Support NeoGAF

[excelsiorlef]

The problem is that the meaning of feminism is sufficiently disputed that there is a very significant argument that your definition is faulty, and the fact that such a wide definition isn't actually very useful.

There are plenty of self proclaimed, mainstream feminism movements who take a rather Animal Farm view that they want equality for women so much they are completely fine with ruining the lives of women they disagree with ideologically, either by thought or deed.

And I assume you have a list in mind when you say plenty?

For example, it's entirely possible to believe in equal rights for individuals, while not believing in the ideological constructs of, say patriarchy or objectification. There is a perfectly valid feminist view point that issues are primarily economic, not cultural or social.

Economics and Cultural/social issues can't really be that separated.

 

[SwissLion]

The problem is that the meaning of feminism is sufficiently disputed that there is a very significant argument that your definition is faulty, and the fact that such a wide definition isn't actually very useful.

It's mostly debated by people who aren't feminists. Many feminists focus that general goal (Gender Equality) in different ways but that's still the most accurate general description.

There are plenty of self proclaimed, mainstream feminism movements who take a rather Animal Farm view that they want equality for women so much they are completely fine with ruining the lives of women they disagree with ideologically, either by thought or deed.

Maybe give examples here so you don't look crazy.

And then there's the matter of how to get there - the split between sex-positive or anti-sex feminism is as big as the split between capitalism and communism. At some point, the definition of feminism is, frankly, a not terribly useful term, and there are no end of uses that conflate your meaning of feminism with their own meaning - which encompasses other beliefs.

The sex-positive v anti-sex stuff isn't actually a terribly huge divide. It's a spectrum that overwhelmingly leans in the sex-positive direction for mainstream modern feminism. The confusion arises when people, who again, are not feminists and are ignorant of feminist arguments see things like Anita Sarkeesian saying "These sexist portrayals are bad" and hear "These Sexy portrayals are bad". Again. Examples would be your friend here. Just so we can actually understand what you're basing this off. Otherwise people tend to assume you're tilting at windmills.

For example, it's entirely possible to believe in equal rights for individuals, while not believing in the ideological constructs of, say patriarchy or objectification. There is a perfectly valid feminist view point that issues are primarily economic, not cultural or social.

I'd say it's not nearly as valid a view as the one actually backed up by decades of studies and evidence. Give me one reliable source that argues gender inequality is entirely or largely caused by economic factors and again, people will take you more seriously.

And that conflation of your definition of feminism with other, more specific viewpoints, is why people don't want to identify as feminist, and why there's a lot of pushback IMO.

It's not really a conflation at all. It's a reduction, to be sure, but "Advocacy for Gender Equality" is very much the defining factor in what makes a feminist and the overwhelming majority of feminist thought. Again. That can be focussed in different directions and areas and in more positive and negative ways, but that's still the lowest common denominator, so to speak.

 

[theirsbailiff]

Can someone explain to me the whole #notyourshield thing? I don't get how there are women and minorities who are in favor of gamergate but completely ignore the whole unsavory aspects of it.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Can someone explain to me the whole #notyourshield thing? I don't get how there are women and minorities who are in favor of gamergate but completely ignore the whole unsavory aspects of it.

It goes like this NYS is used to say see we're not just white cis het men, we have like some others too (which duh no one ever said there was none). Then it's used to accuse the other side of actually being the white het cis men who are using sexism/racism against minorities as a shield against answering to the big calls for ethics.

Of course it's all a bunch of bullshit and NYS is ironically exactly that a shield thrown up by GamerGate to say "nuh-huh we can't be sexist or racist cause look we gots minorities too."

 

[Neoriceisgood]

Can someone explain to me the whole #notyourshield thing? I don't get how there are women and minorities who are in favor of gamergate but completely ignore the whole unsavory aspects of it.

You see this in any movement that's "against" minority rights, really.

It's kinda like the whole "women against women's suffrage" thing or minority republicans. Minority voices speaking out against their own interest are often put on a pedestal.

(it's a tricky symbiotic thing where any minority voice that "steps in line" usually gets treated super nicely & can mistakenly think this "Shows" the movement they're supporting isn't actually racist/sexist/oppressive because they're treated nice personally.)

