You know them middle aged men who buy a Porsche and start wearing hats and coats with Porsche on them and going around talking about “her” and how sexy “she” is and generally making everyone cringe harder than a weekend away with David Brent?
Well I guess the Gearslutz wankers are the synth equivalent of these Nigels.
As for whether or not they represent any form of hegemonic power or can realistically be considered problematic beyond how cringy they make us feel at the obligatory family gatherings is slightly less clear cut. Like I said earlier though, low hanging fruit, innit.
Yea, but those guys who buy Porsches think they’ll attract women with them, not sure what is going on in the heads of their synth equivalents. I do think that the average guy who decides to buy gear around the age of a mid-life crisis and make music isn’t doing so to try and pick-up women or whatever but who knows…
Not the ones I know, they’re mostly bored married men trying to recapture a bit of their youth in a vain attempt to quell the horror of their rapidly diminishing time left on earth. I don’t think it actually has all that much to do with women, or attracting them. Largely because not very many women give a shit about air cooled engines or Mk1 Golfs or any of that. I think a lot of the gearslutz personification and fetishization is from a similar subsection, who are mostly bored/boring and are just trying, in a very flawed and often quite creepy way, to inject some excitememt into their ultimately very nerdy hobby.
My point was that it was a bad analogy… because if you want to have an honest conversation then you have to be an honest broker in the conversation. The notion that she doesn’t know what a woman is is patently false, what she was doing that you’ve never had to do was answer the question in it’s entirety, as well as answer the true question which wasn’t a question about biology but one of inclusivity in other words the whole premise of the question was disingenuous from the start… a lot of self subscribed metrics weren’t being followed…
look at it this way, according to your metrics, she couldn’t function properly, but you’re not taking into account that she was being questioned by the likes of Marsha Blackburn and Josh Hawley, these are people that don’t even want her to have the right to vote and if she does they want to make it extremely difficult, they don’t even want her to be able to hydrate herself with water while going through the obstacles they’ve placed in her path to vote… but you call her act of navigating these people’s nonsensical, non-earnest, and irrelevant interrogatory musings evidence of an incapability to function… I’d call it just the opposite and more akin to multitask-functioning on a higher level.
juxtapose that farce of a scene questioning the first black female potential justice, with the legitimate questions that were asked of the prior two non-first black female justices that were about real policy, and half a century of legal precedent that they straight up lied about to the face of the American people, in contrast I’d call that dereliction of duty a bombastic premium example of justice not being able to ‘function properly’ so in my humble opinion your example doesn’t make your point in the least, because for it to do so I’d have to believe that you truthfully don’t think this woman knows what a woman is or that your proclivities restrict you in some way from being able to see the bigger picture, and the reality of that confirmation hearing.
anyway we only use about 10% of our brains right, I don’t think what blackburn and Hawley were doing was trying to promote victimless acts, I think inclusivity is a victimless act, and I don’t know why what your ex-girlfriends call things is the metric you go by, maybe it’s not the only one I don’t know, but there are girls walking around with 'grab my p*ssy ’ t-shirts on in support of political candidates so it’s not like being female makes you infallible. I wish America was oozing consideration out to the rest of the world but I don’t think that’s the case at all.
I think we have an unhealthy predilection with defending the status quo and not much else.
Yeah, the whole whataboutism of “why is someone focusing on X when Y is the true problem” is silly, as we have a lot more power to tell people in our communities to do small acts of good in minimizing performative "Bro"isms that worse shit hides behind.
I can’t change systemic problems but exclusionary stuff and ranting about women is a problem in supposedly “artist” and technical industries, it’s a problem in technical fields and while the gatekeeping isn’t preventing femmes from making art, it makes discussions absolutely terrible.
Removing dumb discussions and machismo from forums helps improve the signal-to-noise for everyone.
And we talk about that elsewhere.
Within the scope of synth forums, we can make improvements to our culture and push back against toxic dumbshittery that absolutely exists if anyone’s spent time on Gearspace.
Focusing on objectification as the only subject worth discussing and then whadaboutting is unhelpful and not in good faith to dismiss any improvements to this forums culture which would either appear to be strongly influenced by guitarist bros and car “tuner” cultures (or share commonalities in machismo and insularity, ingroup/outgroup dynamics.)
Point being if you find objectification not a problem, but you can’t see beyond it to focus on more important items, the problems are self-inflicted.
Denialism of problems with how various persons are treated online is not solving anything, it’s just an extension of bro culture to dismiss the possibility of criticism.
I’ve no doubt that sexism exists on a still wholly unacceptable level throughout society and much more needs to be done to address both systemic, cultural and behavioural forms of discrimination against women.
But the aspects of Gearslutz’s worst examples from the article are dying out, it’s clear to everyone that that shit just isn’t going to fly on public forums anymore. Yep, it probably does discourage women from using those forums, which is why the forums themselves are responding (albeit way too late) appropriately. The culture is changing for the better and these twats will have nothing left but 4chan and telegram to hang around before too long.
If the article had something interesting to say about all of this I’d be all for it, but it just seems to want to say hegemony a lot, which makes it pretty hard to get on board with.
Maybe I should get in touch with the authors and get them to do a study of how many of this forum’s speech police still drop ableist language like “lame” all over the shop, see if we’re actually all just propping up an ableist hegemony over here.
Because admins push culture changes and users are less excusing of masculinist-supremacist bullshit.
Any successes we get are an example of why it was good to push and nudge on where things can be improved.
I don’t get the tit-for-tat, why are you only reacting to that in the context of sexism?
If it bothers you, point it out. If you’re only bringing it up in the context of calcified old dudes, why are you okay otherwise?
Even “free speech enthusiasts” push their chosen ideals for society, wanting better is not the problem, but thought policing whether we can ask basic questions of what’s helping or hurting our spaces is a problem.
The reflexive need to shut down a discussion because it makes a few hit dogs holler is not a sign that we’re “over” the need to improve our space.
Well I guess we see things a bit differently. That’s okay. I don’t completely disagree with all of your points as I do understand that it’s a complicated situation.
The truth is rarely all that complicated though, make of that what you will.
However I wonder how you find it necessary to paint these overly dramatic scenarios about her as a victim bcs I never said anything to criticize her but the state of things in general.
I cannot make my point anymore clear than I already did and I doubt that repeating myself would help either.
Anyways, here goes nothing: I fail to see the problem to call objects “she” if the word means absolutely nothing at this point.
It doesn’t necessarily bother me, although I am pretty much by any medical definition pretty lame myself.
This thread is largely about how language can be exclusionary (as well as creepy) and that that social exclusion can lead to forms of discrimintory social hegemony within those environments. A lot like how using ableist language such as “lame” can make disabled people feel unwelcome and lead to a form of ableist hegemony.
I think that’s pretty relevent to the topic at hand.
Your point is being used to dismiss and handwave away one problem because another problem exists.
Obviously intersectional needs address a lot of problems but if you truly believe the word “lame” is exclusionary to the degree that macho dudebros are on gear fetish forums, I would question whether you’re bringing it up in good faith.
Objectification is by definition conflating human beings with possessions, but not in an animistic sense.
The strain of machismo that runs through society treats marginalized people like possessions.
Again, focusing on one element of the paper and ignoring all others is unhelpful. It is not the largest reason why femmes are discouraged from participating in online forums.
At this point you’re derailing one concern for another for the purposes of dismissal.
I’d absolutely read an article on ableism in instrument design and UX, but the kneejerk, reflexive dismissal of concerns would be focusing more on trying to assign hypocrisy than it is curious and interested in any betterment of society.