No, not all of my subsequent blog posts are gonna be reviews. It's just something that I find fun and I just felt like adding more variety to my blog. Besides, I always try to include some feminist idea into the things I review, like what I did with Watch Dogs 2. This here I'm kinda debating if it's feminist since whilst it certainly is a topic worth discussing as a feminist, the subject in question is Megyn Kelly, a very polarising figure in politics as far as feminism goes. The topic of today's review is her book, Settle For More. It was published last year and goes for $30 USD. The book is essentially an autobiography and tells of her experiences in journalism and the various hardships she faced for being a woman in the politisphere. And let me just say right now, it's an amazing read.
To be clear here, I'm not exactly a fan of Megyn. Yes, she's gorgeous. Yes, she could be seen as an inspiration for young girls to chase a political career, but I don't really find myself adoring her. But after reading this, I have newfound respect for her, and I do plan to pay closer attention to her ventures. I'll touch on that later, but for now let's begin the review.
One thing that everyone should know about Megyn is that she's not a republican or a democrat. In fact, she's an independent. Now I know that independents can be obnoxious in other facets of politics, but Megyn is legit. She pretty much sides with whoever's making the better argument whilst still being level-headed. This largely comes from the fact that she was raised by parents with conflicting political views. She has voted for both parties, but I don't think it was any secret that she was very anti-Trump (as anyone should be). I'm not gonna reveal too much here since I want you all to enjoy the book for yourselves, but I will cover the more important things, specifically her time with Fox News and her famous quarrel with Trump.
Megyn, like just about any woman who's hung around conservative men for an extended period of time, has faced unwanted sexual advances from her coworkers. They came from none other than Roger Ailes, the founder of Fox News. For anyone unaware, Ailes was a slimeball who isn't just guilty of creating the network in the first place, but has countless sexual offences to his name. His worthless life came to an end in May of this year, and as such, his record was hung up for all to see. The things he did to her were borderline traumatising. Hell, I felt damaged just reading the what she dealt with. And as a victim of daily sexual harassment (seriously I get groped like every single day), I can totally empathise with what she had to deal with, and I even started crying when I learnt of how he treated her. He grabbed her and tried to kiss her nonconsensually, commented on her "sexy bra straps", and even tried gaining sexual favours so she could get a promotion, which is something many women have dealt with when at work. What made things worse is that she couldn't report the harassment since she'd be the one going down, not him. This is a harsh reality for a woman. When she's been violated by her employer, or anyone for that matter, her word is never heeded. They only care about the man's reputation, as if that's the most important thing we have to worry about.
Now comes her relationship with Trump. Believe it or not, she and Trump actually got along well before his presidential run, which I'm sure is how a lot of people felt. Thing then fell apart when he started running. He began threatening her with slander and that he won't give her respect unless she cordially apologised to him when she wasn't even in the wrong. It's made even stranger by how she might have had an assassination attempt done on her. Before she went to moderate the debate, she drank some coffee [compliments of the man who drove her there] and she felt sick and started vomiting profusely and almost had to cancel. She carried on, but notified her lawyer of the incident. Things didn't get any better post-debate. Once it was all said and done, with many thinking that Trump made an arse of himself, I included, Trump's raving army of idiots sent death threats to her constantly. It got so bad that she brought a bodyguard with her family when they went to Disney World. It's also worth noting that Trump tried bribing her to say good things about him, even though if he was really that good to her he wouldn't have to force a good opinion from her. Even then, debate moderators are supposed to be neutral, so she'd be breaking conduct if she took a side.
The book isn't all about these horrific experiences. It includes her years spent as an attorney and journalist, which made me go from thinking of her as an amateur to thinking of her as a veteran. Trump's fan brats were giving the book harsh negative reviews upon its release, but the book nonetheless sold well. And I encourage you all to support the book legally. There's an eBook of it as well, and I'm sure it's free, but whatever you do, don't pirate it. Megyn and her book deserve the honest support. Regardless your opinion of her, she's proven that she's tough. And that's something that all women need to be at least once in their life.
Monday, July 31, 2017
Wednesday, June 21, 2017
The Red Pill Review
So I actually went ahead and did the disservice to my psyche by watching The Red Pill. Why did I do this? Well I can only assume it's because my Asperger's knows no bounds. But all jokes aside, I'm just gonna come out with it: This is by far the worst movie I've ever watched. It's one of the whiniest, angstiest, and ill-informed movie anyone could hope to make. Apparently the film is so powerful that it has the ability to change any feminist's mind. Well thankfully I'm one of the smart ones who wasn't sucked in by manipulative agenda setting and framing. All I did after the movie was over is break the disc. No I'm not kidding. I legit broke the CD because I don't want anyone else wasting their money on this. The rumours weren't shitting you. It really does use every dirty, underhanded tactic to make you feel sorry for a group that has zero likability for good reason. Let's take a look at The Red Pill and why it does not deserve anyone's time.
