Last night was the grand premiere of The Sarkeesian Effect (Team Jordan Owen Edition), and the response from critics and audience members alike has been overwhelming!
That video of crickets has gotten more than 3,344,825 views on Youtube. That’s 371,647 times the number of people who apparently showed up at the Sarkeesian Effect premiere/#GamerGate Meetup at the Landmark Midtown Art Cinema in Atlanta last night.
Yep. According to the organizer of the #GamerGate meetup, only nine people showed. Including the director.
@mundanematt @jordanowen42 But yeah, including me, Jordan, and my bf, only 9 people showed up.
— Artist Lisa M (@ArtistLisaM) August 1, 2015
Meanwhile, on Reddit’s Kotaku In Action subreddit, one of the main #GamerGate hubs, the excitement was palpable.
Even Jordan Owen — the director of this incarnation of the Sarkeesian Effect — was uncharacteristically quiet; his reports from the premiere consisted mainly of photos of the screen, evidently his attempt to prove to the critics that, yes, the film exists.
https://twitter.com/jordanowen42/status/627336679112736769
https://twitter.com/jordanowen42/status/627343425369702400
https://twitter.com/jordanowen42/status/627350752097341440
Those last two pics seem to suggest that the insidious “Sarkeesian Effect” that gave the film its title is Ms. Sarkeesian’s uncanny ability to cause her critics to wear plaid shirts vaguely similar to her own signature look.
Online, the only people excited about the event that I could find were an assortment of popcorn-munching critics of #GamerGate. And they were mostly excited about the discovery of the official Sarkeesian Effect website.
Sorry, I meant to say the discovery of ANOTHER official Sarkeesian Effect website.
You may vaguely remember the official website, unveiled several months back, an amateurish unfinished job, with crappy graphics; the links on the front page to the film’s trailer, press coverage, Sarkeesian Effect wallpapers (!), and a list of theaters showing the film (!!) all led to this page:
And they still do.
Owen says that this unfinished mess of a website is still the official Sarkeesian Effect website. But now it’s been joined by a second unfinished mess of a website that also seems to be staking a claim as the official Sarkeesian Effect website. It’s not clear if this new site is the handiwork of Davis Aurini, or if Owen hired someone to put it together and just forgot about it.
Weirdly, this last option seems the most probable. Given that the site was promoting the premiere last night — a premiere of Owen’s version of the film, which Aurini had disavowed in advance — it seems unlikely that Aurini had anything to do with it.
While a teensy bit slicker than the original, the new site isn’t quite ready for public consumption. Here, for example, are the bios of some of the famous NAMES interviewed in the film.
Yes, that’s right: Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting industry. Lorem Ipsum has been the industry’s standard dummy text ever since the 1500s …
Also, Karen Straughan — the blabby FeMRA videoblogger and “Honey Badger” — is actually three women sitting next to each other.
Alas, the now-feuding “filmmakers” behind the “film” don’t fare any better themselves. In addition to giving both of them the Lorem treatment, whoever made the site also managed to misspell Aurini’s last name.
Clearly, from now on, Davis Aurini will be known as Davis-a-rooni.
Even the site’s Quick FAQs section has an impressive Lorem ratio.
And, yes, it is true that FILM starring NAME, NAME and NAME, has been featured on MEDIA.
This site, as, er, wildly optimistic about the commercial prospects of The Sarkeesian Effect as the old site, also includes a link to theaters showing the film. But instead of leading to a “Coming Soon” page, the new site links instead to … a blank page on Google Docs.
I can only hope that the film itself — presumably headed ultimately for a YouTube release — lives up to this amazing website.
Sorry. I mean BOTH films live up to BOTH websites.
H/T — @tortoiseontour, who alerted me to the website and pointed out the misspelling of Aurini’s name.
@pkayden, yes, ATL is a well known as having many black and LGBT folks and the people who aren’t in those groups mostly support them….so, yeah, you’re right, it is the WAY wrong place to be an MRA 😀 Maybe they could try Rand Paul’s basement for the next one?
There are definitely proper places for Devil’s Advocate… Problem is that in more casual settings, there are far too many times when someone claims to be playing Devil’s Advocate when they really just want to say something they know is viewed as terrible without getting in trouble.
Devil’s Advocate only really works in a conversation when the participants share some clear common ground, and when they are clearly working towards some common goal. Two people trying to justify an answer to some moral dilemma might benefit from having one person try to argue for what they both believe is “wrong” so that the “right” side becomes more clear.
