Over at the Guardian, future Nobel Prize winner Helen Lewis opines on the evolution of video games:
Evil women are coming to take away your computer games. At least, that’s the message that a group of angry young men have been articulating on the internet in the past few weeks. According to them, these games – once a haven for socially awkward teenage boys – are being ruined by the monstrous regiment.
This is a curious lead-off observation on her part, since her article features a picture of pretty white women competing a in a video game. Her article rehashes the tired, old argument that boys are born hating women and have to learn to not hate women. This “misogyny” is not treated as a moral issue at its core, but a maturity issue.
She concludes with this gem:
Games are growing up, whether gamers like it or not, and testosterone-riddled male-power fantasies are bound to fall out of favour as a result. The nerds are going to have to grow up and learn to live with the invasion.
She clearly sees the migration of females into males enclaves as positive, as it will cause the boys to become men and stop their misogynistic ways and become good men. Hence, The Good Men Project. Men don’t become good men until they are subject to female supervision, guidance and “equality.” Men can aid in this shedding of maturity-based hatred, but it can only truly be healed at the hands of women, particularly feminist women.
Across the oceanic pond, a sports organization known as the National Football League has been under intense social fire for its “handling” of one of its players—named Ray Rice—violently assaulting his then-fiancée. For our part, Athlone McGinnis has detailed the facts of the situation and Law Dogger has opined on the nature of alpha male behavior which leads to women to stay with the men who would hurt them.
What hasn’t been addressed is just why domestic violence as dealt with by the NFL is an issue now. Football players have been violently assaulting one another on the field and have been beating and killing others–including their girlfriends and wives—outside the auspices of the field since the inception of the league. Why is this an issue now?
Often, in situations such as these, one must consider the difference between what should be done and why it appears something should be done. Consider this quote from The Culture Of Narcissism:
According to Paul Hoch, Jack Scott, Dave Meggyesy and other cultural radicals, sport is a “mirror reflection” of society that indoctrinates the youth with the dominant values. In America, organized athletics teach militarism, authoritarianism, racism and sexism, thereby perpetuating the “false consciousness” of the masses.
To cultural radicals (liberals or progressives), sports exist as an expression of the ignorance of the lesser classes. At their best, radicals express displeasure with sport because it encourages inordinate levels of competition at the expense of social cooperation and sport enjoyment prevents oppressed classes from actually addressing their oppression. At their worst—like David Futrelle at his blog We Hunted The Mammoth—radicals link traditional (psychologically healthy) values of love, family, and duty to so-called patriarchal values of violence against women.
Sport—at its best—afford spectators a distraction from reality that allows them to suspend disbelief, immerse themselves in the game and admire the prowess of the athletes. Sports offers dramatic commentary on reality while giving a spectator the space to appreciate its artificiality. The awe the true fan brings to the experience is necessarily devalued by political radicals who seek to turn sport into a manifestation of their ideology.
However, modern sports has collapsed into this paradox as described by Howard Cosell:
“[S]ports are not separate from and apart from life, a special ‘Wonderland’ where everything is pure and sacred and above criticism,” but a business subject to the same standards and open to the same scrutiny as any other.
This has happened not just because progressives and radicals have linked sport and “patriarchy,” but because they have, unwittingly, been a part of capitalistic reform. As I have stated before, one of the main opponents of sport were capitalists at the turn of the century who were upset at lower class people cluttering the streets with sporting games; it inhibited their ability to move capital or product and inhibited their ability to exploit their workers, as workers “wasted” time on cultural traditions which included sports.
As Cosell observed, sports in America isn’t an endless field of fresh goldenrod and sweet roses—it is a business first. Enter Ray Rice.
As previously observed, the Ravens’ starting running back Ray Rice knocked his fiancée out in an elevator and dragged her unconscious body out of said elevator. The response from radicals has been as predictable as it has been revealing.
First off, they assume wide swaths of the population (read: poor, conservative, Republican, Christian) are at least tolerant of male-on-female abuse, if not outright fans or supporters of domestic violence. The aforementioned David Futrelle article blames social conservatism and patriarchy instead of psychopathy, personality disorders, or any mental disorder that would cause any individual to use violence on intimate partners. Like the progressive reformers before them, they associate interest in sports as inherently uneducated, lower-class and indicative of a person who refuses to “progress socially.”
That being said, this espnW article written by pictured Jane McManus has the highest up-voted comment which encapsulates what is really going on:
caucasian faggot: the most surprising thing to me, is the lack of WOMEN on ESPN being given the platform. I’m seeing a lot of men talk about football, & domestic violence…
Why Haven’t I seen or heard Jane McManus on TV vocalising this particular opinion? Hopefully, you’ve been on, & I have just missed it.
