Thursday, October 16, 2014 ... Deutsch/Español/Related posts from blogosphere

Feminists vs computer games

Computer gaming belongs among the human activities with the most obvious gender gap. I have experienced this gap clearly among all the contemporaries of myself in the environments that have surrounded me and I observe this gap on my niece-and-nephew, 5-year-old twins, too. This software (even more so than "most software") is predominantly produced by male programmers, and overwhelmingly played by male gamers. The difference between the male and female attitude to computer games is expressed in a song called Computer Games by the LHC, too.

Physics would be attacked by the feminists for being male-dominated. These ladies don't actually want to learn the Feynman path integral – of course, almost none of them could do such a thing – but they love to harm others and their important sophisticated activities. I was unsurprised to see that the computer gaming industry has become another target of the feminists' anger.

A woman named Anita Sarkeesian became rather famous with her Feminist Frequency YouTube channel. Unlike almost all feminists, she is pretty attractive and I find her comments fun to watch. Well, if or when I separate the medium from the message she offers, the content of the videos is rather pathetic.

To make the story short, she complains about every computer game where a woman is playing a more passive role than a man – which is often the case of the real life. Her videos often get close to one million views and sometimes more and she is giving talks at various places, too.

Needless to say, many guys who love computer games and the whole industry are very upset. Check e.g. this video complaining about her misrepresentation of some games. In those games, you are penalized for killing civilians and your task is to fight against sex trafficking and other crimes. And these missions are tiny portions of the computer games, anyway. These missions – which obviously make you a good guy – are extremely bad from her feminist viewpoint, torn from the context, and used as weapons to attack the whole games. She likes to (almost always dishonestly) claim that the games like to teach the players that women are inferior and to hate them etc.

Another guy doesn't like that she has just taken the huge Kickstarter money (over $150,000: the sum clearly is insane in comparison with the cr@p she is offering) without saying what they were used for and hypothesizes that she doesn't even play or own the games she is critiquing; she is perhaps just stealing YouTube video content recorded by others. And it's bad that the defenders of the games aren't allowed in her comment sections – and she never confronts those who disagree with her ideas.

You find lots of videos on YouTube whose authors expose some problems with her critiques.

But to get to the present: she cancelled a talk at Utah State University because she has or the organizers have received something like terrorist threats.

Even though one could say that one needs lots of arrogance to offer this feminist junk publicly, especially in Utah, I don't endorse such threats at all. Moreover, I can't even be sure that the threats were made by someone else than herself. She could have just organized these threats in order to increase her visibility. I am not saying it is inevitably so, it's just possible. But let me assume that the threats were made by someone else.

In that case, they're bad and even less civilized than her criticisms of the video games. On the other hand, given a certain context, they may be understandable. She is undoubtedly a parasite of the gaming industry that harms the programmers and gamers of the computer games and gets tons of money at the same moment.

If people agree that it is legitimate for her to criticize the games, it must clearly be allowed for those who actually know the games to criticize her, too, and the framework in which people may express their arguments why her claims are rubbish or dishonest should be as civilized as possible. And yes, I do think that the creators of the games should check whether she has violated some copyrights in her business.

There are lots of videos explaining why the very essence of the feminist stories about the computer games – and life in general – is fundamentally flawed. Some of them were recorded by men, others by women. I probably liked this one most of all. It got over 250,000 views. Some videos with a related message get close to a million, too. Their creators haven't been self-confident enough to monetize their videos to $150,000+, however.

Of course that if the society pushes those who realize why feminism is wrong to the corner or works to marginalize them, they will show up in a less civilized way.

The very fact that universities often have Women's Studies and Feminist Departments – but there are no Men's Studies or Anti-Feminist Departments – is outrageous. However, I sort of feel optimistic that within the gaming industry, she just can't win. The majority of the consumers simply find her lies and accusations offensive and detached from anything resembling reality and if a major gaming company decided to turn against them, they could easily go out of business. #GamerGate is the hash tag of the grassroots movement that wants to improve the gaming journalism by reducing the role of the feminist critics and the incompetency, nepotism, and other undesirable things they bring with them.

Add to Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (63) :

reader Michael said...

Complete agreement.

Feminism hurt men *and* women. They deny the nature of both genders, and make women think about their own sexuality and their actual feelings in negative ways.
And so-called equality tend to really mean special treatment for women. If an employer takes into his consideration that a woman might get pregnant he is "discriminating", even when he/she is forced to pay her salary during her leave, and keep the job available.
As the forced redistribution grows and grows a woman don't have to rely on a good and stable man if she wants kids. The state is now her provider, contributing to the view that men are obsolete and useless. It end up being depressing to men and women.