 

[theirsbailiff]

It goes like this NYS is used to say see we're not just white cis het men, we have like some others too (which duh no one ever said there was none). Then it's used to accuse the other side of actually being the white het cis men who are using sexism/racism against minorities as a shield against answering to the big calls for ethics.

Of course it's all a bunch of bullshit and NYS is ironically exactly that a shield thrown up by GamerGate to say "nuh-huh we can't be sexist or racist cause look we gots minorities too."

Oh. So basically a shield, despite its name?

 

[SwissLion]

#NotYourShield being created was actually the first time the suspicion that this is all some kind of absurd, surrealist performance art installation almost overwhelmed me.

The irony was just too extreme.

The tag may as well be #CeciN'estPasUneBouclier with a twitter feed screen installed in some art gallery with a little plaque with "The Treachery of Hastags" on it.


But ultimately what it comes down to is women, gay people, trans people, people of colour, and anyone else you care to name are 100% just as capable of being as ignorant and self-defeating as straight white cis men. They are after all, as human and flawed as the rest of us.

GG likes to cry about how people are always saying that it's "Internalised Misogyny" but if that happened I seriously didn't see much of it. That's really only a fraction of the problem.

Should be a new Razor. Never attribute to internalised misogyny that which can be adequately explained by ignorance.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

Should be a new Razor. Never attribute to internalised misogyny that which can be adequately explained by ignorance.

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

 

[call_kotaku]

I don't exactly understand the conflict between MRAs and feminists. It seems as though everyone wants the same thing, so it saddens me that they can't agree with each other when they are basically saying the same thing.

I don't think they actually agree fundamentally on much of anything, even if their arguments revolve around similar ideas, because MRAs co-opted the feminist critical language but use it to further completely different ideologies. They sound similar but even if they aren't always in total opposition I feel like they are working towards completely divergent goals.

It's not controversial or incorrect to state that masculinity is just as much of a social construct as femininity and society exerts pressures on men, but there's a big difference in interpretations ranging between "herbivore" men or the sort of people who identify as involuntarily celibate. MRAs are exactly like gamergaters (predictably) in that their stated goals have nothing in common with the methods or behavior they're employing to supposedly achieve them.

 

[SwissLion]

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

To be fair neither are malice and incompetence.

Maybe it's just been three months of watching this straight but I'm considering petitioning to change that particular razor to "It's probably both. Burn it all down"

 

[Camp Freddie]

I honestly think that the reason MRAs are so awful is because the 'good MRAs' are just feminists.

For example, feminists generally agree that men employed in the care professions should be given more respect. They also agree that men should be encouraged and supported to take a bigger role in childcare. This is not only compatible with feminism, but an essential part of it. When feminists argue against patriarchal ideas that a woman's place is being a housewife, they are implicitly arguing that men should be more welcome in these places.

As others have said, mens rights is a significant area of feminism. A lot of academic research, conferences and general discussion has been had on the topic of how patriarchy can harm men, and on how male identity is affected by changes towards an equal-opportunity society.

All the MRA issues are actually issues with patriarchal attitudes that discriminate against men in certain situations (i.e where men are being 'unmanly').

To change topic briefly, I think the only real problem (and frankly, it's a pretty minor issue) with the feminist movement is the tendency to apply a zero tolerance approach, and a failure to apply Hanlon's Razor. There is a vocal minority who seem to actively seek conflict and always see the worst in people and they are often supported by more moderate feminists (e.g. the idea that shirtstorm guy is an insincere misogynist, rather than a guy who fucked up and then apologised).
I know I've done things that are broadly misogynistic, or at least supportive of a misogynistic culture - particularly when I was a young man/teenager. People generally do change to become more moderate and progressive as they gain more experience of the world. I think that an overly-hostile attitude can slow down or prevent that change.

What I'm saying is that we should hate misogynistic acts, but we should be cautious of attacking people. Few people are un-reformable misogynists. I think rapey lawyer, Milo and Baldwin are examples of those few. But for every one of them, there's a thousand Jim Sterlings and me's who just need to grow up a bit to see things correctly.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

I don't exactly understand the conflict between MRAs and feminists. It seems as though everyone wants the same thing, so it saddens me that they can't agree with each other when they are basically saying the same thing.