First, time for a brief explanation of what the movie is. It was directed by Cassie Jaye, and is essentially her first try at film making. Well if this is any indication, she's not very good at it. The movie, which is actually a documentary but whatever, is supposed to be a feminist's adventure to the men's rights movement. It doesn't make sense for her to try and delve into the movement since anyone in it will give you an apt idea of what it is; just a bunch of angry white men who think women are the scum of the earth and the root of men's supposed eradication. They're pretty much what people think feminists are like, but they take it to even bigger extremes. Cassie feels a bit generous though, and wants to hear them out. She finds various MRAs, some popular, some not, and evaluates their experiences and why they turned to the MRM to begin with. And let me tell you, these interviews so to say are just the biggest indicator that Cassie cherrypicked as much as she possibly could to make this documentary. It's at a point where I'm starting to think she paid these people to say what they did.
She interviews several MRAs based on MRA talking points. And by some random surge of magic she was able to find men who've been screwed in divorces, male DV victims who had no access to shelters, and men who've attempted suicide. Now you're probably asking "but these are genuine concerns aren't they?" and you'd be right. The problem is, this is simple appeal to emotion. You know, that thing that feminists are constantly accused of doing? If feminists were to go around grabbing random female rape/abuse victims, women who became pariahs for having abortions or suffered permanent genital damage from reckless abortionists, or women who've faced street harassment and had shell shock because of it, everyone would be like "THAT'S NOT OPPRESSIVE CUZ IN DA MIDDLE EAST THEY'D HAVE BATTERY ACID THROWN ON THEM" as if the Middle East is just the yardstick of how bad you have it, even though there are higher levels of female oppression in non-Arab majority nations. Hell, Africa's violent misogyny could make King Salman shudder. Another example is the decriminalisation of DV in Russia signed by Putin not too long ago. Oh and Australia. Just Australia.
To better explain why these instances Cassie selected were cherrypicked, I'm gonna pick them apart one by one. Let's talk about divorce courts since MRAs seem to bring that up the most. They like to think that men are always and forever treated like subspecies garbage in divorce court. This is not true, like, at all. Sure, there are fathers who are cheated due to vindictive parents, but those cases are in the minority, and there are studies that show that fathers who fight for custody (and I mean actually try to win it) are more likely to get it 70% of the time. Most custody cases are usually mutual, and both parents decide that the mother is more suited to raise the kids. There are other factors like mothers taking care of the kids and that pesky gender norm that resigns women to be child bearers for all their lives. If child custody is such an issue, maybe it's time to reconsider what the real culprit is. That's the problem with this documentary, all it did was highlight why men need feminism more than MRAism. That'll become more apparent as this review continues.
Next I wanna discuss male domestic violence. According to the MRM, 40% of domestic violence victims are male, and there are no shelters for men only, and the only ones that do exist hold both genders. This is utter horseshit if you couldn't tell already. The real statistics are 15% of men being victims of spousal abuse. That doesn't mean it ought not to be taken seriously, but men aren't actually at much of a risk as MRAs would try to tell you. Now regarding the amount of shelters, yes it's true that some unisex shelters exist, but they're actually in very small numbers. This is because victims of either gender aren't very comfortable being with one another (though it's mostly women being afraid of being around men). Fear not, despite what you might hear, Arkansas's all-male shelter is not the only all-male shelter in the whole country, just the first one in the state. Here are some numbers: There are currently 1,500 shelters for female victims and 500 for male victims. Those are some equally vapid numbers judging how there's 300 million people in America. Sure these shelters can house hundreds of people, but that's still not enough. What's even worse is that there are 3,800 animal abuse shelters. The country literally has more protection of animals than human beings getting the shit kicked out of them by their partners, and I think that's something everyone can come together on and say that's pretty damn bad. As for why there are less men's shelters than women's shelters? Well that's not really sexism and more so pragmatic thinking. Since women are victims of DV more than men, it'd only make sense that they'd have more resources open to them (and even then they still can't get a hold of them, so there goes that argument). But yes, there needs to be more shelters in the country for each gender.
Lastly, the suicide argument. Now I've already made a blog post about suicide and its relation to gender, but for a quick refutation, men are often told to repress their emotions as a construct of the patriarchy, not other women. Plus, men use more brutal methods like guns and jumping from high ground. The problem is men being shamed for showing emotion which is apparently a bad thing and an extension of misogyny since crying and weakness is considered feminine. Not getting pussy is not a reason to drink a whole bottle of rubbing alcohol. Stop trying to say it is.
Now here's where things get REALLY bad, as if the misinformation wasn't bad enough on its own. Cassie invites some of the most reprehensible MRAs onto the documentary and through some bullshit editing tricks, she paints them as the heroes. She gets Paul Elam, a guy who thinks that women who get drunk are begging to be raped, Warren Farrell, who thinks that women shouldn't have the right to vote (or any right for that matter), and Honey Badger Radio, a group of female MRAs who just act like the way MRAs portray women in general. They all say their usual debunked bollocks and Cassie just eats it all up like a schoolgirl on her first day at a new school. She also invites feminists onto her documentary. So who does she get? Fucking Big Red. You know, that one feminist with the pixie cut who's been used as a strawman of feminism since like 2010? Yeah, her. For fuck's sake, you couldn't have displayed your bias any more than if you chose Anita Sarkeesian. Oh wait you wouldn't do that because she's actually been harassed by MRAs and her experiences would shatter your documentary in 3 seconds flat. I understand now.