Women (some) have created a (almost) whole generation of "nice guys" who believe they must show overly "nice" submissive behavior (fake sweetness/compliance really, an actual good guy do what is right, not what is expected), and of course the men are baffled when it produces no attraction in women. Both genders end up hating this distortion of reality and the problems it causes in relationships.

We can embrace that women are attracted to features that imply you are a reliable provider (confidence and so) and that men are attracted to features that imply fertility (looks) and skill (caring, emotional intelligence) as a mother. It is to a large degree our different natures that makes our perspectives interesting and dynamic to one another. Some simple and ubiquitous differences like women's tendency to feel out the entire relationship and "feel" if something is off, while often men tend to think the discussion is about the subject being discussed, and not her feelings of lack of connection, may repeat itself in many guises, but understanding such simple things become impossible if we deny our nature. Of course the notion that women are the nice ones who care about long term stability and men are assholes all about immediate gratification, is completely wrong too. Actually, in my experience men tend to suffer more and become more disillusioned than women when relationships break.

Concerning the video and the comments on looks, its so silly when people say "oh look how society makes women care about their looks?" Haha, the market of makeup, shoes and whatnot reflects women's natural desires, it doesn't create it! Much like computer-games just reflects what can be sold, they don't create the differences, they reveal them! Of course men find "practicing" fighting interesting, we aren't just providers, we are so awesome we want to protect too, and we aren't (too) afraid to get hurt in the process.

We can grow, show genuine interest, listen to one another and improve our lives from asking "show me how to love you even better", but not if the honest answers are censored.

reader Smoking Frog said...

Lubos - Fraud or idiot Sarkeesian lady may be, and, I gather, is, but you really should have mentioned the fact that the Utah Supreme Court some years back ruled that the university could not ban legal concealed weapons on campus. She herself had something to say about it in her decision not to go there. I'm not opposed to the court's ruling, but it does need mentioning.

Something like 40 states now have what's called "concealed carry on demand" or some variant thereof, which basically says that you can't be refused a concealed carry permit unless you have a criminal record or have been mentally ill. A business or any property owner can ban guns on its/his property, but a state university is a government institution, so it would be committing a civil rights violation if it were to do so. This may be subject to some exceptions, but it is generally true.

reader Luboš Motl said...

Dear Smoking Frog, thanks for the information, partly new for me.

I really have some understanding for her being afraid of this unregulated status of the guns and to cancel the event for that reason. She has reasons to be afraid. On the other hand, if the constitution and laws make it impossible to ban the guns on the events, that's how it should be.

It's purely about my taste but I find the idea that to hold a gun in every state institution is a "civil right" to be mocking the term "civil rights" a bit. If an airport were state-owned, would it also be impossible to ban passengers' guns at the airport?

Quite generally, I think that a government property shouldn't be that different from private property. The only difference is that its owner is a bit more vague and perhaps democratically controlled - the government institutions and lawmakers (and indirectly, "all the people").

reader JollyJoker said...

Sarkeesian isn't the only one. Game makers Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu have also gotten death threats.

Any actual questioning of journalistic ethics seems to have gotten flooded out by trolls behaving exactly like the misogynists they claim not to be. Even on the Wikipedia page describing Gamergate the "Legitimacy of Gamergate's concerns" part is comparatively short and mainly critical.

FWIW I think there never was much more to it than spewing hate over prominent feminists and women game makers. The complaints about Quinn and Sarkeesian seem completely unrelated and really; who cares if some feminist happens to misrepresent a game when looking for things to complain about? The threats of rape and murder just prove she has a point.

reader Michael said...

Yeah that would be unnerving.

I sometimes get the feeling that when "more freedom" is being discussed, the subject quickly turns to weapons, and people worry you mean "sudden, violent revolution." and "everybody against everybody in win-lose interactions". It is really just about discovering that things improve and have potential to be morally consistent, when we have the freedom to help each other unhindered in win-win interactions. But its hard if alternatives are "free" (even when they suck) and it isn't even allowed to offer actual independent alternatives.

Its a gradual process, because the attitude towards the world changes gradually, and if people *believe* it will be chaos, it will be chaos.

reader Dream Chaser said...

