Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Temple of Kraden News: Welcome to the Temple of Kraden! ------ All worshipers may enter the Most Holy Place in single file, reflecting on the bountiful blessing Kraden hath provided unto him or herself since their last visit. Head coverings are not necessary, as true penitence and humility are found within. The Priests and Priestesses of Kraden endeavor to remind all that fresh orange juice is heavily preferred; only whores use frozen.
Greetings, heathen. Perhaps some fortuitous blessing of Kraden's grace hath led you to our humble Temple, or perhaps you are simply curious about this strange and wonderful cult. Should you be willing - and dare to hope - to achieve enlightenment, the door opens before you. Lo! Leave your old life behind! For once you step through, you become something more than just yourself.

You become a Kradenette.

Are you willing to make the rapturous plunge? Do you have what it takes?



One of us! One of us! One of us!



Already one of us? Make your presence known:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
SSB: Women, Men, & Gaming; I will make the topic
Topic Started: Sep 6 2014, 09:34 AM (14,628 Views)
Admiral Miral
Member Avatar
The Light of Hope

I don't think anyone can reasonably say (or is saying) that men/anons get the same or even comparable treatment as women in the gaming communities or nerdculture as a whole.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nell
Member Avatar
The Pretender
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Nevertheless, there seems to be some debate as to whether Sarkeesian (et al) would have gotten the same treatment/threats/abuse (including the nature of the abuse) if she were a man, or alternatively, if she had not been trying to make feminist arguments - ie. whether she got treated differently because of her gender/because she was ostensibly conducting feminist textual analysis.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Phantom Squee
Member Avatar
Sound the horn and call the cry: "How many of them can we make die?"

Nell
Sep 9 2014, 10:08 PM
I get that there is a lot of pervasive confusion about what exactly about those threats is misogynistic, if 'everyone [ie. no just women] gets them', and because they're often not explicitly phrased as being 'we hate you because you're a woman' (unlike what happened with Quinn, where she was specifically targeted by a known community of misogynistic miscreants), and if that's something that needs to be talked about, sure, let's talk about it. I understand it was something that came up with Squee, so maybe if he wants to re-contribute his perspective, we could start there, but if not, we could talk about it anyway.
I just went to look for the article again, and apparently the blog on which it was posted has been deleted. Essentially, though, the article I linked presented a series of comments that had been made regarding Jack Thompson during his little crusade against video games a while back. They were initially shown with Anita's name substituted, to demonstrate that the severity of the comments was more or less the same--stuff like wanting to ram a red-hot poker up Thompson's urethra, or hoping he would trip and fall onto sharp rusted metal and die slowly from an infection.

Satty argued that these comments were still rooted in misogyny by virtue of "feminizing" the target; that they placed Thompson in a position typically associated with the female gender role, that of victim. I think that interpretation is patently ridiculous and only reinforces the idea that you can find misogyny in literally anything if you squint hard enough.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ian889
Member Avatar
Death comes to all of those who oppose me.

I would disagree that on a basis level no one is willing to talk about what should be done. Lol Banned two high profile players not that long ago because of the way they treated other players. There was even a petition of sorts from several developers less than two weeks ago saying how this behavior needs to stop and asking the general gaming public to do so. It's also at least tried to be addressed by sites like IGN, Destructoid and Kotaku as to why Gaming communities are so bad. While there has been no "conclusive," results to why these things happen (Although the anonymity of the internet is often cited. To say that they aren't being looked at I would consider to be false; unless you're referring to on an academic level by high profiles schools in which case I'd agree.

I don't think blame is the right word, but it is an unfortunate fact right now of gaming commentators as a whole. As soon as you say something the gaming community doesn't like they will attack you for it. Jim Stearling made a point of this how some of the worst criticism he faced wasn't because of something he didn't like, but because he liked the new DMC game which "Traditional" DMC fans didn't. The argument is definitively valid that no one has found a truly good solution to stopping these kinds of problems because in large part never before in history has anyone been able to attack people so viciously so anonymously and so quickly as you can with the internet. Expanding the problem beyond gaming law enforcement is just now starting to get the most basic of grasps to stop things like cyber bullying.

I think that the perception of bad gaming journalism, and being more inclusive are two different things and problems. When someone is being attacked in the middle of a game it's hard for the majority of the population to try and defend a stranger knowing that they ire of the people could be turned on them. I mean when terms like "White Knights, and SJW's" are readily recognized as bad things I see that as a tale tell signs of how bad the problem is for the gaming community at large. I think most people are willing to endure by just "Flying under the radar," of the general gaming public. From a personal perspective I admit I've gone off on people for being assholes especially in MOBA's where if you haven't been told to kill yourself you're not really playing the game.

In my experience at least when it comes to shooters men are far more abusive to other men then to women. I admined a few BF3 server for nearly 2 years, and the attacks on men were almost always worse then they were to females. We had a few regular female players who most recognized by their nicknames "Bunnichick, and WarMistress," who regardless of how poorly they played never received the "I hate you, you F***ing F**** you should F***ing die," to a degree anywhere close to what the men did. So my disagreement as to why gaming communities are so bad is because it's so impersonal. In my 14 years of organized sports ( 7 as a football player (Including two years a defensive captain,) 2 as a football coach and 5 as a basketball player,) Never did I even once encounter people as hurtful as the people I did in two years of Admining. I was even part of the biggest "Nerd," thing there is to do in being a part of a chess team for 2 1/2 years and a year as club president, and never had the problem with anyone Male or Female( We only had 3 girls on the team though,). Or people acting close to the level in which people from video games did.