So this next thing I'm about to bring up isn't necessarily about the movie itself, but it does kinda put things into a much bigger perspective and it really makes the whole thing make sense. Not the actual bullshit in the documentary, I mean why she made it. You see, when Cassie flew back to Australia, she was interviewed and the story of a boy being killed by his father in a domestic abuse situation came up. Her response? Applying gender to where she could push an agenda. She highlights the fact that the victim was male and not the fact that the perpetrator was male. Judging how the overwhelming majority of homicides, rapes, muggings, assaults, and spousal violence instances are caused by men, that not only is a flagrant display of ignorance but it really shows that she really doesn't care about the greater good and would rather shower men with a victim complex.
AGAIN, SOMETHING THAT FEMINISM HAS BEEN CRITICISED FOR TIME AFTER TIME.
To conclude the review, this documentary is not to just be chuckled at and assumed to die in the recesses of a Best Buy. This is a danger to anyone. It willfully spreads lies and makes you sympathise with a group that condones violence against women and only pretends to care for men. Do not watch this. At all. Don't even try to see what it's like. You have nothing to gain from it. There are SO many better things you could be watching. If you want a better documentary that evaluates the idea of masculinity and its negative repercussions on males in modern times, check out The Mask You Live In. It's a well directed and better paced film that actually recognises the root cause of men's issues without trying to make it look like feminists are Galactus in a bad mood. Better still, just watch something of actual substance, because The Red Pill isn't gonna give you that.
First, time for a brief explanation of what the movie is. It was directed by Cassie Jaye, and is essentially her first try at film making. Well if this is any indication, she's not very good at it. The movie, which is actually a documentary but whatever, is supposed to be a feminist's adventure to the men's rights movement. It doesn't make sense for her to try and delve into the movement since anyone in it will give you an apt idea of what it is; just a bunch of angry white men who think women are the scum of the earth and the root of men's supposed eradication. They're pretty much what people think feminists are like, but they take it to even bigger extremes. Cassie feels a bit generous though, and wants to hear them out. She finds various MRAs, some popular, some not, and evaluates their experiences and why they turned to the MRM to begin with. And let me tell you, these interviews so to say are just the biggest indicator that Cassie cherrypicked as much as she possibly could to make this documentary. It's at a point where I'm starting to think she paid these people to say what they did.
She interviews several MRAs based on MRA talking points. And by some random surge of magic she was able to find men who've been screwed in divorces, male DV victims who had no access to shelters, and men who've attempted suicide. Now you're probably asking "but these are genuine concerns aren't they?" and you'd be right. The problem is, this is simple appeal to emotion. You know, that thing that feminists are constantly accused of doing? If feminists were to go around grabbing random female rape/abuse victims, women who became pariahs for having abortions or suffered permanent genital damage from reckless abortionists, or women who've faced street harassment and had shell shock because of it, everyone would be like "THAT'S NOT OPPRESSIVE CUZ IN DA MIDDLE EAST THEY'D HAVE BATTERY ACID THROWN ON THEM" as if the Middle East is just the yardstick of how bad you have it, even though there are higher levels of female oppression in non-Arab majority nations. Hell, Africa's violent misogyny could make King Salman shudder. Another example is the decriminalisation of DV in Russia signed by Putin not too long ago. Oh and Australia. Just Australia.
To better explain why these instances Cassie selected were cherrypicked, I'm gonna pick them apart one by one. Let's talk about divorce courts since MRAs seem to bring that up the most. They like to think that men are always and forever treated like subspecies garbage in divorce court. This is not true, like, at all. Sure, there are fathers who are cheated due to vindictive parents, but those cases are in the minority, and there are studies that show that fathers who fight for custody (and I mean actually try to win it) are more likely to get it 70% of the time. Most custody cases are usually mutual, and both parents decide that the mother is more suited to raise the kids. There are other factors like mothers taking care of the kids and that pesky gender norm that resigns women to be child bearers for all their lives. If child custody is such an issue, maybe it's time to reconsider what the real culprit is. That's the problem with this documentary, all it did was highlight why men need feminism more than MRAism. That'll become more apparent as this review continues.
Next I wanna discuss male domestic violence. According to the MRM, 40% of domestic violence victims are male, and there are no shelters for men only, and the only ones that do exist hold both genders. This is utter horseshit if you couldn't tell already. The real statistics are 15% of men being victims of spousal abuse. That doesn't mean it ought not to be taken seriously, but men aren't actually at much of a risk as MRAs would try to tell you. Now regarding the amount of shelters, yes it's true that some unisex shelters exist, but they're actually in very small numbers. This is because victims of either gender aren't very comfortable being with one another (though it's mostly women being afraid of being around men). Fear not, despite what you might hear, Arkansas's all-male shelter is not the only all-male shelter in the whole country, just the first one in the state. Here are some numbers: There are currently 1,500 shelters for female victims and 500 for male victims. Those are some equally vapid numbers judging how there's 300 million people in America. Sure these shelters can house hundreds of people, but that's still not enough. What's even worse is that there are 3,800 animal abuse shelters. The country literally has more protection of animals than human beings getting the shit kicked out of them by their partners, and I think that's something everyone can come together on and say that's pretty damn bad. As for why there are less men's shelters than women's shelters? Well that's not really sexism and more so pragmatic thinking. Since women are victims of DV more than men, it'd only make sense that they'd have more resources open to them (and even then they still can't get a hold of them, so there goes that argument). But yes, there needs to be more shelters in the country for each gender.
