[AtomicClucker]

Well, fears of a Feminist army being raised on Twitter is slim, non-existent at best XD.

They'll scream at ya, call you a ManPig, then go back to *****in' how the Patriarchy is oppressin' them. They're the sort that would never actually lift a finger to do any real helpful other than exercising their Twitter tapping.

@Luis Dias: I was talking to a few lady friends of mine about the hurdles of getting more women into the games industry: what it comes down to is that for now, the best bet for more women is to start small and make greater steps, as the Indie market has shown lots of nice elbow room and actually is more forgiving than the AAA publishers/dev houses. Self-publishing or working with smaller publishing outfits allows devs to retain more creative control of their IP. As I've stated before, I think its pretty "dumb" for Internet numbskulls to demand on a whim that the AAA market suddenly cater to their politically correct demands. The Fine Young Capitalists is a good start, and I hope we see more grass roots activism as opposed to gatherings of Twitter hen's spouting off nonsense.

Frankly, it should be on the mass of gamers to make their intent known, but that's a subjective request on my end. The AAA machine appeals (and stupidly I might add) to the lowest common denominator. I view trying to tell publishers/devs to produce less Call of Duties like telling a Soccer Mom to ditch her SUV. Leave it to the AAA market to price, market, and wear out its welcome with IPs and other things.

But I think, as MP-Ryan pointed out, that much of Anita's work is less scholarly and more, well, agenda driven, in my opinion at least. For me the "breaking" point came when she decided to establish that her featured list of games encouraged deviant behavior, dehumanization of females and reinforces violence against women, which while makes some sense, starts to cross the "boundary" per say. What boundary? Hard to say, but it falls into the "well, people insisted that games encouraged violent behavior, and we know how that argument went..."

Unlike other gamers who think their vidya games are going to be censored or taken away, I'm more concerned about political correctness in gaming: the last thing I want in my games is stock tropes and cliches I see in movies just to pay lip service to minorities, gender identity, etc. Political Correctness is not empowerment, it's window dressing at best and insulting at worst. I do expect a degree of self-consciousness within the gaming medium, and I can do without token minorities and characters just to fill a check box for "diversity."

[TrashMan]

ALL MY LIKES!

[Luis Dias]

Well I was using "twitter" as a proxy, I use it as a kind of a portal to the entire internet. I agree 100% with the "politically correct" dystopia, which is exactly what I hinted at when I mentioned "regulation".

Also, sorry for my rant. I believe this feminist wave going through the nets right now are violent precisely because they believe they must be violent for the system is violent towards them. They believe there's no other way. They read "don't be so rude, don't be so nasty" as if the entire system is trying to silence them or something. And then there's this kind of gap between this persecution complex they bring to the table and the rest of us who are just "what are these crazies doin now? Who are they throwing under the bus today?", resulting in weird events when people like Suey Park get interviewed by people who won't take **** just because they are told to do so. And what's funny then is that both "sides" will look at that interview and will both eyeroll at it for exactly the opposite reasons. This gap is a product of this violence, its roots and the frames of reference we have to map them.

The idea that this gap will always exist and this is how ideas change around the world, which is a complete dismissal of the Enlightenment ideal, is a real disappointment for me. It's like suddenly realising that conservatives' outlook on the world and the "changes" it takes might not be that wrongheaded, that somehow in twenty years or so I'll become such a curmudgeon myself for having witnessed so many "movements" being so random and so lacking in simple civility and modernity, filled with themselves and their own pathetic egos.

[Aardwolf]

"persecution complex"

that's a good one, i'll have to remember that

(srsly)

[SkycladGuardian]

It's like suddenly realising that conservatives' outlook on the world and the "changes" it takes might not be that wrongheaded, that somehow in twenty years or so I'll become such a curmudgeon myself for having witnessed so many "movements" being so random and so lacking in simple civility and modernity, filled with themselves and their own pathetic egos.

He, I'm already past this point. On the political map I was pretty far left during my early and mid-twenties. But the more I got to know the left movement the more I realized that not a small number of people among this movement endorses totalitarian ideas, most of all limiting freedom of speech, so that only approbriate ideas may be allowed to discuss.
This realization also made me highly sceptical and critical of feminism, and it also showed me that the world is far more complex than some leftwing worldviews describe it.
Now, I wouldn't describe me as a conservative, rather as a left-leaning liberal.

[swashmebuckle]

Well I was using "twitter" as a proxy, I use it as a kind of a portal to the entire internet. I agree 100% with the "politically correct" dystopia, which is exactly what I hinted at when I mentioned "regulation".

