But not everyone is capable of those basic overrides yet.
Which is where the other points come in. Enlightenment for all is ideal, but not necessary. We can get rid of harassment with or without harassers' enlightenment. At least, I think we can to some extent, based on what we have done in other areas as I explained in the previous post. But yes, I'm not saying it's easy or a "solved problem"; as you say, we should try.
But not everyone is capable of those basic overrides yet.
Which is where the other points come in. Enlightenment for all is ideal, but not necessary. We can get rid of harassment with or without harassers' enlightenment. At least, I think we can to some extent, based on what we have done in other areas as I explained in the previous post. But yes, I'm not saying it's easy or a "solved problem"; as you say, we should try.
Are you proposing chemical treatments for harassers? Not sure this will ever be a viable option. People will always need to opt in their levels of commitment towards the greater good. I don't think we'll get rid of trolls ever. But here's hoping :)
I gave a few examples to show we do not have to put up with "my hormones made me do it". I think we can get rid of trolls, and my feeling is that we won't need chemical treatment (oi oi oi, seriously man!), but I am not an expert in troll-management, so I cannot offer the complete solution. Anyways, I think our ideas of what is possible is simply different; so be it.
I don't think there's anything to substantiate the idea that trolling is a biological certainty. It's a learned behavior and, as such, can be dealt with through the same channels it came in on.
Harassment is equally learned, it's just backed up by a larger culture too (internet troll culture isn't quite as global) that's what makes it seem unavoidably ubiquitous. But the point remains that it's learned, practiced group belonging behavior, not a cruel twist of biology. That's a good thing, because that's infinitely easier to deal with.
Zoe just released an article talking about the falseness of neutrality in requests that people targeted by GG respond reasonably to calls for discussion. You should read it.
...
Treating it as though it were a mere matter of difference of opinion when one group has been relentlessly ruining lives and trying to cover it up, and the other is made up of people targeted by that group, treating them equally is NOT fairness. It is NOT balance. It is falsely seeking the Golden Mean for the Golden Mean’s sake, while discarding the spirit of fairness it represents by asking victims of a group attacking them for weeks or months to defend their right to live their lives without that. Even if every single false justification that GamerGate has given for their existence was true, even if I was the Machiavellian hellbeast they make me out to be, no one deserves to be GamerGate’s target. No one deserves to have their real lives ruined over video games.
I don't think there's anything to substantiate the idea that trolling is a biological certainty. It's a learned behavior and, as such, can be dealt with through the same channels it came in on.
Harassment is equally learned, it's just backed up by a larger culture too (internet troll culture isn't quite as global) that's what makes it seem unavoidably ubiquitous. But the point remains that it's learned, practiced group belonging behavior, not a cruel twist of biology. That's a good thing, because that's infinitely easier to deal with.
Are you calling sociopathy a learned behavior? While there are varying degrees of sociopaths, it is pretty naive to claim that this is simply something that could be unlearned... Some of the behavioral patterns may be fexible, but the psychological drivers are most certainly not, and to make light of this is not really smart imho as I believe all factors must be taken into account, not only the ones that resonates with our personal ideals.
There are real sociopaths who have those behaviours innately born into them. They often do learn to handle those to be able to live in society on way or another, but their impulses will result in behaviour X. Anonymity affords them the chance to relinquish that self-control.
There are also people who have learned behaviours that the majority dislike. They weren't born with sociopathy but having it "born in them" isn't the prerequisite for behaving a certain way.
@tuism: Agreed, except that these are not differing viewpoints, but a call to be more inclusive on the original. Education is not enough, and to understand a bit of the psychology will go a long way towards finding resolutions to these problems. While the general public can be swayed by additional education (which is great and must be spearheaded), the true abusers do not do it for lack of knowledge but in spite of it.
Biology certainly does play a role in mental illnesses like psychopathy and sociopathy, and while I think there's a possibility that could be driving some of the more heinous parts of Gamergate, there's a lot of really subtle sociological stuff going on as well. Also, we should be careful about using labels that describe very real mental illnesses that affect real human beings when the person we're talking about is just an arsehole. Adding to the stigma that surrounds mental illness is definitely a thing I propose we try to avoid.
The notion that this is learned behaviour certainly isn't naive, it's based in psychological theory and is in fact taught in university psychology courses, along with a number of other theories that might be entirely different. 'Psychology' isn't monolothic, there's tons of disagreement within the academy and between its practitioners. Hell, Anna Freud and Melanie Klein almost physically fought each other over disagreements in their approaches to psychology a number of times.
The proposition is that we live in societies where values towards groups and identities are informed by intersecting kyriarchal power structures: patriarchy, white supremacy, heterosexism, etc. As such, we, as a society, regard with less value those groups who have been marginalised by those power structures. Harassment, discrimination, and aggression in general is almost always informed by the relation of power between two people, for example, how women receive significantly more harassment just while walking down the street, and how their claims of harassment are often dismissed. Consider how often white police officers just get away with murdering black men in spite of overwhelming evidence that they were in fact guilty. Trans people can't even go to the bathroom without fear of harassment or assault. The people responsible for these individual acts and the lack of consequences that follow them can't all be sociopaths.
Unless we're extremely self aware and critical of our surroundings, we internalise these values. We begin to understand women, people of colour, queer and trans people all as lesser human beings, if we even see them as humans at all. As long as we have more privilege than a person, we can get away with doing bad things to them, because the rest of society has internalised these views as well. This isn't sociopathy, this is just the ideological landscape we find ourselves in. Dismissing this as the purview of the mentally ill dismisses how easy it is for the average, everyday human being to act on that privilege to harm someone from a marginalised group, and perpetuates views of people suffering from mental illness (themselves a marginalised group) as universally violent people who can't contribute to society.
So yes, I'm not saying mental illness has absolutely no bearing on the behaviour we've seen in Gamergate, but to call this a biological problem is too reductive. I'd argue that this is predominantly a problem with the way society, and men in particular, have internalised misogyny, which is so evident in how GG has attacked women on the internet, and how any complaints about this harassment are immediately dismissed by them as lies or the woman creating sockpuppet accounts to harass herself.
PS, with regards to the comments about prison being an indicator of our inability to contain biological urges. It's important to remember that, in a lot of places, the US especially (I am embarrassingly unaware of whether or not this is true in SA), the justice systems are really fucked up and overwhelmingly stacked against people of colour. A majority of inmates incarcerated in American prisons are people of colour, many of whom were given absurdly long sentences for minor crimes that white people probably wouldn't even have been arrested for. Obviously this doesn't mean they're all innocent, but the prison system as a whole probably doesn't show how incapable we are of resisting biology as it might seem at face value.