I haven't personally seen anyone "Excuse," there behavior try to expelling it yes, but they are not nearly the same thing. I wouldn't disagree that the attacks on men and women differ because they definitively do, but again I think if you solve the problem which I find as anonymity, and a general lack of respect it would solve both problems.

I suppose maybe that's where I have problems. While I see the attacks against men and women as coming from different sources I see them as having the same solution. To disregard the fact the "Men have problems too!" on this issue because it's not explicitly stressed is to inherently harm helping them both.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Saturos
Member Avatar
heart-under-blade

Nell, great post.

Squee, that was just a tangent incidental to the main point, which was arguing that a single case of similar language (except genderbent so that all nouns or body-parts were a woman's) and then going "Oh but that was actually a man!" says nothing about whether this particular case has sexist or misogynist components.

The fact that men are also targeted by threats does not discount that gender may have played a role in why this particular person was targeted in the first place.

Now, to explain the point you did reference here, which I admit was not at all well-articulated, I would've had to explain how gender is constructed and applied to both men and women in society, and how men are conditioned via media and culture to solve problems with violence, and that if you assert your physical superiority over someone else and violate their body and their possessions, that means that you have "won" or that you are better,* and you have "made them your bitch," as they say. Which, you know, kind of explicitly is a derogatory way of saying you made them your woman.


Ian, you still seem to be dodging the question a bit, so let me ask you straight. Did her gender, or sexism/misogyny play a role in any or all of a) why Anita Sarkeesian was initially targeted, even before her videos came out, b) the reaction to her videos, and c) this continuing trend of targeting journalists who defend her and others (including women in gaming) with harassment and threats, slander (in Quinn's case), and etc? Answer that, please.

Squee concluded to me that "maybe they're just assholes who happen to use misogynist language." I'm not going to play the impossible game of guessing at intent, so if the message is misogynist, I'll call it like it is. Given especially the context: her is a) a woman b) talking about feminism in video games and c) some members from the video game community respond with ad hominem, harassment, and threats, rather than engaging with the substance of her ideas and videos.
I have no problem, and I don't think anyone does, with disagreeing with Sarkeesian or her points. I think that's an important part of lively discourse. But the fact that people respond to Sarkeesian and the general content of her message (feminism) with personal attacks, vitrol, and threats of violence, that suggests that, regardless of what an anonymous person on the internet's intent was, the message is certainly sexist, because they're objecting to the discussion of misrepresentation in games in principle.

Sorry this last part is rushed, lunch hour's over

EDIT: Boom, stealing downtime.

I do think addressing anonymity on the internet would help in avoiding some of these incidences. However, I don't think it would address the underlying cause or attitudes, but rather it would drive those back into the underground. The internet/anonymity is only the venue or outlet here, not the cause.

*A lot of this speaks to your experience as well, Ian, some of the ways that men and women are treated differently. But, I don't think those are censorships trying to prevent the discussion from happening at all (in online gaming, anyway, since it's not a discussion), whereas I think the threats and harassment in response to Sarkeesian's message prevent real discussion from happening at all.

Incidentally, still waiting for that IP address source, as well as the others. And I don't think that was a misleading statistic, that's just a statement of fact.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nell
Member Avatar
The Pretender
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I didn't say the reasons for cyberbullying, as you put it, weren't being looked into - I said they weren't being talked about. Even in this thread, there's more 'but the content of her videos sucks' than there is 'what happened to her is kind of awful', which in turn is more common than 'why does this kind of stuff even happen? What it is about society and this community that produces this terrible, destructive response time and again?' And you know what the funny thing is? There is a discourse that's trying to explain that. That discourse is feminism.

The question was not whether men get treated 'worse' in your experience in playing games like BF, but whether players of different genders are treated differently, eg. use of insults. Being told to go kill yourself is not a nice thing, not at all, but it's not discriminatory of your subjectivity. Being called a slut is discriminatory, even if you're not female, because of the meaning and common use and value judgement of the word. Same thing with country music loving lady. I would argue the same would apply for the use of rape and gang rape, but I realise this is probably something that could use some broader discussion, too. Less obvious but equally pervasive is the delegitimisation stuff - that is, the 'you're not a real gamer' line of insults. 'You don't take games seriously'. 'We don't want a girl on our team, because she's going to be a crap player'. 'We're only playing with her because she's X's girlfriend'. 'She's only playing video games to be popular with boys'. Abuse is bad generally. But abuse comes in different flavours, informed by different social and political ideas. Egalitarian abuse would be one solution. No abuse would be another, probably better one. But either way, I think, any resolution at all requires some sort of thinking about when it happens and why and what ideologies are at work.

And, lastly, while I do think that anonymity is a definitely a contributing factor, I don't think it's the defining issue - if anything, I think that title goes to accountability, or lack of it, which is a different related but distinct thing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Phantom Squee
Member Avatar
Sound the horn and call the cry: "How many of them can we make die?"

