> Feminist analysis of Gamergate first exposed the online radicalization of legions of angry young men for whom misogyny was a gateway drug to far-right politics.
Um. I feel that the article could have done without this snipe.
Like I once wrote¹, this came out of nowhere, and is presented as if every reader should obviously agree with it. Is “far-right” supposed to be something which is obviously inherently bad? I can see the case for using the term “alt-right” in that sense. But right/left? The whole point of the right/left terminology is that it’s not settled which of them is correct. If it were, we’d just call them good/bad instead of left/right.
In an article which has nothing to do with actual politics, to bring up “far-right” as a stereotypical bad thing, shows that it’s written by someone living in a bubble.
keep reading after that sentence and this article continues to undermine itself by actively portraying feminists as the greatest thing ever and men as evil.
> Next thing you know, women will be wearing trousers and thinking they can vote.
what does this sentence in the article have to do with anything phone related? Women can wear whatever they and they've had the vote for over 100 years.
the article makes a decent point and then goes full crazy. Too bad.
The bias in your summarization is fairly lazy. The article discusses feminism from a high level and of course there are nuances lost in the brevity. I’m not sure what your comment serves other than to stir the pot.
The best way to create a harmonious new world of progressive thinking and acceptance is by viciously attacking your perceived enemies at every opportunity.
It's definitely not the right example to give to impress the crowd around here, but she was basically saying in that part of the article that a feminist background gives you a different perspective on technology. Makes sense. The comparison of unpaid domestic work and unpaid online content creation was kind of interesting to me.
Yeah, sure; it’s a mostly great article otherwise. But it shows that the person can’t make a point without tying it to the whole of their other personal political view. But if you want to convince people, you want to compartmentalize as much as possible. Make the case in isolation. If you tie the smartphone problem to left/right politics (whichever side you’d pick), you politicize the issue, and thereby guarantee that ~50% of the public will be against whatever point you are trying to make.
Why are you under the impression that I dismissed the article?
I never dismissed the article. I have taken every opportunity to praise the article. Like you write elsewhere, the use of feminist analysis to examine smartphones is novel, very interesting, and praiseworthy. I completely agree with most of the article. I really don’t have much to add to it.
It is merely the throwaway snipe at left/right politics which I deemed unnecessary for the point the article is making (indeed, the article does not use it), and the presence of the snipe is uselessly, and counter-productively, divisive and polarizing.
"Um. I feel that the article could have done without this snipe."
I don't know if the article could've done without this, actually. The entire article seems to argue that, due to abusive interactions and power dynamics are mostly commonly dealt with in a feminist lens, the strategies of analysis of intersectional interactions under a feminist framework will provide a better context to generate workable, functioning logistics on redefining the human-phone relationship.
In that context, that gamergate's main targets of hate were women is relevant.
"far-right" sentiments are often against what are typically understood as feminist sentiments. Eg. Abortion access, social services, access to contraception, implementing regulations around pregnant women and the pay gap (as well as the implication that the pay gap exists and can partially be rooted in sexism)...
Yes, I know what you mean, but that can’t have been the reasoning; the article stated that gamers went from misogyny to far-right, using misogyny as a “gateway drug”. Why would the article have used the term “far-right” as a euphemism for “anti-feminist”, when it already postulated misogyny to start with? I think that interpretation makes no sense. The sentence only parses sensibly if you interpret “far-right” as something inherently bad, and something worse than misogyny. It’s hard to tell, though, since the article doesn’t use this connection again.
The rest of the article mostly uses misogynists as the antagonists in its analogy to phones, and that’s fine and makes sense using the reasoning present in the article. It was that random connection to left/right politics which was unnecessary, since the “misogynist” label would have worked just as well, as evidenced by the rest of the article, which doesn’t use the “far-right” connection at all; this is why I called it a “snipe”.
From a feminist perspective, are right and left the same choice on matters of abortion, access to reproductive services, education on sex and condoms, or workplace rights?
"The whole point of the right/left terminology is that it’s not settled which of them is correct. If it were, we’d just call them good/bad instead of left/right."
Politics is the alternative to war.
I fully believe that there are some evil people on the far left.
I'm not sure that there are any good people on the far right.
Something I like to do to minimize this effect is to forward my calls to a dumphone whenever I don't need the smartphone.
My family uses alternative messaging with me while I'm at work and you'd be surprised how people really don't care if you don't text them back until the end of the day.
When I get home, the smartphone goes upstairs where I'll hear it ring if someone calls. At this point, it's a glorified GPS and Spotify/Audible device. The only time I'm actively on it is in between sets at the gym in the morning.
> “Put up your hand if you like or maybe even love your smartphone,” I asked the audience of policymakers, industrialists and students.
> Nearly every hand in the room shot up.
> “Now, please put up your hand if you trust your smartphone.”
> One young guy at the back put his hand in the air, then faltered as it became obvious he was alone. I thanked him for his honesty and paused before saying,“We love our phones, but we do not trust them. And love without trust is the definition of an abusive relationship.”
For this and other reasons, I'm switching to the Light Phone 2 [1]. I get it later this month. Devices like this don't solve all of our problems, but they certainly solve many.
> An abusive relationship is an interpersonal relationship characterized by the use or threat of physical or psychological abuse.
I.e. the author is manipulating facts. Trust has nothing to do with it. Obviously, if a person does not trust anybody, not every relationship they get into is abusive to them.