@brondin: the intent is great, as long as we remember that the complexities and nuances go both ways. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater by calling everyone misogynists is very counter productive when there is only a small minority who truly hate women. The majority can be educated, but this minority (the true hate mongers) will not stop and attacking them will increase the rancor and escalate things (as we have seen countless times in our recorded history - not just with gamergate). These are complex problems and require complex solutions - not just idealistic over-simplification - otherwise any real attempts to make progress will keep being obstructed due to unnecessary red herrings and technicalities like #notallmen.. etc.
Understanding is important. Tolerance is important.
Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela have dealt superbly with extreme hatred - this works.
@brondin: the intent is great, as long as we remember that the complexities and nuances go both ways. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater by calling everyone misogynists is very counter productive when there is only a small minority who truly hate women.
Misogyny isn't just actively or consciously hating women. It's performative, it entails the (re)production of societal discourses that ideologically frame women as inferior to men. I certainly agree that there's only a small contingent of Gamergate that truly hates women, and they might be the least likely to change, but everyone involved is participating in misogynistic discourse, either due to ignorance of how the things they say and do are harmful to women, or through implicitly condoning the actions of those who have been more actively misogynistic. Dismissing this as 'a few bad apples' erases the complex, nuanced, sociological problems that fuel misogyny on a wide scale.
The majority can be educated, but this minority (the true hate mongers) will not stop and attacking them will increase the rancor and escalate things (as we have seen countless times in our recorded history - not just with gamergate).
By 'attacking' them, do you mean 'calling out misogynistic behaviour for what it is'? Telling people that they're saying or doing shitty things is important to a) try to get them to behave like better human beings, and b) show support for the people they've hurt.
These are complex problems and require complex solutions - not just idealistic over-simplification - otherwise any real attempts to make progress will keep being obstructed due to unnecessary red herrings and technicalities like #notallmen.. etc.
Like I said, this sort of Foucauldian critical psychological approach takes into consideration how misogyny is a subtle, every day problem, not just an 'only dudes throwing slurs around and punching random women are misognyists' type affair. It's not saying that all men are misogynists, but that all men benefit from patriarchal power structures. As for notallmen, that's going to be a response to the topic of feminism for a very long time, because people for the most part don't understand it. I honestly don't have a solution to that, but I know it's not watering down the philosophical tenets of feminism to appeal to the fragile egos of bros who don't want to acknowledge their privilege.
Understanding is important. Tolerance is important.
Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela have dealt superbly with extreme hatred - this works.
Of course, but government-level civil rights issues require different approaches and compromises. I'm not saying we have to dismiss everyone in GG as human beings or throw them all in jail just for their involvement. But we do have to acknowledge how shitty their behaviour is, and talk about the societal issues that facilitate this behaviour, because the more we tolerate the actions of a bigot, the more we discursively condone the harm caused to their victims.
As for notallmen, that's going to be a response to the topic of feminism for a very long time, because people for the most part don't understand it. I honestly don't have a solution to that, but I know it's not watering down the philosophical tenets of feminism to appeal to the fragile egos of bros who don't want to acknowledge their privilege.
Improving the way we communicate and translate difficult subjects to others does not mean watering down the message. It just requires a level of maturity, respect and mutual understanding... topped off with copious amounts of tolerance and patience (yes.. even in spite of the loathing we harbor for those that practice these behaviours). I have seen very little of this over the last couple of months, and it doesn't really surprise me that there has been very little positive progress at all.
Throwing the baby out with the bathwater by calling everyone misogynists is very counter productive when there is only a small minority who truly hate women.
It sounds like you don't believe Gamergate to be misogynistic at large, and that the true problem lies in this small minority?
Are you saying that the discourse so far has only been mature, rational, constructive and informative?
Which specific examples would you like to address? This is an easier topic to discuss if we have concrete texts to talk about.
Improving the way we communicate and translate difficult subjects to others does not mean watering down the message. It just requires a level of maturity, respect and mutual understanding... topped off with copious amounts of tolerance and patience (yes.. even in spite of the loathing we harbor for those that practice these behaviours). I have seen very little of this over the last couple of months, and it doesn't really surprise me that there has been very little positive progress at all.
In hindsight, that bit wasn't quite relevant to what you said, sorry about that. :) But watering feminism down is a concern a lot of people have voiced, especially in response to the recent bunch of celebrities identifying as feminists using definitions that are overly simplified and effectively designed to appeal to as many people as possible without requiring them to actually examine their own behaviour.
Regarding positive progress: @dislekcia has outlined the achievements of this thread. Many of those seem like pretty big deals to me, even if they only apply to the small scale of this message board. He also called for further suggestions for how to improve behaviour and try to educate people. I feel like, more than anything, we might be arguing semantics here, so I'd kinda like to hear what sort of solutions you would suggest to the problem at hand? That might be a healthier discussion than 'cognitive/biological psychology vs critical/social psychology'. :)
It sounds like you don't believe Gamergate to be misogynistic at large, and that the true problem lies in this small minority?
Calling out blanket misogynism at a large audience is just a very serious allegation, especially if the ignorant majority does not really know what they are supporting (and I fully disagree that pure association means intent in this case) - it's just fuel on the fire, and I can see why they may feel insulted. And believe me, once someone feels attacked (for whatever reason), the nuance is completely wasted and pretty much irrecoverable from that point.
we might be arguing semantics here, so I'd kinda like to hear what sort of solutions you would suggest to the problem at hand? That might be a healthier discussion than 'cognitive/biological psychology vs critical/social psychology'. :)
I only ever advocate tolerance and understanding.
If we want to change anti-tolerant behaviour, then it is our responsibility to put ourselves in the shoes (and/or all physical limitations) of those we need to teach, and lead by example. Online crusades, academic rhetoric, idealism... these are all meaningless concepts if not clearly understood by the target audience. We need to learn to talk the language of the un-enlighted: this means first and foremost that trigger language needs to be avoided in every single conversation, regardless of how frustrating it is, otherwise the message dies right there.
@farsicon, Good ideas! But what does that look like? What's an explanation for why Gamergate is bad that's easily digestible for its average participant?
What's an explanation for why Gamergate is bad that's easily digestible for its average participant?
Let me throw that back at you. In your experience, which explanation so far do you feel has actually been digestible to the average participant? And do you feel that it is showing enough global results to support that it is effective?
Simply put, gamergate so far has been a lot of talking (and by this I mean chest thumping and screaming over the fence over who owns the moral high ground) and almost no conversation. What I would have liked to see (much earlier in this sordid tale) is the repetition of one simple question instead of countless explanations on why each side is right.
"Why do you feel that way?"
This not only opens the door to discussion while addressing my previous concerns, but also allows the subjects to reflect on their position themselves.
