One can not say Misogyny is rampant! Just because, a few hundred from the milions issue threats. Or a few thousand from the millions say garbage. It's not the majority, so it is not rampant.
You're fussing about a dictionary definition as if it would be your silver bullet, when even some definitions
do not support what you claim. Functionally speaking: In actual widespread use, people use "rampant" for whatever they feel is an all too common and pressing problem.
You might get further if you started by trying to learn what various branches of feminist actually focus on when they get on to trying to understand how misogyny works
-- it's a more complex question, and sometimes they mean locally and sometimes, as a big cultural system.
Once you get over people exaggerating at times about stuff that is really intense, and if you understand more of the big picture people are looking at, there are plenty of decent reasons to say misogyny is rampant in the society. But if you really still aren't aware of any
of them, then for one thing you could reread the threads more slowly or do more serious research. For starters, there have been quite a few particular examples mentioned in the 3+ threads about Sarkeesian lately. Is it rampant in the particular video games she thinks about, or what she has heard from/about the gaming industry and its representations of women generallly -- IF that is more the question for you here? I don't go far into that, but I have suspicions one could find good reasons at least to argue yes. Again though, I think others have offered quite a few answers to this. Or at least surely, some places to start looking.
Teach men not to rape? That's offensive in and of it'self.
You're taking it out of context. Often people say this in response to going trends: As things are, when women go to court and charge men
(in particular) with rape, much of the time is spent on, "What did she
wear? Had she
spent time with this guy before? Did she
attempt a physical struggle or not, regardless of the chance that she could bring more damage upon herself?" And a whole line of advice columns and claims about how women should act to appear "not to be asking for it" come out over and over.
Women are buried in this stuff and no matter what they do, they cannot seem to be "the right" combination of all the shifting pieces that make one simultaneously mundane, classy, attractive, pretty, assertive, innocent, mature, argumentative, sly, shy, well-connected, aloof, rich, etc. "enough" not to be seen as "asking for it!" So yes (okay so nothing personal but here we are): For fuck's sake, in response to the very high prevalence of that whole mess: Teach men not to rape. And yes do get them to stop going on and on about how it's their so-called biologically motivated job (implying: some only
, full-time, and totally zombified "job"!) and their "natural" role to pursue and/or comment upon women to the ends of the earth and to keep grabbing even after she said go away multiple times even already. If that's offensive, I can't help you. Then, you're getting offended over people being explicit about how shit works when it's getting people hurt, attacked, raped and killed. Guess what? Millions of women are offended too, and more.
It suggests only men do so.
No, that's not the idea. The repetition of "men" or "men are often/always doing this" is just shorthand for a pattern which is
(pointing back now to definition discussion) yes indeed still pretty rampant-- in the sense of it happens as above far too damn often for comfort. When what, 1 in 5 was it American women can expect to be raped and more like 1 in 2 or 3 assaulted, and when a large number of the cases do
involve men and especially
when society provides men, more than others, with all sorts of neat tools and excuses for doing this to women in so many ways that women are managed in public and talked about more or less all over the place
, then you should not be so surprised that feminists and women's advocacy groups often get very concerned with responding to problems that often involve, yep, men.
It doesn't say they don't care about men being raped or about women raping. There are certainly other feminists that mention that, and I would be surprised if someone asked Sarkeesian about it specifically and she said, say, 'That's not important.' Although if you did it like you have here, umm, partly to suggest she shouldn't talk so stridently or exaggerate in the slightest about men when in fact, people are
already exaggerating about the "responsibility" and "weakness" of women often in the same sentence all the time and it's making rape of women easier... Then I wouldn't blame her if she looked a little annoyed and felt rather like asking, 'Why exactly are you so upset about that question with me here and right now
-- cause it seems a bit of a derail?'
It does say this
(the part that involves men all so often) is the huge problem they know and she has it in front of her to explain some angle this second. Cause it keeps thwapping their lives over and over, left and right and at least we're gonna do something about it.
The realm of the imagination, may make offensive statements. But it doesn't make it the statement of the author, just the character did or said something wrong. Or controversial. Imagination is more permissible.
I do generally agree with this. And I still want more games that give me both imagination, and
sometimes (much more often than I find them now) can be played with less "in your face" shit and rather less narrow options for representations of things feminine. Now for what little I know, Sarkeesian may be personally more fired up about women and representations specifically of violence. But simply analyzing or wanting something on the one side, does not exclude having another opinion about the other part. Melusine has said a lot about this, already.
I do not hate her. I just feel she is to generalized, to broad in her views. Using words like, All, Every, while sticking to demonizing things like Toxic Masculinity.
I dunno, I don't follow her that much and she might well overshoot with language as you say pretty often. BUT I still think, if you didn't make the sorts of mess you're making with misunderstandings above, then you wouldn't have to be as concerned with this. If you can understand the bigger picture enough to put what people are saying in context, then maybe you wouldn't be stuck having to insist she always
must mean every, or should be held to silence until she can fill whatever percentage/majority you
insist on before she can speak about some angle on questions many people agree are at least seriously out there. It doesn't mean those questions have to dominate what you
think about games every second by any means, of course.
I don't follow her, but just a thought: I suspect you also just may
have a misunderstanding about whatever she means by "toxic" masculinity. More sophisticated feminists will recognize that masculinity is stuff people have different shares and stock in individually -- maybe the "toxic" one is just a model for how it works when things start to get bad and groups of people increasingly adopt one part as a modus operandi? (Such as, kylie thinks, eh people in this game can't play without making it feel like they're all hating asses who love to say "rape" and "cunt" every minute, and why don't
they use any scenery that isn't brown wasteland? I'd like to kill something in pink or on something terraformed in orange for a change...) Now if the problem is really that you think something happens whenever
a guy (or someone with plenty of testosterone) gets excited -- there's nothing
that can or should be done that counts -- and she thinks well people need to restrain whatever that pattern is cause look what it's done in some parts of society, then you might have a more serious disagreement there.