[ SECRET POST #2591 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2591 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________



17.


__________________________________________________



18.


__________________________________________________



19.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 046 secrets from Secret Submission Post #370.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

TW: ACADEMIA

[chardmonster]

A lot of the people criticizing her are fucking sexists and assholes who deserve to be kicked to death (unfortunately we don't actually deserve to kick people to death, such is the human condition) but there are some important problems with her work, and as a self-identified academic she has to be open to that criticism.

My biggest problem with her is that she seems to lack an in-depth understanding of a lot of the games she's talking about (I don't give a fuck if she's a "real gamer" whatever that means, but you need to know a text to properly analyze it. And a video game is a "text" as sure as any book, document or film is.

She also talks about sexism but completely divorces that from any kind of cultural or historical context. She'll talk about a game from the eighties and then talk about something that came out last year as if they are contemporary. She'll talk about games produced in Japan and games produced in the West and then act as if the cultural context is the same. That's SLOPPY AS FUCK. If I tried to pull that I'd rightfully be pulled down a peg.

Honestly she encompasses a lot of the problems I have with Women's Studies as a discipline--not its focus on women,that's awesome, but the fact that they pretend a focus is a discipline and then often fail to build any analytical skills beyond ideological purity. There's a reason I'm a feminist scholar who studies women in history but run screaming from that shit. It's dangerous.

+1

[(Anonymous)]

This is a really good response and I agree. Well said.

Re: TW: ACADEMIA

[(Anonymous)]

You hit the nail on the head, thank you.

Re: TW: ACADEMIA

[forgottenjester]

This is beautiful and explains exactly one of the reasons she's so hit and miss with me.

Re: TW: ACADEMIA

[darkmanifest]

often fail to build any analytical skills beyond ideological purity

Oh, god bless you for putting it this way. This is a huge problem with feminist discourse as a whole, in my experience.

Re: TW: ACADEMIA

[(Anonymous)]

Good points, though I think I disagree with you about Women's Studies (or Gender Studies as it's most often now called). Like any academia, there are some purely ideologically motivated studies there but also some valuable theoretical insight.

Re: TW: ACADEMIA

[chardmonster]

There's definitely people working in that field doing good work--the thing is, the field isn't a discipline. Women's/Gender Studies isn't like, say, anthropology or history or religion or philosophy, where you'll receive specific training. It's by definition interdisciplinary, which is a strength. But if you then decide "I'm going to get a doctorate in Women's Studies" and then never focus on a coherent discipline... there's the problem.

I do think it makes sense as an undergraduate major--it's basically a liberal arts major that focuses on women--but no more than that. You'll find most of the people in the field doing groundbreaking work didn't specialize in it as graduate students. They were working in a distinct field, and then joined women's/gender studies departments. Judith Butler's a good example--Gender Trouble is a foundational book in the field, but its author trained as a philosopher.

You can be a feminist philosopher and do wonderful work. You can't just say "I'm a feminist" and then read a little Kierkegaard and write about how you got angry. I mean you can--obviously you can--but you won't be respected outside your bubble.

Re: TW: ACADEMIA

[(Anonymous)]

*whispers* that was beautiful