Plenty of people have been genuinely engaging with GG, and even asking that question, but it almost always falls into the endlessly frustrating cyclical series of accusations where the person ignores the questions and shouts about issues that were debunked the same week Eron Gjoni put up his blog post.
Freudian psychotherapy is great for those who find it helpful, but it also relies on very specific conditions, the social contract between therapist and patient dictates how the interactions between them play out, even the way furniture is arranged has a specific psychological purpose. The contextual parameters are very important to making that question work. Not saying that "why do you feel that way?" is useless outside of that context, but a big part of the reason that it works is a set of conditions that can't be fully replicated over the internet. I wish that the solution was as easy as just asking that question, but my guess is it'd only really work on folks who've had a lot of psychoanalytic therapy (which is unlikely, because purely Freudian therapy is evidently quite rare these days). :(
Plenty of people have been genuinely engaging with GG, and even asking that question, but it almost always falls into the endlessly frustrating cyclical series of accusations where the person ignores the questions and shouts about issues that were debunked the same week Eron Gjoni put up his blog post.
Freudian psychotherapy is great for those who find it helpful, but it also relies on very specific conditions, the social contract between therapist and patient dictates how the interactions between them play out, even the way furniture is arranged has a specific psychological purpose. The contextual parameters are very important to making that question work. Not saying that "why do you feel that way?" is useless outside of that context, but a big part of the reason that it works is a set of conditions that can't be fully replicated over the internet. I wish that the solution was as easy as just asking that question, but my guess is it'd only really work on folks who've had a lot of psychoanalytic therapy (which is unlikely, because purely Freudian therapy is evidently quite rare these days). :(
That's a pretty narrow view, and also grossly incorrect, as this is a great communicative tool that is in fact very effective... especially outside the formal setting you described. I have little further to add on that limiting perspective.
That's a pretty narrow view, and also grossly incorrect, as this is a great communicative tool that is in fact very effective... especially outside the formal setting you described. I have little further to add on that limiting perspective.
Alright, I won't press it. I'm sorry that I upset you. Really. If you want, maybe at some other point we could talk about it some more. I don't have my psych textbooks on hand, I lent them out to friends when I finished my degree (did linguistics honours, didn't really need them), but I'd be happy to try to find articles on the topic, if that'd be of use/interest to you. Again, sorry for any bad behaviour on my part.
That's a pretty narrow view, and also grossly incorrect, as this is a great communicative tool that is in fact very effective... especially outside the formal setting you described. I have little further to add on that limiting perspective.
Alright, I won't press it. I'm sorry that I upset you. Really. If you want, maybe at some other point we could talk about it some more. I don't have my psych textbooks on hand, I lent them out to friends when I finished my degree (did linguistics honours, didn't really need them), but I'd be happy to try to find articles on the topic, if that'd be of use/interest to you. Again, sorry for any bad behaviour on my part.
Hold on... why would you assume I'm upset or that any bad behaviour was called out?
@farsicon, oh, misread that. It just seemed like a strong response to the criticisms that other psychologists have made against that particular technique. Thought I might have touched a nerve, and was worried I'd been an ass, so I apologised. :)
@farsicon, oh, misread that. It just seemed like a strong response to the criticisms that other psychologists have made against that particular technique. Thought I might have touched a nerve, and was worried I'd been an ass, so I apologised. :)
@farsicon Hahahaha! Man, I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read that. I laughed so hard. I have actually been to psychoanalytic therapy, so I'm just going to go ahead and use that as my excuse. :P
Look dude, I really wasn't trying to say your idea is useless, the idea that it's completely without value is absurd, and I'm sorry if I came off that way. But, like any idea or theory (my own included), it has limitations. No idea is universally applicable. Like you said, complex problems need complex solutions. :)
@brondin: XD. I fully agree. It will somehow be the combination of the best understanding we have to date that will win this battle imho, no singular theory or ideology will be the killer. I am waiting for someone much smarter to coin something that everyone can latch onto and move us into the next millenium.
I dunno. I've asked "why do you assume that?" plenty of times in this thread. If it were such a great tool, it wouldn't have gotten the responses it did from other people.
I think that you need someone with the conversational skills, domain understanding and self-awareness of @brondin on the other side of that question to truly get something out of it. Unfortunately, that's a pretty damn rare combination.
So, let me try that out: Why do people who say that men in general are being attacked when people point out the misogynistic performances of society feel that way?
P.S. I'm honestly curious about that, I've even asked that same question in other ways in this thread already... I've always wondered why the actual performed attacks on women (the things people are complaining about as misogynistic) are apparently less worrying than men feeling unfairly identified via self-association. The logic of that escapes me, so I'd love to hear it articulated.
@dislekcia... if you phrase questions like obvious attacks, why are you surprised when people pick up on it? It is not apparent from your posts that you actually do care about anything except when it is supportive of your own particular ideology.
You've completely missed the point, and I have learned not to argue with you.
So, let me try that out: Why do people who say that men in general are being attacked when people point out the misogynistic performances of society feel that way?
It's so disturbing to see GG position themselves as the actual victims, instead of, you know, the women who have been harassed and threatened out of their homes and careers. And practically every perceived slight against them is a product of (almost certainly deliberate) misunderstanding or criticism of genuinely harmful behaviour.
if you phrase questions like obvious attacks, why are you surprised when people pick up on it?
Dan Golding, author of the original 'Death of Gamers' article, recently wrote another piece responding to some of the backlash from the first article. It's worth reading in its entirety, but I want to talk about the closing sentiment here:
The only response to such rampant misogyny is more equality, more feminism, more diversity in the most visible elements of videogame culture, more championing of marginalised voices.
I agree with this. I strongly support the idea of intersectional feminism(s), and do my best to be an ally to both feminists and women in general. I feel that, when talking about misogyny, it's best to privilege a set of political and philosophical theories and ideas whose main thrust is to address issues of gender in society, ie feminism. As such, that leaves a pretty obvious blind spot for me, and I literally can't think of how to have this conversation in a way that does not make recourse to sexism or patriarchal power relations.
So, with that limitation of my own knowledge in mind, how do you propose we have a discussion with Gamergate about how their behaviour relates to gender without coming off as an attack? I think your proposal of "why do you feel that way?" is great in that it allows us to start a conversation without jumping straight to those issues, but how do we go about pointing out that their behaviour is problematic and misogynistic without stating it in explicit terms?
War on Boys by Prager University. Saying boys need to be encouraged more academically.
The main issue is that she relies on essentialised notions of sex and gender; the rest of the problems with the video stem from that misstep.
The common sense understanding is that your genitals determine your gender, and that behaviour is determined by gender. That is, the way men think and behave is inherent to them being men, and the same is true for women.
