Sunday, November 30, 2008

"Jessica" Isn't Clean

Risk® has decided that it would be better for business to exclude women from its base. Seriously. The board game now asks if you're "man enough", and the on-line version does something... ...rather strange. From Sociological Images
First of all, you have to choose a nickname. I tried a series of names: "Fred", "Thomas" and "Patrick" went through fine, but if I tried "Melissa" "Jessica" or "Natasha", the system wouldn't accept them, and I was told to "Keep it clean, please."
Whoa. I didn't know "Jessica", "Melissa", "Natasha" or "Lisa" are in any way dirty - unless, of course, being a girl is dirty.

I don't play Risk. The only game I'll play that takes more than 6 hours to finish is Monopoly®. I get bored, restless, and lose all interest. But a lot of women I know truly enjoy games like Risk.  And it sucks that they are being completely excluded from this world; it sucks that a game that had previously been neutral in its box has chosen to become genderized, and has chosen to play to the basest cliches of what guys are interested in. I especially liked one of the comments, which declared "I'm sure it's not their attempt to alienate female customers. this game is a slow game in some circle [sic] and they are only trying to win people over". Brilliant deduction! Of course, women don't count as "people". That would just be silly. And making women feel completely unwelcome is the best way to win them over. Obviously, this is some nifty marketing tool based on reverse psychology.

What really miffs me is that this isn't even the first time Hasbro has blatantly played to gender stereotypes. I was already upset with them over the Queen Frostine thing, where they downgraded her to "Princess Frostine", sassed her up, and made her skinnier and way pink. Who thinks "pink" when they think of frost? Who, I ask you? No more. I've already written my angry letter about Candy Land, but now I'm writing another one about Risk. And I'm boycotting Hasbro, until Risk returns to being overtly gender neutral and possibly until Queen Frostine once again looks like she's ruling over a frosty land of winter and snow and hasn't accidentally fallen into a vat of cotton candy.

It's going to be Apples to Apples from here on out.

H/T to Feministing.

21 comments:

John said...

I don't even understand that comment. It seems that "I don't think this is their attempt to alienate female customers" is completely disconnected from "This game is a slow game in some sircle and they are only trying to win people over."

I was never much of a Risk fan, but as a supporter of Hasbro Toy Group this is particularly disappointing. Thank goodness for the more quirky, independent games (like Munchkin, which features cards that give female players extra bonuses.) I hear Ticket to Ride is called "Risk with Trains", and much friedlier to more than half of the global population.

mikhailbakunin said...

In my experience, girls tend to dislike "Id" games. So, maybe Hasbro's approach makes sense from a marketing perspective.

Lots of companies pit certain demographic groups against one another. Brewing companies, for example, must realize that they'll offend some people by putting out ads that objectify women . . . but they'll also attract more business from Joe Six-Pack. So, what's the down side?

To be honest, I'm not really convinced that there's anything wrong with gender (or religious or racial) exclusivity . . . even if it's a business that's discriminating.

mikhailbakunin said...

I'm not sure if this is totally comparable, but I think that eHarmony should be able to discriminate against gays all it wants.

Again, it's their loss if they want to exclude a whole segment of society from their online dating service. I don't understand why private organizations like the Boy Scouts can discriminate, but businesses can't . . .

I really would've liked to see this case go before the California Supreme Court.

petpluto said...

"In my experience, girls tend to dislike "Id" games."
In my experience, plenty of girls like "Id" games. I just don't happen to be one of them.

"So, maybe Hasbro's approach makes sense from a marketing perspective."
It makes sense to exclude one whole half of the human population? It makes sense to make half of that human population somehow unacceptable or "dirty"? It makes sense to make hypermasculinity the name of the game?

In my experience, girls are into more "manly" things when they feel comfortable in that arena. I don't think conditioning is the only reason why girls don't generally like games like Risk or Munchkin or video games, but I definitely think that it is very much a part of it. And making girls something "icky" and generally being assholes is immature and wrong.

"To be honest, I'm not really convinced that there's anything wrong with gender (or religious or racial) exclusivity . . . even if it's a business that's discriminating."

