It has been argued that game studies scholars need to move beyond any
understanding of gendered preferences in the content and mechanics of video
games. Instead, we need to conceive of play as an assemblage, shaped through
content, marketing, competency, experiences, access, context, and milieu (T.L.
Taylor, 2008; Dovey & Kennedy, 2006; Jensen & de Castell, 2008). This paper
considers and extends some of these observations on the complex networks of
gendered gaming in light of the insights of a branch of science and technology
studies known as feminist technoscience. Mobilizing in particular the work of Mol(1999) and Barad (1999), as well as preliminary findings from the author’s doctoral fieldwork, this paper considers the value of feminist technoscience concepts such as ontological politics, multiples, enactments, and agential realism in examinations of the gendered nature of game play.
http://genderandset.open.ac.uk/index.php/genderandset/article/view/126/256
This seemed like it would provoke interesting discussion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90gG_563sNw
Gssh posted:Not sure if you guys are in the habit of posting papers.
It has been argued that game studies scholars need to move beyond any
understanding of gendered preferences in the content and mechanics of video
games. Instead, we need to conceive of play as an assemblage, shaped through
content, marketing, competency, experiences, access, context, and milieu (T.L.
Taylor, 2008; Dovey & Kennedy, 2006; Jensen & de Castell, 2008). This paper
considers and extends some of these observations on the complex networks of
gendered gaming in light of the insights of a branch of science and technology
studies known as feminist technoscience. Mobilizing in particular the work of Mol(1999) and Barad (1999), as well as preliminary findings from the author’s doctoral fieldwork, this paper considers the value of feminist technoscience concepts such as ontological politics, multiples, enactments, and agential realism in examinations of the gendered nature of game play.
http://genderandset.open.ac.uk/index.php/genderandset/article/view/126/256
This seemed like it would provoke interesting discussion.
Which ones 'argues' (
) for revolutionary socialism?
Panopticon posted:Humanzee : Documentary on Stalin's Experimentation to Create and Army of Ape-Men .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90gG_563sNw
did you see that Henry Flynt talk where he takes this to be the ultimate proof that the Soviet Union wasn't Marxist
elektrenai posted:Panopticon posted:Humanzee : Documentary on Stalin's Experimentation to Create and Army of Ape-Men .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90gG_563sNwdid you see that Henry Flynt talk where he takes this to be the ultimate proof that the Soviet Union wasn't Marxist
i really want to see that
roseweird posted:but feminism is for everyone
most undialectical
gwap posted:anyone every play the game "The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind?" IMO that is the best game of all time and I am unable to play any other video game after playing that in my formative years because it was too amazing. dunno what this thread is about but gl
this is actually true for me too lol the only two games ive ever played in the last many years is morowind / shadowbane
swirlsofhistory posted:I've had to read some of this feminist technoscience dung in the past (Sandra Harding is the only name that I recall), and it's a big reason why I find feminist thinking is so much more offensive than anything it has actually done. It's a paragon of nonsensical theory babble – and that's saying something since there's a lot of competition in the humanities these days. While there's usually nothing wrong with using technical terms, using a slew of technical terms that seem to have hidden flexibility, or only derive meaning from other technical terms in the same work, is a recipe for conjuring these silly theories and ensuing 'problems' from what are straightforward, everyday activities where one ever had to consider ontologies or the realism of agents.
newish developments in the clinical consensus on chronic pain in both psychology and neuroscience owe a lot to theories of subjectivity and are affected by feminist-influenced thinking, so it sounds like you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. i don't know anything about "feminist technoscience" as a field besides it having an awful name though. that said, if you go Full Sokal in my fibromyalgic sewing circle/ womyn's liberation reading group you'll trigger at least a few of us, which i would consider both oppressive and othering
palafox posted:elektrenai posted:Panopticon posted:Humanzee : Documentary on Stalin's Experimentation to Create and Army of Ape-Men .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90gG_563sNwdid you see that Henry Flynt talk where he takes this to be the ultimate proof that the Soviet Union wasn't Marxist
i really want to see that
Gssh posted:Dunno about most feminist technoscience, but Karen Barad is kinda cool imo. Which is like Haraway + quantum physics + Deleauze.
Although maybe a tad bit too much Butler in the mix
roseweird posted:swirls you've never articulated just what it is you hate about feminists in gneral, are you one of the typical rude autistic nerds who blames feminism for women not liking you or do you have a more interesting backstory
They’re wrong, loud, and usually American.
palafox posted:swirlsofhistory posted:
I've had to read some of this feminist technoscience dung in the past (Sandra Harding is the only name that I recall), and it's a big reason why I find feminist thinking is so much more offensive than anything it has actually done. It's a paragon of nonsensical theory babble – and that's saying something since there's a lot of competition in the humanities these days. While there's usually nothing wrong with using technical terms, using a slew of technical terms that seem to have hidden flexibility, or only derive meaning from other technical terms in the same work, is a recipe for conjuring these silly theories and ensuing 'problems' from what are straightforward, everyday activities where one ever had to consider ontologies or the realism of agents.
newish developments in the clinical consensus on chronic pain in both psychology and neuroscience owe a lot to theories of subjectivity and are affected by feminist-influenced thinking, so it sounds like you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. i don't know anything about "feminist technoscience" as a field besides it having an awful name though. that said, if you go Full Sokal in my fibromyalgic sewing circle/ womyn's liberation reading group you'll trigger at least a few of us, which i would consider both oppressive and othering
A lot of psychology and some neuroscience rest on conceptual nonsense to begin with. Not saying these supposed developments in the study of chronic pain are too, because I’m not familiar with them, but it’s plausible that a feminist or poststructuralist brand of confusion could be thrown into the mix and get followers.
Also, I disagree with Sokal almost as much as the feminists.