Current work on gender is based more on theoretical ideas from the early 90s, for the most part this is work which has collectively been labelled ‘queer theory’. It suggests that sex (male/female, your genitalia and hormones) is biological, and gender (behavioural performances which exist along a masculine/feminine continuum) is socially constructed, meaning that over time people assigned masculine or feminine value to particular ways of acting or presenting oneself. Queer theory also posits that there isn’t a link between sex and gender, at least not one that isn’t socially constructed (this is part of why people flip the fuck out over trans folk all the time, their gender identity and performance contradicts their understanding of how sex and gender are related). So there isn’t an essential ‘maleness’ or ‘masculinity’, nor is there an essential ‘femaleness’ or ‘femininity’.
So with that in mind, we can address the rest of the problems with the video
-Normal boy? ‘Typical’ boys as disorganised and noisy is a product of policing behaviour away from traditionally feminine performances and encouraging ‘boyish’ behaviour, i.e. being rowdy and rough; if girls try to act this way, they’re told not to act like boys, but for boys, it’s just ‘being boys’. -I’m not sure if these stats about grades and college admission are accurate. Given CH Sommers’ track history of twisting numbers to deny things like the gender wage gap and the extent to which women are harassed online, I’d take these with a pinch of salt. -Turn boys into readers. Actually, I agree with this. As for boys and girls liking different things, again, that’s socialised. Sure, giving them different texts will treat a symptom, but the real problem is in how normative gender constructs vilify certain behaviours, like boys reading poetry. -Inspire the male imagination. No such thing. The ‘confessional poet’ thing I can get behind, but that speaks to a larger problem of ghettoising genre fiction more so than it does ‘society hates boys now’. As for Justin drawing a pirate decapitating some dudes, I’m not saying that’s necessarily bad, but I think there’s definitely some room for self-examination when our understanding of ‘normal boyish behaviour’ is the visual representation of murder. -Zero tolerance policies. Yeah, that does sound like a bit of an overreaction. But again, ‘typical 7 year old boy’ is an idea that we constructed, there is nothing inherent to being a 7 year old cis boy that makes one want to eat candy into the shape of weaponry. -Bring back recess. Again, agreed. You need breaks, especially as a kid. The stuff about games being banned sounds a bit dodgy, but I don't have a ton of time to do extensive research on that, so I won't comment on it. -Boys need to be free to work off their energy. So do girls, dummy. -These are the young men with whom our daughters will build a future. Or, you know, maybe your daughter will build a future with someone else’s daughter. Or your son will build a future with someone else’s son.
This doesn’t cover everything, but I’m really not sold on anything CH Sommers has to say. She’s effectively an MRA masquerading as a feminist.
@dislekcia... if you phrase questions like obvious attacks, why are you surprised when people pick up on it? It is not apparent from your posts that you actually do care about anything except when it is supportive of your own particular ideology.
You've completely missed the point, and I have learned not to argue with you.
...how do you propose we have a discussion with Gamergate about how their behaviour relates to gender without coming off as an attack? I think your proposal of "why do you feel that way?" is great in that it allows us to start a conversation without jumping straight to those issues, but how do we go about pointing out that their behaviour is problematic and misogynistic without stating it in explicit terms?
Let me just clarify.. when I use that phrase it is as a surrogate for a particular communication process - I do take into account that it is not as simple as just asking that. It is about getting very deeply involved in the psyche of the target audience and taking them on the journey instead of simply showing them the destination. This means approaching every individual differently, understanding their own particular world view, their own language of logic, and their own insecurities & preconceptions... instead of just searching for the one explanation to "rule them all" and trying to force it down their throats (which is exactly how it is currently perceived by them).
For obvious reasons this is quite hard, but unfortunately this is what is needed.
@farsicon, unfortunately there are a lot of individuals in Gamergate, and I don't know where anyone organising this would get enough people with the requisite time and training to undertake an individual-level operation like that. Or how they would fund them, for that matter. Obviously you're right in that there isn't a single explanation that will convert everyone, but I like to think there's some way the process could be streamlined.
So, uh, GamerGate's latest operation is to infiltrate tumblr to convince teenage girls to support them. Here's the outline, it includes instructions on how to simulate human emotions so as to appear relatable and empathetic.
So, uh, GamerGate's latest operation is to infiltrate tumblr to convince teenage girls to support them. Here's the outline, it includes instructions on how to simulate human emotions so as to appear relatable and empathetic.
"You need to be seen as the victim there in order to gain sympathy and support." That's exactly what they keep accusing actual victims of harassment of doing - being "professional victims".
What GG is about more than anything else, is winning. The win-state might be poorly defined, but nonetheless, they want to "win" no matter what.
Let me just clarify.. when I use that phrase it is as a surrogate for a particular communication process - I do take into account that it is not as simple as just asking that. It is about getting very deeply involved in the psyche of the target audience and taking them on the journey instead of simply showing them the destination. This means approaching every individual differently, understanding their own particular world view, their own language of logic, and their own insecurities & preconceptions... instead of just searching for the one explanation to "rule them all" and trying to force it down their throats (which is exactly how it is currently perceived by them).
For obvious reasons this is quite hard, but unfortunately this is what is needed.
The last time this approach was brought up in this thread, this is the response it got:
Why change them at all? Who, or what, gives you the right to judge someone else as "in need of change", and yourself as the agent of that change? Who's to say that your answer is any better than the one they already have?
There are millions of people that think the same way you do, and as far as I'm concerned they're responsible for all the bad things in the world - wars, religions, Herbalife. The very idea that you can look at someone else, quietly judge them as incomplete, and appoint yourself their savior, reeks of arrogance. Unless if they're actually asking for it, I don't see how anyone has the right (or even the capability) to interfere.
I like how my asking why people feel attacked is apparently not good enough though. If I weren't in the habit of trying to allow people the freedom to clarify their points, I'd say it was a great way to move goalposts ;)
I like how my asking why people feel attacked is apparently not good enough though. If I weren't in the habit of trying to allow people the freedom to clarify their points, I'd say it was a great way to move goalposts ;)
aww man!.. are you making me dredge the bowels of this thread of doom? :P
Don't you think that it's possible that someone who may have had a bad experience could be sensitive about certain things and dislike certain concepts for entirely good reasons? To use the post your example is based on:
Because, to work, it has to be 100% genuine - it's honestly about changing someone through love and respect.
The language here is about "making" people see a certain pre-determined point of view. Whether "with love and respect" or not, people connect to the words that grab their attention, and your gut response may be that this is just semantics, but it's not always that simple.
Personally, I just think the language (here, as well as in GG, etc.) could have been more positioned towards creating an environment of empathy and goodwill that inspires them to desperately want to change on their own. It's about creating additional moral wealth instead of just redistributing the existing stockpile.