I did not initially care about GG at all. I was thinking, whatever, the
evidence is dubious at best, and even if it was true, who cares, some
woman using sex to obtain an advantage is nothing new or particularly
bad.. What changed my mind was the subsequent reaction, when both reddit
and 4chan(!) banned GG talk and the series of "gamers are dead"
articles published in sync by major gaming media -
. Anyone remembering Sarkeesian, Elevatorgate or Adriagate
controversies? The "witchhunt" in those cases was perhaps even more
vigorous, but nothing like that has happened, no attempts at censoring
the issue on major forum sites. This for me is a far better evidence of
nefarious background practices and coordinated political agenda-pushing
than any dubious "Five Guys" video. If journalists and forum admins want
to be referred to as unbiased, they should at least pretend to be.

reader Michael said...

Its quite interesting how angry people are at her for abusing the donations. Can you imagine if people were this insistent and angry, when their tax-money is abused? (for example on feminist studies, or studies claiming the dangers of gaming, to make the connection tighter) And in that case they themselves paid and didn't even agree to it! It is sort of a demonstration that too obvious distortions "created" in the free market just can't survive in the freedom of the internet.

With the government involved though, its different. Bull-shit psychology then gets plenty of opportunity to flourish, and abuse runs rampant. Something doesn't work? Well, then throw *more* money at it(?!). You can find books used to educate children caretakers in the 70ies arguing for there being no differences between boys and girls. Such distortions just can't survive without a centralized power-structure (or religion, it is the perception of authority that makes all the difference)

reader charris208 said...

These days, anyone in the public eye who holds a controversial position is going to receive hate mail and death threats, it doesn't matter much what they are espousing. Sad, but true.

Utah doesn't hand out concealed carry licenses like peanuts, you have to pass a course, obtain a permit, and will be fingerprinted in the process. This is a case of Sarkeesian combining two aspects of current liberal politics: gun control and feminism. Perhaps she should carry herself ;) The lady who auctioned off my mothers furniture in Oklahoma did.

reader Uncle Al said...

Men conquer, women seduce. One cannot seduce product that does not yet exist. Men cull stragglers, women nurture them. One cannot win by feeding the best to the worst. Men sweat their reps on a gym, women dance around. The whole world is a pissoir for men. Women obviously did not evolve in the wild.

Each person must be considered on an individual basis. On the whole "gender equality," any mandated "equality" is societal suicide. The very best A-10 Thunderbolt II "Warthog" pilots are women. The very last thing you saw before your tank vaporized was a lady from Hades. If you are feeding artillery, women doing the heavy lifting will kill you.

reader Alex said...

The problem with our PC world is that one strident voice overrides 100 others.
A t-shirt has just been withdrawn from sale by big retail outlets in Australia.
It has an Australian flag on it and a comment below that says 'If you don't love it-leave'.
Apparently that is racist.
Fuck me.

reader Alex said...

Wow! that's first thing you said that I understood and wholeheartedly agree with.

reader Alex said...

Anita is just an attention whore who is attacking a soft target-gamers. I would be happy to contribute some money for her to go to Iraq and confront ISIS. That's where she should go if she had any balls-oops she doesn't have any.

reader Michael said...

I worry for the future of Australia. It seems like they become more and more PC and more and more prone to socialist policies. The bush-fires and droughts they experience also makes them quite prone to jump onto the climate hysteria band-wagon.

reader Alex said...

The current prime minister has said that climate change is BS. Carbon Tax has been cancelled and a bunch of subsidies have been withdrawn or cut back. The opposition leader has realised that Australians have an active BS meter and has decided to go against the green's policies. It's still a little too PC but people are getting tired of that too. MSM is one thing, people are another. We all feel that everyone should have a 'fair go'. We don't need regulation of speech.

reader Michael said...

Thanks for this information. I need to update. I didn't know the Carbon Tax had been repealed :-). That's good news for sure.

reader Thidran said...

Psst. There's actually a lot more. Just been waiting for the right time.

reader Scott said...

I have twins, girl and boy. They are 8 years old and the girl is into Minecraft in a big way...a little more than the boy. Although their younger brother is into them more than either of the 8 year olds.

reader Luboš Motl said...

LOL, I would love to see that - although I did encounter YouTube videos by girls who play Minecraft before.

reader Swine flu said...

"Quite generally, I think that a government property shouldn't be that different from private property."

The government owns the streets, the rivers, the lakes, and the air we breathe, so the differences are unavoidable. As far as gun laws go, the differences between government and private property are really a matter of state law.

In Texas you can bring a gun (if you have a carry permit) into the State Capitol building not because it is government property, but because Texas chose not to ban them there:

But you won't be able to bring your gun to a university or school in Texas, because that is their choice.

In Arizona, you can carry a gun openly or concealed without any permit, but you still can't bring one to a university campus or school, because that's what the state decided.