I think there very much is. One of my favorite Third Rock From the Sun episodes is when Dick dresses up as a woman in order to show up at a women's only meeting because he has been feeling perpetually left out due to being a man in a woman - heavy office. His complaints are universal complaints, and it highlights exactly how ridiculous the idea is that men and women are these completely foreign creatures with completely foreign thought processes. And in cases like the Hasbro game, it minimizes those it excludes. Women have often been subjected to the idea that they are "less", that there are areas they aren't good enough for or wrong for liking. And the new Risk marketing and game just further reinforces that line of thought. It may not be illegal, but it sure as hell isn't good.

mikhailbakunin said...

It makes sense to exclude one whole half of the human population? . . . [M]aking girls something "icky" and generally being assholes is immature and wrong.

I think it's totally fine to wag your finger at Hasbro for what you consider an offensive marketing decision.

I have no idea how Hasbro formulates its marketing strategies, and I don't know if these kinds of appeals are particularly effective. But I suspect they are - otherwise, why use them?

It may not be illegal, but it sure as hell isn't good.

I don't really care to argue whether these kinds of marketing campaigns are "good" or "bad." You approach questions of this nature from a liberal perspective; I approach them from a libertarian perspective.

We can debate right and wrong in the abstract all we want, but what really interests me is whether you think Hasbro should be forced to correct its actions.

petpluto said...

"We can debate right and wrong in the abstract all we want, but what really interests me is whether you think Hasbro should be forced to correct its actions."

And I'm interested in debating the right and wrong, especially since this is not an abstract. This, as miniscule as it is, impacts lives. Language, and what we find appropriate as a society, directly impacts how we look at the world and how different segments of the populations are treated.

But just for the record, I think that Hasbro should be able to do whatever misogynistic marketing techniques it wishes. I just want us to get to a world in which a company would not even think such a campaign would be remotely acceptable or successful (and part of that is arguing what is right and what is wrong, and what hurts traditionally marginalized parts of society and what helps them). It isn't government's job to regulate board games. This is basically a free speech issue, and it isn't the government's place to censor that.

At the same point in time, it should be something we all recognize as being harmful, whether we be liberal or libertarian or conservative.

mikhailbakunin said...

In general, libertarians aren't interested in eradicating prejudice or changing the social mindset. Most libertarians are concerned only with basic "negative" rights. And in this case, Hasbro's freedom of speech dramatically outweighs your freedom to not be offended.

There are certainly cases where prejudice incites violence or limits other citizens' freedom of opportunity. But I think many progressives would have you believe that all prejudice IS violence. That prejudice must ALWAYS be confronted. And this attitude often leads to things like hate speech legislation.

What you're arguing - that it shouldn't be illegal to be offensive, but that we as a society should try to stamp out prejudice - isn't something I necessarily disagree with (though I may disagree with some of the things you consider prejudice).

I think the real issue is that we have different moral priorities. Liberals tend to see every issue as systemic - they want individuals to be "better" for the sake society. But libertarians don't necessarily want people to be better. They want them to be free.

petpluto said...

"In general, libertarians aren't interested in eradicating prejudice or changing the social mindset."

In general, this is what is particularly infuriating about libertarians, and why I find the philosophy particularly simplistic and at time simply juvenile. There are real changes that need to be made in the world, real injustices that must be fought. And if libertarians are not concerned with positively influencing the world and bettering people's lives by not only acknowledging prejudices and how they negatively affect human beings but also work to eradicate it, then they are just as harmful as the people who perpetuate those acts.

"in this case, Hasbro's freedom of speech dramatically outweighs your freedom to not be offended."

It isn't my freedom to not be offended. I'm offended by a great many things. Toilet humor, for one. What you seem to not recognize is how this sort of example of sexism doesn't just offend but is indicative of a wider societal issue, and not only reinforces this idea of woman as less and other but also the fact that that perpetuation of this idea directly affects how women thought of in society and how they are treated both by that society and by members of that society. As long as othering women and looking down on women is normalized, women will not achieve equality.

