Anyone that marginalises the origins of GamerGate and fails to address the issues that underly its targeting of women is ignoring blatant sexism and thus misogynist. This is not a hard argument to fathom and one that has been made repeatedly and not addressed.
So... You're calling me a misogynist then? Thanks.
You're assuming that it started to target women? I've been told that the thing that was pushing that was 5 guys burgers and fries or something. Which was the campaign that did target Anita and maybe Zoe, not sure. But that's not #GG.
Fine. If you're saying that you're trying belittle and marginalise the huge sexist issues that GamerGate has, then yeah, you're sexist (this in itself isn't a thing to worry about, I'm sexist and I try to be less sexist every time someone points that out). If you're actively trying to derail discussions about it with #notallmen-style arguments about how both sides are equally evil and everyone is bad and boo hoo dudes are under attack here because articles said things about gamers, well then yeah, you might well be misogynist.
Is that what you're trying to do though? Really? If you're not, then if you don't want to SOUND like a misogynist, I'd suggest changing your arguments - or at least engaging with the points people have been making against what you've repeatedly asserted that sounds like stuff misogynists are saying. I reckon the core thing that might help clear that up is enumerating exactly what you'd like to have happen as a result of this conversation.
And I did NOT say that anyone was only "allowed" to be a gamer based on anything.
Please would you stop asserting that I'm saying things that I'm not, it's coming across as really hostile. PLEASE STOP IT. I'm begging you.
I didn't say you said that. I asked if that's the root of the misgivings you had with the study because that's what that sounded like - I've given you the opportunity to confirm or dispel that without accusing you of anything. Framing that as an attack on you is your decision.
I'm just saying that they have a consumer base of people that they know will reliably buy stuff. The study doesn't take that into consideration.
That's because that's not relevant to the study. The study focuses on all game revenue in the US by demographic category to provide information on who buys games, not why those people purchased specific game editions. The same study even says that revenue is an even split in the US between male and female purchasers, that fact alone means that whatever AAA games exist that are specifically targeting male gamers, they're being matched by games that aren't targeting male gamers the same way, hence games revenue can't be dominated by AAA income using sexist tropes to target a specific market.
@dislekcia : All good points! I think I maybe got carried away trying to explain the 'Gamergate doesn't understand feminism' point. I was also referring mostly to people who do seem to be arguing in good faith and are trying to engage but don't seem to have the necessary vocabulary. Unfortunately that seems to be a pretty small portion of the arguments I've seen. They're there, but so much of it seems to be the sort of derailment you've mentioned, which ranges from lazy to straight-up hostile.
For me, the thing that helps me distinguish if someone really wants to engage or if they just want to shout at someone that they've predetermined is evil is how they respond to questions. If I can get a person's desired outcome for a discussion, then that helps too... Very often for the derailers and concern trolls, it's literally just "shut up I don't want to hear this", which always amuses me when we're talking over opt-in media in the first place ;)
That and trying to identify which groupings people aspire to use. Often I find that two-group conversationalists focus on demonising one group while protecting the other somehow, that doesn't seem useful to me either. Groupings are always more complicated than that. I have to commend you on managing to sound reasonable about this stuff - hopefully people that aren't really aware of GG will read what you're saying and get curious about this useful-sounding feminism stuff!
Not sure if you've noticed this, but since the CH Sommers video came out (this could have started at another point, this is just when I picked up on it), pro-GG folks have appropriated what, I guess they believe to be, 'SJW jargon', and now a lot of responses tend to use the sort of language that Gamergate's opponents use, but some twisted bizarro version that tries to frame them as the victims SJWs (I hate that term, and the fact that they think 'fundamentally decent human being who wants equality' is an insult). As if they're the ones being 'oppressed' and 'silenced' and 'mansplained to'.
Yup. The whole bizarro version usage confuses me no end. I guess it fits the narrative they want to be true, but I'm not sure how it helps anyone. I feel like all of this weirdness started with /pol/ on 4chan (which actually stands for "politically incorrect", not "politics") and their obsession with what they call SJW and rad-fem agendas. Zoe even posted screenshots of Eron Gjoni arguing with /pol/ members and trying to convince them not to make GG about their issues with SJWs, he felt that if they did they would lose any moral high ground they might have had. I have to say that when Gjoni is recognising a loss of morality, you have to know that there really wasn't much there in the first place.
Don't even get me started on the way so many pro-GG people have decided to twist obvious GG reaction satire into somehow meaningful "attacks" against their in-group... Ugh.
@dislekcia : All good points! I think I maybe got carried away trying to explain the 'Gamergate doesn't understand feminism' point. I was also referring mostly to people who do seem to be arguing in good faith and are trying to engage but don't seem to have the necessary vocabulary. Unfortunately that seems to be a pretty small portion of the arguments I've seen. They're there, but so much of it seems to be the sort of derailment you've mentioned, which ranges from lazy to straight-up hostile.
Not sure if you've noticed this, but since the CH Sommers video came out (this could have started at another point, this is just when I picked up on it), pro-GG folks have appropriated what, I guess they believe to be, 'SJW jargon', and now a lot of responses tend to use the sort of language that Gamergate's opponents use, but some twisted bizarro version that tries to frame them as the victims SJWs (I hate that term, and the fact that they think 'fundamentally decent human being who wants equality' is an insult). As if they're the ones being 'oppressed' and 'silenced' and 'mansplained to'.
@brondin Consider this hypothetical scenario with me, if you will please.
Lets say there are 2 parties.
Party A says party B is guilty of X Party B says party A is guilty of Y
Party A is concerned about X, and rightfully so. Party B is concerned about Y, and rightfully so.
Both parties in the discussion about X and Y perceive derailment, because they have different perceptions of what the discussion should really be about.
I'm not saying I'm not guilty of derailment, just consider that for a moment if you will?
Not entirely on topic, but I just found out that Elizabeth Simins is charging dudes money to explain feminism 101 to them. After a rough day of reading about this stuff, I find this absolutely delightful. :D
Also, @dislekcia thanks for the comment re: my heroism. Just using privilege and minimal training as an educator to try to explain stuff calmly. You've also been a total role model here :)
Not entirely on topic, but I just found out that Elizabeth Simins is charging dudes money to explain feminism 101 to them. After a rough day of reading about this stuff, I find this absolutely delightful. :D
Man, my internet connection is awful and I'm not seeing some of these posts before I hit send on my own stuff.
@eSculpt can we try to fill those in? My analytic philosophy skillz have greatly deteriorated and I'm used to wordy continental French and German stuff, propositional calculus doesn't come as easily as it did a few years ago.
So:
Gamergate says SJWs are guilty of corruption in journalism SJWs say Gamergate is guilty of misogyny
Gamergate is concerned about corruption in journalism, and rightfully so. SJWs are concerned about misogyny, and rightfully so.
Both parties in the discussion about corruption in journalism and misogyny perceive derailment, because they have different perceptions of what the discussion should really be about.
I totally agree with this. I think Gamergate and its opponents are arguing about different things. I think that SJWs are rightfully concerned about misogyny (and other forms of bigotry) in Gamergate, and I think Gamergate is rightfully concerned about corruption in journalism. That said, I think they've missed the target on where that corruption is to be found. Interestingly, Leigh Alexander posted a list of ethical concerns in journalism, which highlights much more important issues than journalists supporting indie devs making free games, or critics analysing games as art from a political viewpoint :)
(Did I get the substitution right? I'm not trying to be an ass about this, I want to hear the point you're trying to make)
@dislekcia thanks again! I'd be really pleased if people found anything I've written on the matter useful! Yeah, questions are good, asking someone to fully explain their point is so useful, and allows you to see where they've misinterpreted something (which is astoundingly common in discussions about feminism). It's especially useful in discussions about Anita Sarkeesian. So many people seem to have totally missed the point of what she's saying. I (somewhat hyperbolically) maintain that there isn't actually any criticism against her, because all the ranty videos are just against some awful strawman (awful as in, if that was really Sarkeesian's argument, I'd probably be on your side about this).
I haven't been following the message board stuff too closely, I only have so much time in the day to spend reading things that are only going to make me upset :P Gjoni's involvement in this is perplexing. Call outs are super complex, and I think there's an argument to be made in their favour, but he was with Quinn during at least one of the other harassment campaigns against her. He knew exactly what was going to happen when he posted about her, and him showing up later to coach the movement to whatever ideal outcome he was hoping for doesn't make him look any better.