Utah is a bit unusual in that it allows guns both at state universities and K-12 schools. After the threats, the speaker in question wanted the police to run metal detectors on those entering the building where she would speak, which they refused to do because of Utah laws, so she cancelled her talk. I understand her decision, but this one incident is hardly the reason for Utah to change its laws. They should try to find the person who made the threats, prosecute him, and be done with it.

Even on private property, states can still interfere. I doubt a private business can discriminate against a customer because of his skin color in any state these days, and if the state decided that carrying a gun for self-defense is such a fundamental right that it should trump private property rights, it could force private businesses to allow it. In practice, gun rights aren't seen to be as fundamental to the degree racial discrimination is even in the most pro-gun states, so there are no such anti-discrimination laws protecting gun carriers, but the states do differ in the degree to which they will enforce the desire of some private businesses to ban guns on their premises. In many states, a no-guns sign at the business entrance has the force of law, but in some states it doesn't.

reader Luboš Motl said...

Michael, I personally don't have much fear about PC in Australia, with the current government - and even with the Labor Party that has eliminated e.g. carbon tax from its program.

Concerning your previous comment, Michael, I think that people are angry about wasting government money, too. There are just no "clearly localized comment sections" where they could display their anger.

At the end, I think that both the money mis-distributed by the government and the money she has "earned" will be tolerated because it's technically legal.

reader Michael said...

Thanks for the answer. Yeah, I just learned about the Carbon Tax being abolished, my worries were dated. Hopefully they continue this tendency.

Good point about their being no clearly localized comment sections to complain. Although still, there is a difference. You can criticize a government program, with the intend of changing it; sure people are fine, it is democracy after all. But you can't point out that there is something fundamentally immoral about the whole thing, at least not without risking serous ridicule.

reader Ann said...

I'm always amazed at some people who are not in business (e.g. career feminists) simply assume that corporations (e.g. game companies) are dictating social structures and forcing social attitudes on us. It's backwards -- businesses respond to and accommodate consumers' desires and preferences. Guys enjoy sexy women in video games, so what? Women CLEARLY LOVE buying beauty products, sexy clothes, etc.. they drive that industry. But on a different, related note, what will happen now with these horrendous new campus statutes (especially California) about defining when sexual assault has occurred? Due process is just gone. The accused no longer has any legal protection. It will be a disaster and ruin the lives of many students, mostly males. And, yes, I totally blame the Obama administration for this development -- the feds have been pushing the campuses to do more on this non-issue.

reader Luboš Motl said...

Tx for the lesson, Swine flu. Just to be sure, I find some of these laws counterintuitive but it is in no way my goal to impose my intuition on the U.S. ;-)

There's always lots to learn. I won't forget that we once came by car - Tom Sykora just flew from Czechia and was driving - to the Niagara Falls. Something was wrong, a police car stopped us.

We immediately jumped out of the car, as always when talking to a cop. Oops, wrong. The cop was shitting in his pants and pointing the gun on the three of us. We just realized that something was different. In the U.S., we should have stayed in the car, with the head on the steering wheel, or whatever. Of course Tom couldn't have known that.

I don't know who of us has shitted more into his pants than the other side, whether the cop or us. ;-)

reader Michael said...

Thanks for your answer Ann.
A lot of what the Obama administration does seem really scary. With so many complicated laws everyone can be at risk, such a dangerous development. The incarceration rate is already so high.

Yeah, this continued harsher definition of accepted or supposedly normal behaviors. Not good, my mind wanders to the children and the ADHD craziness.

reader Swine flu said...

I've actually had the impression that the Czech Republic has rather unique gun laws in that not only ownership of guns is allowed, but so is carrying. I don't know how things are "on the ground there", but according to this Wikipedia article - -
"Carrying guns in schools and campuses is not prohibited by law and there are no so called "gun-free zones".

I do very occasionally see someone open-carrying a pistol, and I find it very liberating to be able to see an ordinary citizen able to do that. But, yes, it's a matter of attitude whether one likes this or not. :)

reader Luboš Motl said...

It's probably true but the number of weapons among the folks is probably vastly lower than in the U.S., so none of these laws really matters much.

reader Swine flu said...

The data is that the percentage of people who actually apply for a concealed carry permit even in the states where one doesn't need special justification to obtain such a permit remains fairly low. The typical number would be on the order of 3 percent or so, although there are a couple of states where it is higher.

This shows that most people don't go armed even when they can, so I wouldn't discount Czech gun laws too quickly :) despite lower ownership rates. They really do seem quite unique.

reader andrew said...

In what way is feminism wrong? We should all demand equal rights and opportunities for all groups, genders, classes in society; we should, all of us, be feminists. This, I hope, will become a goal so well accepted that to ask whether one is a feminist would be akin to asking a physicist whether he is a Newtonian.