Saturos
Sep 11 2014, 11:15 PM
Squee, that was just a tangent incidental to the main point, which was arguing that a single case of similar language (except genderbent so that all nouns or body-parts were a woman's) and then going "Oh but that was actually a man!" says nothing about whether this particular case has sexist or misogynist components.

The fact that men are also targeted by threats does not discount that gender may have played a role in why this particular person was targeted in the first place.
Dude, the entire reason I posted it in the first place was in response to you asking if men in similar positions had received the same sort of abuse. You don't get to ask for evidence and then respond to it with "Oh, well that's not really relevant to the topic anyway."

I also disagree with your assessment that it says nothing about this particular case. If altering the defining (or so you claim) characteristic of the situation and observing the same result doesn't mean anything, then what would?

Quote:
 
Now, to explain the point you did reference here, which I admit was not at all well-articulated, I would've had to explain how gender is constructed and applied to both men and women in society, and how men are conditioned via media and culture to solve problems with violence, and that if you assert your physical superiority over someone else and violate their body and their possessions, that means that you have "won" or that you are better,* and you have "made them your bitch," as they say. Which, you know, kind of explicitly is a derogatory way of saying you made them your woman.


That's a nice series of intuitive leaps there, from wishing harm on another, to wishing to inflict said violence oneself, to wishing so in a way laced with sexist language. And if the messages in question had actually progressed beyond that second step, that reasoning might hold water, but as it is you're just claiming that all violence is inherently linked with sexism.

We couldn't find a common basis on which to debate that topic before, so I have no reason to think we'll be able to do so now.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nell
Member Avatar
The Pretender
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I'm not sure I necessarily agree with Satty on his own construction of violent threats, however, I still think you can make a case that the threats and abuse in question were misogynistic. Yes, men get abuse, too, however, as I've said repeatedly now, the quality (not in a 'better or worse' way - ie. the nature) of the threats is different.

1. The repetition that Sarkeesian et al are not real gamers. Pretty consistent with the perpetuated idea that girls are not real gamers - they (we?) are not legit, they (we?) are just doing it for the attention, blah blah blah. Delegitimising subjectivity.
2. That the content they make is not real content. Related to the above. Someone posted an article to my university games society FaceBook page that went on and on about how Depression Quest was hardly a game. Delegitimising achievements.
3. 'You only got to where you are because you were a girl, not because you have any actual talent/merit', 'you used your feminine wiles to get ahead', 'you slept with the reviewer to get positive press that you didn't deserve' etc.
4. The gender-specific perjoratives. Slut, country music loving lady, etc.
5. Rape threats. Even if you accept that the gender ratio of victims of rape are fairly even (which would still be pretty radical, though I'm very aware that rape in prisons, especially, is under-reported), there's still the issue that rape, like most violent crimes, is still overwhelmingly done by men, which means it's still a gendered crime. And then you look at the groups who are most commonly victims, and it's groups who don't have power, and the perpetrators are people in positions of power, etc.
6. Gaslighting. Technique commonly associated with making peoplesound and feel like they're 'crazy', frequently used by abusers in abusive relationships (of which the classic, though not definitive, paradigm is men abusing women in domestic relationships). This is all the 'but there's no proof that the threats are real', 'she's made it all up' stuff comes in. Delegitimising complaints.
7. Use of the body as everyone's property. Objectification of the person. The response that has always stood out to me as being completely insane and unacceptable is that flash game that someone made where you could beat up Sarkeesian. Holy shit. What the actual [radio edit]. No one has any right to her body, either physically via threats of violence, or the image of her body as a [radio edit]ing thing that you can punch and bruise. Jesus Christ. And pretending Quinn's sex life was relevant to anything.

The funniest thing about GamerGate to me was always this idea that the dude was releasing all the details of Quinn's affairs with journalists 'in the name of journalistic integrity! She has a conflict of interest! They have a conflict of interest! Anything they have to do with each other is tainted!'. C'mon, like, the ex-boyfriend releasing details of his ex's sex life that happens to smear her reputation and ruin her career isn't a conflict of interest?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Saturos
Member Avatar
heart-under-blade

Squee, can you address Nell's posts? She's doing a much better job of articulating what I'm trying to say. >_>

Quote:
 
I didn't say the reasons for cyberbullying, as you put it, weren't being looked into - I said they weren't being talked about. Even in this thread, there's more 'but the content of her videos sucks' than there is 'what happened to her is kind of awful', which in turn is more common than 'why does this kind of stuff even happen? What it is about society and this community that produces this terrible, destructive response time and again?' And you know what the funny thing is? There is a discourse that's trying to explain that. That discourse is feminism.


Quote:
 
Dude, the entire reason I posted it in the first place was in response to you asking if men in similar positions had received the same sort of abuse. You don't get to ask for evidence and then respond to it with "Oh, well that's not really relevant to the topic anyway."

I also disagree with your assessment that it says nothing about this particular case. If altering the defining (or so you claim) characteristic of the situation and observing the same result doesn't mean anything, then what would?