Lastly, the suicide argument. Now I've already made a blog post about suicide and its relation to gender, but for a quick refutation, men are often told to repress their emotions as a construct of the patriarchy, not other women. Plus, men use more brutal methods like guns and jumping from high ground. The problem is men being shamed for showing emotion which is apparently a bad thing and an extension of misogyny since crying and weakness is considered feminine. Not getting pussy is not a reason to drink a whole bottle of rubbing alcohol. Stop trying to say it is.
Now here's where things get REALLY bad, as if the misinformation wasn't bad enough on its own. Cassie invites some of the most reprehensible MRAs onto the documentary and through some bullshit editing tricks, she paints them as the heroes. She gets Paul Elam, a guy who thinks that women who get drunk are begging to be raped, Warren Farrell, who thinks that women shouldn't have the right to vote (or any right for that matter), and Honey Badger Radio, a group of female MRAs who just act like the way MRAs portray women in general. They all say their usual debunked bollocks and Cassie just eats it all up like a schoolgirl on her first day at a new school. She also invites feminists onto her documentary. So who does she get? Fucking Big Red. You know, that one feminist with the pixie cut who's been used as a strawman of feminism since like 2010? Yeah, her. For fuck's sake, you couldn't have displayed your bias any more than if you chose Anita Sarkeesian. Oh wait you wouldn't do that because she's actually been harassed by MRAs and her experiences would shatter your documentary in 3 seconds flat. I understand now.
So this next thing I'm about to bring up isn't necessarily about the movie itself, but it does kinda put things into a much bigger perspective and it really makes the whole thing make sense. Not the actual bullshit in the documentary, I mean why she made it. You see, when Cassie flew back to Australia, she was interviewed and the story of a boy being killed by his father in a domestic abuse situation came up. Her response? Applying gender to where she could push an agenda. She highlights the fact that the victim was male and not the fact that the perpetrator was male. Judging how the overwhelming majority of homicides, rapes, muggings, assaults, and spousal violence instances are caused by men, that not only is a flagrant display of ignorance but it really shows that she really doesn't care about the greater good and would rather shower men with a victim complex.
AGAIN, SOMETHING THAT FEMINISM HAS BEEN CRITICISED FOR TIME AFTER TIME.
To conclude the review, this documentary is not to just be chuckled at and assumed to die in the recesses of a Best Buy. This is a danger to anyone. It willfully spreads lies and makes you sympathise with a group that condones violence against women and only pretends to care for men. Do not watch this. At all. Don't even try to see what it's like. You have nothing to gain from it. There are SO many better things you could be watching. If you want a better documentary that evaluates the idea of masculinity and its negative repercussions on males in modern times, check out The Mask You Live In. It's a well directed and better paced film that actually recognises the root cause of men's issues without trying to make it look like feminists are Galactus in a bad mood. Better still, just watch something of actual substance, because The Red Pill isn't gonna give you that.
Tuesday, June 6, 2017
I'm Comin' Out (I Want The World To Know)
I'm sure I've caught your attention with that apt Diana Ross reference in the title. So in honour of pride month, I think it's time I revealed a rather newly developed characteristic about me.
I am bi-romantic.
For anyone unaware, bi-romance is not a sexual orientation, but a lesser form of bisexuality. What it means is that I'm romantically and physically attracted to both genders, but my sexual orientation remains the same, which in my case would be heterosexual. Bi-romance is probably a lot more common than most people would imagine, but it's often glanced over, possibly because of how trivialised it is by the media. You know what I'm talking about, having two drunk straight girls make out with each other in a movie or male athletes slapping each other's fannies in the locker room.
Who can be bi-romantic? Well, anyone really. With bisexuality it's kinda obvious that you'll go for men and women, but bi-romantics don't go all the way. For instance, a gay man can be only sexually attracted to men, but can still want a romantic relationship with a woman. For me, I'm still happily married to my husband, by I sometimes would think about taking some female friends on a lovey-dovey date (with lots of kissing of course ;D). Now I've never acted on my bi-romantic urges and quite frankly I don't see myself doing so in the foreseeable future, but I do wanna be more open about it. Bi-romance is also common amongst asexuals, who are indifferent to intercourse. Whilst they remain abstinent, it's not unheard of for them to have make out sessions with their partners. They might even grope them too. Nudity might also be involved in bi-romantic relationships
I'm not expecting to be worshipped for my unique orientation nor do I beg people to, I just want everyone to get a clearer understanding of what bi-romance is. Who knows, you might actually have a friend or acquaintance who is bi-romantic, and now you'll know how to interact with them or what they're like. This was kinda a short one, but I'm hoping I tided you over until I finish the Red Pill review.
I am bi-romantic.