The gaming industry is undoubtedly influenced by our patriarchal social structures. Broadly speaking, female characters are absent from games or else merely CGI stereotypes of a women, portrayed in a demeaning, unrealistic manner, with little depth or development. The same structures, unfortunately, influence all popular culture; games, in this regard, are little worse than Hollywood and TV, and even theatre and classical literature.

Feminism in academia is about understanding the power and prevalence of sexist social structures, how they influence society, how they perpetuate, and role of women in society and history. Your suggestion that, presumably in the interests of balance, for every feminist academic there should be a men's academic, is strange; the role of men in society and history is well-documemted. Men weren't marginalised. We don't need dedicated academic research into e.g. men's history - history is already, largely, men's history.

reader Swine flu said...

"we should, all of us, be feminists"

Not if it means quotas not based on ability.

reader Swine flu said...

The US has higher gun ownership rates than that. So, in the Czech Republic, 300k out of 10 million is 3 percent. Assuming one license holder per household, and assuming an average household size of 3 people, we'll get 9 percent of households in your country owning a firearm. In the US the percentages I've seen vary from 10 percent of households in places like New Jersey and Massachusetts to 60 percent in Wyoming. The national average in the US is somewhere between 30 and 50 percent of households, but no one knows for sure, since many states don't have gun registration.

But 9 percent of households in your country, if that's really the number, is quite substantial too.

reader Michael said...


"In what way is feminism wrong? We should all demand equal rights and opportunities for all groups, genders, classes in society; we should, all of us, be feminists."

Equal rights, sure. But equal rights doesn't mean special treatment, right. It doesn't mean the banning or condemnation of normal human behaviors.

The problem is, it goes much further than equal rights and opportunities(freedoms would be a better word I think, opportunities can sort of imply that someone must be obliged to give you an opportunity, I mean, what does it end up meaning, we are all different), because that's not what it ends up advocating. It is the truth distorting aspect, the blaming, the political interference in our lives like quotas at workplaces, forced salaries or special privileges for women, automatic advantages in court or whatever. And of course the hole man-hostile aspect of it. If it was just about equal rights and opportunities - as the market offers it without distortions and no legal barriers for anyone - of course it would be fine. But its not.

About the gaming thing read my comment at the bottom. The gaming industry just produce what the gamers want, what sells. Its really that simple. There is nothing wrong about that.

Read Anns comment too.

reader Luboš Motl said...

I am all for equal rights and opportunities; their inevitable consequence are unequal outcomes.

we should, all of us, be feminists.

This statement shows that you are trying to 100% discriminate against - suppress the rights of opportunities - of all those people who are not brainwashed feminist imbeciles like you.

This, I hope, will become a goal so well accepted that to ask whether one is a feminist would be akin to asking a physicist whether he is a Newtonian.

The arrogance with which advocates of totally discredited antihuman ideologies compare their talking points to hard science never fails to amaze me.

However, I can partly accept your analogy because indeed, no reasonable physicist is Newtonian today. For 100 years or so, all of us were quantum & relativists. Too bad that you got your PhD if you are a Newtonian.

Your attacks on the gaming industry - and the bulk of the human culture and civilization - are nasty, brutal, dishonest, and unworthy a detailed response.

If men (you surely mean just "some men") weren't marginalized, it was because of their intrinsic characteristics & their efforts and attitude, not due to some random bias that a cosmic wind temporarily blew upon the Earth.

reader andrew said...

In what sense is feminism an antihuman, discredited ideology? Contrariwise, sexism - an ideology to disempower and divide humans - is antihuman and discredited.

I find it somewhat ironic that you begin a discussion of feminist history. What is the origin of sexism? Certainly I don't believe computer games or culture created sexism, though it promulgated sexist mores.

In brief, I would say that economic structures, and indeed the physical strength of men, began sexism. Women, less capable of heavy labour about which early society was organized, were excluded. Sexist attitudes were later codified in laws and religious texts, and exported worldwide by imperialism. Materialism also entrenched sexism; economic forces profited from unpaid and unrecognized domestic and reproductive labour performed by women.

reader Michael said...

"women , less capable of heavy labour about which early society was organized, were excluded"

I get the impression you write this as if there is something wrong with men and women working on different things that suit their different talents. Men and women are different!! So what.

And why do you say that the reproductive labor of women is unrecognised`? Do you not remember your mother? Do men don't appreciate them? Protect them?

Perhaps you will listen to a woman?

reader John Archer said...

"This, I hope, will become a goal so well accepted that to ask whether one is a feminist would be akin to asking a physicist whether he is a Newtonian."