It doesn’t work well when the participants are arguing against each other. In that context, a “Devil’s Advocate” argument just feels like a regular argument, except it tends to be much more extreme and feel like the person playing advocate is just trying to argue something they actually believe, but know would be frowned upon, without getting in trouble.
In barrister speak we usually use the formula “Of course, it might be argued…”
That’s also useful when you’ve spotted a huge hole in your own client’s case and you need to broach the subject without pointing out they’re obviously lying.
Seconding Kirbywrap here. There more academic settings where I can see the use. Devil’s advocate is also not so bad when it’s a group of friends having a spirited debate about something for fun. But when the devil symbolizes harassment and misogyny, the devil really doesn’t need an advocate. Someone coming in here to mansplain and take an anti feminist position is going to get side eyed as someone being here in bad faith and pretending to be neutral.
For men, misogyny can be a fun little thought experiment or debate topic. For women, it’s our lives. We can’t talk about misogyny for an hour and then move on. It’s something that effects us daily. So it’s pretty shitty to take up a sexist position as a devil’s advocate merely for the fun of debate. Decent people can grasp this. So I have to conclude that devil’s advocate dudes are sexist and just don’t want to admit it to the people they’re engaging in an unasked for debate. They might not even want to admit it to themselves. Brogressives think they can’t possibly be sexist because they’re pro choice and don’t think a woman has to be confined to the kitchen. But if you’re incapable of listening to women, get angry when they challenge you and gaslight them when they say they experience misogyny in their lives, guess what? You’re a fucking sexist!
@weirwoodtreehugger:
Even if the dude in question isn’t treating it as a “fun little thought experiment,” they are mentally able to replace a specific conversation with a more general or more theoretical one that avoids the specifics of misogyny all together. It’s easy for a dude to talk about how, in general, if the accusations against a person of absconding with money is true, some outrage would be expected, and then gloss over the details of how it’s a woman being accused with gendered slurs and sexist harassment after daring to talk about feminism.
I’ve noticed this in a short argument I had on Reddit over the whole “Free Speech means we must host bigoted content somehow” debacle. Lots of talk about the generalities of Free Speech and an open platform, lots of talk about how suppressing viewpoints simply because you disagree with them is not a sound position for a host to have. Very little concrete discussion of the nastiness of the racism and the uselessness of the racist “viewpoint.” Lots of talk about allowing everyone to post what they want, very little about how some content drives people away. Lots of talk about how allowing racist content means exposing it to criticism, very little on how expecting black folks to defend their basic humanity is not a fair expectation.
@GOM
GOM, please think about this. You are a man, trying to tell women that we’re using the term “mansplaining” wrong. This is, in itself, mansplaining by either definition. You do not know what mansplaining is better than we do.
GOM, you’re great and we like you, but that doesn’t mean it’s not still splainy coming from you. Do we really need to do this again? Please think about how this comes across.
(Sorry if I was too harsh here; I remember previous incidents like this and that is influencing my perception of this particular incident.)
Yeah, I’ll be gutted if he doubles down on it and goes full Aurini.
I’ve typed out my thoughts about “devil’s advocate”. Wonder if people agree.
Much like sex, “devil’s advocate” argument depend on mutual consent. You don’t simply get to appoint yourself devil’s advocate, especially not retroactively. Unless someone agrees to engage in a theoretical debate, saying things you don’t believe is lying or self-aware bigotry. (self-aware in that you know your argument doesn’t hold, but you’re too attached to your position to give it up)
Playing devil’s advocate can be appropriate in conversation if someone has asked for comments on their ideas or their work; as a response to an academic, critical, or legal writing; in a socratic or dialectical classroom; or in a formal debate. If you call yourself a devil’s advocate at any other time, you’re probably a douche.
Free Speech is a good thing because open discussion, while not perfect, is the best way we know to get to the truth. However, civility — treating your adversaries as persons worthy of respect — is an absolute requirement for a productive discussion. But as someone said in a slightly different context, I can’t define incivility but I know it when I see it. And when someone starts throwing insults around, I tend to feel that they must not have much of an argument. Too often people regard free speech as “the right to say any damn abusive thing I want”. And maybe they technically do have that right, but they are displaying the logic of a bully.
Just because you can go to somebody’s home and shit on their carpet doesn’t mean it’s acceptable conduct.
Really, by definition? That seems like a stretch.
It’s a relatively recently-coined word from a particular not-very large internet subculture. Like any word, it’s meaning is set by some mix of history, convention, and context. Women aren’t inherently familiar with that culture by virtue of being women. I’m sure there are literally billions of women in the word who know less about the word “mansplaining” than I do, so there are any number of scenarios in which I might explain the word without mansplaining it.