I did see the questions! I think they'd actually make good 101 resources, but people should Google and read for themselves instead of paying $20 :)
Selected snippets (although you really should read the whole thing) ...
Say that it began as a harassment campaign targeting a female indie developer, as reported by credible news sites, and you are subjected to contradictory objections - "No, #gamergate began after that, as a reaction to biased reporting" and "No, #gamergate has been building up for years" - as proponents jostle for the story that paints them in the best possible light
...
These agitators seem to recognise what #gamergate supporters repeatedly deny: that the driving force behind #gamergate is a reactionary conservatism that seeks to shut down and shut out socially progressive voices in gaming. Of course, in the manner of reactionary conservatism the world over, it seeks to frame this as a rebellion against a censorious ‘political correctness’ imposed by shadowy cabals and corrupt networks of power. If you search the #gamergate hashtag, this is the narrative you’ll find being pushed most concertedly. That and ‘journalistic ethics’, which has become all but the slogan of #gamergate.
...
So why even engage with such collective madness? Especially when the arguments made are ranging, fluctuating and hugely reliant on mischaracterisation of others’ opinions and arguments. Think endless variations on Sommers’ “They want the male video game culture to die” - a straw man shooting gallery. Now add in every conceivable objection, however wildly irrational, to several years’ worth of journalistic content, because all of it is dredged up to support a claim of endemic corruption.
...
Again: why engage? Firstly, there are those who can’t exit the battle, who find themselves set upon repeatedly as part of a deliberate and concerted effort to wear them down, force them to abandon their careers, their passions. Unsurprisingly, and despite the composition of the hit lists, the most consistently targeted and spat-upon individuals are nearly all women. At the very least, I think it’s worth drawing attention to this.
I also want to resist #gamergate’s arrogant attempts to position itself as representative of ordinary consumers who play games - as representative of me. I would like people outside of gaming culture to know that this ugliness is the spittle and spite and self-immolation of a cornered minority, joined by the callous excitement of others who are seduced by the music of revolt and aren’t particularly scrupulous when it comes to picking a side, while others still hitch their own misgivings, prejudices and grudges to an irresistible bandwagon.
...
Once a new word or phrase enters the collective vocabulary and is recognised as having some potency, it is chanted, chorused, abused and misused. “Shill, shill, shill,” parroted the #gamergate collegiate, once they had got hold of a word that they understood could be used to undermine the intentions of apparently independent commentators. “Fallacy!” they cry, as if revealing the identity of a murderer, whenever an unflattering comparison is made. They understand the general moral pallor of any particular word all right - ‘diversity’, ‘objectivity’ and ‘integrity’ are good, ‘hate’, ‘bias’ and ‘agenda’ bad - but then go about using them with reckless inconsistency. Their enemies are ‘colluding’ but they themselves are merely ‘like-minded’. Feminists are ‘ideologues’ and ‘extremists’ but the neoliberal utopia they espouse - naked of cultural criticism, ruled by consumer frenzy and corporate wile - is somehow apolitical and ideology-free. A mixed race female journalist is repeatedly described as ‘racist’ and ‘sexist’ on the thinnest of premises, but the term ‘misogynist’ is objectionable
Just read the damn thing already. It's pretty good.
If only for seeing Derek Smart not engage. (Yeah, I'm old)
Is it weird that I don't see how this guy was "hammered on" or why Leigh's long reply to him was taken as a personal attack? I have this feeling that there's some latent self-maiming going on here, especially when this is such a familiar refrain in this sort of discussion about GamerGate. Why do some people decide that they're personally being called rapists? ... Are they?
Man, my internet connection is awful and I'm not seeing some of these posts before I hit send on my own stuff.
@eSculpt can we try to fill those in? My analytic philosophy skillz have greatly deteriorated and I'm used to wordy continental French and German stuff, propositional calculus doesn't come as easily as it did a few years ago.
So:
Gamergate says SJWs are guilty of corruption in journalism SJWs say Gamergate is guilty of misogyny
Gamergate is concerned about corruption in journalism, and rightfully so. SJWs are concerned about misogyny, and rightfully so.
Both parties in the discussion about corruption in journalism and misogyny perceive derailment, because they have different perceptions of what the discussion should really be about.
I totally agree with this. I think Gamergate and its opponents are arguing about different things. I think that SJWs are rightfully concerned about misogyny (and other forms of bigotry) in Gamergate, and I think Gamergate is rightfully concerned about corruption in journalism. That said, I think they've missed the target on where that corruption is to be found. Interestingly, Leigh Alexander posted a list of ethical concerns in journalism, which highlights much more important issues than journalists supporting indie devs making free games, or critics analysing games as art from a political viewpoint :)
(Did I get the substitution right? I'm not trying to be an ass about this, I want to hear the point you're trying to make)
Yes, basically correct. Although it's not really about the SJW's afaik, since they can't all be guilty of corruption. It's more about the journalists that have done some stuff. SJW's are just on the other side of the fence, and hence seen as opposition.
But when you say that you think they've missed the target, what do you presently think the target is for them?
That was a joke tweet, you'd think the hyperbole would give it away. His next tweet, when someone pointed out that he's a gamer too (no shit), was "Oh no *turns fists on self*"
You'd also think "get me fired simply for threatening to murder every gamer in the world" would make it clear it's joking around, but some people seem to have been born with a serious humor deficiency.
The rest of them may be genuine, but with cherry-picking like that, who knows? GG ain't too good with sources.
Speaking of sources, @eScult, can you point me to your source for this claim, please?
An example of bringing rad fem into games, when it shouldn't be there would be Anita saying that, the perceived strength differences between men and women are a myth.
I'm guessing you're probably referring to the clip where she said that, in video games where avatar strength is something the designer sets as a variable (As Morpheus said to Neo, you think physical strength makes a difference in here?), saying "women aren't strong" as an excuse for imbalances in representation is lame.
But maybe she genuinely said that physical differences between men and women don't exist in the real world. Can you provide me with the link so I can check, please?
That was a joke tweet, you'd think the hyperbole would give it away. His next tweet, when someone pointed out that he's a gamer too (no shit), was "Oh no *turns fists on self*"
You'd also think "get me fired simply for threatening to murder every gamer in the world" would make it clear it's joking around, but some people seem to have been born with a serious humor deficiency.
The rest of them may be genuine, but with cherry-picking like that, who knows? GG ain't too good with sources.
Speaking of sources, @eScult, can you point me to your source for this claim, please?
An example of bringing rad fem into games, when it shouldn't be there would be Anita saying that, the perceived strength differences between men and women are a myth.
I'm guessing you're probably referring to the clip where she said that, in video games where avatar strength is something the designer sets as a variable (As Morpheus said to Neo, you think physical strength makes a difference in here?), saying "women aren't strong" as an excuse for imbalances in representation is lame.
But maybe she genuinely said that physical differences between men and women don't exist in the real world. Can you provide me with the link so I can check, please?
I recall her saying just that. It was in one of those videos. They're all so damn long though, I'd have to spend hours watching her stuff to find it. (and the content is painful) ;_;
I'll do some searching though, and try to point you to it :)
And wrt to Steve's tweet, we were talking about microagressions mate :)
Nevermind, I found it for you. It was a simple thing to google, since those videos have been obsessively picked apart since they started going up on the web.
Nevermind, I found it for you. It was a simple thing to google, since those videos have been obsessively picked apart since they started going up on the web.
Sure. I recall it being a different video to this though? But maybe I am in fact wrong, and if I am, I thank you for showing me that. :)
Although she does say that "The belief that women are somehow a naturally weaker gender is a deeply ingrained, socially constructed myth" To which one could say that there are definite physical differences based on the effects of testosterone (and other things), which is way more present in males. However, aside from any biological differences along that line, women are not weaker than men. :)
Although she does say that "The belief that women are somehow a naturally weaker gender is a deeply ingrained, socially constructed myth" To which one could say that there are definite physical differences based on the effects of testosterone (and other things), which is way more present in males. However, aside from any biological differences along that line, women are not weaker than men. :)
If you did say that, it would be obvious that you weren't paying attention to the context and were setting up a straw-man argument to knock down. So please don't say that :)
Anita isn't talking about actual biological strength at all, she is instead addressing the idea that "women as a group need to be sheltered, protected and taken care of by men".
Big companies are praying that we ignore this, that way those revenues don't get affected. And I'm perfectly happy with doing just that.