I was thinking more a statistical analysis rather than a single example, so I phrased my post very poorly in that one case.
Incidentally, wouldn't altering the defining characteristic of the situation make it inherently not the same thing?
Like, I don't even know what the one Thompson case is even supposed to prove anymore. If you treat someone's objections to violence with violence, doesn't that kind of prove their point? Likewise, if you treat someone's objections to sexism with violence, doesn't that kind of prove their point? "Wow, how dare you point out this problem with gender, you should kill yourself."

Quote:
 
That's a nice series of intuitive leaps there, from wishing harm on another, to wishing to inflict said violence oneself, to wishing so in a way laced with sexist language. And if the messages in question had actually progressed beyond that second step, that reasoning might hold water, but as it is you're just claiming that all violence is inherently linked with sexism.


To reiterate: it's not that violence is linked with sexism, but that violence is linked with the male gender, which is how gender, male and female, is constructed in our society. Throughout history, men are typically the ones who inflicted violence, because that's how war was. The majority of culture products in almost every medium typically have men as the ones being violent. Look at Rambo or any other such movie.
So no, it's not that violence is inherently sexist, and I apologize if I gave off that impression. It's that violence is inherently tied up in masculinity as society dictates it (this is starting to change with feminism, but just imagine how Kill Bill would've been received 50, 100 years ago -- because a woman being violent as the hero was unheard of). So men solve problems with violence.

What I'm saying is that feminism, as a wider discourse, not only says "Why was Sarkeesian targeted with virulent threats when spreading a message of feminism," but "Why do these people act in these ways?" Like Nell said, feminism is addressing the patterns, the causes in society. Sure you can say "because people are assholes lol," but that's lazy scholarship and a poor thirst for knowledge.

Also Squee, are you really going to tell me that these threats aren't gender-based?
http://venturebeat.com/2014/08/27/critic-anita-sarkeesian-receives-online-death-threats-after-latest-feminist-frequency-video-on-games/

Incidentally, that was the person who specifically drove her out of the house, because he named her address. So are you going to say that those threats aren't on a gender basis?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Phantom Squee
Member Avatar
Sound the horn and call the cry: "How many of them can we make die?"

Quote:
 
Squee, can you address Nell's posts? She's doing a much better job of articulating what I'm trying to say. >_>


I'll say. >_> Only reason I haven't so far is because they haven't been directed at me, and the only reason I posted again in this cluster[radio edit] of a debate is because she asked for my input.

Quote:
 
I was thinking more a statistical analysis rather than a single example, so I phrased my post very poorly in that one case.
Incidentally, wouldn't altering the defining characteristic of the situation make it inherently not the same thing?


No? Because that's exactly the opposite of how the scientific process works? You change the independent variable to see if the results change accordingly. The "experiment" was to see if altering the gender causes a different reaction. Ergo, gender of the person doing the criticizing is the independent variable. The results suggest that the gender of the subject is not the sole determining factor in the attraction of hate.

Quote:
 
Like, I don't even know what the one Thompson case is even supposed to prove anymore. If you treat someone's objections to violence with violence, doesn't that kind of prove their point? Likewise, if you treat someone's objections to sexism with violence, doesn't that kind of prove their point? "Wow, how dare you point out this problem with gender, you should kill yourself."


You asked for evidence that, at some point, men have experienced the same reaction. I provided it. I'm really not sure where you're going with this.

Quote:
 
To reiterate: it's not that violence is linked with sexism, but that violence is linked with the male gender, which is how gender, male and female, is constructed in our society. Throughout history, men are typically the ones who inflicted violence, because that's how war was. The majority of culture products in almost every medium typically have men as the ones being violent. Look at Rambo or any other such movie.
So no, it's not that violence is inherently sexist, and I apologize if I gave off that impression. It's that violence is inherently tied up in masculinity as society dictates it (this is starting to change with feminism, but just imagine how Kill Bill would've been received 50, 100 years ago -- because a woman being violent as the hero was unheard of). So men solve problems with violence.


That's still circular logic: "Violence is rooted in masculine gender roles because society tells us violence is masculine."

Quote:
 
What I'm saying is that feminism, as a wider discourse, not only says "Why was Sarkeesian targeted with virulent threats when spreading a message of feminism," but "Why do these people act in these ways?" Like Nell said, feminism is addressing the patterns, the causes in society. Sure you can say "because people are assholes lol," but that's lazy scholarship and a poor thirst for knowledge.


When you phrase it that way, sure. I can do it too: "because gamers are misogynysts lol."

Honestly I don't really know why you're bringing up this point. I'm a feminist, you don't need to explain to me what the goal is here; all I'm questioning is Sarkeesian's methods.

Quote:
 
Also Squee, are you really going to tell me that these threats aren't gender-based?
http://venturebeat.com/2014/08/27/critic-anita-sarkeesian-receives-online-death-threats-after-latest-feminist-frequency-video-on-games/

Incidentally, that was the person who specifically drove her out of the house, because he named her address. So are you going to say that those threats aren't on a gender basis?


Of course not. Have you even [radio edit]ing read my posts? I've never claimed misogyny wasn't a contributing factor, and I don't know where you're getting that impression. All I'm claiming is that it's not the sole factor, and possibly not even the primary one.