I suppose the thing to remember is that ‘mansplaining’ is a neologism that was created for a particular purpose and given a very specific definition.
To debate its meaning is rather like saying “Well when Heisenberg coined ‘Ungenauigkeit’ what he meant was…” to which the response must be “No he didn’t” (unless of course that person actually gets the definition right).
Of course the meaning of words change over time, and (unless you live in France) there’s no state mandated law as to what they mean. Ultimately dictionaries will record a particular meaning if it’s “in common usage” (to use the OED test). There may actually be several different meanings at any given time. Some could even be contradictory (like ‘sophisticated’).
Funnily enough in law words get frozen in time. We have to use the words original meaning (so for lawyers ‘malicious’ is synonymous with ‘reckless’). Sometimes the same word will have different meanings depending on context and when it was first used in that context, so in defamation law ‘malice’ has two very distinct and contradictory meanings depending on what point you’re trying to make.
With a technical word like ‘mansplaining’ though it’s early days yet, and whilst I suppose there’s a ‘death of the author’ argument it currently has a very clear meaning; but like a lot of technical terms it may need explaining to people who are not familiar with it.
Hmm, hope I didn’t fall into mansplaining there; just intending a little meander into language as the interpretation of words is how I earn my living a lot of the time!
Orion,
But the women here are familiar with it. My grandmother doesn’t know what mansplaining this (although doubtless, she has experienced many times in her 90 years on this planet), but my grandmother isn’t here. The women who are here are very, very familiar with mansplaining. So any attempts to explain to the women here what it is are definitely, by definition mansplaining.
This is my big issue: Devil’s advocate conversations allow someone to say all kinds of potentially harmful things to other people while themselves being in a position of no personal investment. Even if they lose the argument, they’re not really losing because it wasn’t their real opinion anyway. But in the meantime, they could actually convince readers of really bad ideas that could have real-life consequences.
@Orion
It would, in fact, be a stretch if GOM wasn’t saying that the women who are here were using the wrong definition and should be using this other one instead. I am not arguing that it is that constrained. I am saying that by either of the definitions GOM mentioned, he is still splaining.
@ GOM
This attitude presupposes a level playing field. It presupposes that one party has not been harmed at the hands of the other.
This…this statement is kind of appalling. If you can’t define the standard yourself, you have no business expecting anyone else to live up to it.
One can be extremely uncivil, abusive, harmful, etc. without uttering a single syllable anyone would call an insult. And this illustrates why the whole concept of civility is more about status quo maintenance than about people actually being decent to each other. It creates this neat little situation where the people most affected/harmed by certain attitudes are consistently the ones who don’t get heard because they find it difficult to muster enough civility to not be dismissed out of hand by people who aren’t affected by those attitudes.
@ Katz
One thing I’ve noticed is that a lot of people rely on the ‘devil’s advocate argument when they are in fact proposing a hypothetical situation rather than actually constructing and argument based on the facts.
So saying “Let’s assume [factual situation not supported by evidence]” is not devil’s advocate; only something like “On those facts it could be argued that [novel proposition] instead of [generally understood interpretation]” is.
Devil’s advocate can be a useful tool for testing hypothesis but not for justifying counterfactuals.
Hope that makes sense.
Andiexist,
I’m sorry, I think I misinterpreted you by focusing of “by…definition” and parsing “either” out to the side. I thought you meant “for a man to explain ‘mansplaining’ to women is by definition mansplaining — no matter how you define ‘mansplaining.'” I see now that it could be read another way. Would “what you are actually doing right now is mansplaining, no matter what you think ‘mansplaining’ means” be a fair gloss? I might have objected to “in itself,” but I do appreciate the clarification.
Alan,
I considered mentioning the different between technical terms and common words; didn’t, because I figure folks here are familiar with it. I actually don’t think “mansplaining” is a technical word or a term-of-art. It wasn’t coined for an essay on theory or an academic article; it was coined to explain what was so frustrating about an anecdote about a party. Like most such coinages, it rapidly spread way beyond the original blog and mutated as it went. Current usage is much broader than the original (in a good way), and has actually drifted so far that the post the word comes from is not even a good example of “mansplaining” at this point.
Now, if I *did* accept the idea that mansplaining is a technical word, that would actually strengthen my position. If the meaning of mansplaining is set by common use, then it would be fair to say that “a man attempting to explain ‘mansplaining’ to a group of women is almost certainly mansplaining, because the word is used mostly by women to describe situations that women experience frequently, while men witness, less frequently.” But if it’s a term of art defined by its creator, then a man who has read that one post will probably understand it better than a woman who hasn’t.