Getting involved in a feminist argument is usually suicide, we are very biased and polarized when it comes to such issues. The fact that this argument has been stimulated into the gaming industry and community is a shame. A very vocal community, a very diverse community, what better stage for such an argument, it's a PR wet dream.
Big companies are praying that we ignore this, that way those revenues don't get affected. And I'm perfectly happy with doing just that.
Getting involved in a feminist argument is usually suicide, we are very biased and polarized when it comes to such issues. The fact that this argument has been stimulated into the gaming industry and community is a shame. A very vocal community, a very diverse community, what better stage for such an argument, it's a PR wet dream.
Wait, what?
Just what do you think that GamerGate is about? What does it have to do with "big companies"? How is it a "PR wet dream"?
200+ replies and 5 pages worth of discussion for something that should be ignored :)
Also, posting a one-line reply in such a long and discussion-filled thread saying that people shouldn't be participating in it is not cool. Please don't do that.
You are probably too deep in this @dislekcia to realize that that was my lighthearted attempt to poke a bit of fun onto this and I haven't been here long enough for that to be obvious. :)
You are probably too deep in this @dislekcia to realize that that was my lighthearted attempt to poke a bit of fun onto this and I haven't been here long enough for that to be obvious. :)
What, "Big companies are praying that we ignore this, that way those revenues don't get affected. And I'm perfectly happy with doing just that." was a joke too?
Like, I realise that I'm evil and all that, blah blah etc. But could we get to the point where you contribute meaningfully to the discussion please?
My opinion on the subject is that it should be ignored and I expressed that, also I'm contradicting this viewpoint by posting here and you are not making it any easier.
I replied to the reply to my post, out of principle; yes I do believe that it would be best for the publishers to just ignore this circus and that it's in their best interest that we do so too.
My opinion on the subject is that it should be ignored and I expressed that, also I'm contradicting this viewpoint by posting here and you are not making it any easier.
I replied to the reply to my post, out of principle; yes I do believe that it would be best for the publishers to just ignore this circus and that it's in their best interest that we do so too.
My previous questions still apply:
Just what do you think that GamerGate is about? What does it have to do with "big companies"? How is it a "PR wet dream"?
What do publishers have to do with GamerGate and why? Perhaps you're so set on ignoring it that you don't actually know what's going on... If that's the case, why should your opinion on it be particularly valid? Why, for instance, are publisher interests a thing that we should be caring about instead of, say, the interests of the indie developers and indie-friendly journalists that GamerGate has been aimed at all along?
I don't want to know the details of what's going on when people are posting comics of men breaking vases. I have read enough to know that it's a cluster**** that involves feminism, journalistic integrity, 4chan and sexual abuse.
I choose to stay clear and came to this thread with intent of expressing that point of view.
I don't want to know the details of what's going on when people are posting comics of men breaking vases. I have read enough to know that it's a cluster**** that involves feminism, journalistic integrity, 4chan and sexual abuse.
I choose to stay clear and came to this thread with intent of expressing that point of view.
Perhaps you shouldn't be so keen on posting uninformed points of view in threads that don't need them. I mean, post in other places, sure, but being proudly ignorant about a serious issue is maybe not something to be advertising.
By all means, post if you have questions or would like to learn more about what people are discussing, but don't post and then show disdain for interacting with a topic...
Also, posting a one-line reply in such a long and discussion-filled thread saying that people shouldn't be participating in it is not cool. Please don't do that.
Perhaps you shouldn't be so keen on posting uninformed points of view in threads that don't need them. I mean, post in other places, sure, but being proudly ignorant about a serious issue is maybe not something to be advertising.
By all means, post if you have questions or would like to learn more about what people are discussing, but don't post and then show disdain for interacting with a topic...
Seeing as you have yet to answer any of the questions posed to you, and you haven't added anything meaningful to the discussion yet... Yes, apparently it is necessary to remind you about general forum behavior.
(Also, no, I haven't focused on the personal at all - at no point did I attack you as a person, only the information you presented. Saying you're uninformed is not an accusation, it's a statement of a fact you introduced yourself)
Further off-topic posts will be deleted, but feel free to PM any questions or objections you might have to me and I'll discuss them and forum etiquette with you as long as you like. These last few posts might be deleted too, depending on what the result of me escalating this to the committee is... I really don't want to further derail an already tricky topic with random forum 101 stuff.
I have been following this thread from it's start, but have not posted before simply because I felt that I did not have anything to contribute before. This was due to the fact that I was a bit of a fence sitter and thought that this issue was not one that I was involved with in any way, and therefore did not see it as such a big issue. Then I read Miklos Szecsei's collumn in this month's NAG titled "R.I.P. gamers - you won't be missed". Although he never actually mentions GG in the article it is clearly about the issues. It is a very objective piece. He (like myself) feels distant from the issue of misogyny. He likes women and has never done anything actively that would suggest otherwise, but the problem comes in what he does passively. He then realises that he is a "casual" misogynist due the content in games. This is still WRONG. His awekening was an awekening for myself too. Many of the people posting here are much more involved with this issue, because it is hitting closer to home. What if it was one of your friends (whom you know to be a decent and cool person) that was the one receiving the death threats and online hate. Even if you are not actively being a misogynist you need to consider the content in many games. Rather than seeing these posts as rants, look at them as people simply "championing the cause" which is GOOD. @Dislekcia I would like to extend a cyber hug to you bro. From your posts in this thread and some other recent posts in other threads, it seems that you are under a lot of stress and taking much unnecessary flak because of this issue (@Rustybroomhandle too). Know that you are a voice of reason for many and thanks for actively driving change. I know that I for one will be more responsible with the way I play games and what content I approve of or not. It will also help me to make better decisions in what I allow my laaitjie to play and how I plan on creating games. The industry that we all love is changing because of this issue, and we have a responsibility to ensure that it changes for the better. For that to happen the community needs a mindset change and we all need to look at this objectively before saying things like "Just ignore this/Lets just make games.
Had a proud teacher moment yesterday and I'm going to share it with you guys because it's relevant.
I'm a linguistics tutor at Wits, basically I teach small classes and work through a weekly assignment with them based on what they went through in lectures the previous week. The topic for this week's assignment was 'language in the media'. Here's a slide that was particularly important (excuse any grammar issues, the lecturer isn't a first language English speaker):
This is the sort of thing I was only taught in third year, and it pretty much flipped everything I considered to be true on its head. Over the past few years, various major and minor changes have been made to the syllabus, and now first years go through some introductory post-structuralist stuff early on. I was expecting a lot of my students (I have about 40) to struggle with this. None of them did. Everyone was excited and engaged with the work, nobody seemed to find this intellectually straining, there were no existential crises, and nobody shouting about it being wrong.
Now if my first years can grasp this with close to no problems, why can we not expect the same of Gamergate? Why are we constantly hearing a bunch of regressive manbabies crying about games journalists not being objective? This stuff isn't difficult, it really, really isn't.
But when you say that you think they've missed the target, what do you presently think the target is for them?
Well the catalyst for all this was the claim that Zoe Quinn's personal relationship with Nathan Grayson led to him writing a positive review of Depression Quest on Rock Paper Shotgun. Which is totally false, because Grayson wrote about two sentences about that game, that review doesn't exist. Of course it's not a new issue, people flipped their shit when Danielle Riendeau gave Gone Home a perfect score on Polygon, claiming that she was either bribed via a guest spot on the Idle Thumbs podcast or that her communicating with Steve Gaynor on Twitter somehow constituted an act of conspiracy. It's pretty difficult not to read their target as 'reporters saying nice things about indie games that are about feelings and not shooting dudes in the face'. A lot of other people have been bringing up Carolyn Petit's review of GTA V, and her brief remark about the game being misogynistic. If we take that into account, we get a broader picture of 'women are the issue here, we don't want their games being praised, we don't want them praising games we disapprove of, and we don't want them criticising games we like'. Not to mention that if anybody is deeply concerned about the issues in Alexander's article, they certainly aren't being heard.
Does that seem fair, or have I missed the mark?
@FanieG : High fives forever. Really glad to hear that :)
Had a proud teacher moment yesterday and I'm going to share it with you guys because it's relevant.
I'm a linguistics tutor at Wits, basically I teach small classes and work through a weekly assignment with them based on what they went through in lectures the previous week. The topic for this week's assignment was 'language in the media'. Here's a slide that was particularly important (excuse any grammar issues, the lecturer isn't a first language English speaker):
This is the sort of thing I was only taught in third year, and it pretty much flipped everything I considered to be true on its head. Over the past few years, various major and minor changes have been made to the syllabus, and now first years go through some introductory post-structuralist stuff early on. I was expecting a lot of my students (I have about 40) to struggle with this. None of them did. Everyone was excited and engaged with the work, nobody seemed to find this intellectually straining, there were no existential crises, and nobody shouting about it being wrong.