Anyway, to address Nell's points:

Quote:
 
I'm not sure I necessarily agree with Satty on his own construction of violent threats, however, I still think you can make a case that the threats and abuse in question were misogynistic. Yes, men get abuse, too, however, as I've said repeatedly now, the quality (not in a 'better or worse' way - ie. the nature) of the threats is different.

1. The repetition that Sarkeesian et al are not real gamers. Pretty consistent with the perpetuated idea that girls are not real gamers - they (we?) are not legit, they (we?) are just doing it for the attention, blah blah blah. Delegitimising subjectivity.
2. That the content they make is not real content. Related to the above. Someone posted an article to my university games society FaceBook page that went on and on about how Depression Quest was hardly a game. Delegitimising achievements.
3. 'You only got to where you are because you were a girl, not because you have any actual talent/merit', 'you used your feminine wiles to get ahead', 'you slept with the reviewer to get positive press that you didn't deserve' etc.
4. The gender-specific perjoratives. Slut, country music loving lady, etc.
5. Rape threats. Even if you accept that the gender ratio of victims of rape are fairly even (which would still be pretty radical, though I'm very aware that rape in prisons, especially, is under-reported), there's still the issue that rape, like most violent crimes, is still overwhelmingly done by men, which means it's still a gendered crime. And then you look at the groups who are most commonly victims, and it's groups who don't have power, and the perpetrators are people in positions of power, etc.
6. Gaslighting. Technique commonly associated with making peoplesound and feel like they're 'crazy', frequently used by abusers in abusive relationships (of which the classic, though not definitive, paradigm is men abusing women in domestic relationships). This is all the 'but there's no proof that the threats are real', 'she's made it all up' stuff comes in. Delegitimising complaints.
7. Use of the body as everyone's property. Objectification of the person. The response that has always stood out to me as being completely insane and unacceptable is that flash game that someone made where you could beat up Sarkeesian. Holy shit. What the actual [radio edit]. No one has any right to her body, either physically via threats of violence, or the image of her body as a [radio edit]ing thing that you can punch and bruise. Jesus Christ. And pretending Quinn's sex life was relevant to anything.


I don't really disagree with most of this, and all of the disagreements I do have are pretty minor. I especially agree with respect to point 2, as someone who enjoys stuff like Dear Esther that's often considered "not a real game."

Quote:
 
The funniest thing about GamerGate to me was always this idea that the dude was releasing all the details of Quinn's affairs with journalists 'in the name of journalistic integrity! She has a conflict of interest! They have a conflict of interest! Anything they have to do with each other is tainted!'. C'mon, like, the ex-boyfriend releasing details of his ex's sex life that happens to smear her reputation and ruin her career isn't a conflict of interest?


Honestly I couldn't care less about Quinn's sex life, and I'm not even that concerned with the journalism angle either. My only beef with her is over the incident with The Fine Young Capitalists.

As for some of your earlier points, I can't in good conscience accept some screenshots of a few people taking themselves too seriously on IRC as evidence that 4chan "orchestrated" Gamergate. That some of its members are trying to play Illuminati, sure, but the rest of that link read like some serious tin-foil hatting to me.

Quote:
 
I didn't say the reasons for cyberbullying, as you put it, weren't being looked into - I said they weren't being talked about. Even in this thread, there's more 'but the content of her videos sucks' than there is 'what happened to her is kind of awful', which in turn is more common than 'why does this kind of stuff even happen? What it is about society and this community that produces this terrible, destructive response time and again?' And you know what the funny thing is? There is a discourse that's trying to explain that. That discourse is feminism.


I was actually telling Satty earlier that this is exactly what annoys me about these debates--my whole intent coming into this thread was to discuss the content of her videos, yet every single time I've tried to follow or initiate such a discussion, it is without fail derailed into a discussion of the threats against her, usually in the context of "but people threatened her, so she must be right." That's mainly why I stopped replying when the discussion turned to GamerGate and harassment: because the former I'm not terribly interested in, and the latter is something that I think everyone here can more or less agree was inexcusable and horrid. It ends up turning into nitpicking over details between people who ultimately agree on the big picture--that there is still sexism in the gaming industry and its following and it needs to be stopped.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Crash
Member Avatar
Wheey! I've became a human being!! I am very handsam!

The Phantom Squee
Sep 12 2014, 03:57 PM
I was actually telling Satty earlier that this is exactly what annoys me about these debates--my whole intent coming into this thread was to discuss the content of her videos, yet every single time I've tried to follow or initiate such a discussion, it is without fail derailed into a discussion of the threats against her, usually in the context of "but people threatened her, so she must be right." That's mainly why I stopped replying when the discussion turned to GamerGate and harassment: because the former I'm not terribly interested in, and the latter is something that I think everyone here can more or less agree was inexcusable and horrid. It ends up turning into nitpicking over details between people who ultimately agree on the big picture--that there is still sexism in the gaming industry and its following and it needs to be stopped.
You say that the big picture is that sexism needs to be stopped in games. This harassment campaign is driving talented women writers and developers out of games culture, this is possibly the single most significant incidence of sexism in the entire history of video games. Yet you don't want to discuss it or figure out why it's happening and how to stop it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Saturos
Member Avatar
heart-under-blade

Quote:
 
No? Because that's exactly the opposite of how the scientific process works? You change the independent variable to see if the results change accordingly. The "experiment" was to see if altering the gender causes a different reaction. Ergo, gender of the person doing the criticizing is the independent variable. The results suggest that the gender of the subject is not the sole determining factor in the attraction of hate.