Also, sorry for my rant. I believe this feminist wave going through the nets right now are violent precisely because they believe they must be violent for the system is violent towards them. They believe there's no other way. They read "don't be so rude, don't be so nasty" as if the entire system is trying to silence them or something. And then there's this kind of gap between this persecution complex they bring to the table and the rest of us who are just "what are these crazies doin now? Who are they throwing under the bus today?", resulting in weird events when people like Suey Park get interviewed by people who won't take **** just because they are told to do so. And what's funny then is that both "sides" will look at that interview and will both eyeroll at it for exactly the opposite reasons. This gap is a product of this violence, its roots and the frames of reference we have to map them.

The idea that this gap will always exist and this is how ideas change around the world, which is a complete dismissal of the Enlightenment ideal, is a real disappointment for me. It's like suddenly realising that conservatives' outlook on the world and the "changes" it takes might not be that wrongheaded, that somehow in twenty years or so I'll become such a curmudgeon myself for having witnessed so many "movements" being so random and so lacking in simple civility and modernity, filled with themselves and their own pathetic egos.

Well people certainly aren't wired up to operate on Enlightenment principles, but I don't think that what we are seeing is anything to get depressed about. Feminism is basically an outgrowth of Enlightenment memes. Enlightenment memes are really fit because they appeal to a broad base and they generally lean towards prosperity if people actually follow through on them, but that doesn't mean that they magically convince people to adopt them on their own merits. People have to force them down their children's' throats just like any other "values" indoctrination because it's ultimately good for everybody.

Knowing that isn't disappointing, it's liberating and great! We've got the best memes! Our memes are so great they are capable of leading us towards understanding how they and the rest of the world works. But just because we have those great memes doesn't meme that we aren't still running them on Windows 50,000 BCE and it's a really bad fit that's full of exploits.

In this particular case, you say that the current wave of feminists takes a violent posture towards the system. Smash the Patriarchy! But is anyone actually advocating violence? Is their goal to subjugate men? Are they trying to stifle freedom of speech with their trigger warnings and privilege checks? No, they're trying to realize a more enlightened world where women aren't treated like **** by men who have convinced themselves that the Enlightenment is on their side and that feminists are just a bunch of hysterical *****es who don't know how good they've got it.

Some gentle feminists will do exactly what you approve of and appeal directly to enlightenment ideals with carefully researched powerpoint presentations. Some idiot feminists will go on all-out emotionally manipulative power trips and make asses of themselves. Then there are those in the middle who will lightly touch nerves and just really bother men in a way that invites in depth discussion from some, revealing misogynistic tirades from others, and a whole lot more attention from everybody than the issue would have received otherwise. I think those are the people that can really speak effectively, people operating in those gaps between how our minds actually work and how we like to think they work.

I'm not saying I think Sarkeesian is some uniquely talented master manipulator or anything. I think everyone does this and it's just a natural part of human communication and social evolution. My point is that I don't think it's particularly fair to criticize feminists for taking short cuts that everyone else also exploits. That's my Enlightened opinion and I'm sticking to it even in the face of overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary.

[Lorric]

I'm not saying I think Sarkeesian is some uniquely talented master manipulator or anything. I think everyone does this and it's just a natural part of human communication and social evolution. My point is that I don't think it's particularly fair to criticize feminists for taking short cuts that everyone else also exploits.

I want to put in my bit on this, I criticise anyone who uses the exploitative short cuts. It says a lot about you as a person if you do this, and a lot about you as a person if you take the right path instead of the path of least resistance.

I look at someone like Anita Sarkeesian and I think you haven't earned this. She's got to where she's got by taking manipulative short cuts, and I believe success by such foul means should be discouraged at every turn. People need to be more choosy when selecting their role models and heroes, and not just jump on board the first bandwagon they see that has some momentum going for it. People won't identify as feminists even though they fit the dictionary definition because of the face of feminism and the associations people take from that that they don't want thus applied to them if they identify as feminist.

[Luis Dias]

Well people certainly aren't wired up to operate on Enlightenment principles, but I don't think that what we are seeing is anything to get depressed about. Feminism is basically an outgrowth of Enlightenment memes. Enlightenment memes are really fit because they appeal to a broad base and they generally lean towards prosperity if people actually follow through on them, but that doesn't mean that they magically convince people to adopt them on their own merits. People have to force them down their children's' throats just like any other "values" indoctrination because it's ultimately good for everybody.