Now if my first years can grasp this with close to no problems, why can we not expect the same of Gamergate? Why are we constantly hearing a bunch of regressive manbabies crying about games journalists not being objective? This stuff isn't difficult, it really, really isn't.
But when you say that you think they've missed the target, what do you presently think the target is for them?
Well the catalyst for all this was the claim that Zoe Quinn's personal relationship with Nathan Grayson led to him writing a positive review of Depression Quest on Rock Paper Shotgun. Which is totally false, because Grayson wrote about two sentences about that game, that review doesn't exist. Of course it's not a new issue, people flipped their shit when Danielle Riendeau gave Gone Home a perfect score on Polygon, claiming that she was either bribed via a guest spot on the Idle Thumbs podcast or that her communicating with Steve Gaynor on Twitter somehow constituted an act of conspiracy. It's pretty difficult not to read their target as 'reporters saying nice things about indie games that are about feelings and not shooting dudes in the face'. A lot of other people have been bringing up Carolyn Petit's review of GTA V, and her brief remark about the game being misogynistic. If we take that into account, we get a broader picture of 'women are the issue here, we don't want their games being praised, we don't want them praising games we disapprove of, and we don't want them criticising games we like'. Not to mention that if anybody is deeply concerned about the issues in Alexander's article, they certainly aren't being heard.
Does that seem fair, or have I missed the mark?
@FanieG : High fives forever. Really glad to hear that :)
Sure it's fair that the media exists to construct messages. But when they come across in a way that alienates a specific group, they have to consider whether that's reasonable. I feel like they could have said what they were saying without irritating people in this way. They just didn't do it because of the contempt they have for these people.
Which apparently you do too. Manbabies? Really? Are the women speaking on the issue also manbabies? Really? Do you think that being that way is doing anything constructive for the discussion?
And sure this started with ZQ, but she's not the only factor in play by a long shot. I really can't imagine how you can condemn people without even really knowing their side of the story at present.
Anyway, Erik Kain, TotalBiscuit, the owner of the Escapist, and a lady who's name and company I forget had a good debate about this last night.
@eSculpt : You're quite right. I have condemned Gamergate without really knowing their side of the story. But then, they don't seem to know their side of the story either. People got mad because they found out a woman making free games has a sex life, when they got called out for misogyny, the response was "this isn't about gender, this is about ethics in journalism." When people showed that the ethical concerns they were pointing to were fabricated, their response was "but what about the gaming press saying that gamers are dead?" When it's pointed out that the gaming press did not say that, we go somewhere else. Whatever issue Gamergate takes with whoever they decide to hate at a particular moment, when someone demonstrates that the concern is bogus, a new one comes up.
So please, tell me what Gamergate is about, I want to know the ins and outs of its viewpoints. Every detail. Please enlighten me. I'd like to know if I've misunderstood this. I'd like you to illustrate how this is a movement that doesn't want women to stop making and talking about games. Explain away how the industry no longer has voices like Mattie Brice, Jenn Frank, and Samantha Allen. Tell me how there's a group of journalists, developers and academics conspiring to destroy video games as we know them, and make sure that all the guns in games are replaced with feelings and lesbians. Tell me how Gamasutra, a site by and for industry professionals, is not having its ad funding pulled because of an astroturfing campaign that arose because people who aren't even their target audience didn't bother to read more than the headline of an article, and how this isn't because the person who wrote that article is an outspoken woman who is critical of a culture that facilitates blatant misogyny.
Seriously, you're right in as much as defining Gamergate as a monolithic whole is problematic. It's clearly more complex than that. But I truly can't see how you're willing to overlook how absolutely vile the majority of this movement is because you think there are a handful of voices that have valid points.
Also, stop with the 'women support this movement' crap. "It's okay guys, a woman agrees with us, so it can't be sexist," is not a good enough excuse for all the sexism that's been happening here.
@eSculpt : You're quite right. I have condemned Gamergate without really knowing their side of the story. But then, they don't seem to know their side of the story either. People got mad because they found out a woman making free games has a sex life, when they got called out for misogyny, the response was "this isn't about gender, this is about ethics in journalism." When people showed that the ethical concerns they were pointing to were fabricated, their response was "but what about the gaming press saying that gamers are dead?" When it's pointed out that the gaming press did not say that, we go somewhere else. Whatever issue Gamergate takes with whoever they decide to hate at a particular moment, when someone demonstrates that the concern is bogus, a new one comes up.
So please, tell me what Gamergate is about, I want to know the ins and outs of its viewpoints. Every detail. Please enlighten me. I'd like to know if I've misunderstood this. I'd like you to illustrate how this is a movement that doesn't want women to stop making and talking about games. Explain away how the industry no longer has voices like Mattie Brice, Jenn Frank, and Samantha Allen. Tell me how there's a group of journalists, developers and academics conspiring to destroy video games as we know them, and make sure that all the guns in games are replaced with feelings and lesbians. Tell me how Gamasutra, a site by and for industry professionals, is not having its ad funding pulled because of an astroturfing campaign that arose because people who aren't even their target audience didn't bother to read more than the headline of an article, and how this isn't because the person who wrote that article is an outspoken woman who is critical of a culture that facilitates blatant misogyny.
Seriously, you're right in as much as defining Gamergate as a monolithic whole is problematic. It's clearly more complex than that. But I truly can't see how you're willing to overlook how absolutely vile the majority of this movement is because you think there are a handful of voices that have valid points.
Also, stop with the 'women support this movement' crap. "It's okay guys, a woman agrees with us, so it can't be sexist," is not a good enough excuse for all the sexism that's been happening here.
A woman? What are you talking about? There's not just 'a woman'. There are a ton of women talking about the issues involved. Feminists even.
It's as if almost half the people who got offended were in fact women. :o
In the most limited of nutshells, gamergate is about journalistic ethics, and when they voice their concerns and are told to shut up because they're sexist manbabies, they just get angrier and angrier.
An example of a company that handled this well despite being against gamergate is the escapist, who almost immediately updated their policies, and now people love them. Even though the owner is strongly against GG.
If it true were, they would take issue with the list of issues as long as my arm that constitute poor ethics in journalism. There's a lot to criticise there, but they don't. Instead it's:
- Accusing journalists of "colluding" with independent developers, due to some very tenuous connections
- Complaining that "SJW" journalists report on games with "agendas" and that these "agendas" should be kept out of journalism
- Complaining that there's a feminist agenda propagated by the media to manipulate games
- Lashing out at media if they happen to feel offended by something someone wrote
No, no, no - they are very selective about what they whinge about, and it gravitates towards anything involving independent developers, women and those who support them. Time to stop chanting that "it's about journalistic ethics" lie. It won't get any more true the more it is said.
One article linked earlier sums it up best (paraphrased) - GamerGate is a hate train, and anyone with an axe to grind wants to get on board.
@eSculpt : I'll respond in good faith - I was talking about the argument template 'my friend who is x said it's not x form of bigotry, so it's not x form of bigotry'. Obviously Gamergate has applied that at a larger scale than a single person. Although, while we're talking about feminists in Gamergate, CH Sommers is not a feminist, at best her feminism is outdated. She's vocally critical of third wave feminism. The entire point of third wave feminism is to address the fact that second wave feminism often forgot that women of colour and trans women exist. I haven't read her books, because their premise is entirely ludicrous, but I really can't imagine why anyone would be opposed to third wave feminism.
Also, I take it you have a statistic that shows half of Gamergate's backers are women, and not just one that shows half of gamers are women? Or an explanation for how the statistic from the ESA study supports the claim that half of Gamergate's supporters are women? :)
@rustybroomhandle gave a pretty good rebuttal to the journalistic ethics bit, I'd just like to add: To some extent, I agree that news outlets could have done better in terms of engaging with the topic. But when the face of the movement is misogyny, I can respect the decision to respond with little other than 'lol manbabies'. I'm generally for an approach that advocates engagement and pedagogically walking someone through why their point is flawed, but I don't think anyone is obliged to do that. Overall, I guess Kotaku, Polygon, Rock Paper Shotgun, etc asked themselves "how much value can we assign to the potentially valid points of those who've piggybacked on a movement defined by rape threats?" and ultimately decided they weren't worth the time, and stood their ground.