Likewise to your later point, I never said that gender was the sole determining factor. To say that "lel only women gets threats" is stupid. Let me clarify my thinking.
"Not all threats are rooted in sexism."
"Some threats are rooted in sexism."
"The reasons for threats in this case are rooted in sexism."

Quote:
 
That's still circular logic: "Violence is rooted in masculine gender roles because society tells us violence is masculine."

That's... not circular? The second part of the statement identifies the causing agent prospective causing agent. Like, you could speculate about why societal has this association in the first place, but that would be a historical analysis of the survival rates of societies in warfare whose media emphasizes a heavy balance between men and violence (as a hypothesis). And even then, so much is lost to history/we don't have a complete view of old cultures, so... but that's a historian job for you.
Anyway, I'm not sure what you're objecting to here? Are you suggesting that masculinity and violence aren't correlated in society, or that violence in the media doesn't cause more aggressive attitudes? There's numerous studies on both, so I can link them after work if you want. It's a very well-researched topic.

Quote:
 
Of course not. Have you even [radio edit]ing read my posts? I've never claimed misogyny wasn't a contributing factor, and I don't know where you're getting that impression. All I'm claiming is that it's not the sole factor, and possibly not even the primary one.


This is genuinely the first time I've seen you say this in this entire discussion, in the sbox, on Skype, and in the topic. I got the impression from that every time gender-as-factor came up you've been quick to disagree with it and haven't voiced even partially agreement until now (beyond "these are just assholes who might have happened to use misogynistic language." It was exchanges like that that led me to believe you didn't think gender was a factor at all, and that any element of gender was only present by chance.
Skype log for context


And the article you claimed had as a primary argument that gender wasn't a factor, that people were just assholes, and you kept referencing the Thompson case, which was being used likewise by that article... that's where I got that impression from. Sorry if I misunderstood your intention; evidently I was also misunderstood, if you think sexism was the reason for every single person ad hominem'ing Sarkeesian. I think, more pointedly, we should ask why gender was a factor is something we can examine and then try to be aware of in the future, and see what we can do to rectify it.

I think the reaction to Sarkeesian's videos and the content of her videos are related, insofar as they point to different parts of the system. The former points to misogyny in some parts of gamer culture, or rather, that some gamers are also misogynists (an important point: not saying that gamer culture causes misogyny, but that a some people in gamer culture are misogynists). The latter, the content of her videos, points to gender misrepresentation in the content directed at those people and all gamers.
So insofar as the some of the former claim to be representing "true gamers" in their threats, I think (like with any radical faction) it's important that that claim to legitimacy be taken away and that their being a "gamer" is separated from their being a "misogynist." So "No, you're not a 'true gamer,' you're just a misogynist." Recognizing there are other causes based on individual variation, I for one would like to isolate the extent to which gender is a factor, or the pattern of misogyny in these responses, since that aligns with Sarkeesian's message and the topic at hand. It's a systemic thing we can look at, look at other incidences, and ask:
a) What are similar cases where something like this happens?
b) What do these cases have in common?
c) To what extent is gender a factor, and how can we mitigate this factor in the future?
Leading to hopefully
- An environment in both criticism and creation where people are not judged on the basis of gender or their discussion gender, but on the merits of their argument.

Likewise, this is why I believe saying "Sarkeesian is a woman who was attacked, therefore all her academic points must be right," is bad as well, because it de-legitimizes her merits as an academic/journalist and what she might be illustrating. To that end, if you want to conduct a parallel discussion of Sarkeesian's videos, we can do that.

Why don't we all watch the Damsels in Distress series, make point by point notes, and then come back to the topic to compare? We can have the discussion about the community/criticism/harassment at the same time.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nell
Member Avatar
The Pretender
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Squee, you're allowed, of course, to selectively disbelieve evidence that's presented to you, but it comes across as a bit silly if you put someone down for doing exactly that earlier in the thread. I would invite you to have a look for yourself, if you have the time, for the other stuff that's come up, like that dude whose name I can never remember who started all the stuff about Quinn actually admitting that none of it related to the integrity of the journalist in question, or how the Fine Young Capitalists have clarified that Quinn was not responsible for their being hacked. I know how you feel about Jezebel, but how do you take The Mary Sue as a publication? http://www.themarysue.com/video-game-harassment-zoe-quinn-anita-sarkeesian/ They also published a piece on the 4chan reveal, which can be summarised as 'if proven true, it would hardly be the first time they've made targets out of people in their misogynistic agenda'.

You've said repeatedly that you don't care about Quinn's sex life, but that's hardly representative of the problem, which is that a lot of people did, and they did it under the guise of caring about the integrity of the video game journalism industry, but that noble intention has been shown to be pretty hollow.

