The draft and more sexism (CC)

Keeping with the theme of gender issues, I have decided to talk about the draft. That being, for those who don't know, the ability of the government in times of war to mandate that males 18-25 can be forced into military service. The draft was technically stopped in 1973, now instead we have "selective service" whereas in times of "national emergency" this agency, yes there is an entire agency devoted to this, would hold a literal lottery where they would draw birthdays out of a lottery drum and if its your birthday you must sign up to fight. More on this later. Now, in both cases women are totally exempt from any form of conscription. Is this sexism - against men? The simple answer would be yes. Indeed it would appear that men are being cast as macho warrior, eager to fight the enemy, while women are once again considered fragile homemakers, the very core of their idea fundamentally incompatible with fighting. In this case, the entire institution in question is rife with gender typing and stereotypes. Neither gender should have to feel obligated to either go into combat, for men, or stay out of it, for women. I do understand that women on average are significantly weaker than men, but less physical strength does not necessarily for a less capable soldier. Moreover, I'm sure that the thinking when women were excluded from the draft was not that they were necessarily less capable, but rather that "women were weak" or "women should be cleaning not fighting" or other such overgeneralized false aphorisms. Even discounting the moral problems with forcing people into military service, the system of the draft remains yet another relic of a less developed and resoundingly worse time for people in general. I hope to see it reformed soon.        

"Playing like a girl" (IR)

The idea of "playing like a girl" has been one of the few almost totally ubiquitous insults that has been passed down throughout Americana, and cultures worldwide. The BBC article I read discussed whether this term was offensive or not. Frankly, I'm surprised they had to ask the question. When someone "plays like a girl" or does "x, y or z like a girl" it of course has nothing to do with how feminine the action in question was, it is used to paint something as weak, poor, and just bad overall. This then implies that just because something is associated with women or females at large it is automatically inferior to it's male counterpart, and any man should be ashamed to be part of any such things. This then feeds back into the idea of straw feminism. Men who defend or otherwise affiliate with women are viewed as weak and are looked down on. This is a major problem with the advancement of women's rights. These sentiments are rooted incredibly deep, so much so that even as I am writing this, the idea of a man in a traditionally female position is still off putting, still tugging at some resoundingly sexist part of my basic social schemas. This, of course, does not justify these sentiments. To add a stipulation, and refute a potential counterargument, I do understand that the large majority of men are quite a bit stronger than women in general. The article states this obscure fact by saying that women don't throw things as far as men can. Brilliant. I suppose in some minds this would justify the use of that statement claiming that it is factually accurate. It most certainly does not. The use of this statement in conversation is not fueled by logic or used as some sort of poorly-wrought scientific simile, it is used simply as a cheap insult drawing on old cultural sexism.          

/b/, Twitch, and the rules of the internet (TA)

It seems possible if not inevitable that "women become full and active participants in our digital world", but it isn't going to happen without the digital world putting up a fight.

Anyone who has become part of, or even just observed an internet culture will know that they are dominated by men, in more ways than one. Moreover than just sheer volume, the most successful members of the most popular sites are all men. And yes, I mean all of them. Go check for yourself - I point to Twtich TV and Youtube as prime examples of this male-dominated culture. In the rare and gawked-at event in which a female attempts to become part of this culture it is viewed as extremely odd, and yes, an intrusion, one which is necessarily met with blatant sexism or misogyny, but rather infantilized, made "cute", set up as a spectacle in which the male participants laugh at the ridiculous notion that a woman could actually be part of this culture. I have not seen many successful women come out of these cultures, but in the few cases that I have seen the women in question would be considered "sexy", and draws excessive attention to the fact that she is a woman. In several cases I have seen these types of female accounts/channels/whatever manner of distribution are an accessory to an already popular male one. This type of corruptive dichotomy, as well as the atheistic characteristics of said female participants serve both to perpetuate the stereotypes of women on the internet as hypersexual and manipulative, as well as serve as a microcosm of the dependency of women on men that is already such a problem, (to use the common phrase), IRL.
   
On to Ms. Sarkeesian's predicament. I reference 4Chan's rules of the internet to attempt to explain why this happened. Rule 30: There are no girls on the internet. Obviously not true, but this idea points out the fact that it is indeed a male-dominated culture. People claiming or who actually are female are viewed with suspicion, often leading to mocking or slander. They are obviously the minority, so this makes this easy. Rules 42 and 43: Nothing is sacred, and The more beautiful and pure a thing is - the more satisfying it is to corrupt it. The anonymity of the internet lets people mock things in ways that would be wildly unacceptable, such as the misogyny shown throughout various sites. Rules 18 and 19: Anything that can be labeled can be hated, and The more you hate it the stronger it gets. Rule 20: Nothing is to be taken seriously. The amalgamation of these "rules" is the mindset and act of "trolling". That is, deliberately inciting anger or other such emotional responses in people by acting in an ignorant, extreme or otherwise inflammatory way.

And I think Ms. Sarkeesian got trolled. Hardcore.

Now, I of course DO NOT CONDONE these actions, or in any way believe that such trolling MAKES THIS ACCEPTABLE. Rather, I think that the "troll" mindset of slander and incitement, combined with male dominance of video game culture and the internet at large made her an outlet for the aimless misogynistic sentiments that reside on the internet. As for the organization of the hate campaign, the internet has an incredible ability to loosely organize itself, especially if it is against a particular individual or organization. I point to the "battletoad" meme as a more humorous example (WARNING - some strong language) http://imgur.com/VY2xE .

In conclusion, the attacks Ms. Sarkeesian are an exemplification of the worst parts of internet culture. Juvenile, thoughtless attacks based on nothing but casual misogyny and a misguided sense of tribal belonging. Even though the culture of the internet is deeply rooted, the culture in our offline lives have a profound effect on our digital ones. And as such, in our offline lives, even though women are essentially equal to men under the law, they are increasingly objectified in new and more horrible ways. We stand at a crossroads here. Will rational thought lead us to a society where genders are no longer typed, packaged and sold, or will educational and intellectual apathy combined with corporate greed lead us to a typed and chauvinistic society?

I really don't know.