What are the good points in the Kain article? Could you point them out? My own take on it: yep, Alexander made recourse to a shitty stereotype, but there's certainly something interesting to note about the fact that the response to it only illustrated how very real and prevalent that stereotype is. And again, I'm not sure if this is your intention, or Kain's, but there really isn't an equivalence between women receiving rape and death threats to the extent that they're driven out of their homes and chosen careers, and some people having their feelings hurt by a mean thing that a critic said about the thing they like.
@dislekcia : whoa, there is just too much in that Facebook conversation to talk about. That dude was definitely not being accused of rape or harassment, I don't quite know what to make of him fabricating those claims out of thin air. I also don't know how you can be that awful as a human being and still think you're on the right side of things.
Sort of related: has anyone been able to figure out this baffling duality of people who want to be taken seriously, and want games to be taken seriously, but send death and rape threats to the people who do actually treat games like serious cultural artefacts? Feminism and other literary/critical theories have been applied to the arts for decades now. The fact that they're being applied to games shows just how much they've grown up.
@eSculpt : I'll respond in good faith - I was talking about the argument template 'my friend who is x said it's not x form of bigotry, so it's not x form of bigotry'. Obviously Gamergate has applied that at a larger scale than a single person. Although, while we're talking about feminists in Gamergate, CH Sommers is not a feminist, at best her feminism is outdated. She's vocally critical of third wave feminism. The entire point of third wave feminism is to address the fact that second wave feminism often forgot that women of colour and trans women exist. I haven't read her books, because their premise is entirely ludicrous, but I really can't imagine why anyone would be opposed to third wave feminism.
Also, I take it you have a statistic that shows half of Gamergate's backers are women, and not just one that shows half of gamers are women? Or an explanation for how the statistic from the ESA study supports the claim that half of Gamergate's supporters are women? :)
No, you're right I don't have such a statistic. I wish I did. But nor do you have a statistic to insinuate that they're all men. :P
And, I'm not referring to Sommers, she's just one person, I'm actually referring to the real people I'm seeing in the trenches.
I have no presently relevant opinions about second or third wave feminism, because these guys care to a large degree about things unrelated to that.
Also bear in mind please that calling them all sexist would be akin to me calling all christians witchburners. Just because it's happened at some point due to some crazy folks, doesn't mean the whole entity is to blame, or at fault. I'm under the impression that such an assumption is fallacious?
Of course! I don't think there are no women supporting the movement, I just think there's pretty good reason to believe that most gaters are dudes.
There's a difference though. Nobody's saying they're all sexist (actually, some people are, but they should go away), they're saying 'sure, your opinion could be valid and useful, but we don't want to engage with you because you're using a very troublesome movement as the platform from which you're launching your opinion'. I don't think all gaters are sexists, but I think we really need to question whether or not this hashtag is the right place to be talking about the legitimate concerns. Not to mention that every time it's invoked on social media it just calls forth the horde and that destroys the possibility of having a worthwhile discussion. :)
Of course! I don't think there are no women supporting the movement, I just think there's pretty good reason to believe that most gaters are dudes.
There's a difference though. Nobody's saying they're all sexist (actually, some people are, but they should go away), they're saying 'sure, your opinion could be valid and useful, but we don't want to engage with you because you're using a very troublesome movement as the platform from which you're launching your opinion'. I don't think all gaters are sexists, but I think we really need to question whether or not this hashtag is the right place to be talking about the legitimate concerns. Not to mention that every time it's invoked on social media it just calls forth the horde and that destroys the possibility of having a worthwhile discussion. :)
And I agree with you on that. I personally HATE that the tag is associated with the ZQ nonsense, because I couldn't care less about her. The only reason I even know her name, is because of anti-gaters telling me about how bad all that stuff was. I still haven't read her x's story, because I don't really care.
But, having gained momentum, there's no force that will motivate them to stop until they see results. (in fact even then they might not stop the train)
Nobody wants to give them credit for condemning the harassment and putting up ethics guides and at least trying to tame the mob to the extent that they behave civilly though, which is too bad.
Also bear in mind that 'the microphone' likes to call forth her horde pretty often as well... But for some reason people still take her seriously? :P
Yeah, they're certainly trying, but it seems to be little more than a cursory attempt. I've seen a lot of ethics guidelines and pleas that other gaters don't harass people, but (and I'm not denying its existence, I just haven't seen it) I don't recall any gaters actually showing up on threads to call their compatriots on their behaviour. Something that I think is annoying the anti-gg side is that in spite of those solutions so clearly not working to curb harassment, nobody's done anything to rethink that approach and actually do something about it.
Yeah, they're certainly trying, but it seems to be little more than a cursory attempt. I've seen a lot of ethics guidelines and pleas that other gaters don't harass people, but (and I'm not denying its existence, I just haven't seen it) I don't recall any gaters actually showing up on threads to call their compatriots on their behaviour. Something that I think is annoying the anti-gg side is that in spite of those solutions so clearly not working to curb harassment, nobody's done anything to rethink that approach and actually do something about it.
Wait, who is the microphone? Sarkeesian?
Maybe you haven't, but I have on numerous occasions. I've personally shat on alot of people about that. :)
But nah, that's Leigh (she calls herself that, so don't come down on me for it)
Good job! For real, that sort of thing is necessary in any situation.
Ah, I haven't seen her call a mob, or call herself 'The Microphone' (as much as I support her, this sounds like a silly pro-wrestler name and I don't know why she would choose that moniker), but I've definitely seen devs show up to defend her without explicitly being called for. Sean Vanaman had a lengthy discussion with a troll, and I'm pretty sure I've seen Rami Ismail call someone out for being shitty to her. Could be wrong about the latter, but there's really nothing surprising about Rami showing up to be a good dude :)
Good job! For real, that sort of thing is necessary in any situation.
Ah, I haven't seen her call a mob, or call herself 'The Microphone' (as much as I support her, this sounds like a silly pro-wrestler name and I don't know why she would choose that moniker), but I've definitely seen devs show up to defend her without explicitly being called for. Sean Vanaman had a lengthy discussion with a troll, and I'm pretty sure I've seen Rami Ismail call someone out for being shitty to her. Could be wrong about the latter, but there's really nothing surprising about Rami showing up to be a good dude :)
ah rofl my mistake, she called herself a loudspeaker a couple times. not a microphone. xD
That is not any better and if the feminist illuminati that's controlling video games wants to be taken seriously, they need to up their game in the badass nickname department. :P
That is not any better and if the feminist illuminati that's controlling video games wants to be taken seriously, they need to up their game in the badass nickname department. :P
Finally got around to reading this. It's long, but I can't recommend it highly enough. It forgoes commentary on certain parts of the situation (I was really hoping for a paragraph or two explicitly talking about the notyourshield hashtag), but this is one of the best texts on Gamergate (from the perspective of its opponents) that I've read so far. Also, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't jealous of how articulate this human is. There are some staggeringly well put-together phrases in that piece. :P
Of course! I don't think there are no women supporting the movement, I just think there's pretty good reason to believe that most gaters are dudes.
There's a difference though. Nobody's saying they're all sexist (actually, some people are, but they should go away), they're saying 'sure, your opinion could be valid and useful, but we don't want to engage with you because you're using a very troublesome movement as the platform from which you're launching your opinion'. I don't think all gaters are sexists, but I think we really need to question whether or not this hashtag is the right place to be talking about the legitimate concerns. Not to mention that every time it's invoked on social media it just calls forth the horde and that destroys the possibility of having a worthwhile discussion. :)
Hang on. There are legitimate concerns? It seems like every time someone proudly identifying themselves as pro-GG brings up a concern, it's either something that was already proven false (mostly due to being based on false information or reasoning) or the concern is actually just sexist silencing in disguise... I'd hope there are other kinds of concern coming from GG, but I haven't seen any yet :(
And I have to ask: Are people who are supporting the sexist goals of a sexist movement not sexist? They might be unwittingly so, but the outcomes of the actions that are being taken with their support is surely relevant here.
"Hang on. There are legitimate concerns? It seems like every time someone proudly identifying themselves as pro-GG brings up a concern, it's either something that was already proven false (mostly due to being based on false information or reasoning) or the concern is actually just sexist silencing in disguise... I'd hope there are other kinds of concern coming from GG, but I haven't seen any yet :(
And I have to ask: Are people who are supporting the sexist goals of a sexist movement not sexist? They might be unwittingly so, but the outcomes of the actions that are being taken with their support is surely relevant here."