As to discussions of her harassment derailing the discussion of her videos - the harassment was always the problem. The harassment was always what needed discussing. You say 'everyone agrees', but clearly, not everyone does. I mean, even calling it 'derailing' is pretty on point. 'Don't let politics/social commentary get in the way of my being able to criticise someone's work'. 'Don't let politics/social commentary get in the way of my video games'. Ian repeated in one of his posts a sentiment I've seen floating around a lot: that Sarkeesian would have just become nothing if it weren't for the furor. In the grand scheme of things, what she's actually saying is pretty minor, because that furor has almost nothing to do with what she actually said, and is mostly based on who she is/claims to be/what label she's using. So while I understand that you may feel like you've been marginalised in that you've found it difficult to talk about what you want to talk about, which is the problems you see with her videos, I kind of feel like the scope for discussion on that front is pretty limited compared to the other stuff. I also think that the frustration you've shown in having had to deal with this is somewhat selective - it seems to be the one demographic that's making a martyr out of Sarkeesian that's preventing you from having your forum, but I don't know if you can say that the other demographic that's vilifying her is not equally to blame for blocking the airwaves.

EDIT: I wrote this post over about 50 minutes while playing League. Seems Satty posted in the meantime, but this post isn't addressing anything in his. Please feel free to direct me to any particular point if you would like me to address it.

EDIT EDIT: I mean, the reason I was giving Squee an in to come back into the topic was because I wanted to hear his perspective in his own words, to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding his position, but I don't know if posting private chat logs was the way to go.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ian889
Member Avatar
Death comes to all of those who oppose me.

To Satty.

A. Yes absolutely. The people attacking her before she posted her videos I would qualify under being sexist shitheads.
B. Yes, but only some of them. I think the majority of people attacking her after her videos came out fall under more of a feeling that because they see something they enjoy being attacked so they are lashing out in the most hurtful way they can think of. I feel similarly about the people who attack Jim Sterling and use his sexuality (He's declared himself as "Not quite straight or gay,) as a means to hurt him. However, I don't think all of them are homophobes. Or the people who attack Bobbya (A black IGN commentator) attack him with race aren't all racist.
C. I'm not familiar to Quins (I know a few basics, but that's about it) case all that much so I won't speak to that directly. However other journalists and commentators I would it's a part (and you could argue a good portion of them.) but again not the whole thing. Most of the people I know who've covered the story, and are attacked are being attacked by the same people who were attacking these commentators before Anita's posts. I know that in the case of Angry Joe, and Jim Serling I've seen people comment on their videos in a negative fashion before they commented on Anita's videos and then were attacked by the same people only with different reasons.

In regards to my claims against Anita
Note I recognize neither of these things were illegal, but I don't find them morally correct.
Stolen Artwork http://cowkitty.net/post/78808973663/you-stole-my-artwork-an-open-letter-to-anita
Stolen Screenshots: http://victorsopinion.blogspot.be/2013/07/anitas-sources.html
In regards to the threats. After re-looking at the source the IP thing was a bust as it brought me to less than reputable sources.

However there is this, and while I can't confirm that he contacted SFPD I do know that the guy he's quoted as talking to is an SFPD officer.
http://www.staresattheworld.com/2014/09/anita-sarkeesian-fabricate-story-contacting-authorities/

I put Anita's 3% quote on about the same level of Mitt Romney's 47% quote. They are both technically true, but have very different meanings once you actually analyze them.

Also, and I admit may be misunderstanding you're point but I think when you're bullying another player or critic by using language like "kill yourself" you indeed trying to halt discussion on any give subject.


To Nell. As a non-feminist I can tell you that there are non-feminists discussing such things. Perhaps not on a grand scale, but me and my friends other non-feminists have discussed how to fix the problem. Not to mention there was a pretty good discussion when I was still part of my old BF3 clan with me a few high up members in my clan along with other high ups in other clans all of whom had fairly highly rated BF3 servers in terms of traffic with our highest being 10th in the world at one point. Granted the discussion was a little different because it was mostly shooter related, but still tackled gaming communities at large and the problems we were facing with assholes on our servers.

I can see, and agree with you where slut is a derogatory term, but can you not say the same about fuzzy little man-peach? I think I play anomominity as a higher cause of the problems than what you do, but I would agree that there are other forces at work. This coming from other discussions I've had with people place a good amount of value on gang mentalities against certain people for a variety of reasons. Typically if one person is going after one person in game they are typically fairly mellow (Again this is from personal experience,) however, when others start to chime in the language and viciousness of the attacks seem to sky rocket. As a Mod there was a few times when I had to kick/ban nearly full rooms of people (64 players) after a group started to jump in on a participial player. Occasionally they would come in TS demand to talk to me to bitch me out for banning them for being an asshole.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Crash
Member Avatar
Wheey! I've became a human being!! I am very handsam!