I am not criticising... but I noticed that the more intellectually concise the explanations get (yay for dem writing skillz!), the more it flies over the heads of the masses - this approach seems very counter-intuitive to me, as the audience are not intellectuals.
...
..oh.. and there is also the possibility that wogan may have been trolling, and ended up a bit on the deep end... (sorry wogan... :) )
aww man!.. are you making me dredge the bowels of this thread of doom? :P
Yes. Because I'm tired of the number of points and arguments of yours that people have taken the time to address that you've either ignored or skipped over.
Don't you think that it's possible that someone who may have had a bad experience could be sensitive about certain things and dislike certain concepts for entirely good reasons?
Is this an answer to my question about why people feel attacked by things that aren't attacks? If so, yeah sure I think that it's possible people might be sensitive to or dislike certain topics for reasons of their own. That doesn't mean those reasons are particularly valid in any specific situation though, nor does that excuse continuous poor behavior in response to the people who bring up those topics.
Are you saying that you personally feel sensitive about or dislike concepts like the discussion of sexism or the identification of specific forms of harm done to people by sexist behavior? (Sorry, I'm not sure which concepts you're talking about here, these two are just the ones that you've reacted to most strongly in the thread, I'm totally aware that this assumption might be false - I'm only making it to be able to re-state an example back to you)
Are you saying that GGers personally feel sensitive about or dislike those same concepts too?
The language here is about "making" people see a certain pre-determined point of view. Whether "with love and respect" or not, people connect to the words that grab their attention, and your gut response may be that this is just semantics, but it's not always that simple.
It amuses me that the poster that my reply there was written to originally completely dismissed the perceptions of readers, then used that exact argument a few posts later ;)
I'm totally open to that idea. In fact, I've always asked which parts of a post made people feel bad so that I can understand what might have been problematic wording, how I could change it for the better in future and how to explain what I really mean in the current situation. So yeah, "changing someone" was the focus of that particular discussion, I'm not convinced it was a bad choice of words, given that's what we were talking about achieving at that point. Everyone is changed by the people they interact with, even in small ways... To have that initial starting point (creating change in others) suddenly demonised took me by surprise and made me doubt the honesty of that interaction.
Personally, I just think the language (here, as well as in GG, etc.) could have been more positioned towards creating an environment of empathy and goodwill that inspires them to desperately want to change on their own. It's about creating additional moral wealth instead of just redistributing the existing stockpile.
The desire to want to change is pretty much what I was talking about initially. The biggest barriers to that are the things I've also already identified as communication problems, including the whole "I'm being attacked personally by articles that don't mention me at all" issue.
However, I don't know why that has a moral stockpile angle. Surely the moral analysis of actual outcomes trumps argumentative moral tactics, meaning that first the moral landscape of the reality of GG needs to be addressed before anyone can honestly claim to be increasing, decreasing or spreading around any existing moral "wealth". I'm not really sure what this metaphor adds to this discussion, as it seems like it's very easy to turn around and use against people that assume moral high ground by claiming attacks against them that don't harm them in any way. (And no, I don't think that this is a good place to make any GGers-are-being-attacked-too points or accusations of false-flagging, that's not what this metaphor is designed to address, is it?)
Although I should echo back: So what you're saying here is that a group of people self-identifying as part of a movement with morally terrible outcomes shouldn't be expected to address the morality of those outcomes that they've dismissed, for fear of decreasing the amount of moral currency available to them, which they need in order to not feel defensive when talking about these outcomes?
I am not criticising... but I noticed that the more intellectually concise the explanations get (yay for dem writing skillz!), the more it flies over the heads of the masses - this approach seems very counter-intuitive to me, as the audience are not intellectuals.
Heh. My longer posts get ignored the most. So do @brondin's most verbose, enlightening explanations. The most intellectually concise, pithiest one-liners get the best response.
Yes. Because I'm tired of the number of points and arguments of yours that people have taken the time to address that you've either ignored or skipped over.
If you feel that I have not responded to any conversation relating to my message, feel free to let me know which.
Are you saying that you personally feel sensitive about or dislike concepts like the discussion of sexism or the identification of specific forms of harm done to people by sexist behavior? (Sorry, I'm not sure which concepts you're talking about here, these two are just the ones that you've reacted to most strongly in the thread, I'm totally aware that this assumption might be false - I'm only making it to be able to re-state an example back to you)
Refer back to your example and my response to it. I made no claim about my own sensitivity or dislikes or the fight against sexism. The concepts at play are also not (necessarily) the discussion of sexism (except maybe when words like misogyny, privilege, etc. are weaponised), but the language used - which misconstrues the message and causes blocks to those who are so inclined. A concept like "changing people" as per my example - is one of them.
Are you saying that GGers personally feel sensitive about or dislike those same concepts too?
Because we don't know, it's entirely possible that most of them are just insecure. I will never defend the misogynistic core who have made their intentions clear.
It amuses me that the poster that my reply there was written to originally completely dismissed the perceptions of readers, then used that exact argument a few posts later ;)
I'm not convinced it was a bad choice of words, given that's what we were talking about achieving at that point. Everyone is changed by the people they interact with, even in small ways... To have that initial starting point (creating change in others) suddenly demonised took me by surprise and made me doubt the honesty of that interaction.
It's not a bad choice of words. I understood your example perfectly. The response you had obviously indicated that not everyone reads things the same and I only offered an alternative explanation (because I don't believe all people are inherently bad) and a call for understanding.
To explain the metaphor... Teaching people values through information alone is good, but the message (and enthusiasm) dilutes with each generation if everyone is not taught from the same source. Having people come to the same conclusions on their own is the most powerful learning that exists - this generates more sources of knowledge and spreads the original message exponentially (in many cases even growing stronger due to fresh inputs).
I think the rest of your comment around this was based on a misunderstanding... please correct me if I'm wrong.
Heh. My longer posts get ignored the most. So do @brondin's most verbose, enlightening explanations. The most intellectually concise, pithiest one-liners get the best response.
"concise" was probably a terrible choice of word in that context... I'm referring to all the articles that are floating around, each one "aiming" (my opinion) to be the final solution to GG: the one where everyone understands and we all move forward... each article/blog condenses the message further, but increases the level of entry in terms of language, and from a literary perspective it's great (to those who understand it, and who already buy into it), but again.. the target audience are not intellectuals and will almost never read past the title. The one-liners are the better option.
... a group of people self-identifying as part of a movement with morally terrible outcomes ...
This also needs to be addressed (in terms of the blocking language that causes people to get upset). This whole concept is a deductive fallacy - and extremely dangerous...
Example: why not just attack all religious movements as well while you're at it - it's the original source of documented misogyny (and several other morally terrible outcomes) anyways, so why not just slay the beast at its source?