@ sevenofmine
That does crop up a lot in law though. In my court martial work for example the authorities say “insubordination is impossible to define but easy to recognise”.
Of course that is itself problematic. It’s a requirement of English law that offences criminal offences must be “down by law” i.e. it should be clear what conduct does and does not cross the criminal threshold. The ECHR however has approved the insubordination test.
We get similar problems with words like “dangerous”. It’s hard to outline every occurrence that might count but we trust juries to know what the word means.
In some instances the law actually forbids any attempt at a definition. For example the standard for convicting in criminal cases is “so that you are sure”. Judges are specifically prohibited from giving any directions or example as to what ‘sure’ means; it’s supposedly axiomatic.
[I love how this site leads onto all sorts of discussions!]
@andiexist
Actually I have thought about it quite a bit, but I am caught in a situation that I can’t figure a way out of.
On one hand I’ve identified as a pro-feminist all my adult life (50 years), and about 95% of the time I find myself on the female side of “the battle of the sexes”. It has become such second nature to me that I regard feminists as “us” and anti-feminists as “them” without even being conscious of it most of the time.
On the other hand I am male, was socialized as a male (however much of the socialization failed to adhere), and have a male’s life experience up to a point. On one hand I have been in a largely role-reversed marriage (she was/is the breadwinner, I was/am the primary caregiver for the children/househusband/charitable volunteer in spare time) for 32 years. On the other hand, I have only recently become aware that I have Large Male Privilege — I can get away with doing “feminine” things because of how I look. So clearly I don’t have the life experience of a woman — as a matter of fact, I come to WHTM mostly to learn about women’s life experience, something I can never get on my own — and I’ve been disappointed about the fact that many of the interesting voices have gone away for one reason or another.
The upshot is that I don’t want to identify as a Man and I can’t identify as a Woman. I get stuck with all the baggage of male supremacy that I have tried to get away from with fair but definitely not perfect success. I wish it were possible for all of you to forget that I’m a man and treat me as a person, but I realize that everyone here has good reason to be extremely wary of men presenting as feminists. So there we are. Can I discuss feminist issues here without the scent of mansplaining attaching to my comments? I don’t see how it’s possible. So when feminist issues are being discussed, I have to either shut up or be regarded as a mansplainer.
I used to call myself a feminist but changed to pro-feminist for two reasons. One is that some feminists dislike having a man call himself a feminist, and I see nothing to be gained by offending them. The second reason is that I’m not a pure feminist. I believe in equality of all human beings regardless of all the minor physical and socially-defined reasons, and obviously that includes women. I’ve raised four children, and they seem mostly free of racism, sexism, etc.– though it’s not impossible that they understand that there are Things You Don’t Say Where Dad Can Hear Them. But I’m not pro-feminist just because I believe in equality for women — I have an ulterior purpose.
Simply put, I believe that traditional male socialization — what can be conveniently summed up as “toxic masculinity” — is the greatest human-created threat to general happiness and even — because of the attitudes it encourages — to the health of our planet and the survival of our species (and many others). (I got into feminism by way of pacifism — even though only some feminists are pacifists, it seems to me that what feminism does will on balance further the goals of pacifism, because very few women believe in violence for its own sake.) It seems to me that the feminist movement is the only segment of society that is doing anything effective to combat toxic masculinity.
I enjoy reading and participating in the discussions here. I like the people here. I would like people to think well of me. But I think the success of feminism is so important that if I think I can say something that might advance the cause of feminism, I am willing to be considered an arrogant mansplaining doucheweasel. The cause is just much more important than my feelings.
@Orion
Yeah, was saying in relation to the definitions GOM had said. I said “in itself” because the whole “telling female feminists on a feminist blog how to use the word mansplaining” is mansplaining itself, not because every instance of a man explaining the word to a woman has to be mansplaining. I don’t see it as having a meaning that’s quite fixed, I was just trying to phrase it within what GOM was saying as a “whether you’re right or not, you’re still doing it” thing. Sorry about that.
@ GOSJM
<blockquote.
I don’t want to identify as a Man
Well, whilst we’re on the subject of word and definitions, aren’t you falling into the trap there of using a very narrow definition of what it means to be a man?
You don’t strike me as the type who would go for the “A real man is….” [fill in stereotypical clichés]
Surely the whole point of feminism [and just not being a knobhead generally] is breaking out of that ‘you must tick the following boxes to qualify’ mentality?