For anyone unaware, bi-romance is not a sexual orientation, but a lesser form of bisexuality. What it means is that I'm romantically and physically attracted to both genders, but my sexual orientation remains the same, which in my case would be heterosexual. Bi-romance is probably a lot more common than most people would imagine, but it's often glanced over, possibly because of how trivialised it is by the media. You know what I'm talking about, having two drunk straight girls make out with each other in a movie or male athletes slapping each other's fannies in the locker room.
Who can be bi-romantic? Well, anyone really. With bisexuality it's kinda obvious that you'll go for men and women, but bi-romantics don't go all the way. For instance, a gay man can be only sexually attracted to men, but can still want a romantic relationship with a woman. For me, I'm still happily married to my husband, by I sometimes would think about taking some female friends on a lovey-dovey date (with lots of kissing of course ;D). Now I've never acted on my bi-romantic urges and quite frankly I don't see myself doing so in the foreseeable future, but I do wanna be more open about it. Bi-romance is also common amongst asexuals, who are indifferent to intercourse. Whilst they remain abstinent, it's not unheard of for them to have make out sessions with their partners. They might even grope them too. Nudity might also be involved in bi-romantic relationships
I'm not expecting to be worshipped for my unique orientation nor do I beg people to, I just want everyone to get a clearer understanding of what bi-romance is. Who knows, you might actually have a friend or acquaintance who is bi-romantic, and now you'll know how to interact with them or what they're like. This was kinda a short one, but I'm hoping I tided you over until I finish the Red Pill review.
Wednesday, May 10, 2017
4 Reasons I'm Not A Perfect Feminist
I usually like bigging myself up as this immaculate default setting of what a feminist is or what a feminist should be like. Truth is, I'm probably one of the worst feminists out there, which is fine since I didn't really become a feminist until 2 summers ago. I mostly examine my behaviour to make sure I'm really aiming for an egalitarian society where women won't continue to get the short end of the stick, but there are aspects that might contradict my goal but I've never remedied since they likely have little effect on my quest as a whole. I'm gonna list off 4 reasons that don't make me perfect. Who knows, maybe some of these apply to you.
1. I Like Women More Than Men
Ok, to be clear, I don't hate men. Some of my closest friends are men, I love my husband dearly and I don't know what I'd do without him, I don't think killing all men will solve all the world's problems (no matter how fun that sounds >:D). Sure, man-hating and the revocation of men's rights (not the MRM, I mean the actual rights men have) go against the idea of feminism, but plenty of feminists you've met probably do have an inherent personal bias towards women, and I'm one of them. It's not really anti-feminist to admit that really, especially since many anti-fems flat out admit that they like men more than women yet receive little to no criticism for it. But I generally feel safer around women, I trust them more, I do think we do things better than dudes, but that doesn't mean I won't stand up to injustices committed by women. Nonetheless, sisters gotta stick together dontcha know? Plus women do have more of a reason to not like men than men do for not liking women. Sorry fellas :( you're cool too though.
2. I'm Not Very Independent
Everyone knows that feminists are busy bodies who can handle anything that gets thrown their way right? Not true. I've done pretty well for myself. I have a well paying job, I'm a homeowner, I'm married to the love of my life, I miss no meals, and I'm pretty active. That said, I can also be pretty lazy. My husband prefers to cater to me on behalf of how hard I work during the week (and just because he loves me that much) and I kinda enjoy that more than I should. Don't worry, his favours don't go unnoticed and I let him know how grateful I am, but it feels a lot better to have someone make your food and keep your drinks ready for you when you want to unwind as opposed to having to do it all by myself and inconveniencing myself further. This isn't to say I don't do my share of housework. In addition to paying for pretty much all of our bills and such, I do a hefty amount of cleaning. My husband's presence cuts my workload almost in half. I'm not even factoring my Asperger's here either.
3. I Gender Things Too Much
Look, gender neutrality benefits the oppressor and no one else. So saying things like nail polish and dresses know no gender is dumb. I do refer to things like light beers and colourful juices as "girly drinks" because I don't care if they are. I want society to accept things that are considered feminine, not pretend they don't exist. Now this I actually think I should do something about, but as it stands, I won't be afraid to gender something if I think it's appropriate.
4. I Like Violent Video Games
Anita Sarkeesian's gonna kill me for this XD. You wouldn't know it, but I actually am a fan of games that are violent or have sexual themes. Hell my favourite game is The Witcher 3 despite my awareness of the sexist elements in it, such as Geralt being a womaniser. Thing is, violent video games are kind of an outlet for our frustrations, and plus killing monsters is a hell of a lot of fun. The way I see it, if no one's getting hurt, then have all the enjoyment you can from a game, even if the game in question is Grand Theft Auto.
And those are the big reasons that don't make me a perfect feminist. And that's fine. Feminism isn't about perfection, it's about acceptance of women being humans deserving of basic rights. If any of these apply to you, then don't feel embarrassed or anything. Don't let anyone tell you you're less of a feminist or that you're the real oppressor because you're not this pristine complacent freedom fighter. As long as you're still fighting for the good of women's lives then you're as feminist as you need to be.