There's a lot of good faith there. I think that GG saying "there are ethical problems in journalism" is correct. They just aren't shouting about the actual problems in video game journalism (see the Leigh Alexander article I linked to above). So yeah, I don't think GG is talking about legit concerns, but they may have accidentally landed in the ballpark of legitimacy by continually talking about journalistic ethics. It could be the case that some people are trying to talk about things like embargoes and paid-for positive reviews; I doubt it, but maybe those concerns aren't being voiced. At this point though, I haven't seen anyone whose concerns differ from 'why are devs and journalists colluding' or some version of that which has stemmed from the evolution of GG.
Man, the -ists are really tricky, semantically speaking. I'll try to unpack what I was trying to say, hopefully it'll be helpful:
If we call someone who consciously despises and thinks less of women 'a sexist' (which is how I used it), then I think, and perhaps I'm being overly optimistic here, GG's sexist contingent is actually pretty small. I believe that there could just be a lot of genuinely misguided folks who think they're championing a worthwhile cause but don't realise how much damage they're doing. (Now that I've typed it out, that doesn't sound like a solid reading, but I'm going to leave it there)
However, if we define a sexist as someone who, unwittingly or not, behaves in a manner that capitalises on oppressive power structures in order to enact hostility, no matter how mundane or trivial, against a marginalised group, then I think we can apply that to anyone who supports GG. Frankly, most humans fall into that category if we define it that way.
I find it's much more helpful to consider bigotry as performative, rather than as a label that we attach to someone. Firstly, it makes it easier to engage, because people are at least slightly more open to reconsidering their behaviour if you say 'hey, that thing you did/said was kinda sexist' than if you were to open with 'you are a sexist and therefore the worst'. Secondly, so few people do consciously hold negative views towards marginalised groups, we live in a society that has made overt bigotry entirely unacceptable, but continues to facilitate really subtle instantiations of oppressive behaviour. So yeah, I'm kind of uncomfortable with saying that everyone supporting GG is 'A Sexist', but I'm happy to say that by lending support to GG, you are undertaking sexist behaviour and implicitly condoning the sexist behaviour of the movement.
Does that make sense, and do you think it's a worthwhile way of looking at it?
@eSculpt that's a good analysis of Twitter, especially the point on branching conversations. I feel like, for all the disagreements we've had, this has actually been a fairly productive conversation, or at least much more so than it would have been if we'd tried to engage in dialogue via Twitter. It's also a good summary of awful things people have said in opposition to Gamergate. Comparing the movement to ISIS is just as bad as gaters comparing themselves to oppressed minorities. It's entirely disrespectful to the people who've actually had to deal with ISIS or marginalisation (or both, as the case may be).
@brondin: Ah I see. Yeah, there are problems with corruption in journalism, you're right. However, I don't really feel like GG's all that right about that when they say it... I guess I feel like a broken clock is right twice a day: Meaning that if GG was concerned about journalistic integrity, they would behave much differently to how they have been. The whole Intel-Gamasutra thing really puts a lie to their concerns about journalistic integrity being anything more than just a phrase that they're saying because it's been useful. I mean, they could say they were concerned with sexism and representation issues, that doesn't mean that they'd actually be concerned about those things, given the outcomes of the movement's actions.
I totally get what you're saying about sexism and applying it as a label. I tend to try to lead with pointing out performative sexism when talking about this sort of stuff (which is why in this thread I've always said that supporting a movement that started with severely misogynistic concerns and whose actions have incredibly sexist outcomes is a sexist thing to do). I guess that a lot of people knee-jerk react to hearing anything about sexism at all, which is why I also tend to follow the "hey, everybody's sexist because we're all part of a sexist system" line of thinking as well. Sometimes it seems to work and people listen to me describing myself as sexist and trying to be less so.
I also think you're right about how unlikely it really seems that well-meaning people would support GG as a concept because they believe it's achieving good things. That just doesn't make sense to me... However, I feel like we have to try and give people the benefit of the doubt when they say that that's what they're doing, no matter how unlikely it seems. I just wish we could basically cut that positive assumption off once people argued in bad faith one too many times.
@eSculpt: You haven't really answered any of the questions that @brondin posed to you. I have to admit that I'm also really curious as to what you think GG is really about and how all the things he mentioned fit into a coherent narrative that doesn't involve the ideologies that we've been criticising in this thread.
Comments
I made a stick-toon of how I view GamerGate.
Is that what you're trying to do though? Really? If you're not, then if you don't want to SOUND like a misogynist, I'd suggest changing your arguments - or at least engaging with the points people have been making against what you've repeatedly asserted that sounds like stuff misogynists are saying. I reckon the core thing that might help clear that up is enumerating exactly what you'd like to have happen as a result of this conversation. This is provably false: Adam Baldwin coined the hashtag with this tweet - https://twitter.com/AdamBaldwin/status/504801169638567936
Tell me, what is that about, if not exactly the same thing? I didn't say you said that. I asked if that's the root of the misgivings you had with the study because that's what that sounded like - I've given you the opportunity to confirm or dispel that without accusing you of anything. Framing that as an attack on you is your decision. That's because that's not relevant to the study. The study focuses on all game revenue in the US by demographic category to provide information on who buys games, not why those people purchased specific game editions. The same study even says that revenue is an even split in the US between male and female purchasers, that fact alone means that whatever AAA games exist that are specifically targeting male gamers, they're being matched by games that aren't targeting male gamers the same way, hence games revenue can't be dominated by AAA income using sexist tropes to target a specific market.
That and trying to identify which groupings people aspire to use. Often I find that two-group conversationalists focus on demonising one group while protecting the other somehow, that doesn't seem useful to me either. Groupings are always more complicated than that. I have to commend you on managing to sound reasonable about this stuff - hopefully people that aren't really aware of GG will read what you're saying and get curious about this useful-sounding feminism stuff! Yup. The whole bizarro version usage confuses me no end. I guess it fits the narrative they want to be true, but I'm not sure how it helps anyone. I feel like all of this weirdness started with /pol/ on 4chan (which actually stands for "politically incorrect", not "politics") and their obsession with what they call SJW and rad-fem agendas. Zoe even posted screenshots of Eron Gjoni arguing with /pol/ members and trying to convince them not to make GG about their issues with SJWs, he felt that if they did they would lose any moral high ground they might have had. I have to say that when Gjoni is recognising a loss of morality, you have to know that there really wasn't much there in the first place.
Don't even get me started on the way so many pro-GG people have decided to twist obvious GG reaction satire into somehow meaningful "attacks" against their in-group... Ugh.
Lets say there are 2 parties.
Party A says party B is guilty of X
Party B says party A is guilty of Y
Party A is concerned about X, and rightfully so.
Party B is concerned about Y, and rightfully so.
Both parties in the discussion about X and Y perceive derailment, because they have different perceptions of what the discussion should really be about.
I'm not saying I'm not guilty of derailment, just consider that for a moment if you will?
http://thewomansplainer.com/
Also, @dislekcia thanks for the comment re: my heroism. Just using privilege and minimal training as an educator to try to explain stuff calmly. You've also been a total role model here :)
@eSculpt can we try to fill those in? My analytic philosophy skillz have greatly deteriorated and I'm used to wordy continental French and German stuff, propositional calculus doesn't come as easily as it did a few years ago.
So:
Gamergate says SJWs are guilty of corruption in journalism
SJWs say Gamergate is guilty of misogyny
Gamergate is concerned about corruption in journalism, and rightfully so.
SJWs are concerned about misogyny, and rightfully so.
Both parties in the discussion about corruption in journalism and misogyny perceive derailment, because they have different perceptions of what the discussion should really be about.
I totally agree with this. I think Gamergate and its opponents are arguing about different things. I think that SJWs are rightfully concerned about misogyny (and other forms of bigotry) in Gamergate, and I think Gamergate is rightfully concerned about corruption in journalism. That said, I think they've missed the target on where that corruption is to be found. Interestingly, Leigh Alexander posted a list of ethical concerns in journalism, which highlights much more important issues than journalists supporting indie devs making free games, or critics analysing games as art from a political viewpoint :)
http://leighalexander.net/list-of-ethical-concerns-in-video-games-partial/
(Did I get the substitution right? I'm not trying to be an ass about this, I want to hear the point you're trying to make)
@dislekcia thanks again! I'd be really pleased if people found anything I've written on the matter useful! Yeah, questions are good, asking someone to fully explain their point is so useful, and allows you to see where they've misinterpreted something (which is astoundingly common in discussions about feminism). It's especially useful in discussions about Anita Sarkeesian. So many people seem to have totally missed the point of what she's saying. I (somewhat hyperbolically) maintain that there isn't actually any criticism against her, because all the ranty videos are just against some awful strawman (awful as in, if that was really Sarkeesian's argument, I'd probably be on your side about this).