"Liberals tend to see every issue as systemic - they want individuals to be "better" for the sake society. But libertarians don't necessarily want people to be better. They want them to be free."

Well, here's the thing: women, in general, are not privy to the same freedoms as men. Maybe liberals want to better individuals for society's sake (and I disagree with that premise, but say it is so); but I don't. I want to better society for the individual's sake. I want to be free, and my freedom, my safety, and my economic worth is directly affected by society's views on women and individual members'of that society views on women. The issue is not as simplistic as you make it out to be; it is both present as a systemic issue and on an individual basis. We should be working toward changing both, for the benefit not of society but for the people of that society. We should be working to not other women, or minorities. We should be working to make this country a true meritocracy, because only then will the individual truly be free - and then the libertarians will have a leg to stand on when social issues are being discussed.

mikhailbakunin said...

And if libertarians are not concerned with positively influencing the world and bettering people's lives by not only acknowledging prejudices and how they negatively affect human beings but also work to eradicate it, then they are just as harmful as the people who perpetuate those acts.

So, if you're not actively fighting Symptom X, you're somehow culpable for Symptom X?

We should be working to make this country a true meritocracy because only then will the individual truly be free - and then the libertarians will have a leg to stand on when social issues are being discussed.

Codified legal equality is one thing, but what you seem to want is some degree of social and economic equality. In a meritocracy, you have neither.

I think what progressives want is freedom - or, at least, their conception of freedom - at the expense of others' "negative" rights. If your freedom from fear is contingent on me not saying objectionable things, how can there be any sort of moral compromise between us?

It seems to me that positive rights almost always run into conflict with negative rights.

petpluto said...

"So, if you're not actively fighting Symptom X, you're somehow culpable for Symptom X?"

My statement was poorly worded, as I was covertly responding at work. I was actually hoping to get to this before you did, because only after I posted did I recognize how I may have been offensive in one point in a way I didn't intend to be.

Anyway, in answer to your query, yes and no. My problem with libertarians comes when (and this may partially be because the many of the libertarians I've interacted with have also been MRAs) they not only do not see many of these issues as societal problems but focus on them as minimal individual issues that do not negatively affect swaths of the population, but they work to maintain the status quo, or to roll back improvements that have been made. So in that way, if the political ideology actively maintains the status quo or seeks to roll back protective rights even further, then yes.

I'm not saying that it if it is any situation; like, I'm not saying that if you are not actively seeking to stop rape that you are as bad as a rapist.

"If your freedom from fear is contingent on me not saying objectionable things, how can there be any sort of moral compromise between us?"

Okay, I'm going to try this again. It has very little to do with YOU personally. In an ideal world, without systemic injustices and -isms. Libertarianism falls down for me in its simplistic view of the world. A world where libertarianism could actually be a fully viable social philosophy would be a world in which individual actions do not represent a greater societal narrative. It could work, but only when one's offensive comment does not perpetuate a systemic offense. In that way, you saying something offensive would truly only be an individual being an asshole.

Secondly, Hasbro isn't an individual. I know under the law corporations are generally super individuals; but when they choose to make a public statement, they're impact is automatically going to be greater than you saying something demeaning or offensive. What I object to is the fact that Hasbro's marketing is contributing and perpetuating a societal view of women that harms women (and, if we want to get into it, men). Their sphere of influence is such that these things are not spur of the moment comments, but are researched and pitched. That Hasbro felt that it was appropriate to put out this kind of product only further proves how far left we have to go, and objecting to Hasbro's product both monetarily and vocally is meant to both show that Hasbro was wrong and that this is not appropriate and to snip the perpetuation of this diminution of women in the bud so it does not further that particular brand of sexism.

Secondly, you are misunderstanding my issue. It is not a freedom from fear, though that would also be lovely. It is the freedom to exist as a fully viable human being without being diminished by the society in which I live. Which, unfortunately, I am and of which I am often (also unfortunately) reminded. I don't fear being offended. I am offended by the prevailing thought about women being less, and I fight against that particular socialized meme.