Monday, May 8, 2017
Ghost Recon Wildlands review (spoiler free)
Ghost Recon Wildlands is exactly the game that Ubisoft needed to redeem itself with after the gutting disappointment known as Watch Dogs 2. I mean that entirely. I'm not gonna lie, when it came down to either this or Horizon Zero Dawn (which I might get at some point in the foreseeable future), I decided to pick this up first. Mostly because I wanted it to be Ubisoft's redemption from Watch Dogs 2. Needless to say, they succeeded.
To start, I'm gonna go over the basics. Ghost Recon Wildlands is a tactical team based third-person shooter set in an open world environment. Now I know what some of you might be saying to yourselves right now, "oh it's The Division all over again". I promise you, it's not. Sure, there are some apparent similarities, but given how they were presumably being developed/planned at the same time and were created by the same company, it's bound to happen. Ghost Recon Wildlands is now a contemporary shooter instead of the more sci-fi futuristic shooters that the Ghost Recon series has been going in. And I think going back in time a bit was a pretty good idea here as it serves for a breathe of fresh air and diversity in the current market that is kinda saturated with sci-fi shooters at the moment.
Before the game begins, you are taken to character creation. While I still yearn for the day a shooting game will allow me to give my character long hair (especially judging how long my hair has grown out lately), I love the customisation options Wildlands leaves me with here. My character actually does look very similar to me if I was a narc XD. You're allowed up to teams of four to embark on missions, but it is still possible to play alone (just expect lots of frustration). You're given different options for entering missions, such as driving there or parachuting from a whirlybird (which is my personal favourite). I would say you can also walk there, but I know you won't, hehe.
The missions revolve around stopping a Bolivian drug cartel called Santa Blanca. They're a bit generic if I could be honest, and are outfitted just as you'd expect them to be. They are however very fun to fight. Upon completing missions, you can spend points and cash earned on weapons and armour. Similar to The Division, the enemies will have armour ratings and damage counters when you attack them, and can be fought at complete random whilst traversing the overworld. Speaking of that, the overworld in this game is immense. If I were you, I'd seriously spend my first moments of free time during the game just admiring the atmosphere this game gives you. The graphics are phenomenal like you'd expect from Ubisoft (excluding Watch Dogs 2). Not only is the world beautiful, but it's actually designed like a wilderness, with salt flats, woodlands, and canyons. There's no limit to the things you can do. While the missions can get repetitive, they're a hell of a lot of fun and they never feel like a waste of time.
Now let's talk about the combat. Wildlands does not utilise a duck and cover technique (PRAISE FUCKING JESUS) and that makes sense since there's not many places to take cover behind whilst in the wilderness, ya know unless you just so happen to be stranded in the Forest of Bulletproof Materials. In that respect, Wildlands encourages you to be more risky and upfront with your playing style, a more fight or flight approach instead of just getting behind a dumpster and mashing R2 at an enemy you're barely fixated on. The controls are also very quick to get used to and easy to remember, so you won't have to worry about fidgeting when you start out like you would with any other game.
If I had to give some criticism to this game, it'd be the vehicle controls. Driving in this game isn't very fun, unfortunately. I don't mean just the terrain, I mean with maneuvering. You may find yourself nearly breaking your fingers just trying to do something as simple as shoot down a machine gun nest. It's kinda a problem when driving and spraying isn't even an option in a game where that'd be massive amounts of awesomeness. The helicopter controls? They've got sins to answer for too. Oh what's that? You want to land properly? Why, that's such a ridiculous request. Next you'll be telling me that you wanna be rushing behind road guard after road guard whilst popping in and out of combat to avoid dying in 3 hits. And we'd never do that at all (ok, I think that's enough shitting on Watch Dogs 2 for one blog post wouldn't you say?). The game, expectedly enough, had a plethora of glitches and bugs upon release day and the moments thereafter, but they were soon patched up for the most part and it runs fairly decently now.
I have to be honest, this was the first Ghost Recon game I played since Future Soldier, and I'm glad I jumped back to the series with this installment. I bought it thinking it'd be just The Division with Ghost Recon spray painted on it and ended up realising it's more an indirect sequel to The Division more than anything else. The graphics, the gameplay, and the story all come together to make a B+ game. Seriously, pick this up first chance you get. You'll enjoy it, I guarantee you.
To start, I'm gonna go over the basics. Ghost Recon Wildlands is a tactical team based third-person shooter set in an open world environment. Now I know what some of you might be saying to yourselves right now, "oh it's The Division all over again". I promise you, it's not. Sure, there are some apparent similarities, but given how they were presumably being developed/planned at the same time and were created by the same company, it's bound to happen. Ghost Recon Wildlands is now a contemporary shooter instead of the more sci-fi futuristic shooters that the Ghost Recon series has been going in. And I think going back in time a bit was a pretty good idea here as it serves for a breathe of fresh air and diversity in the current market that is kinda saturated with sci-fi shooters at the moment.
Before the game begins, you are taken to character creation. While I still yearn for the day a shooting game will allow me to give my character long hair (especially judging how long my hair has grown out lately), I love the customisation options Wildlands leaves me with here. My character actually does look very similar to me if I was a narc XD. You're allowed up to teams of four to embark on missions, but it is still possible to play alone (just expect lots of frustration). You're given different options for entering missions, such as driving there or parachuting from a whirlybird (which is my personal favourite). I would say you can also walk there, but I know you won't, hehe.