Look, this is going to sound sarcastic and I must stress it doesn't come from that place, but you make me say it: I am not a child and I won't have anything forced down my throat. If anything, these are the children trying to force **** down their elders' throats, all the while making it all too apparent they are just incredibly new to this thing called life and are still in the early stages of learning how to be proper human beings. It doesn't stop them from being such a-holes in the mean while though.

In this particular case, you say that the current wave of feminists takes a violent posture towards the system. Smash the Patriarchy! But is anyone actually advocating violence? Is their goal to subjugate men? Are they trying to stifle freedom of speech with their trigger warnings and privilege checks? No, they're trying to realize a more enlightened world where women aren't treated like **** by men who have convinced themselves that the Enlightenment is on their side and that feminists are just a bunch of hysterical *****es who don't know how good they've got it.

Violence is all too visible for all that aren't with their eyes closed. The bullying is everywhere, it's obviously not physical. It's reputational. If you don't toe the party line, if you fail to consider all these new rituals invented by some bloggers with PTSD from twitter interactions then you will be tarnished, demonized, called out, etc. Donglegate was not atypical, it was merely more newsworthy.

What you fail to understand is that the fact that I am deeply critical of all this phenomena, I fully understand and know all these ideas came from good intentions. The "Check your privilege" has good intentions within it. However, they do operate in anti-meritocratic, anti-hierarchical terms, which is amazing in principle and almost always terrible when in action. It becomes bullying by identity politics: I am a woman, so you must shut up and listen to me. No, I musn't because I am a black woman, you shut up. Terms like "mansplaining" and "whitesplaining" become clichés of shutting down any disagreement to the party line. Funnily enough, consistency is not at all a good thing. If a woman is saying things that are running counter to the party line, she will be shut down by men without any risk of charges of "mansplaining". At that point, if a woman is saying that her experience is not the oppressed feminists are claiming it is, she becomes a "woman myoginist" or a "shill girl", is bullied and harrassed. Scholars who dare present evidence that boys are being left out in education get shout down and harrassed in lectures until it becomes impossible to discuss anything.

This is the mindset that if not tamed, if these people aren't shook a bit and told "hey you're being assholes, cut it out", it becomes totalitarian.

Some gentle feminists will do exactly what you approve of and appeal directly to enlightenment ideals with carefully researched powerpoint presentations. Some idiot feminists will go on all-out emotionally manipulative power trips and make asses of themselves. Then there are those in the middle who will lightly touch nerves and just really bother men in a way that invites in depth discussion from some, revealing misogynistic tirades from others, and a whole lot more attention from everybody than the issue would have received otherwise. I think those are the people that can really speak effectively, people operating in those gaps between how our minds actually work and how we like to think they work.

I know you are trying to paint a kind of Gaussian curve with the purpose of saying that I'm focusing in the rubbish part of it. I think that's untrue. Where is this middle ground filled with great contributions? Manveer is the exception, not the gaussian middle. The middle is the noise within the internet, the shouting down, the Sarkeesian supporters who are daily commenting her tweets about the latest hate mail she got, the 10 reporters in game magazines who declared gamers to be dead in a single day, etc.

I'm not saying I think Sarkeesian is some uniquely talented master manipulator or anything. I think everyone does this and it's just a natural part of human communication and social evolution. My point is that I don't think it's particularly fair to criticize feminists for taking short cuts that everyone else also exploits. That's my Enlightened opinion and I'm sticking to it even in the face of overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary.

I agree with all of what you are saying, with one simple exception, which is the shape of the gaussian curve of this whole situation. The forms of both gaussian perceptions determine both your optimism and my pessimism.

[swashmebuckle]

Children forcing ideas down their parents' throats is also a pretty normal part of life though. I would hope that young people would have the nerve to tell their racist grandparents or whatever that their views were embarrassing and hurtful. It sucks when people misuse that capability or level false accusations, but using public expressions of disapproval to try to influence opinion and control behavior has always been part of human society. I mean, all these threads we've been having basically boil down to "Look, something I disapprove of is happening on the internet" and "I disapprove of your disapproval"!

It's a real shame that people tend to get dogmatic regarding issues they feel passionate about, but I definitely don't think that this issue is at all unique in that regard. Frankly, it seems a lot more benign than the actual issues that feminists are trying to bring attention to (not that that makes it ok to bully people or be a douche or anything). Really the only unique thing about it that jumps out at me is that it impacts straight white men, and anything that is a potential threat to straight white men immediately becomes a sign of nascent totalitarianism.