I haven't been following the message board stuff too closely, I only have so much time in the day to spend reading things that are only going to make me upset :P Gjoni's involvement in this is perplexing. Call outs are super complex, and I think there's an argument to be made in their favour, but he was with Quinn during at least one of the other harassment campaigns against her. He knew exactly what was going to happen when he posted about her, and him showing up later to coach the movement to whatever ideal outcome he was hoping for doesn't make him look any better.
I did see the questions! I think they'd actually make good 101 resources, but people should Google and read for themselves instead of paying $20 :)
Why Bother With GamerGate?
Selected snippets (although you really should read the whole thing) ... Just read the damn thing already. It's pretty good.
http://imgur.com/a/LgZBN
If only for seeing Derek Smart not engage. (Yeah, I'm old)
Is it weird that I don't see how this guy was "hammered on" or why Leigh's long reply to him was taken as a personal attack? I have this feeling that there's some latent self-maiming going on here, especially when this is such a familiar refrain in this sort of discussion about GamerGate. Why do some people decide that they're personally being called rapists? ... Are they?
But when you say that you think they've missed the target, what do you presently think the target is for them?
That was a joke tweet, you'd think the hyperbole would give it away. His next tweet, when someone pointed out that he's a gamer too (no shit), was "Oh no *turns fists on self*"
You'd also think "get me fired simply for threatening to murder every gamer in the world" would make it clear it's joking around, but some people seem to have been born with a serious humor deficiency.
The rest of them may be genuine, but with cherry-picking like that, who knows? GG ain't too good with sources.
Speaking of sources, @eScult, can you point me to your source for this claim, please? I'm guessing you're probably referring to the clip where she said that, in video games where avatar strength is something the designer sets as a variable (As Morpheus said to Neo, you think physical strength makes a difference in here?), saying "women aren't strong" as an excuse for imbalances in representation is lame.
But maybe she genuinely said that physical differences between men and women don't exist in the real world. Can you provide me with the link so I can check, please?
It was in one of those videos. They're all so damn long though, I'd have to spend hours watching her stuff to find it. (and the content is painful) ;_;
I'll do some searching though, and try to point you to it :)
And wrt to Steve's tweet, we were talking about microagressions mate :)
http://youtu.be/X6p5AZp7r_Q?t=21m26s
She doesn't say what you claim she says.
But maybe I am in fact wrong, and if I am, I thank you for showing me that. :)
Although she does say that "The belief that women are somehow a naturally weaker gender is a deeply ingrained, socially constructed myth"
To which one could say that there are definite physical differences based on the effects of testosterone (and other things), which is way more present in males. However, aside from any biological differences along that line, women are not weaker than men. :)
Anita isn't talking about actual biological strength at all, she is instead addressing the idea that "women as a group need to be sheltered, protected and taken care of by men".
I'm not sure the big companies can ignore it, if it starts to effect their revenue though?
Getting involved in a feminist argument is usually suicide, we are very biased and polarized when it comes to such issues. The fact that this argument has been stimulated into the gaming industry and community is a shame. A very vocal community, a very diverse community, what better stage for such an argument, it's a PR wet dream.
Just what do you think that GamerGate is about? What does it have to do with "big companies"? How is it a "PR wet dream"? Also, posting a one-line reply in such a long and discussion-filled thread saying that people shouldn't be participating in it is not cool. Please don't do that.
Like, I realise that I'm evil and all that, blah blah etc. But could we get to the point where you contribute meaningfully to the discussion please?
I replied to the reply to my post, out of principle; yes I do believe that it would be best for the publishers to just ignore this circus and that it's in their best interest that we do so too.
Just what do you think that GamerGate is about? What does it have to do with "big companies"? How is it a "PR wet dream"?
What do publishers have to do with GamerGate and why? Perhaps you're so set on ignoring it that you don't actually know what's going on... If that's the case, why should your opinion on it be particularly valid? Why, for instance, are publisher interests a thing that we should be caring about instead of, say, the interests of the indie developers and indie-friendly journalists that GamerGate has been aimed at all along?
I choose to stay clear and came to this thread with intent of expressing that point of view.
By all means, post if you have questions or would like to learn more about what people are discussing, but don't post and then show disdain for interacting with a topic...
(Also, no, I haven't focused on the personal at all - at no point did I attack you as a person, only the information you presented. Saying you're uninformed is not an accusation, it's a statement of a fact you introduced yourself)
Further off-topic posts will be deleted, but feel free to PM any questions or objections you might have to me and I'll discuss them and forum etiquette with you as long as you like. These last few posts might be deleted too, depending on what the result of me escalating this to the committee is... I really don't want to further derail an already tricky topic with random forum 101 stuff.
I'm a linguistics tutor at Wits, basically I teach small classes and work through a weekly assignment with them based on what they went through in lectures the previous week. The topic for this week's assignment was 'language in the media'. Here's a slide that was particularly important (excuse any grammar issues, the lecturer isn't a first language English speaker):
This is the sort of thing I was only taught in third year, and it pretty much flipped everything I considered to be true on its head. Over the past few years, various major and minor changes have been made to the syllabus, and now first years go through some introductory post-structuralist stuff early on. I was expecting a lot of my students (I have about 40) to struggle with this. None of them did. Everyone was excited and engaged with the work, nobody seemed to find this intellectually straining, there were no existential crises, and nobody shouting about it being wrong.
Now if my first years can grasp this with close to no problems, why can we not expect the same of Gamergate? Why are we constantly hearing a bunch of regressive manbabies crying about games journalists not being objective? This stuff isn't difficult, it really, really isn't. Well the catalyst for all this was the claim that Zoe Quinn's personal relationship with Nathan Grayson led to him writing a positive review of Depression Quest on Rock Paper Shotgun. Which is totally false, because Grayson wrote about two sentences about that game, that review doesn't exist. Of course it's not a new issue, people flipped their shit when Danielle Riendeau gave Gone Home a perfect score on Polygon, claiming that she was either bribed via a guest spot on the Idle Thumbs podcast or that her communicating with Steve Gaynor on Twitter somehow constituted an act of conspiracy. It's pretty difficult not to read their target as 'reporters saying nice things about indie games that are about feelings and not shooting dudes in the face'. A lot of other people have been bringing up Carolyn Petit's review of GTA V, and her brief remark about the game being misogynistic. If we take that into account, we get a broader picture of 'women are the issue here, we don't want their games being praised, we don't want them praising games we disapprove of, and we don't want them criticising games we like'. Not to mention that if anybody is deeply concerned about the issues in Alexander's article, they certainly aren't being heard.
Does that seem fair, or have I missed the mark?
@FanieG : High fives forever. Really glad to hear that :)
Which apparently you do too. Manbabies? Really? Are the women speaking on the issue also manbabies? Really? Do you think that being that way is doing anything constructive for the discussion?
And sure this started with ZQ, but she's not the only factor in play by a long shot.
I really can't imagine how you can condemn people without even really knowing their side of the story at present.
Anyway, Erik Kain, TotalBiscuit, the owner of the Escapist, and a lady who's name and company I forget had a good debate about this last night.
So please, tell me what Gamergate is about, I want to know the ins and outs of its viewpoints. Every detail. Please enlighten me. I'd like to know if I've misunderstood this. I'd like you to illustrate how this is a movement that doesn't want women to stop making and talking about games. Explain away how the industry no longer has voices like Mattie Brice, Jenn Frank, and Samantha Allen. Tell me how there's a group of journalists, developers and academics conspiring to destroy video games as we know them, and make sure that all the guns in games are replaced with feelings and lesbians. Tell me how Gamasutra, a site by and for industry professionals, is not having its ad funding pulled because of an astroturfing campaign that arose because people who aren't even their target audience didn't bother to read more than the headline of an article, and how this isn't because the person who wrote that article is an outspoken woman who is critical of a culture that facilitates blatant misogyny.
Seriously, you're right in as much as defining Gamergate as a monolithic whole is problematic. It's clearly more complex than that. But I truly can't see how you're willing to overlook how absolutely vile the majority of this movement is because you think there are a handful of voices that have valid points.