Within the framework applied, trust has everything to do with it. What makes a relationship abusive isn't the distrust, but rather the distrust combined with the inability to escape (which is often about love). We love our smartphones, but we don't trust them. That's very different than, say, distrusting some random stranger. The way to deal with not trusting a stranger is to not engage with them. How do you deal with, say, not trusting your father?
I don't know - judging by the cracked screen, missing pieces, cracked back, I am not so sure who is abusing who ...
On a more serious note - that we are overdepended on smartphones is common knowledge and not some epiphany. Ditto with them helping alienating from the others. The second part of the article is extremely cringe inducing. She is trying to cram every feminist buzzword and talking point ever.
What exactly should make us uncomfortable? Except from the writing style. Everything she writes as harmful side effects from smartphones has been written before. Probably even in 2012. There is nothing novel
Using highly developed feminist framework and applying it to cell phones is novel, or at least I haven't seen it before. Developing solutions to problems requires understanding the problems, and putting it into a well-understood and successful framework points to solutions.
Unfortunately, feminist thought makes a lot of men uncomfortable and often ugly in their reactions. Just read the comments here.
She's not wrong on a lot of points about what tech and phones do to individuals, just it's a super contrived topic that's existed for as long as tech has - she said nothing even close to new there.
The elephant in the article is so what?. What are we going to do about this? This is why so many people feel as though feminists are plagued with a victimhood complex - the only agent in the relationship she draws parallels to is the person. There is only one person to blame.
I understand the vast social consequences of not owning a phone - but I know plenty of people who have healthy relationships with their phones. Probably the one thing they have in common is that they don't blame others for their problems.
31 comments
[ 47.4 ms ] story [ 1137 ms ] threadUm. I feel that the article could have done without this snipe.
Like I once wrote¹, this came out of nowhere, and is presented as if every reader should obviously agree with it. Is “far-right” supposed to be something which is obviously inherently bad? I can see the case for using the term “alt-right” in that sense. But right/left? The whole point of the right/left terminology is that it’s not settled which of them is correct. If it were, we’d just call them good/bad instead of left/right.
In an article which has nothing to do with actual politics, to bring up “far-right” as a stereotypical bad thing, shows that it’s written by someone living in a bubble.
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18160488
> Next thing you know, women will be wearing trousers and thinking they can vote.
what does this sentence in the article have to do with anything phone related? Women can wear whatever they and they've had the vote for over 100 years.
the article makes a decent point and then goes full crazy. Too bad.
Women have had the vote for ALMOST 100 years.
August 18, 1920
If you are going to inject overt bias into your articles and turn every piece into political argument fuel then don't call yourself a journalist.
I never dismissed the article. I have taken every opportunity to praise the article. Like you write elsewhere, the use of feminist analysis to examine smartphones is novel, very interesting, and praiseworthy. I completely agree with most of the article. I really don’t have much to add to it.
It is merely the throwaway snipe at left/right politics which I deemed unnecessary for the point the article is making (indeed, the article does not use it), and the presence of the snipe is uselessly, and counter-productively, divisive and polarizing.
I don't know if the article could've done without this, actually. The entire article seems to argue that, due to abusive interactions and power dynamics are mostly commonly dealt with in a feminist lens, the strategies of analysis of intersectional interactions under a feminist framework will provide a better context to generate workable, functioning logistics on redefining the human-phone relationship.
In that context, that gamergate's main targets of hate were women is relevant.
The rest of the article mostly uses misogynists as the antagonists in its analogy to phones, and that’s fine and makes sense using the reasoning present in the article. It was that random connection to left/right politics which was unnecessary, since the “misogynist” label would have worked just as well, as evidenced by the rest of the article, which doesn’t use the “far-right” connection at all; this is why I called it a “snipe”.
Politics is the alternative to war.
I fully believe that there are some evil people on the far left.
I'm not sure that there are any good people on the far right.
My family uses alternative messaging with me while I'm at work and you'd be surprised how people really don't care if you don't text them back until the end of the day.
When I get home, the smartphone goes upstairs where I'll hear it ring if someone calls. At this point, it's a glorified GPS and Spotify/Audible device. The only time I'm actively on it is in between sets at the gym in the morning.
> Nearly every hand in the room shot up.
> “Now, please put up your hand if you trust your smartphone.”
> One young guy at the back put his hand in the air, then faltered as it became obvious he was alone. I thanked him for his honesty and paused before saying,“We love our phones, but we do not trust them. And love without trust is the definition of an abusive relationship.”
For this and other reasons, I'm switching to the Light Phone 2 [1]. I get it later this month. Devices like this don't solve all of our problems, but they certainly solve many.
[1]: http://lightphone.com
I.e. the author is manipulating facts. Trust has nothing to do with it. Obviously, if a person does not trust anybody, not every relationship they get into is abusive to them.
On a more serious note - that we are overdepended on smartphones is common knowledge and not some epiphany. Ditto with them helping alienating from the others. The second part of the article is extremely cringe inducing. She is trying to cram every feminist buzzword and talking point ever.
Unfortunately, feminist thought makes a lot of men uncomfortable and often ugly in their reactions. Just read the comments here.
The elephant in the article is so what?. What are we going to do about this? This is why so many people feel as though feminists are plagued with a victimhood complex - the only agent in the relationship she draws parallels to is the person. There is only one person to blame.
I understand the vast social consequences of not owning a phone - but I know plenty of people who have healthy relationships with their phones. Probably the one thing they have in common is that they don't blame others for their problems.