A great deal of research has been done on the topic of language and gender and how certain terms can signal inclusion of a group or can define the power relationships among genders. True, stereotypes can reflect reality, but according to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, it is more common that our perception of reality, i.e. the stereotypes we associate with our lives, is constructed via the language we use. Therefore, there is a strong relationship between the language we use and how we see the world because our language reflects the way we see the world and reinforces it constantly.

It follows that, if we use gendered terms, i.e. ones that have some connotation of belonging to one sex over the other, we actually reinforce the actual inequality of the genders if the terms are used as derogatory terms for other people. Those who might dispute this, should really look into the literature.

So, unfortunately this means that even when the terms Vixen, Diva and Princess are said to be used as gender-neutral, they still carry an underlying connotation of femininity which, though not explicit, express the assumption that these are females causing problems. Sorry if you disagree, but there is a huge body of research supporting this issue.

Feminism in this respect, is about finding these sort of terms and showing people that they indeed carry some gender bias REGARDLESS of the intention of the speaker. The idea is to expose the underlying assumptions that shape our perceptions of reality, and in this case, of the female gaming experience.

This is what I’m attempting to accomplish in my paper, and what many other researchers have tried to accomplish since the advent of the video game.

Now that I’m a granny gamer AND back at university studying gaming/digital culture I am shocked at the unchallenged stereotypes, misinformation and lazy prejudices abounding even at university and the number of supposedly intelligent informed culturally aware post grad students completely missing it.

I mentioned the need for a bit of feminist analysis in my 2nd class and was ‘gagged’ for causing an ruckus. Everyone went off! Feminism is apparently SOO unneccesary! I was censured for sidelining a discussion about ‘the digital divide”. WTF?

I’d prefer to game in my free time (LOL) not fight and fight against stereotyping. But I forget that it’s a load I’m always carrying on my own, regardless, until I read a post like yours and walk away with a lighter heart and my head held higher.
Andra´s last blog ..SocialAction

(First two cites I found referencing it, there are way more but pasting from google seems pointless)

http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/lady-doth-protest-too-much-methinks
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Shakespeare-3004/2008/12/Shakespear-quote.htm?rd=1

The context of the line would also suggest that it is the vehement affirmation to which there is objection (since the player queen does not protest her treatment in the other uses of that word). Thus it is the defence without question that is questionable making the quote relevant since you are defending the principle that stereotypes are bad without question especially in relation to their derogatory usage against female gamers.

Taking the connotative rather than the denotative meaning is an interesting trick given that the denotative meaning of the statement is applicable here, as well as the conotative meaning others seem to read into it. I suppose this is personal since you are reading into what you believe was implied and not what was directly stated. I believe was the point of your post several above this that speech has to be used carefully lest we corrupt the meaning or utilise the connotative to hide reprehensible behaviour inside seemingly unbiased wordings.

Jez never states that the critique is reprehensible in fact he gives you credit for it, then notes that the approach and vehemence with which you use may be inappropriate for the post which Lodur initially wrote making the defence seem inappropriate.

(Also I note that this discussion has wandered a bit off of the actual topic into the “who really said what about whom and who’s at fault” thing, which is generally not all that interesting.)
Spennix´s last blog ..Quick Evony Update

I could use another Hamlet quote here: “Words, words, words”. By which I mean to say that words are just objects of communication from which meaning is extrapolated by the reader through their own distinctive and subjective lens. Before we read and interpret they are just marks, empty and devoid of meaning. No reiterating of your subjective point of view using whatever discourse of power you feel gives you authority to speak necessarily makes you right. And that goes for everyone, including me. So feel free to disagree with my argument, just as I disagree with yours. The thing I most take to task, as I will once again reiterate, is your use of intellectual capital to insist on your voice as speaking authoritatively. Which is, I again argue, highly ironic.
Jezrael´s last blog ..Character

The Shakespeare quote, both in its context in the work and in its use now as a cliché, is an insult. Interestingly, it’s meaning actually hasn’t changed since the turn of the 17th century when almost everything else in language has. That’s just the way it’s used, and I can hardly be blamed for taking it at its connotative rather than denotative meaning. It’s a phrase that–in its original form–had a double meaning. It has always meant that, based on the speaker’s point of view, the person this quip is directed at IS the thing he or she criticizes. “Protesting” is equivalent to an admission of guilt. And that’s what I resent–the notion that critique itself is reprehensible.

She was still ugly to him, the fact that it was personality and not looks is irrelevant to the matter, you can look like and still be uglier than sin on the inside. Also Butler’s character is not 100% physically obsessed (a high percentage) however he has some respect for more than that. The personality he gives to her for a short period was not designed for long term use really, it is an ice-breaker which if you look at her actions she needs because she does not let down her emotional and mental guards while viewing the world through an analytical lens. She needed to let down her guard to actually find a chance of happiness, while Butler’s character was far from perfect his attitude allowed her to drop her guard but still be able to draw it back when needed precisely because he was abrasive and physically focused. If you want to really read into it then it is all about the dating issues that INTX type personalities can encounter (Myers’s Briggs classification), people that think too much and have emotional guards set in place that don’t really conform to the normally emotionally expected response.

I also note that you dodged the Shakespeare part, you made a large thing of reading into that one phrase using modern English to make yourself a martyr to the cause yet don’t address what the poster actually says s/he meant (and I am sorry I have no idea Jez if you mentioned you are male or female but I have been wrong once already ). Yes I do mean martyr here because you seem to be taking it as a personal insult rather than analysing the issue (:P yeah, I can relate to Heigl’s character).
2ndNin´s last blog ..On Thinking about death knights

The real dig in my comment was my reference to the use of intellectual capital to justify your voice as authoritative. Which is utterly ironic.
Jezrael´s last blog ..Character