I'm referring to all the articles that are floating around, each one "aiming" (my opinion) to be the final solution to GG: the one where everyone understands and we all move forward... each article/blog condenses the message further, but increases the level of entry in terms of language, and from a literary perspective it's great (to those who understand it, and who already buy into it), but again.. the target audience are not intellectuals and will almost never read past the title. The one-liners are the better option.
Can you point to any that you feel are particularly impenetrable? I haven't found any articles (aside from ones that were written specifically for academic audiences, like Katherine Cross' wonderful piece on First Person Scholar, which deserves to be linked to again) that seemed to be difficult for the average reader.
In any case, you don't need to be an intellectual to understand the concepts being spoken about. Concepts that originate in the academy tend to bleed out of that context and make their way into common parlance. You no longer need to read Judith Butler or any other feminist writer to figure out what terms like 'misogyny', 'privilege', or 'patriarchy' mean. Spend an hour on tumblr, Google it, maybe read a helpful comic. I totally get that the writing on this can be dense, and I totally agree with being critical of overly academic prose, but it's not like we're limited to the Parisian rhetoric of the 70s; there are a lot of sources that make it much easier to understand. :)
Also, these words aren't weaponised. Calling someone on their shit and trying to inform them about how their lack of self-awareness and empathy is genuinely hurting the people they come into contact with is not an attack. Feminism is about dismantling sexist power structures. Those words are part of the toolset used to do that. Not making use of them is like trying to eat soup with a steak knife when there's a spoon right next to you.
Example: why not just attack all religious movements as well while you're at it - it's the original source of documented misogyny (and several other morally terrible outcomes) anyways, so why not just slay the beast at its source?
Gamergate is three months old, and its achievements amount to little other than harassing women and following their threats with "ETHICS IN JOURNALISM BRO." There's definitely a discussion to be had about misogyny as it relates to religion, but that's infinitely more complex and nuanced than the discussion about Gamergate, and changes depending on which religion (and which variation/denomination thereof) we're actually talking about. We can say a lot of good things about religion and one's involvement in it. With Gamergate, all we have is 'you either sent death and rape threats to a woman in the video game industry, or you've contributed to a discourse that tacitly condones that harassment'.
Also, whatever the extent of the church's role as a 'catalyst of misogyny', patriarchal power structures these days are just as secular as they are bound to religion, if not more so. Consider how startlingly sexist the atheist community can be, Phil Mason being a very relevant example. Attacking religion as the 'source of the beast' wouldn't rid us of misogyny because it's only one of many contemporary sources.
Can you point to any that you feel are particularly impenetrable?
Not to me personally, but its obvious to me that there is something up... and based on my understanding of people and the behaviour that I observe daily, I'd much rather connect it to the laziness and ignorance of the general public than people being actively "bad" (Occam's razor).
Just take the debate on evolution vs creationism as an example - this has absolutely nothing to do with morals, but the exact same pattern emerges there - when people refuse to self-educate because it is a chore or because they "think they already know", then you wont make any progress unless you make it so easy for them that they don't even realise they are being taught.
Those words are part of the toolset used to do that. Not making use of them is like trying to eat soup with a steak knife when there's a spoon right next to you.
I have to disagree with you on this based on what I have already said. You will not connect to the greater public unless you change tactics.
or you've contributed to a discourse that tacitly condones that harassment'.
This accusation is very dangerous and I don't think they (the general public) are even aware what they are "condoning" or even know why they should care. Being part of a movement for lack of another place to belong does not mean you condone every single one of its practices. Which of these labels do you think these people find easier to relate to?
"Gamers" or "Journalists"
Yes.. unfortunately, for most of them, this is how far they have thought it through...
---
Look, I'm only providing constructive feedback based on my observations... I don't really care if you use it or not ;)
Comments
Harassment is equally learned, it's just backed up by a larger culture too (internet troll culture isn't quite as global) that's what makes it seem unavoidably ubiquitous. But the point remains that it's learned, practiced group belonging behavior, not a cruel twist of biology. That's a good thing, because that's infinitely easier to deal with.
There are real sociopaths who have those behaviours innately born into them. They often do learn to handle those to be able to live in society on way or another, but their impulses will result in behaviour X. Anonymity affords them the chance to relinquish that self-control.
There are also people who have learned behaviours that the majority dislike. They weren't born with sociopathy but having it "born in them" isn't the prerequisite for behaving a certain way.
The notion that this is learned behaviour certainly isn't naive, it's based in psychological theory and is in fact taught in university psychology courses, along with a number of other theories that might be entirely different. 'Psychology' isn't monolothic, there's tons of disagreement within the academy and between its practitioners. Hell, Anna Freud and Melanie Klein almost physically fought each other over disagreements in their approaches to psychology a number of times.
The proposition is that we live in societies where values towards groups and identities are informed by intersecting kyriarchal power structures: patriarchy, white supremacy, heterosexism, etc. As such, we, as a society, regard with less value those groups who have been marginalised by those power structures. Harassment, discrimination, and aggression in general is almost always informed by the relation of power between two people, for example, how women receive significantly more harassment just while walking down the street, and how their claims of harassment are often dismissed. Consider how often white police officers just get away with murdering black men in spite of overwhelming evidence that they were in fact guilty. Trans people can't even go to the bathroom without fear of harassment or assault. The people responsible for these individual acts and the lack of consequences that follow them can't all be sociopaths.
Unless we're extremely self aware and critical of our surroundings, we internalise these values. We begin to understand women, people of colour, queer and trans people all as lesser human beings, if we even see them as humans at all. As long as we have more privilege than a person, we can get away with doing bad things to them, because the rest of society has internalised these views as well. This isn't sociopathy, this is just the ideological landscape we find ourselves in. Dismissing this as the purview of the mentally ill dismisses how easy it is for the average, everyday human being to act on that privilege to harm someone from a marginalised group, and perpetuates views of people suffering from mental illness (themselves a marginalised group) as universally violent people who can't contribute to society.
So yes, I'm not saying mental illness has absolutely no bearing on the behaviour we've seen in Gamergate, but to call this a biological problem is too reductive. I'd argue that this is predominantly a problem with the way society, and men in particular, have internalised misogyny, which is so evident in how GG has attacked women on the internet, and how any complaints about this harassment are immediately dismissed by them as lies or the woman creating sockpuppet accounts to harass herself.
PS, with regards to the comments about prison being an indicator of our inability to contain biological urges. It's important to remember that, in a lot of places, the US especially (I am embarrassingly unaware of whether or not this is true in SA), the justice systems are really fucked up and overwhelmingly stacked against people of colour. A majority of inmates incarcerated in American prisons are people of colour, many of whom were given absurdly long sentences for minor crimes that white people probably wouldn't even have been arrested for. Obviously this doesn't mean they're all innocent, but the prison system as a whole probably doesn't show how incapable we are of resisting biology as it might seem at face value.