As for the privilege hierarchy, I'm guessing you would probably agree that when discussing the severity of difficulties faced by black women, black women's voices should be treated as being more authoritative than white men's for the same reason you would give more weight to a veteran's account of what it's like to be in a war versus a CoD player's. I think where a lot of men feel threatened is when people point out that men's opinions are treated as being more authoritative than women's in general. When that's brought up in an argument to discredit a man's opinion it can feel like he is being shut down just for being what he is (which is sort of the thing that feminism is supposed to be fighting against), and people's love of arguing and desire to "win" means that at some point it's probably going to come up. The thing is, it's absolutely true that men's voices are more respected than women's. Until that stops being true, men are probably going to have to make arguments good enough to stand up to their audience's unfair biases, just like women do.

And for the Gaussian curve thing, that's not what I was trying to get at. I don't think you're gonna see an accurate distribution of real world opinions on twitter (or any internet thing really). What you see are things that people post to try to look cool to their friends, to get popular, because they're bored and want to stir up **** etc. It's mostly a vanity thing IMO. The average liberal feminist person isn't a shrill mindless manhater any more than the average CoD player is a psychopathic mouthbreather who wants to eat Sarkeesian's brain.

TL/DR: No *****y apocalypse this year!

[NGTM-1R]

I'm not saying I think Sarkeesian is some uniquely talented master manipulator or anything. I think everyone does this and it's just a natural part of human communication and social evolution. My point is that I don't think it's particularly fair to criticize feminists for taking short cuts that everyone else also exploits.

If they're bad shortcuts, which ultimately get in the way of understanding the problem, then why do you think they should not be criticized? Why do you think anyone who uses them should not be criticized? I don't think anyone is offering feminists a special anti-exemption here, and trying to cast it that way is exactly the sort of thing that's the problem.

Because it's not "more benign"; reasoned critique is a fundamental part of the process here. Shaming tactics have their place, but they are not a methodology by which anyone is going to arrive at a better understanding of what is going on nor one that is going to produce people who actually believe in your point of view.

Racists still play a large role in shaping our public discourse, though being racist has been publicly shameful for about thirty years. Shaming them was good for breaking down their public organization but has ultimately not proved effective in reducing their numbers very much. Shaming as a sole tool is useless now; and this is the stage the sexism issue is already at.

[Scotty]

It really pains me in this thread to see people talking about "Feminism" as if a few vocal political activists are an accurate representation of the concept itself.

It particularly pains me to see "Feminism" tossed around like a dirty word.  I think it speaks to the polarization on both sides that it's being used as such, and that polarization is not a good thing.

Before the post edit: This seemed a lot more relevant before the last couple posts.  I think the idea is still present, and an issue in the thread, however.

[AtomicClucker]

It really pains me in this thread to see people talking about "Feminism" as if a few vocal political activists are an accurate representation of the concept itself.

It particularly pains me to see "Feminism" tossed around like a dirty word.  I think it speaks to the polarization on both sides that it's being used as such, and that polarization is not a good thing.

Before the post edit: This seemed a lot more relevant before the last couple posts.  I think the idea is still present, and an issue in the thread, however.

I'm amazed most gamers don't realize that "Feminism" isn't a big bad boogeywoman, but instead a very fractured movement, as in the other thread, there are many flavors of Feminism some us threw around like salad. The average gamer knows little of Feminism, and the best medicine to a stupid gamer is to let that them know that there are types of Feminism rather than a cuckold of idiots on Twitter.

@Luis Dias: Humans, are by trade, dumb and pretty stupid, and very irrational despite attempting to cling to rationality. It comes down to perspective and self-validation, i.e. "I'm right!"

[swashmebuckle]

@NGTM-1R I don't think that the shortcuts are necessarily bad or that it's necessarily wrong to criticize people for using them. I think it's revealing when the standards that people claim to hold people to at all times suddenly get applied in earnest when it comes to uppity feminists taking their games away. The types of manipulation that Sarkeesian is being accused of are pretty much fair game when it's Bill Maher trolling religious people or what have you. Not saying anyone here engages in that type of double standard, but I do think that we tend to reward men for playing loose or with bravado while punishing women who show any hint of the same.

I'm not saying reasoned critique isn't useful or that shaming is going to win over people with profoundly sexist attitudes, but I do think that making it shameful to make sexist remarks in public makes life better for the targets of those remarks.

I don't think that the persistence of racist attitudes proves the inefficacy of public shaming any more than it proves the inefficacy of reasoned discourse. Well reasoned arguments against racial prejudice were widely disseminated long before it became embarrassing to hold racist attitudes in the US. Racism and sexism are deeply seeded problems that aren't going to go away quickly no matter what kind of social changes do or don't occur.