The opening paragraph on wikipedia is a decent summary of the issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_rights_movement

The modern MRA movement is essentially inherently a reactionary backlash against feminism.
Some of their goals (e.g. the ones under subsection 2.8 rape) are diametrically opposed to some of the goals of modern feminism.

While in theory there's nothing wrong with opposing a few more male-oriented issues (e.g. drafts); the MRA movement is a very toxic vehicle to join to solve these issues.
(I've actually heard stories of people who wanted to become MRAs to fight against drafts or for father's rights, just to turn right back around after realising what most MRAs within the actual movement were actually like, e.g. the clear anti-feminism.)

 

[RawNuts]

Ashley Ross (@SudoRossy) posted an e-mail that he sent to Georgina Young at TechRaptor on his tumblr, which shares his thoughts on IGDA using the GGAutoBlocker.

What is more interesting than his initial post thought, is how sharing such a view publicly has impacted him in the short amount of time since posting it. He has since shared their experience with an update on his reddit post in the following manner:

Since posting this just a few hours ago, I've lost several friends including some that I was working on a game with. No words, just blocked, unfollowed, unfriended, removed on all social media.

I try to remain an open mind on this stuff. I really really try. As I stated, I don't support gamergate, but agree with the stated goals. I try not to let my social media be an echo chamber, I have friends with differing views.

I'll tell you what though, the 'other side' is making it increasingly harder to sympathize with. Not only in shooting down any attempt at discussion, but also going as far as to remove themselves from a friends life? That's just crazy to me.

A big part of the indie scene is knowing the right people, this part of what gamergate wants to remove, and actually where I almost differ in opinion. I shouldn't have to know the right people to get a game out there, but it's not awful to do so. Usually it's other devs anyway, and word spreads that way.

I don't even know if I'll be welcome at my local dev group anymore. Out of around 30 people I follow that attend regularly, at least half of them have blocked/unfollowed/unfriended me. Some I've argued with and been called names, others have been really great and understanding.

The thing I find funny is that one of the co-creators of depression quest follows me on twitter, we don't talk about GG to each other for fairly obvious reasons, but they've not had any issue with the stuff I've said. I remain impartial and call out bullshit when I see it, regardless of the side it aligns with.

This is a fair warning to devs out there, if you even appear to support GamerGate, even agree with one thing in it, then prepare to have your career destroyed. I know I have. I don't know if it's 100% because of GamerGate, or if it's because of some other factor, but in the past 3 months I've made less than 10% in contract work, and my game sales dropped to 0 except in one instance where I shamefully 'ebegged'. I don't want to call my career over, but it's certainly had a huge hit these past few months.

http://redd.it/2n603f

Spoiler

Trigger Warning: KiA

I've seen other small indie developers express similar sentiments about their experiences in the past as well, but this person's description really caught my attention, especially considering their moderate stance on the subject (their Twitter demeanor says as much).

Can someone explain to me the whole #notyourshield thing? I don't get how there are women and minorities who are in favor of gamergate but completely ignore the whole unsavory aspects of it.

There is what Neoriceisgood posted above, and there is also GG's interpretation of what it was created for. The "not your shield" wording is referring to women/minorities who are a part of GG and don't want themselves being spoken for by anti-GG people; they don't want to be treated as a "shield" for anti-GG people ("shield" being chosen as the term here as a reference to "White Knighting" on the internet) in GG-related arguments basically.

The interpretation of this hashtag anomaly is up to the individual; use context and view it however you see fit. I don't think anyone can ignore the unsavory aspects of GG (or the unsavory aspects of this whole situation really), but people will respond to it differently, considering that GG is a very unorganized group with a lot of people who are simply acting under their own agendas.

Spoiler

Shameful side-note: I had no idea what "MRA" stood for until reading through the recent posts just now; I actually confused it with "NRA" the first time I saw it used in a post, which made it read rather odd to say the least.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

I find the complaints about having to "know the right people" kinda mindblowing to be honest. Like in what job field doesn't good PR with the in-group help you ahead?

 

[Camp Freddie]

I've actually heard stories of people who wanted to become MRAs to fight against drafts or for father's rights, just to turn right back around after realising what most MRAs within the actual movement were actually like, e.g. the clear anti-feminism.