Understanding is important.
Tolerance is important.
Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela have dealt superbly with extreme hatred - this works.
I tracked a couple of them and confronted them.
Mostly they were doing it 'for lulz' or whatever.
But a few made vague statements about employers and paychecks.
Which is possibly the most concerning thing in all this.
Regarding positive progress: @dislekcia has outlined the achievements of this thread. Many of those seem like pretty big deals to me, even if they only apply to the small scale of this message board. He also called for further suggestions for how to improve behaviour and try to educate people. I feel like, more than anything, we might be arguing semantics here, so I'd kinda like to hear what sort of solutions you would suggest to the problem at hand? That might be a healthier discussion than 'cognitive/biological psychology vs critical/social psychology'. :)
If we want to change anti-tolerant behaviour, then it is our responsibility to put ourselves in the shoes (and/or all physical limitations) of those we need to teach, and lead by example. Online crusades, academic rhetoric, idealism... these are all meaningless concepts if not clearly understood by the target audience. We need to learn to talk the language of the un-enlighted: this means first and foremost that trigger language needs to be avoided in every single conversation, regardless of how frustrating it is, otherwise the message dies right there.
Simply put, gamergate so far has been a lot of talking (and by this I mean chest thumping and screaming over the fence over who owns the moral high ground) and almost no conversation. What I would have liked to see (much earlier in this sordid tale) is the repetition of one simple question instead of countless explanations on why each side is right.
"Why do you feel that way?"
This not only opens the door to discussion while addressing my previous concerns, but also allows the subjects to reflect on their position themselves.
Plenty of people have been genuinely engaging with GG, and even asking that question, but it almost always falls into the endlessly frustrating cyclical series of accusations where the person ignores the questions and shouts about issues that were debunked the same week Eron Gjoni put up his blog post.
Freudian psychotherapy is great for those who find it helpful, but it also relies on very specific conditions, the social contract between therapist and patient dictates how the interactions between them play out, even the way furniture is arranged has a specific psychological purpose. The contextual parameters are very important to making that question work. Not saying that "why do you feel that way?" is useless outside of that context, but a big part of the reason that it works is a set of conditions that can't be fully replicated over the internet. I wish that the solution was as easy as just asking that question, but my guess is it'd only really work on folks who've had a lot of psychoanalytic therapy (which is unlikely, because purely Freudian therapy is evidently quite rare these days). :(
Look dude, I really wasn't trying to say your idea is useless, the idea that it's completely without value is absurd, and I'm sorry if I came off that way. But, like any idea or theory (my own included), it has limitations. No idea is universally applicable. Like you said, complex problems need complex solutions. :)
I think that you need someone with the conversational skills, domain understanding and self-awareness of @brondin on the other side of that question to truly get something out of it. Unfortunately, that's a pretty damn rare combination.
So, let me try that out: Why do people who say that men in general are being attacked when people point out the misogynistic performances of society feel that way?
P.S. I'm honestly curious about that, I've even asked that same question in other ways in this thread already... I've always wondered why the actual performed attacks on women (the things people are complaining about as misogynistic) are apparently less worrying than men feeling unfairly identified via self-association. The logic of that escapes me, so I'd love to hear it articulated.
I wanted to share this on Twitter but I didn't want to fuel #GamerGate or get my account spammed.
You've completely missed the point, and I have learned not to argue with you.
So, with that limitation of my own knowledge in mind, how do you propose we have a discussion with Gamergate about how their behaviour relates to gender without coming off as an attack? I think your proposal of "why do you feel that way?" is great in that it allows us to start a conversation without jumping straight to those issues, but how do we go about pointing out that their behaviour is problematic and misogynistic without stating it in explicit terms?
The common sense understanding is that your genitals determine your gender, and that behaviour is determined by gender. That is, the way men think and behave is inherent to them being men, and the same is true for women.
Current work on gender is based more on theoretical ideas from the early 90s, for the most part this is work which has collectively been labelled ‘queer theory’. It suggests that sex (male/female, your genitalia and hormones) is biological, and gender (behavioural performances which exist along a masculine/feminine continuum) is socially constructed, meaning that over time people assigned masculine or feminine value to particular ways of acting or presenting oneself. Queer theory also posits that there isn’t a link between sex and gender, at least not one that isn’t socially constructed (this is part of why people flip the fuck out over trans folk all the time, their gender identity and performance contradicts their understanding of how sex and gender are related). So there isn’t an essential ‘maleness’ or ‘masculinity’, nor is there an essential ‘femaleness’ or ‘femininity’.
So with that in mind, we can address the rest of the problems with the video
-Normal boy? ‘Typical’ boys as disorganised and noisy is a product of policing behaviour away from traditionally feminine performances and encouraging ‘boyish’ behaviour, i.e. being rowdy and rough; if girls try to act this way, they’re told not to act like boys, but for boys, it’s just ‘being boys’.
-I’m not sure if these stats about grades and college admission are accurate. Given CH Sommers’ track history of twisting numbers to deny things like the gender wage gap and the extent to which women are harassed online, I’d take these with a pinch of salt.
-Turn boys into readers. Actually, I agree with this. As for boys and girls liking different things, again, that’s socialised. Sure, giving them different texts will treat a symptom, but the real problem is in how normative gender constructs vilify certain behaviours, like boys reading poetry.
-Inspire the male imagination. No such thing. The ‘confessional poet’ thing I can get behind, but that speaks to a larger problem of ghettoising genre fiction more so than it does ‘society hates boys now’. As for Justin drawing a pirate decapitating some dudes, I’m not saying that’s necessarily bad, but I think there’s definitely some room for self-examination when our understanding of ‘normal boyish behaviour’ is the visual representation of murder.
-Zero tolerance policies. Yeah, that does sound like a bit of an overreaction. But again, ‘typical 7 year old boy’ is an idea that we constructed, there is nothing inherent to being a 7 year old cis boy that makes one want to eat candy into the shape of weaponry.
-Bring back recess. Again, agreed. You need breaks, especially as a kid. The stuff about games being banned sounds a bit dodgy, but I don't have a ton of time to do extensive research on that, so I won't comment on it.
-Boys need to be free to work off their energy. So do girls, dummy.
-These are the young men with whom our daughters will build a future. Or, you know, maybe your daughter will build a future with someone else’s daughter. Or your son will build a future with someone else’s son.
This doesn’t cover everything, but I’m really not sold on anything CH Sommers has to say. She’s effectively an MRA masquerading as a feminist.
For obvious reasons this is quite hard, but unfortunately this is what is needed.
That's exactly what they keep accusing actual victims of harassment of doing - being "professional victims".