"I think what progressives want is freedom - or, at least, their conception of freedom - at the expense of others' "negative" rights."

Not really. What we (or I, and most of the progressives I talk to) want are the full extent of our own negative rights.

"Codified legal equality is one thing, but what you seem to want is some degree of social and economic equality. In a meritocracy, you have neither."

In a true meritocracy, everyone would start from the same line, and people would move up and down depending upon ability and not privilege (or lack of it). I don't think there is any way to make a true meritocracy, since that would seemingly require wiping the slate clean every generation.

But what we have had for hundreds of years was legalized inequality, which has led even after legalized equality (and in some situations, there is not that yet: gay rights) to there being a social and economic inequality based on the previous legalized inequality. And yes, I think that we should work to rectify how certain group's success was based in part upon ensuring the non-success of another group, because it is best for the individual members of society if that is the case.

I don't want everyone individually to be equal socially or economically; I'm not purporting to support communism or a pure socialism. I like capitalism. But what I am saying that if a group is continually privileged over other groups and if those other groups are continually dealing with a negative - a discouragement - then we as a society should be working to fix that. No one "type" of person should be privileged over another; and no one "type" of person should be diminished and discouraged from doing something they could in truth be talented in either. Which is what has continually happened in the past (and why certain groups are more depressed economically and why even with legal equality certain groups are less likely to obtain a college education), and what is still being perpetuated socially in some quarters, like in this Risk™ on-line game and in its marketing.

mikhailbakunin said...

Just to clarify, I use "you" and "me" in the general sense. I'm not specifically referring to us. Sorry that was unclearrrrr!

mikhailbakunin said...

A world where libertarianism could actually be a fully viable social philosophy would be a world in which individual actions do not represent a greater societal narrative. It could work, but only when one's offensive comment does not perpetuate a systemic offense.

1) From a libertarian perspective, there's nothing wrong with boycotting industries that you find objectionable. I'm not entirely sure what you're proposing - something more than a simple boycott, but less than legal action?

2) My problem with your argument is that questions of morality are highly subjective. Who decides what's harmful to society? You're completely begging the question.

In a world with so many conflicting moral systems, I prefer to allow people to have different beliefs - even when I think those beliefs are generally bad for society.

It is the freedom to exist as a fully viable human being without being diminished by the society in which I live . . . . I am offended by the prevailing thought about women being less, and I fight against that particular socialized meme.

You can't exist as a fully viable human being if Hasbro puts out a misogynistic game? I think you're completely overstating here, but even if I concede every one of your points, I still ultimately disagree with you.

Assuming there is rampant sexism in society that seriously diminishes your quality of life, I still believe that people should have the right to say and believe whatever they want - as long as their words aren't intentionally designed to incite violence.

petpluto said...

"You can't exist as a fully viable human being if Hasbro puts out a misogynistic game?"

Hasbro putting out a misogynistic game is indicative of a society that diminishes my value and worth. It also perpetuates that diminishment.

"Assuming there is rampant sexism in society that seriously diminishes your quality of life, I still believe that people should have the right to say and believe whatever they want - as long as their words aren't intentionally designed to incite violence."

1) People DO have the right to say and believe whatever they want.

2) People do not have the right to have what they say go unchallenged; if someone says something sexist, racist, homophobic, or ridiculously anti-liberal ("liberals hate America", for example), I have the right to call them on it.

3) People have the right to believe what they want, but they don't have the right to negatively inflict that belief upon others and limit those others' own rights by words or actions - even if those words or actions are not what you would consider "violent". I don't really care if someone is a sexist or racist or homophobic; would I rather they weren't? Sure. It would make life for a grand many people (including, at times, the person in question) if that person weren't. What I care about is when someone's (or society's) sexism, racism, or homophobia then impacts someone else's rights.

4) I am more concerned at this time with systemic issues than I am with correcting the issues of the individual. There have been times in history when the prevailing wisdom was just wrong; many times. That "women can't vote" thing? Bad. That "Jim Crow" thing? Bad. That "gays can't hold a federal job" thing? Bad. And I'm more than willing to bet that if we sat around for society to come around to the idea that women should be able to vote, or that African Americans in the South should have the full rights as an American citizen, and if we wait for all 50 states to recognize gay marriage, then we would have been waiting and will be waiting a long time.