The missions revolve around stopping a Bolivian drug cartel called Santa Blanca. They're a bit generic if I could be honest, and are outfitted just as you'd expect them to be. They are however very fun to fight. Upon completing missions, you can spend points and cash earned on weapons and armour. Similar to The Division, the enemies will have armour ratings and damage counters when you attack them, and can be fought at complete random whilst traversing the overworld. Speaking of that, the overworld in this game is immense. If I were you, I'd seriously spend my first moments of free time during the game just admiring the atmosphere this game gives you. The graphics are phenomenal like you'd expect from Ubisoft (excluding Watch Dogs 2). Not only is the world beautiful, but it's actually designed like a wilderness, with salt flats, woodlands, and canyons. There's no limit to the things you can do. While the missions can get repetitive, they're a hell of a lot of fun and they never feel like a waste of time.
Now let's talk about the combat. Wildlands does not utilise a duck and cover technique (PRAISE FUCKING JESUS) and that makes sense since there's not many places to take cover behind whilst in the wilderness, ya know unless you just so happen to be stranded in the Forest of Bulletproof Materials. In that respect, Wildlands encourages you to be more risky and upfront with your playing style, a more fight or flight approach instead of just getting behind a dumpster and mashing R2 at an enemy you're barely fixated on. The controls are also very quick to get used to and easy to remember, so you won't have to worry about fidgeting when you start out like you would with any other game.
If I had to give some criticism to this game, it'd be the vehicle controls. Driving in this game isn't very fun, unfortunately. I don't mean just the terrain, I mean with maneuvering. You may find yourself nearly breaking your fingers just trying to do something as simple as shoot down a machine gun nest. It's kinda a problem when driving and spraying isn't even an option in a game where that'd be massive amounts of awesomeness. The helicopter controls? They've got sins to answer for too. Oh what's that? You want to land properly? Why, that's such a ridiculous request. Next you'll be telling me that you wanna be rushing behind road guard after road guard whilst popping in and out of combat to avoid dying in 3 hits. And we'd never do that at all (ok, I think that's enough shitting on Watch Dogs 2 for one blog post wouldn't you say?). The game, expectedly enough, had a plethora of glitches and bugs upon release day and the moments thereafter, but they were soon patched up for the most part and it runs fairly decently now.
I have to be honest, this was the first Ghost Recon game I played since Future Soldier, and I'm glad I jumped back to the series with this installment. I bought it thinking it'd be just The Division with Ghost Recon spray painted on it and ended up realising it's more an indirect sequel to The Division more than anything else. The graphics, the gameplay, and the story all come together to make a B+ game. Seriously, pick this up first chance you get. You'll enjoy it, I guarantee you.
Thursday, March 23, 2017
My Life As a Woman with Asperger's
I'm just gonna come out with it now: I have Asperger's syndrome. And it's so refreshing to just freely say that since I've spent most of my 22 years of life keeping it in. I barely told anyone, I sometimes thought I was a freak or a contaminated wretch. But overtime, I became a bit more comfortable with my condition, and overcame it in my teens by becoming more social. I accepted my uncontrolled faults and told the world to take me as I am or don't take me at all. I put both my feet down and decided to hit my challenges head on. Now it's time I told you what life has been like as a woman with Asperger's.
To clarify, Asperger's syndrome is a minor form of autism that effects social activity. Most autistics are recluse, have difficulty carrying long conversations, and are more likely to feel embarrassed of even the simplest of actions. Autism or any of its variants is not a disease, it's a neurological disorder. The faster society gets that under its belt the sooner we can deal with it better. It effects developmental skills like reading and writing. I usually have to condense writings to compensate for my admitted inability to make huge pieces (ironically enough my blog posts tend to be gargantuan). I was diagnosed with Asperger's when I was 2. I even spent most of my primary school days in a special ed class. In secondary school, I spent it wit a TA. In high school, I had to dedicate 10 minutes of free time to the counselor to discuss my progress through my classes with my condition. I always felt so alienated from my peers, and some would often refer to me as a sped, aspie, sperg, retard, etc. My Asperger's became a burden for most of my life, and pretty much no one but my family knows it.
So why do I consider it a feminist issue? Well, despite males outnumbering females in autism diagnoses, girls get ASD a lot more than you're probably told. If you look up the percentage of female autism rates, there's no definite statistic that tells you how many girls actually have it. That's because society has basically swept autistic girls under the rug, so much that I've been told that I'm faking my Asperger's. No one has anything to gain from saying they have ASD unless that person is a masochist who looks forward to the torment ahead.
Autism and Asperger's are used interchangeably but are not complete mirrors of each other. Autism is more behavioural whereas Asperger's is more academic; those respective traits are shared but one is more common in the other and vice versa. Despite the educational obstacles I encountered, I was a pretty good student throughout all my school years. In terms of behaviour, whilst I was initially shy, I attempted to be more outgoing and made good friends but still decided to keep talking on my end to a minimum. I also have a pretty monotonous voice, which has been described by those who've heard me speak as cute or even sexy at times (British accents for the win :D). I'm also kinda clumsy and trip over things at least once a day. I even trace my finger along with my hand when applying eyeliner so I know not to poke my bloody eye out.