[MP-Ryan]

More of a general comment rather than to one specific person:  Feminism is an off-shoot of Marxism (theory, not economics).  That's the reason it's primarily about conflict (in all its forms) and it deals very much in group classifications of oppressors versus oppressed (in virtually all its forms).

Talented Marxists and Feminists are very much alike, using real-world and relevant examples of social conflict (in the case of classical Marxism, between class groups; in the case of Feminism, between sexes and gendered stereotypes) to argue a tight thesis and effect change.  These people are rarely the spotlighted few because their arguments are inherently reasonable, although people may disagree with their content.

Theorists like Sarkeesian come from another side of the coin, where many of their arguments are quite loose and not always reasonable, but they make them to make a loud point in the hopes that it will stick.

History has shown that the loudmouths rarely actually bring about change; they tend to be more polarizing than catalyzing, and it's the reasonable discussion in the background that typically makes progress.  Many modern Feminists of Sarkeesians type, and the considering more radical ones, have a habit of forgetting that the major changes brought about by first- and second-wave Feminism came not from the extremists, but the reasoned and rational activists who changed public opinion generally.  There is a role for the loudmouths to play, but Sarkeesian appears to be aiming for a place among the reasoned/rational while using the tactics of the loudmouths (for lack of a better term), which is why many people who agree generally with her cause have such a problem with the way she goes about her work.

[The E]

http://www.polygon.com/2014/9/19/6373669/christina-hoff-sommers-is-just-plain-wrong-about-games

[TrashMan]

It's a real shame that people tend to get dogmatic regarding issues they feel passionate about, but I definitely don't think that this issue is at all unique in that regard. Frankly, it seems a lot more benign than the actual issues that feminists are trying to bring attention to. Really the only unique thing about it that jumps out at me is that it impacts straight white men, and anything that is a potential threat to straight white men immediately becomes a sign of nascent totalitarianism.

Is it?

Severity of some things, their impact and such is partially subjective too.

As for the privilege hierarchy, I'm guessing you would probably agree that when discussing the severity of difficulties faced by black women, black women's voices should be treated as being more authoritative than white men's for the same reason you would give more weight to a veteran's account of what it's like to be in a war versus a CoD player's.

Only if that black woman was talking about her own experiences AND NOTHING ELSE.

The thing is, it's absolutely true that men's voices are more respected than women's.

Since when?

[Mongoose]

TM, are you going to provide any constructive comments here, or just play contrarian to every single point you don't like?

[Luis Dias]

http://www.polygon.com/2014/9/19/6373669/christina-hoff-sommers-is-just-plain-wrong-about-games

It's hard to take Colin seriously given his role in the recent events, or at least hard to take him as an unbiased eye to any of this. He makes some good points though, no matter how interspersed between straw mans and character attacks. More than half of his diatribe is to quote and present Sommers' views on other subjects regarding feminism struggles, as if they are automatically wrong and thus representative of how she's so wrong here too. It's an absolutely sleazy rethorical technique, especially on how I am so sure ms Sommers would have so much to teach this journalist in all of those matters.

I also found Colin's obliviousness regarding the "attacks" he got (mansplaining, mysoginist, etc) and actually taking them seriously other than recognizing them for the satirical element they had as a kind of clinching evidence of the ****ty nature of his character. No way he could have misunderstood it and yet he decided to paint these as actual insults and so on. Either a moron here in action or a sleazy asshole.


Regarding his good points, I think we here had already pointed them out. Sexism in games is something bad per se, and the fact that games are mostly for men should never be an excuse to these problems. Thus the problem is real, it does exist, despite what ms. Simmers say.

Finally, Colin's point that games "are stories" is probably my most important take away from that article. Colin is absolutely clueless. Games can *have* stories and you all know how important I find them to be, but the most important trait of Games is the core "game mechanic", the Game itself. That's what games are all about. Not stories.

[Luis Dias]

Still regarding her video, I guess it's only fair I post a rebuttal in sine form of... Tune?

Note to the interested, Sommers is actually a registered Democrat voter...

Also, summary of "gamergate" here for those interested:

[TrashMan]

TM, are you going to provide any constructive comments here, or just play contrarian to every single point you don't like?

What exactly is the problem?
Disagreements or doubt is a valid response.
What? Do I now need a license to doubt someone elses words?

If you want me to back up my claims (or disagreements) with data, then be fair and demand the same from everyone else.