Like the push for female gamers and coders represented by the exhausting imbroglio’s of Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn, it’s not just about progressive beliefs on ignorance, sexism or traditional values, but that women are not given enough voice (power) in male spaces. To them, this represents ignorance, backwardness and indicates is in desperate need of remedy.
It appears something should be done not just because sports like the NFL represents traditional values, but that traditional values don’t involve enough females. As observed previously, women see themselves as the civilizing force for men. To them, women civilize men by forcing them to mature.
When considering sports, women feel they are smoothing over the rough patches of immaturity that sport encourages. Not only does converting tradition into the immediacy of now decreases the power of men as a class, sports can be devalued but then revalued by women as they force their way into the male spaces, crowding out the “obvious” recesses of misogyny, sexism, and prejudice.
This push is about branding—to the men and women who agree with radicals—that acts, institutions and beliefs that don’t benefit women are inherently misogynistic. Consider this article by Jezebel’s mental fleshlight, Erin Gloria Ryan:
Every October, the NFL festoons its players and stadiums in a cloying shade of pink and slaps its TV spots and billboards with an altruistic message: the NFL cares about breast cancer awareness, and by extension, cares about women.
Why should a man’s thoughts on his team’s passing offense inform his views on said league’s views on domestic violence? Apparently, I’ve been under a heavy patriarchal rock for the past few decades, as I thought domestic violence was an issue with the courts, police and mental health professionals?
A commenter notes:
This may sound really cynical but football is notorious for being a super macho straight man’s game.
Imagine that! A game that men have played since boys, commented on and regulated by men is…a man’s game! Somebody call TMZ, I have the newest sexist offense! Get Obama on the quick, our black president needs to get one of those “beer summits” together over the “stupidity” of this situation. Wait, Erin Gloria Ryan responds:
46% of its fans are women.
Huh. Apparently, almost half of NFL fans are women. Like Anita Sarkeesian, Ryan isn’t a fan of the institution she is critiquing. She must mean women are proxies of fans as they tolerate their husbands watching NFL games since the NFL dedicates October to “Breast Cancer Awareness?” Oh wait, Baker says if you still watch the NFL after Ray Rice knocked out his fiancee, you must hate women. A bunch of Einsteins in the comments try to parse Ryan’s puritanical piece so as to avoid calling Ryan out, but this comment stands out:
tuxedocatherine: …While Goodell’s new policy of domestic violence isn’t particularly groundbreaking, it’s a tiptoe in the right direction
Interesting, a second accusation of domestic violence against a woman (notice how nobody is talking about a gay athlete like Michael Sam stomping his life partner out) resulting in a perma-ban that could only be lifted by administrative decision is a tiptoe in the right direction. I can only surmise that any man who is accused of hurting a woman—necessarily excluding practicing homosexuals, as they are not a part of athletic culture to radicals—is permanently banned from any league is a better tiptoe. Maybe we can hang them at high noon upon accusation? Obviously, punishment of offenders matters more to radicals than anything else.
Like the newest information on Adrian Peterson. this is about fusing female moral superiority over males with radical sensibility on sports. To progressives and radicals, sports represents an indoctrination into the violent aspects of racism, sexism, and homophobia. Sports represents a refuge of the violent and necessarily socialized attributes of humanity that prevent humans from true equality.
It goes further than that, as the feminist commentary evinces the idea that institutions that primarily serve men are inherently anti-woman or misogynistic. This is a product of the modern American woman’s inability to separate the self from others. Unable to understand or appreciate anything that doesn’t benefit the self, American women react with disgust when presented with organizations like the NFL who don’t exist to at least indirectly help women.
The desire for women to invade male spaces in order to better socialize men has a few causes, but with respects to the NFL, it represents female moral superiority over men. It is a modern representation of June Cleaver (women) parenting her son Theodore Beaver (men). The finger-wagging superiority is indicative of women who think it is up to them to drag the boy-men of Misogyny Lane into adulthood. The usage of radical politics is nothing new to attack sports, but is used now to further feminine interests in redirecting male’s time and money.
This swirling mass of seemingly conflicting media—for media’s sake—serves one, true purpose, regardless of sex: to redirect clicks, likes, and retweets on the web. Don’t click on ESPN links, click on Jezebel ones! It certainly involves serious issues that predate those clicks or tweets, but it ultimately is about inflaming long-standing passions and fires that might change your mind. Oops, I mean your homepage.