is genuinely sexist. A lot of her comments do come off as misandric and offensive.

This pretty much sums up my dislike for Anita Sarkeesian. She is the Feminist equivalent of Bill O' Reilly.

Which is probably why so many people love and hate her in equal measure.

 Manchu wrote:
He was a hall of famer before making the claim. Or are you saying you doubt he slept with nearly a quarter of a million women?

Just 20k wasn't it? 200,000 would be physically impossible because even 4 a day every single day from 16 to 66 wouldn't get you that high.

I would doubt that as well mind, who counts past the age of 25? I was stacks growing up on account of my baby-blue eyes and natural charm, and I stopped counting after I actually fething grew up.

Same with fethers like Warren Beaty, Russell Brand, and all the other famous swordsmen.. I take them with a pinch of salt. Like they must just go "loads" and then a journo demands a figure so they go "er..... 20,000" but nobody over the age of 25 actually sits and marks them off on a tally on the wall surely?

Or I am just giving them too much credit?

Sarkeesian's vids seem entirely restrained and cautious to me. As far as I can tell, she makes an effort to communicate with those who are likely to disagree -- and honestly that often seems to be more than her detractors are willing to offer her.

@mattyrm: Can't say I would be surprised that people who seek to be famous for a living might make up stuff about themselves that is outlandish by any measure.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

"Unjust benefits" was never part of the argument, and has nothing to do with the discussion.

Did these men receive negative attention for sleeping around? No. That's the argument... and part of the problem

The problem in this specific case is allegedly using sex for leverage, not promiscuity. You're the only one here talking about promiscuity. So maybe stop reading off the standard white knight crib sheet and actually comment on the topic?

If a dude slept with a lady reviewer and got five stars on his game, no one would bat a freakin' eye. VG Journalism is less-credible than Fox News. It is *known* that A+ reviews are bought by publishers, and magazines that publish unfavorable reviews lose the sponsorship and business (those sweet, sweet advertising dollars) from the companies whose games they reviewed poorly.

Further, if it was revealed that he did, the majority of internet commentators would be saying "Yeah, buddy, get some!", not issuing him death threats or calling him a slut, because internet communities are, by and large, terrible places filled with terrible people. One need only read YouTube comments, Yahoo! Answers, their local news affiliate's website, or Reddit to know this.

Nothing about threatening someone's life is right or "ok". I condemn the individuals who sent anita sarkeesian death threats.


I will simply posit that plenty of individuals around the world receive death threats WITHOUT profiting $160,000. And my bias perspective of anita sarkeesian clouds most of my sympathy because I can't help but feel this news will simply result in more gains for anita sarkeesian, be it celebrity sympathy or actual financial gain.

So yeah, there is an element of "crocodile tears" all the way to the bank. If the threats are legit, hopefully those making death threats will get arrested.

 Crablezworth wrote:
And my bias perspective of anita sarkeesian

You finally said something honest about her and you. Everything before and after were crap, but one honest moment is good.

 Psienesis wrote:
If a dude slept with a lady reviewer and got five stars on his game, no one would bat a freakin' eye.

Do you have a single fact to back this up?

And it strikes me as odd that you'd conclude your post with basically "yeah the internet is a nasty place and high-profile people getting bombarded with death threats and personal, nasty insults isn't at all uncommon" yet still insist that this is specifically a gender issue and a man would never be attacked in this manner.