That story of her supposedly never contacting authorities despite claiming to was proven to be either a fabrication, or a mistake by the officer that those men contacted. She did indeed make a police report, and it was even passed on to the FBI for investigation (discussed in the latter half of this article, which is primarily about one of the most heinous attacks against Sarkeesian to date, a bomb threat at the Game Developers Choice Awards because they were presenting her with an award)

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gnik drazil
Member Avatar
The sun no longer sets me free
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
so, is this not about super smash bros?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dracobolt
Member Avatar
Incorrigible

Serious Serious Business. =P

:mercury_djinn: :mercury_djinn: :mercury_djinn:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Admiral Miral
Member Avatar
The Light of Hope

It was actually a typo and it was meant to be SBS or Super Bash Sisters.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nell
Member Avatar
The Pretender
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Ian889
Sep 12 2014, 06:48 PM
To Nell. As a non-feminist I can tell you that there are non-feminists discussing such things. Perhaps not on a grand scale, but me and my friends other non-feminists have discussed how to fix the problem. Not to mention there was a pretty good discussion when I was still part of my old BF3 clan with me a few high up members in my clan along with other high ups in other clans all of whom had fairly highly rated BF3 servers in terms of traffic with our highest being 10th in the world at one point. Granted the discussion was a little different because it was mostly shooter related, but still tackled gaming communities at large and the problems we were facing with assholes on our servers.

I can see, and agree with you where slut is a derogatory term, but can you not say the same about fuzzy little man-peach? I think I play anomominity as a higher cause of the problems than what you do, but I would agree that there are other forces at work. This coming from other discussions I've had with people place a good amount of value on gang mentalities against certain people for a variety of reasons. Typically if one person is going after one person in game they are typically fairly mellow (Again this is from personal experience,) however, when others start to chime in the language and viciousness of the attacks seem to sky rocket. As a Mod there was a few times when I had to kick/ban nearly full rooms of people (64 players) after a group started to jump in on a participial player. Occasionally they would come in TS demand to talk to me to bitch me out for banning them for being an asshole.
You and your non-feminist friends are discussing - and have come up with ways to address - why the gaming community treats women differently (and negatively)? fuzzy little man-peachgot is a problematic term for exactly the same reason slut, etc. is - it's a pejorative referring to an aspect of your subjectivity over which you ostensibly have no control. No one here is arguing that the gaming community isn't hostile to gay people - that is another fact that is probably true, but irrelevant. The gaming community is hostile to a lot of minorities. This is probably the point where you would interject with 'the gaming community is hostile, period', which seems to be what you seem to be getting at, but again, the point is: the gaming community's treatment of women is generally incredibly misogynistic.

The greatest irony seems to be that Sarkeesian's story has become reflexive of her argument: the games industry is incredibly conservative in its ideology and its representation of women; the majority of the games produced by the games industry are a product of, and therefore reflect and perpetuate this ideology; players buy and play these games and have these problematic representations of women reinforced to them; players treat women in problematic ways; Sarkeesian makes videos about the game industry being conservative, is treated problematically by the gaming community. The texts are a product of the culture, but texts also produce culture. The way out of this cycle is 1) awareness; 2) subversion. Why does 'this stuff' not happen with readers and moviegoers, etc? I think the internet as the gaming community's homeground (and accompanying anonymity) is definitely a factor, but I think it's also relevant that the number of video game texts around which the community centers is a lot smaller and far less diverse than either films or books, and that those texts interpolate certain values in its players.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Saturos
Member Avatar
heart-under-blade

Lost a few posts on this, but I'm just going to be brief.

Quote:
 
A. Yes absolutely. The people attacking her before she posted her videos I would qualify under being sexist shitheads.
B. Yes, but only some of them. I think the majority of people attacking her after her videos came out fall under more of a feeling that because they see something they enjoy being attacked so they are lashing out in the most hurtful way they can think of. I feel similarly about the people who attack Jim Sterling and use his sexuality (He's declared himself as "Not quite straight or gay,) as a means to hurt him. However, I don't think all of them are homophobes. Or the people who attack Bobbya (A black IGN commentator) attack him with race aren't all racist.


Ian, I'm not sure I follow your logic here.
a) You say that people who insulted Anita before her videos came out were sexist, but that
b) Only a minority of the people after her videos came out were sexist.
Upon what grounds are you basing this assumption? Like, if you're really going to handwave all sexism and misogyny with "oh, they aren't REALLY sexist or misogynist, they just keep saying it because they know it bothers you" (which is kind of like blaming Sarkeesian for the whole rhetoric? "If only you weren't a feminist, you wouldn't get this kind of backlash." Though, that sort of logic sounds exactly like it's arguing for misogyny on their parts), then how are you going to identify sexism and misogyny?

Serious question, Ian. What would it take for you to call a spade a spade and say "That is sexism. That is misogyny."

And yeah, the whole thing about Sarkeesian faking the police report was put out by the guy who made the Sarkeesian Effect documentary on how Social Justice was ruining video games. So not entirely unbiased.

But if we're going there, why don't we let Quinn speak for herself?
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things-i-learned-as-internets-most-hated-person/
http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/zoe-quinns-depression-quest
Here's the New Yorker article Cracked references, if you're looking for more 'profesisonal' journalism.

Thanks to Chrono for the Cracked link.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Games · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Affiliates

Golden Sun Universe Golden Sun Hacking Community The Lost Waters Golden Sun Land Golden Sun Adept's Refuge Golden Sunrise

Visit the Zetaboards Theme Zone for a custom theme of your own!