What GG is about more than anything else, is winning. The win-state might be poorly defined, but nonetheless, they want to "win" no matter what.
They are/were circulating this http://www.mnei.nl/schopenhauer/38-stratagems.htm amongst themselves. Note point 21: "For it is with victory that your are concerned, and not with truth."
Don't you think that it's possible that someone who may have had a bad experience could be sensitive about certain things and dislike certain concepts for entirely good reasons? To use the post your example is based on: The language here is about "making" people see a certain pre-determined point of view. Whether "with love and respect" or not, people connect to the words that grab their attention, and your gut response may be that this is just semantics, but it's not always that simple.
Personally, I just think the language (here, as well as in GG, etc.) could have been more positioned towards creating an environment of empathy and goodwill that inspires them to desperately want to change on their own. It's about creating additional moral wealth instead of just redistributing the existing stockpile.
I am not criticising... but I noticed that the more intellectually concise the explanations get (yay for dem writing skillz!), the more it flies over the heads of the masses - this approach seems very counter-intuitive to me, as the audience are not intellectuals.
...
..oh.. and there is also the possibility that wogan may have been trolling, and ended up a bit on the deep end... (sorry wogan... :) )
Are you saying that you personally feel sensitive about or dislike concepts like the discussion of sexism or the identification of specific forms of harm done to people by sexist behavior? (Sorry, I'm not sure which concepts you're talking about here, these two are just the ones that you've reacted to most strongly in the thread, I'm totally aware that this assumption might be false - I'm only making it to be able to re-state an example back to you)
Are you saying that GGers personally feel sensitive about or dislike those same concepts too? It amuses me that the poster that my reply there was written to originally completely dismissed the perceptions of readers, then used that exact argument a few posts later ;)
I'm totally open to that idea. In fact, I've always asked which parts of a post made people feel bad so that I can understand what might have been problematic wording, how I could change it for the better in future and how to explain what I really mean in the current situation. So yeah, "changing someone" was the focus of that particular discussion, I'm not convinced it was a bad choice of words, given that's what we were talking about achieving at that point. Everyone is changed by the people they interact with, even in small ways... To have that initial starting point (creating change in others) suddenly demonised took me by surprise and made me doubt the honesty of that interaction. The desire to want to change is pretty much what I was talking about initially. The biggest barriers to that are the things I've also already identified as communication problems, including the whole "I'm being attacked personally by articles that don't mention me at all" issue.
However, I don't know why that has a moral stockpile angle. Surely the moral analysis of actual outcomes trumps argumentative moral tactics, meaning that first the moral landscape of the reality of GG needs to be addressed before anyone can honestly claim to be increasing, decreasing or spreading around any existing moral "wealth". I'm not really sure what this metaphor adds to this discussion, as it seems like it's very easy to turn around and use against people that assume moral high ground by claiming attacks against them that don't harm them in any way. (And no, I don't think that this is a good place to make any GGers-are-being-attacked-too points or accusations of false-flagging, that's not what this metaphor is designed to address, is it?)
Although I should echo back: So what you're saying here is that a group of people self-identifying as part of a movement with morally terrible outcomes shouldn't be expected to address the morality of those outcomes that they've dismissed, for fear of decreasing the amount of moral currency available to them, which they need in order to not feel defensive when talking about these outcomes? Heh. My longer posts get ignored the most. So do @brondin's most verbose, enlightening explanations. The most intellectually concise, pithiest one-liners get the best response. Obviously I've wondered this as well. About you too. Generally I choose to give the benefit of the doubt, but that's been less likely recently.
I think the rest of your comment around this was based on a misunderstanding... please correct me if I'm wrong. "concise" was probably a terrible choice of word in that context... I'm referring to all the articles that are floating around, each one "aiming" (my opinion) to be the final solution to GG: the one where everyone understands and we all move forward... each article/blog condenses the message further, but increases the level of entry in terms of language, and from a literary perspective it's great (to those who understand it, and who already buy into it), but again.. the target audience are not intellectuals and will almost never read past the title. The one-liners are the better option. Classy.
Example: why not just attack all religious movements as well while you're at it - it's the original source of documented misogyny (and several other morally terrible outcomes) anyways, so why not just slay the beast at its source?
In any case, you don't need to be an intellectual to understand the concepts being spoken about. Concepts that originate in the academy tend to bleed out of that context and make their way into common parlance. You no longer need to read Judith Butler or any other feminist writer to figure out what terms like 'misogyny', 'privilege', or 'patriarchy' mean. Spend an hour on tumblr, Google it, maybe read a helpful comic. I totally get that the writing on this can be dense, and I totally agree with being critical of overly academic prose, but it's not like we're limited to the Parisian rhetoric of the 70s; there are a lot of sources that make it much easier to understand. :)
Also, these words aren't weaponised. Calling someone on their shit and trying to inform them about how their lack of self-awareness and empathy is genuinely hurting the people they come into contact with is not an attack. Feminism is about dismantling sexist power structures. Those words are part of the toolset used to do that. Not making use of them is like trying to eat soup with a steak knife when there's a spoon right next to you. Gamergate is three months old, and its achievements amount to little other than harassing women and following their threats with "ETHICS IN JOURNALISM BRO." There's definitely a discussion to be had about misogyny as it relates to religion, but that's infinitely more complex and nuanced than the discussion about Gamergate, and changes depending on which religion (and which variation/denomination thereof) we're actually talking about. We can say a lot of good things about religion and one's involvement in it. With Gamergate, all we have is 'you either sent death and rape threats to a woman in the video game industry, or you've contributed to a discourse that tacitly condones that harassment'.
Also, whatever the extent of the church's role as a 'catalyst of misogyny', patriarchal power structures these days are just as secular as they are bound to religion, if not more so. Consider how startlingly sexist the atheist community can be, Phil Mason being a very relevant example. Attacking religion as the 'source of the beast' wouldn't rid us of misogyny because it's only one of many contemporary sources.
Just take the debate on evolution vs creationism as an example - this has absolutely nothing to do with morals, but the exact same pattern emerges there - when people refuse to self-educate because it is a chore or because they "think they already know", then you wont make any progress unless you make it so easy for them that they don't even realise they are being taught. If they were effective I feel like there would have been a bigger impact though. I have to disagree with you on this based on what I have already said. You will not connect to the greater public unless you change tactics. This accusation is very dangerous and I don't think they (the general public) are even aware what they are "condoning" or even know why they should care. Being part of a movement for lack of another place to belong does not mean you condone every single one of its practices. Which of these labels do you think these people find easier to relate to?
"Gamers" or "Journalists"
Yes.. unfortunately, for most of them, this is how far they have thought it through...
---
Look, I'm only providing constructive feedback based on my observations... I don't really care if you use it or not ;)