5) As an addendum to points 1 and 2 - People have the right to believe and say whatever they want (with certain caveats, like "Fire" in a nonburning building being a no-no. But that shouldn't mean that society should not change in order to limit the amount of oppression different marginalized groups should have to deal with. The KKK still exists. There are still conservatives out there who believe that women should not be voting and should all be married and in the home raising the next generation of conservatives while the men folk bring home the bacon. And while (again) I would rather that the KKK didn't exist and that those conservatives would either see the light or not get million+ dollar contracts, they are free to spew their hate as far as their voices and their radio programs will let them. But they don't have the right to have their views - views which limit other individuals' rights - become society's views.

6) You consistently conflate Hasbro with the individual in this argument. I didn't - in the course of the post or even here - touch individual rights. The problem with Hasbro (and if I haven't clearly stated it, I apologize) is that it is an organization and that this ad campaign did not come about on the fly. Because it has to be pitched, vetted, and then implemented and because its sphere of influence is much larger than the typical individual and because the amount of new misogynistic problems with the game are so varied and multiple and rampant, this is more problematic than if you were to call me a bitch or something or tell me that every woman belonged in the kitchen.

Because Hasbro had to vet this and decided that making it so feminine sounding names couldn't play their on-line game because they weren't appropriate was a-okay, it is indicative of a larger societal problem. Because the game does do that, it also perpetuates the belief, even subconsciously among its players, that girls are icky - which is something I had hoped most boys had gotten over by 6th grade, 8th at the latest, but am continually surprised to find seems to still be the prevailing thought in some circles. Because Hasbro had to both think about this and because Hasbro's sphere of influence is so large, they are more of a problem than just some asshole on the street - because they AREN'T an individual.

" My problem with your argument is that questions of morality are highly subjective. Who decides what's harmful to society? You're completely begging the question."

Obviously, I do. Seriously though, my problem with your response is that nearly everything is highly subjective; that doesn't mean we should shy away from debating ANYTHING except for things with a highly probable consensus rate. But generally, I go with that first document highlighting American ethics and morality: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Whether or not someone chooses to accept it, sexism does limit my ability to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Whether or not someone chooses to accept it, continued racism does impact a minority's access to liberty and the pursuit of happiness - and sometimes life. Your right to say what you want or believe what you want should not directly and negatively impact others' abilities to access that self-evident truth.

" I'm not entirely sure what you're proposing - something more than a simple boycott, but less than legal action?"

I'm not entirely sure where you got the idea that I was proposing any legal action. I didn't say anything about that in my post; the only thing I said was that I was boycotting the company. And when you asked me outright if I thought they should be forced to change, I said no. I'm a "write an angry letter to the company and foreswearing the company and its products 'till the end of time - or until they correct the problem, which ever came first. And as I mentioned in the post, part of the problem with Hasbro is that this is not the first time one of their board games have been involved with perpetuating gender stereotypes and diminishing girls and women. This doesn't seem to be "ad campaign gone horribly wrong" so much as a company philosophy where girls are regulated to "princesses" and pink and boys are the ones who get "sir"s and world domination.

petpluto said...

Also, how in the hell do you make something italicized? Or bold?

And John - if you're still reading this, what's Ticket to Ride? I'm interested!

mikhailbakunin said...

People do not have the right to have what they say go unchallenged; if someone says something sexist, racist, homophobic, or ridiculously anti-liberal ("liberals hate America", for example), I have the right to call them on it.

Of course. I'm not arguing that you shouldn't. In fact, I think you should. But, in my opinion, you don't have the right to a) force other people to do likewise or b) force Hasbro to stop.

I'm not sure that we even disagree on that point.

People have the right to believe what they want, but they don't have the right to negatively inflict that belief upon others and limit those others' own rights by words or actions - even if those words or actions are not what you would consider 'violent'.