Saying that having attributes like empathy, caring, gentleness excludes one from the definition of being a man does seem more something our MRA friends would argue.
Also as a corollary, assuming those attributes are stereotypically female traits also seems a but disconcerting and rather like trying to enforce a stereotype.
Pacifism may be a virtue (I would disagree but that’s a different debate) but I don’t think it’s an essential quality of woman-ness. Some of the greatest fighters in history have been women. To suggest a feminist society would be inherently pacifist seems to me like suggesting it wouldn’t have technology.
Just because women have been excluded from some supposedly ‘reserved for men’ positions or airbrushed from history when they have achieved in those fields doesn’t mean that that’s a natural state of affairs.
I have a very limited understanding of feminism; I’m assuming it’s “Women get a worse deal than men; that’s not right; it would be nice if something was done to redress that” but I’m pretty certain not being bound to stereotypical gender roles is part of it.
@GOM
I don’t know if you’re saying you’re agender/nonbinary, but if you are, no one here worth listening to would hold that against you. If not, I’m not sure exactly what you’re saying.
GOM, that’s the thing. “Treating someone like just a person” isn’t a thing. “Treating someone like just a person” means treating them like a cishet white guy, because that’s what people assume as the default human being. You are a person who is presenting to us as male. We are not going to treat you as if you were a woman with the experiences of a woman.
Getting to be the default human being is privilege, and we’re not interested in catering to male privilege.
GOM… did you forget who runs this blog? David Futrelle, a male feminist? This makes it pretty obvious we’re not objecting to “men talking about feminism.” We’re objecting to “men acting like they know better than feminist women how to do feminism.”
You’re right that feminism is more important than your feelings. But your feelings are what you are currently indulging. You’re complaining that we’re calling you a mansplainer. You’re complaining that we’re treating you like a man. You’re complaining that, in this space, *you do not have privilege.*
GOM, you are making it about the menz.
Is telling us how to do feminism really important enough to you that you’re willing to make yourself part of the problem in the process? Is this really the hill you want to die on, GOM?
Oh sweet stars that was the tealest deer, and I think I got ninja’d too. Sorry about that, everyone. *hangs head in teal teal shame*
The fundamental problem is that we come into a world that divides people into more or less arbitrary categories, treats them very unequally for outrageously inadequate reasons, and then tries to convince us that these reasons are not just reasonable but The Way Things Are Meant to Be. If we want to abolish unearned privilege, somehow we have to break out of the categories that have been laid down for us and work together toward a future without such categories. The various forms of privilege are so deeply embedded in our culture that they are usually invisible to the privileged unless one actually seeks out and listens to people who don’t have a particular privilege. Somehow you have to reach people who are comfortable with the status quo and point out how they benefit from the undeserved privilege that they are not even aware of — and, when made aware of it, try to find some reason to justify why they deserve it. It’s a daunting project. If I knew how to accomplish that, I would have been doing it decades ago. I just do what I can and hope that it works out somehow. I have lots of questions and not very many answers.
In regards to “mansplaining” I was trying to speak from the point of view not of a man but of someone who cherishes words. In society as it now exists, it’s impossible to break down the established categories enough to do that. At least, I know I can’t.
GOSJM:
The issue is not with being a man per se, like others have said. Hell, I’m a man and I don’t think I’ve ever been accused of mansplaining on this site, though probably I would have deserved it at some point or another. It’s all about a tone, since this is the internet and all and body language, tone of voice, and other indicators of attitude don’t exist.
We dudes are raised in an environment where, somehow, we learn that we can speak in an official and knowing way without being experts on the subject, or even super knowledgeable. We learn that we can get away with expressing an opinion or a belief as if it were fact, even without meaning to, by our word choices. I find myself floundering a lot in real life when I realize I’ve adopted a “teaching mode” about something when I don’t know how much the other person already knows, and whether I’m coming across as helpful or patronizing. I feel like I’ve gotten away with it so far partly because I know I do this and therefore try to pay attention to how the other person is responding, and also because I’m a guy and guys are allowed to act this way and be considered knowlegeable rather than condescending.
This attitude is just something we guys have to fight. For someone who’s a stickler for words and less comfortable with flexible language, that attitude would lead into trouble much more easily.
It’s not that society is hopelessly divided into categories that no man could hope to overcome. It’s that you have been raised to believe that a certain type of attitude that is likely to come across as patronizing is perfectly fine. The only reason it’s labeled “mansplaining” rather than “patronizing” is because “mansplaining” as a word points to the fact that it’s generally men that hold this attitude.