Also, stop with the 'women support this movement' crap. "It's okay guys, a woman agrees with us, so it can't be sexist," is not a good enough excuse for all the sexism that's been happening here.
There are a ton of women talking about the issues involved. Feminists even.
It's as if almost half the people who got offended were in fact women. :o
In the most limited of nutshells, gamergate is about journalistic ethics, and when they voice their concerns and are told to shut up because they're sexist manbabies, they just get angrier and angrier.
An example of a company that handled this well despite being against gamergate is the escapist, who almost immediately updated their policies, and now people love them. Even though the owner is strongly against GG.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/editorials/12224-The-Official-Ethics-Policy-of-The-Escapist
Also, Erik Kain, who takes issue with the sexism in games makes some really good points in this article about some things.
Please read http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/10/04/why-it-makes-sense-for-intel-to-pull-ads-from-gamasutra-over-gamergate-and-why-its-still-the-wrong-move/
@eSculpt ... sigh... ok...
"gamergate is about journalistic ethics"
If it true were, they would take issue with the list of issues as long as my arm that constitute poor ethics in journalism. There's a lot to criticise there, but they don't. Instead it's:
- Accusing journalists of "colluding" with independent developers, due to some very tenuous connections
- Complaining that "SJW" journalists report on games with "agendas" and that these "agendas" should be kept out of journalism
- Complaining that there's a feminist agenda propagated by the media to manipulate games
- Lashing out at media if they happen to feel offended by something someone wrote
No, no, no - they are very selective about what they whinge about, and it gravitates towards anything involving independent developers, women and those who support them. Time to stop chanting that "it's about journalistic ethics" lie. It won't get any more true the more it is said.
One article linked earlier sums it up best (paraphrased) - GamerGate is a hate train, and anyone with an axe to grind wants to get on board.
Also, I take it you have a statistic that shows half of Gamergate's backers are women, and not just one that shows half of gamers are women? Or an explanation for how the statistic from the ESA study supports the claim that half of Gamergate's supporters are women? :)
@rustybroomhandle gave a pretty good rebuttal to the journalistic ethics bit, I'd just like to add: To some extent, I agree that news outlets could have done better in terms of engaging with the topic. But when the face of the movement is misogyny, I can respect the decision to respond with little other than 'lol manbabies'. I'm generally for an approach that advocates engagement and pedagogically walking someone through why their point is flawed, but I don't think anyone is obliged to do that. Overall, I guess Kotaku, Polygon, Rock Paper Shotgun, etc asked themselves "how much value can we assign to the potentially valid points of those who've piggybacked on a movement defined by rape threats?" and ultimately decided they weren't worth the time, and stood their ground.
What are the good points in the Kain article? Could you point them out? My own take on it: yep, Alexander made recourse to a shitty stereotype, but there's certainly something interesting to note about the fact that the response to it only illustrated how very real and prevalent that stereotype is. And again, I'm not sure if this is your intention, or Kain's, but there really isn't an equivalence between women receiving rape and death threats to the extent that they're driven out of their homes and chosen careers, and some people having their feelings hurt by a mean thing that a critic said about the thing they like.
@dislekcia : whoa, there is just too much in that Facebook conversation to talk about. That dude was definitely not being accused of rape or harassment, I don't quite know what to make of him fabricating those claims out of thin air. I also don't know how you can be that awful as a human being and still think you're on the right side of things.
Sort of related: has anyone been able to figure out this baffling duality of people who want to be taken seriously, and want games to be taken seriously, but send death and rape threats to the people who do actually treat games like serious cultural artefacts? Feminism and other literary/critical theories have been applied to the arts for decades now. The fact that they're being applied to games shows just how much they've grown up.
And, I'm not referring to Sommers, she's just one person, I'm actually referring to the real people I'm seeing in the trenches.
I have no presently relevant opinions about second or third wave feminism, because these guys care to a large degree about things unrelated to that.
Also bear in mind please that calling them all sexist would be akin to me calling all christians witchburners. Just because it's happened at some point due to some crazy folks, doesn't mean the whole entity is to blame, or at fault. I'm under the impression that such an assumption is fallacious?
There's a difference though. Nobody's saying they're all sexist (actually, some people are, but they should go away), they're saying 'sure, your opinion could be valid and useful, but we don't want to engage with you because you're using a very troublesome movement as the platform from which you're launching your opinion'. I don't think all gaters are sexists, but I think we really need to question whether or not this hashtag is the right place to be talking about the legitimate concerns. Not to mention that every time it's invoked on social media it just calls forth the horde and that destroys the possibility of having a worthwhile discussion. :)
But, having gained momentum, there's no force that will motivate them to stop until they see results. (in fact even then they might not stop the train)
Nobody wants to give them credit for condemning the harassment and putting up ethics guides and at least trying to tame the mob to the extent that they behave civilly though, which is too bad.
Also bear in mind that 'the microphone' likes to call forth her horde pretty often as well... But for some reason people still take her seriously? :P
Wait, who is the microphone? Sarkeesian?
But nah, that's Leigh (she calls herself that, so don't come down on me for it)
Ah, I haven't seen her call a mob, or call herself 'The Microphone' (as much as I support her, this sounds like a silly pro-wrestler name and I don't know why she would choose that moniker), but I've definitely seen devs show up to defend her without explicitly being called for. Sean Vanaman had a lengthy discussion with a troll, and I'm pretty sure I've seen Rami Ismail call someone out for being shitty to her. Could be wrong about the latter, but there's really nothing surprising about Rami showing up to be a good dude :)
And I have to ask: Are people who are supporting the sexist goals of a sexist movement not sexist? They might be unwittingly so, but the outcomes of the actions that are being taken with their support is surely relevant here.
Man, the -ists are really tricky, semantically speaking. I'll try to unpack what I was trying to say, hopefully it'll be helpful:
If we call someone who consciously despises and thinks less of women 'a sexist' (which is how I used it), then I think, and perhaps I'm being overly optimistic here, GG's sexist contingent is actually pretty small. I believe that there could just be a lot of genuinely misguided folks who think they're championing a worthwhile cause but don't realise how much damage they're doing. (Now that I've typed it out, that doesn't sound like a solid reading, but I'm going to leave it there)
However, if we define a sexist as someone who, unwittingly or not, behaves in a manner that capitalises on oppressive power structures in order to enact hostility, no matter how mundane or trivial, against a marginalised group, then I think we can apply that to anyone who supports GG. Frankly, most humans fall into that category if we define it that way.
I find it's much more helpful to consider bigotry as performative, rather than as a label that we attach to someone. Firstly, it makes it easier to engage, because people are at least slightly more open to reconsidering their behaviour if you say 'hey, that thing you did/said was kinda sexist' than if you were to open with 'you are a sexist and therefore the worst'. Secondly, so few people do consciously hold negative views towards marginalised groups, we live in a society that has made overt bigotry entirely unacceptable, but continues to facilitate really subtle instantiations of oppressive behaviour. So yeah, I'm kind of uncomfortable with saying that everyone supporting GG is 'A Sexist', but I'm happy to say that by lending support to GG, you are undertaking sexist behaviour and implicitly condoning the sexist behaviour of the movement.
Does that make sense, and do you think it's a worthwhile way of looking at it?
Not for or against btw
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/10/twitter_is_broken_gamergate_proves_it.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_top
I totally get what you're saying about sexism and applying it as a label. I tend to try to lead with pointing out performative sexism when talking about this sort of stuff (which is why in this thread I've always said that supporting a movement that started with severely misogynistic concerns and whose actions have incredibly sexist outcomes is a sexist thing to do). I guess that a lot of people knee-jerk react to hearing anything about sexism at all, which is why I also tend to follow the "hey, everybody's sexist because we're all part of a sexist system" line of thinking as well. Sometimes it seems to work and people listen to me describing myself as sexist and trying to be less so.
I also think you're right about how unlikely it really seems that well-meaning people would support GG as a concept because they believe it's achieving good things. That just doesn't make sense to me... However, I feel like we have to try and give people the benefit of the doubt when they say that that's what they're doing, no matter how unlikely it seems. I just wish we could basically cut that positive assumption off once people argued in bad faith one too many times.
@eSculpt: You haven't really answered any of the questions that @brondin posed to you. I have to admit that I'm also really curious as to what you think GG is really about and how all the things he mentioned fit into a coherent narrative that doesn't involve the ideologies that we've been criticising in this thread.