Here's where I think you're contradicting yourself. You're saying that people have the right to free speech, but Hasbro doesn't have the right to say misogynistic things because that limits your freedom, right? But then you don't think that it should be illegal for Hasbro to say what it said because of free speech . . .? I'm confused.

But they don't have the right to have their views - views which limit other individuals' rights - become society's views.

I'm not sure what that means. If you're saying that they don't have the right to have their views codified into law, I agree. But I don't think you should have your views codified into law either. Do you agree with that point?

You consistently conflate Hasbro with the individual in this argument.

Well, like you said, corporations and other types of businesses usually have the same a right to free speech.

But if power is the issue here, wouldn't your argument also apply to certain individuals? Bill Gates is an incredibly powerful and influential man, but that doesn't mean that we should curb his freedom of speech.

Because Hasbro had to both think about this and because Hasbro's sphere of influence is so large, they are more of a problem than just some asshole on the street - because they AREN'T an individual.

I don't see how the fact that this was premeditated has anything to do with it.

that doesn't mean we should shy away from debating ANYTHING except for things with a highly probable consensus rate.

I think we should debate everything at length and challenge each other's beliefs constantly. I totally agree with you.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

Um, that obviously that language only applies to MEN.

Seriously though, the Declaration of Independence is one of our founding documents, but those terms are extremely vague. The Supreme Court - when it draws on the Declaration to render its decisions - has never been consistent in its view of "liberty." I think that, to the extent there are inalienable rights, there is only consensus around "negative" rights.

This doesn't seem to be "ad campaign gone horribly wrong" so much as a company philosophy where girls are regulated to 'princesses' and pink and boys are the ones who get 'sir's' and world domination.

I think I've already conceded that point in assuming that this is central to Hasbro's philosophy.

mikhailbakunin said...

To make a word bold or italicized, you just have to use HTML formatting tags.

This is a pretty good overview of basic HTML tags (they're really easy).

Also, Ticket to Ride it pretty fun!

petpluto said...

"If you're saying that they don't have the right to have their views codified into law, I agree. But I don't think you should have your views codified into law either. Do you agree with that point?"

Certain viewpoints are reflected in and reflective of the society in which they originate in. Society's prevailing narratives or viewpoints can be helpful, harmful, and sometimes neutral. Some of those viewpoints are harmful to segments of the population living within that society, and those should be challenged on a societal level; hence, "I don't recognize marriage being between two people of the same sex" can be a fine individual belief, but if that belief reflects the overwhelming viewpoint of the society around it, it becomes harmful. If the society around such a viewpoint is one that allows same sex marriage, the viewpoint above can still be harmful on an individual level, but it no longer reflects a current societal inequality. And while that statement may be problematic, it is no longer as harmful.

Now, I think that viewpoints can become codified in ways other than the law. If you are raised with the belief that girls aren't into Risk nor should be into Risk and don't belong in the world of Risk, then if that thought is widespread enough it becomes codified into social thought. Hence, if a girl does badly on a math test the initial thought among peers in many cases isn't "this girl isn't good at math" but "girls aren't good at math". As a side note, this becomes a reason for the "cringe". I'm pretty sure everyone has handled the cringe at some point or another, where someone who is similar to you in some way (an ideology, a sports team, a favorite book) argues the point so horribly that you automatically cringe and think, "Just stop; you're making us all look bad".

What Hasbro is doing with Risk and with their reimagining of Candy Land is playing into an already existing and harmful societal metanarrative. The only way I see libertarianism as a viable social philosophy (as opposed to an economic philosophy, where I think it has worthwhile contributions) is that it doesn't work when one group has a hold of the societal metanarrative. It would only work if we did not have a metanarrative and only had micronarratives. Because right now, Hasbro isn't just speaking for itself but also part of this giant harmful metanarrative.

Secondly, I don't have the right to have my views codified into law. What I do have is the right to my full rights under the law, and I have a right to be able to do things like walk down the street without fear of upskirting and things like it. When the metanarrative of femininity as undesirable is continued, it impacts those who are female's ability to be equal in society, even if we are theoretically equal under the law.