This is delicious. Luboš has already responded to it but I'd like to give it a poke too, so to speak.

With a very few oddball exceptions, the answer to your latter question would be an emphatic "No!"

Haha! Not quite the response you anticipated then, eh? :)

Incidentally: "... asking a physicist whether he is ..." — oh dear! :)

It seems your bitch brainwashers botched the job. It's back to quimist re-education kamp for you, my boy!

But you're right — as unpalatable as it might be to your kind, most physicists are indeed men.

Still, you got to spew out some mandatory moralising prescriptions and few fashionable buzzwords and phrases, so the cysters shouldn't be too hard on you. Watch out if they're premenstrual though.

In the meanwhile run along and practice some of that "auspicating gender" or whatever it is you bozo pomo-merchants are up to this week.

P.S. A little birdy tells me you barely know what a 'Newtonian' is anyway. You should stick to faking it in subjects you're more familiar with.

reader Alex said...

andrew is a SNAG. It's his way of getting laid.

reader james said...

Sounds pretty wild. Though, remembering Duke lacross and a parade of loud but baseless accusations (one of the more dramatic ones), I hope I may be forgiven for withholding judgment about the threats.

reader Luboš Motl said...

Feminism and sexism is the *same thing*. Females are one of the two sexes, so feminism and masculinism are two brands of sexism. In reality, only the latter has advocates.

Racism is the ideology that the society has to be organized around the interests of a single race only. In the same way, Marxism wants to organize the society around the interests of the working-class losers only (plus their asslickers in other "classes"). Anti-Semitism is... around those who are not Jews, and so on.

Completely isomorphically, sexism i.e. feminism wants to organize the whole society around the interests of the people of one sex only, typically women. As you make very explicit, it also wants to rewrite the whole history so that it fits this (unachievable, but in its methods, extremely harmful for all human institutions) goal.

Anthropologists don't know a single example of a society that would be unequivocally matriarchal. This has very understandable reasons. In the past, much of influence boiled down to physical strength, and males simply have by 50% greater upper body muscle strength.

There is a gap in the abilities and societies in the past just didn't have enough resources to try too many experiments. So they largely had to stick with what is most likely to work, so the men were doing crafts and other things, and women were mothers and cooks etc. We know today that it is in no way "unavoidable" but alternatives can only exist today because we have the extra overproduction as well as the extra social mobility that just didn't exist and couldn't exist 700 years ago or something like that.

Feminism is trying to change the society into something that simply cannot work because of the basic laws of Nature, and just like Marxism pretty much intentionally creates "class struggle", tensions between groups of the people with different social characteristics and anti-Semitism wants to create tension between Jews and non-Jews, feminism wants to create a totally analogous but more dangerous tension between the two sexes.

You use all the hardcore left-wing words like "imperialism" and "sexism" etc. in order to make yourself hate something about the world that is absolutely unavoidable and that was vital for the human progress, ultimately because of the laws of Nature.

The tension between the two of us is a very clear example what anti-Semitism, feminism, and other ideologies favoring the interests of one group of people against others do to the relatiionships between the people. If there were no feminism, Maosim, Marxism, and other -isms that you are so obsessed with (indeed, one would have to remove H*rganism and few others), maybe this negative relationship wouldn't be here.

reader Jacob Reed said...

5€ Moraira, please click
on the link for more info:.,

Sell Your

reader Morris said...

'We should all demand equal rights and opportunities for all groups, genders, classes in society.'

That's partly true.

But what 'feminism' really means to most feminists is equal outcomes for both sexes—and that's the problem. For in a fair world, due to biological differences, there will not and cannot be equal outcomes between the sexes in certain fields like theoretical physics. So, faced with this fact, what do feminists do? They become dishonest about reality in order to create the unfair equal outcomes that they want and that they stupidly think represent a 'good' world. Their desire for this 'good' world is a perfect example of the maxim 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions.' Many blood-thirsty Marxists also thought that a 'good' world, or utopia, was achievable—if and only if they lied and sometimes murdered in order to bring it about.

reader Roby 83 said...

Feminism has become a band of man haters that organise false accusations against men. It's like mafia. Look at what happened at Harvard: now any male student can be expelled without due process.

reader andrew said...