What does Asperger's feel like in your adult years? Honestly, sometimes I forget I even have it now. I can't speak for every case since some have low functioning autism which severely effects motor skills, but for Asperger's patients we'll, for the most part, be able to carry on with our everyday lives. I was able to land a high paying counseling job in October in spite of my condition, and I married the love of my life, so all's well that end's well.
Autistic women are an unspoken minority, and they've been ignored for too long. We're regular people deserving of basic rights and attention. Some disorder floating around our cortex shouldn't be the deciding factor there. Feminism must provide a voice for all women, and that includes us women on the spectrum.
To clarify, Asperger's syndrome is a minor form of autism that effects social activity. Most autistics are recluse, have difficulty carrying long conversations, and are more likely to feel embarrassed of even the simplest of actions. Autism or any of its variants is not a disease, it's a neurological disorder. The faster society gets that under its belt the sooner we can deal with it better. It effects developmental skills like reading and writing. I usually have to condense writings to compensate for my admitted inability to make huge pieces (ironically enough my blog posts tend to be gargantuan). I was diagnosed with Asperger's when I was 2. I even spent most of my primary school days in a special ed class. In secondary school, I spent it wit a TA. In high school, I had to dedicate 10 minutes of free time to the counselor to discuss my progress through my classes with my condition. I always felt so alienated from my peers, and some would often refer to me as a sped, aspie, sperg, retard, etc. My Asperger's became a burden for most of my life, and pretty much no one but my family knows it.
So why do I consider it a feminist issue? Well, despite males outnumbering females in autism diagnoses, girls get ASD a lot more than you're probably told. If you look up the percentage of female autism rates, there's no definite statistic that tells you how many girls actually have it. That's because society has basically swept autistic girls under the rug, so much that I've been told that I'm faking my Asperger's. No one has anything to gain from saying they have ASD unless that person is a masochist who looks forward to the torment ahead.
Autism and Asperger's are used interchangeably but are not complete mirrors of each other. Autism is more behavioural whereas Asperger's is more academic; those respective traits are shared but one is more common in the other and vice versa. Despite the educational obstacles I encountered, I was a pretty good student throughout all my school years. In terms of behaviour, whilst I was initially shy, I attempted to be more outgoing and made good friends but still decided to keep talking on my end to a minimum. I also have a pretty monotonous voice, which has been described by those who've heard me speak as cute or even sexy at times (British accents for the win :D). I'm also kinda clumsy and trip over things at least once a day. I even trace my finger along with my hand when applying eyeliner so I know not to poke my bloody eye out.
What does Asperger's feel like in your adult years? Honestly, sometimes I forget I even have it now. I can't speak for every case since some have low functioning autism which severely effects motor skills, but for Asperger's patients we'll, for the most part, be able to carry on with our everyday lives. I was able to land a high paying counseling job in October in spite of my condition, and I married the love of my life, so all's well that end's well.
Autistic women are an unspoken minority, and they've been ignored for too long. We're regular people deserving of basic rights and attention. Some disorder floating around our cortex shouldn't be the deciding factor there. Feminism must provide a voice for all women, and that includes us women on the spectrum.
Sunday, March 12, 2017
Equality Vs Equity
One thing civil rights groups all profess is that they stand for equality. You know, racial equality, marriage equality, economic equality, and gender equality. The word equality is a flagship of politics. But what if I told you that equality was actually not the word we should be using? Standing for a equality is fine and all, but it's actually erroneous of oppressed groups to call for it. The word we SHOULD be using is equity.
Let me explain how these terms are actually noninterchangeable. Now according to the dictionary, equality and equity seem like they mean the same thing. Even within the context of social rights, they seem to be evenly matched. However, equality means treating everyone equally, which actually doesn't help. Imagine it like this. You have 3 people, one man, one woman, and one child. They're all trying to watch a baseball game, but a picket fence is blocking the woman and child's views. Now equality would mean that the woman and child get a box to stand on, but so does the man, meaning the man still has the better view than the woman and the child. In essence, treating them all equally would give the privileged party more benefits and leave us one step behind. Equity on the other hand would give the woman one box to stand on and the child gets two. The man would not get one since he already has a perfect view. Equity gave the woman and child the same view the man has, but distributed the privileges to where it was necessary.
In laymen's terms, equality would still favour the privileged classes. Equity would give benefits where needed. Instead of the term gender equality, we should say gender equity. Now I'm not entirely against saying equality in certain contexts, as I'd probably understand what you mean, but keep in mind that MRAs have a habit of twisting our words around to make us look bad. I know it can be annoying how we're always switching up our language, but you might find it'll serve you well in the long run.
In laymen's terms, equality would still favour the privileged classes. Equity would give benefits where needed. Instead of the term gender equality, we should say gender equity. Now I'm not entirely against saying equality in certain contexts, as I'd probably understand what you mean, but keep in mind that MRAs have a habit of twisting our words around to make us look bad. I know it can be annoying how we're always switching up our language, but you might find it'll serve you well in the long run.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)