"I don't see how the fact that this was premeditated has anything to do with it."

Not just premeditated by preexamined and studied. What it demonstrates goes beyond Hasbro and into what we feel is appropriate in our society. Treating women as "other" and "less" and "undesirable" gets the apparent green light. This part has less to do with Hasbro and more to do with the metanarrative their on-line program and overall marketing technique plays into. The issue is both making it clear that this is not really healthy for a good 50% of the population, and making it clear that the perpetuation of that metanarrative is unappreciated and not of the good.

"Bill Gates is an incredibly powerful and influential man, but that doesn't mean that we should curb his freedom of speech."

What you don't seem to be grasping is that the goal isn't to curb anyone's freedom of speech. It is to curb the perpetuation of a harmful metanarrative. That means sometimes criticizing other people's use of their free speech. I firmly believe in the right of free speech, but I also believe that free speech isn't free, that speech and language does affect society and how members of a society interact and see one another, and that if one utilizes their freedom of speech they should also face consequences -positive and negative- of such a speech. And there are caveats, like threats are not encompassed in that whole "consequences of speech" deal. But overall, Bill Gates has the right to say anything he wants; but he doesn't have the right - and Hasbro doesn't have the right - to have to go unchallenged.

The other issue here is that Bill Gates may say something off the cuff. But corporations rarely do or say anything in public that has not been vetted. Their use of their speech is meant to promote the company. Everything that is put out by a corporation is meant to further the company. It is a one track mind and everything is carefully vetted. Therefore, rightly or wrongly, their words carry an inherent weight that someone shooting the breeze doesn't necessarily have because they have obviously gone through different drafts and have come out after testing it and marketing it and have decided that this best represents what the company is. Because of the intense premeditation and the reason for the premeditation, their words and actions are scrutinized more.

"You're saying that people have the right to free speech, but Hasbro doesn't have the right to say misogynistic things because that limits your freedom, right?"

Wrong; I'm just going to quote myself here: "just for the record, I think that Hasbro should be able to do whatever misogynistic marketing techniques it wishes. I just want us to get to a world in which a company would not even think such a campaign would be remotely acceptable or successful".

Hasbro has the right to put out whatever misogynistic crap it wants to; but that misogynistic crap does reflect a larger narrative and does perpetuate that larger narrative and does impact women. I'm not trying to take away Hasbro's right to say whatever the hell it wants; but I also don't think that Hasbro has the right to be successful in saying whatever crap it wants, and I want to get to a world one day when saying misogynistic crap both (a) isn't the norm, and (b) isn't successful. And that means calling out Hasbro and others when they hate on women. I don't want laws saying they can't. But I want the mindset of society to change to the point where women are not undervalued or seen as icky.

mikhailbakunin said...

[H]ence, "I don't recognize marriage being between two people of the same sex" can be a fine individual belief, but if that belief reflects the overwhelming viewpoint of the society around it, it becomes harmful.

First of all, it becomes harmful in your opinion. And it only becomes "harmful" when marriage is legally defined as a heterosexual institution. I happen to agree with you on this issue, but the majority of Americans don't. Simply insisting they're all wrong doesn't make it so.

The only way I see libertarianism as a viable social philosophy . . . is that it doesn't work when one group has a hold of the societal meta-narrative

I have no idea what this means. Libertarianism is illegitimate because of social prejudice? All the more reason to endorse libertarianism. Libertarianism doesn't allow anybody to codify his or her morality into law - whether it's the opponent of gay marriage or the opponent of free speech.

Bill Gates has the right to say anything he wants; but he doesn't have the right - and Hasbro doesn't have the right - to have to go unchallenged.

This is now the third time I'm agreeing with this point.

Wrong; I'm just going to quote myself here: "just for the record, I think that Hasbro should be able to do whatever misogynistic marketing techniques it wishes. I just want us to get to a world in which a company would not even think such a campaign would be remotely acceptable or successful".

Yeah, but you also said:

"People have the right to believe what they want, but they don't have the right to negatively inflict that belief upon others and limit those others' own rights by words or actions - even if those words or actions are not what you would consider 'violent'."