As it happens, I was borrowing a construction from Che Guevara that seemed appropriate for a physics site,

"...When asked whether or not we are Marxists, our position is
the same as that of a physicist or a biologist when asked if he is a
"Newtonian," or if he is a "Pasteurian"

I stopped for the sake of brevity, but Guevara continues

"...if facts determine new concepts, these new
concepts will never divest themselves of that portion of truth
possessed by the older concepts they have outdated. Such is the
case, for example, of Einsteinian relativity or of Planck's "quantum"
theory with respect to the discoveries of Newton; they take nothing
at all away from the greatness of the learned Englishman. Thanks to
Newton, physics was able to advance until it had achieved new
concepts of space. The learned Englishman provided the necessary
stepping-stone for them."

I and Guevara were aware that Newtonian physics was extended by quantum and relativistic mechanics and by using "Newtonian," I, like Guevara, believe that new developments won't invalidate the "truth" or virtues of a feminist movement.

reader Luboš Motl said...

I assure you that quotes by the mass murderer such as Mr Che Guevara are not appropriate for any truly physics site, or any decent company, for that matter.

reader andrew said...

I think we've reached the crux of our disagreement - your (mis)conception of feminism. Feminism is not a pro-female brand of sexism. Equal treatment of the sexes isn't the last thing the movement wants; it's probably the first thing.

Feminism is "anti-sexism," though because only females have had to assert and demand their rights, feminism is an appropriate term.

For now, I'll retire. It's improbable that anyone in the course of a single discussion will make a volte- face, but perhaps we can plant seeds of doubt that later grow.



reader andrew said...

Dear Lubos,

I have no desire to reciprocate your faintly menacing remarks. I strongly disagree with you on many topics, but I wish you no ill; we are not at war, we just disagree, and we may conduct a polite discussion without unpleasant remarks.

Hasta la Victoria Siempre ;)


reader Bernd Felsche said...

Feminists are being objectified. By people like Anita Sarkeesian plundering their wallets.

reader Smoking Frog said...

It's purely about my taste but I find the idea that to hold a gun in
every state institution is a "civil right" to be mocking the term "civil
rights" a bit. If an airport were state-owned, would it also be
impossible to ban passengers' guns at the airport?

When I said, "This may be subject to some exceptions ..." I was referring to the situation with state universities, but my remark was misleading, since there certainly are non-university exceptions, such as courthouses.

reader Luboš Motl said...

Fine, again the word "exceptions". When there are "exceptions", the original hold doesn't really hold in the original sense.

If most of the airport is an exception, why can't a university be another exception? At the end, there has to exist someone who is deciding which exceptions are constitutional and which exceptions aren't, right?

reader Smoking Frog said...

Women also mostly milk children with their breasts.

:-) Hilarious. The word you want there is "suckle." We milk cows, and, I suppose, a baby could be said to be milking its mother (although it never is said).

reader Smoking Frog said...

Sure, the courts decide, and, if a case reaches an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court decides, it may (or may not) decide. The SC uses 2 or 3 different kinds of "scrutiny" for exceptions to constitutional rights. The strictest, called "strict scrutiny" requires that the exception satisfy a "compelling state interest" ("state" in the general sense, not U.S. state), and that there be no way of satisfying the interest that would be "less burdensome" to the exercise of the right. I don't think Second Amendment rights require strict scrutiny, but I don't know this.

reader Smoking Frog said...

When there are "exceptions", the original hold doesn't really hold in the original sense.

Yes, it does. Here's a general way of looking at it, though maybe it doesn't cover everything: A law that makes an exception must not be aimed at the right itself. For example, exceptions to free speech must be "content-neutral," meaning that if you're going to have the exception, it must apply regardless of the content of the speech.

reader Luboš Motl said...

LOL, OK I meant It is usually women who allowed themselves to be milked by their babies.

Whether it's the baby or the parent who suckles (is it the same side of the contract as the side that sucks?) would probably be too hard for me to remember.

reader Luboš Motl said...

Thanks for the explanation. I suspected it would be the U.S. Supreme Court.

Nothing against the arrangement. Still, it seems arbitrary to me. I don't really understand why ordinary lawmakers in the U.S. Congress or even the White House executive power can't change such seemingly "technical" question such as the question whether guns are allowed on a lecture.

reader Luboš Motl said...

I don't see in what sense the banned guns at the airport are "content-neutral" then. They surely attack some particular people - the passengers - who may want to defend themselves, right?

If airports may ban the guns but the universities can't, it's an asymmetry in the interpretation of the Second Amendment - the (qualitatively) same kind of asymmetry as if you allow the feminists at universities to speak but you don't allow men to open their mouth. ;-)

reader Swine flu said...

In its 2008 and 2010 decisions, the US Supreme Court only affirmed the right own a handgun in one's home for self-protection, and it was a close 5-4 vote, so it remains to be seen if that decision survives the next decade or two. Those two decisions did not affirm the right to bear arms in public and the court has in fact declined to review several cases dealing with that right or lack thereof since then.