Aren't you arguing that Hasbro is negatively inflicting its beliefs on society? If they don't have the right to do that, how can you also make the free speech argument that they do?

petpluto said...

"Libertarianism doesn't allow anybody to codify his or her morality into law"

Libertarianism ignores the fact that morality - and the affects of that morality - have already been codified into societal functions. And that we exist in society as part of a grander narrative. Therefore, your actions are often not just your actions, but indicative of the society you live in as a whole.

"And it only becomes "harmful" when marriage is legally defined as a heterosexual institution."

Yes. I should have been more specific; I was putting forth one example of prejudice being harmful and codified into law, and an example of prejudice being harmful when being codified (now) by societal function.

"First of all, it becomes harmful in your opinion... ...I happen to agree with you on this issue, but the majority of Americans don't. Simply insisting they're all wrong doesn't make it so."

The majority of Americans don't really have the right to impose their will and limit the civil liberties and rights of a minority population. It is something we've done as a nation in the past, but it has generally been seen as harmful and as a direct contradiction to the philosophy upon which the nation was founded. It was the case in Loving vs. Virginia, it was the case prior to Loving vs. Virginia, and it is the case now.

There are other areas in which I can say someone is wrong in their belief and it does not make it so. I can tell someone that they are wrong to eat meat, and it doesn't make it so. But I'm pretty sure past precedence is on my side with this one.

""People have the right to believe what they want, but they don't have the right to negatively inflict that belief upon others and limit those others' own rights by words or actions - even if those words or actions are not what you would consider 'violent'."

Aren't you arguing that Hasbro is negatively inflicting its beliefs on society? If they don't have the right to do that, how can you also make the free speech argument that they do?"

I'm arguing that Hasbro is perpetuating a negative belief society in general already holds. American society, as it stands right now, holds a better view of women than perhaps any other time in its history; but it still isn't exactly equal to men - and even there, a hierarchy exists. They are both reflecting a particularly harmful meme and perpetuating that meme. Hasbro is regurgitating something many people take for "truth" - like the poster who didn't think Hasbro was attempting to alienate female customers, but was doing this to "win people over".

I also think that I was making a point somewhat separate from the Hasbro situation - though in truth, I honestly don't remember now since it was like 12 posts ago (but I'm pretty sure it was when I was trying to figure out how coming out against the language misogynistic a company had vetted and was using somehow impacted YOUR right to be a jerk ;-D).

But the underlying point remains; Hasbro can say whatever it wants to. I haven't ever advocated that it be taken to court or that laws be drawn up to restrict its right to do so. But action as a consumer and as a citizen should be taken against it because it does perpetuate the societal view that women are less and not only don't want to play Risk but also are too gross to.

mikhailbakunin said...

Libertarianism ignores the fact that morality - and the affects of that morality - have already been codified into societal functions. And that we exist in society as part of a grander narrative. Therefore, your actions are often not just your actions, but indicative of the society you live in as a whole.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy. In general, libertarians don't seek to address broad social problems - but they don't deny that social problems exist. You're right, we don't live in a vacuum.

The question is whether the government should be involved in shaping social narratives. Libertarians would say no, that's not the government's place. The government should only enforce "negative" rights - rights that deal with the overt use of force. Cultural conflicts should be beyond the reach of legislators, whatever their ideological affiliation.

The only thing that I'm arguing is that government shouldn't be forcing companies to be more politically correct - even if those companies are disseminating explicitly racist or sexist messages. That doesn't mean that people can't boycott companies or stage political protests.

You don't seem to disagree with any of that - so why the animosity toward libertarians?

petpluto said...

"You don't seem to disagree with any of that - so why the animosity toward libertarians?"

That is a whole other blog post, but I want to clear up a couple of things. I don't have anything against libertarians individually unless some other personality trait they have pisses me off. I'm not one of those people (thanks for the website, by the way). What I do have are philosophical disagreements with libertarianism as a political philosophy, and that stems from what I see as the simplistic nature of the philosophy and its view of the role of government in society.