However, those 2008 and 2010 decisions still talked a little bit about the carrying of guns, mentioning in particular that guns can be banned from "sensitive areas", like schools, government buildings, etc. In practice, whether they are actually banned in those types of places is typically decided at the state level, usually by state legislatures, on rare occasions by state court systems. State-level courts could typically come into play only in the states which have their own right to keep and bear arms provisions in state constitutions. Some of the state constitutions protect the right much more explicitly than the federal one - as one example, look at Connecticut, where it is still relatively easy to get a permit to carry a gun despite the state being pretty liberal. The relevant provision in the state constitution is, "Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." ( From: )

reader omeoide said...

Yeah, it's ironic how GamerGate has become so strongly associated with Sarkeesian. It really has very little to do with her, and the GamerGaters I've seen have rarely mentioned her. Even Quinn doesn't matter much at this point. The unethical behavior in the industry, particularly among journalists has always been the focus, and so much else has come out regarding this that has nothing to do with either of them. That may 'seem to have gotten flooded out' but that's because GameJournoPros et al. are desperate to talk about anything except that and to smear their critics, so the trolls are given the spotlight.

reader Luboš Motl said...

It's a matter of attitude whether the "primary" goals of GamerGate are more or less important than this one.

If some game journalist sleeps with 5 developers and writes a text, it's painful, or good for her, one may react in various ways, but it's clearly a mundane everyday life event that everyone ultimately agrees to be wrong in some way. But they would have to have sex 24 hours a day for those things to matter much.

More generally, even without the sex, it's clear that links between journalists and some developers are unavoidable and often helpful for the two sides that participate yet at least slightly harmful, too.

reader Smoking Frog said...

First let me say that my explanations have not been up to snuff; they've been slapdash and a bit muddled. I apologize for this, but I only made a quick, small effort, and I could hardly do otherwise. There's far more in the story of U.S. constitutional law than anyone could briefly do justice to; constitutional law is far more important in the U.S. than in most, or perhaps all, other countries. Not many foreigners understand this. Foreign diplomats often think that U.S. Constitution-based objections to various treaties are a dodge.

I don't see in what sense the banned guns at the airport are "content-neutral" then.

I didn't say they were; as I said, content-neutrality pertains to exceptions to free speech, and I offered it as an example of the fact that an exception must not be aimed at the right itself; it must be "incidental" (and that's not all it must be).

Actually I'm not sure it's correct to speak of "exceptions" to constitutional rights, because the right, rightly understood, should not cover the acts said to be "excepted."

reader Smoking Frog said...

I don't really understand why
ordinary lawmakers in the U.S. Congress or even the White House
executive power can't change such seemingly "technical" question such as
the question whether guns are allowed on a lecture.

Don't forget, we're only talking about Utah. I don't know that any other state supreme court would extend the right that far.

The White House certainly couldn't change it, and I doubt very much that Congress could, because the federal government does not make common law. The most that could happen is that the U.S. Supreme Court could decide that a state law forbidding guns at a lecture is constitutional ( not in conflict with the U.S. Constitution). Even then, a state supreme court could decide that it was unconstitutional under the state constitution, and the U.S. Supreme Court could not do anything about this.

reader Smoking Frog said...

Either the mother or the baby may be said to suckle, but at least my dictionary has the mother doing it as the primary meaning. I suppose it's possible that the baby doing it came about as a "mistake," i.e., a usage that people came to use and therefore had to be included in the dictionary. Dictionaries only record usage; they do not dictate it.

reader Luboš Motl said...

It's pretty weird that the verb may mean the activity as well as the opposite thing.

reader MikeNov said...

Not just that there were death threats, but she wanted to have the university put in metal detectors and disarm the public in what is an open carry on campus state. When they refused, she chose to limit her talks to places where any shooter would know that no one in the crowd has a gun.

reader Eric Cartman said...

There is a short article at Spiked Online:
Many of the comments note the problem is SJWs (social justice Marxists) in the Tech media.

There is a long article at, and Erik Kahn at Forbes has been writing for a while. All are libertarian media.

(function(i,s,o,g,r,a,m){i['GoogleAnalyticsObject']=r;i[r]=i[r]||function(){ (i[r].q=i[r].q||[]).push(arguments)},i[r].l=1*new Date();a=s.createElement(o), m=s.getElementsByTagName(o)[0];a.async=1;a.src=g;m.parentNode.insertBefore(a,m) })(window,document,'script','//','ga'); ga('create', 'UA-1828728-1', 'auto'); ga('send', 'pageview');