I remember the Fathers4Justice movement in the UK.
They got a lot of press and were generally supported after one of their members climbed up Buckingham Palace dressed as Batman. They got a lot of support because it had that sort of farcical element that the British generally love, and family courts probably did have some problems.

A few years later, there was a new story about how they were harassing people involved in the reform of family law courts, because the reform didn't meet all their demands. They were getting banned from twitter and generally doing all the shit that GG is doing to assorted female game devs/journalists.

There was definitely a feeling in the media and public that we might've created a monster by supporting the wacky conciousness-raising stunts without examining what we were actually supporting.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

Who exactly doesn't want to identify as feminist, how many for what reasons?

I would consider myself a feminist though I doubt a lot of people would consider me one.

Also I find it absolutely hilarious how GG is freaking out cause @freebsdgirl (posted the email adress of some harasser)

 

[More_Badass]

Ashley Ross (@SudoRossy) posted an e-mail that he sent to Georgina Young at TechRaptor on his tumblr, which shares his thoughts on IGDA using the GGAutoBlocker.

What is more interesting than his initial post thought, is how sharing such a view publicly has impacted him in the short amount of time since posting it. He has since shared their experience with an update on his reddit post in the following manner:
http://redd.it/2n603f

Spoiler

Trigger Warning: KiA

I've seen other small indie developers express similar sentiments about their experiences in the past as well, but this person's description really caught my attention, especially considering their moderate stance on the subject (their Twitter demeanor says as much).


There is what Neoriceisgood posted above, and there is also GG's interpretation of what it was created for. The "not your shield" wording is referring to women/minorities who are a part of GG and don't want themselves being spoken for by anti-GG people; they don't want to be treated as a "shield" for anti-GG people ("shield" being chosen as the term here as a reference to "White Knighting" on the internet) in GG-related arguments basically.

The interpretation of this hashtag anomaly is up to the individual; use context and view it however you see fit. I don't think anyone can ignore the unsavory aspects of GG (or the unsavory aspects of this whole situation really), but people will respond to it differently, considering that GG is a very unorganized group with a lot of people who are simply acting under their own agendas.

Spoiler

Shameful side-note: I had no idea what "MRA" stood for until reading through the recent posts just now; I actually confused it with "NRA" the first time I saw it used in a post, which made it read rather odd to say the least.

Considering I only heard of one of those games and I didn't even realize it was released already, maybe GamerGate isn't the reason why sales are so low...

 

[call_kotaku]

I find the complaints about having to "know the right people" kinda mindblowing to be honest. Like in what job field doesn't good PR with the in-group help you ahead?

It is a pretty common complaint on the internet; I remember accusations of "old boy's club" happening pretty constantly in the Starcraft 2 community (before it imploded) because most of the forerunners were staples in the Brood War community and usually friends with each other, therefore what was holding esports back was "nepotism".

There's an assumption that the real world runs on the XBL matchmaking system and that having social skills shouldn't be required for success, because using personal networking was somehow cheating. It's probably why the "clique" accusation is so common, because a lot of younger people on the internet might not be able to distinguish between a circle of friends and acquaintances in adult life and the cliques they're familiar with in school.

 

[SwissLion]

The blocklist is composed so far as I know of anyone who follows 2 or more of the most toxic prominent members of the movement. The people on it by and large belong there. That IGDA dude sure did, as his response to it and the woman who made it quickly proved.

The IGDA quickly changed the language away from the whole "Worst harassers" thing so that being constantly repeated straight away rings an alarm bell for me. Shows whoever's mentioning it is either being disingenuous or hasn't done their research.

The idea that this is a blacklist (This word has officially lost all meaning) or that this open source project which is clearly under heavy scrutiny is putting untold power over the industry in the hands of one woman, is pretty patently ridiculous and paranoid.

Like it sucks that this person who by all appearances is just a tiny misinformed or paranoid had their career affected by it, but sorry, that's what happens when you say you 'Agree on paper' with a hate mob, that has been a known hate mob for weeks and weeks and weeks.

These are the people I can sympathise with. I am continuously being reminded recently that very few people have been following this for as long and as consistently as I have.

It sucks when people like this get clipped by the runaway hate train that is GG. And I have to try pretty hard not to immediately fall into the "How did you not see the train!" thinking. I have to remind myself that not many people are as familiar with this steam engine of stupidity as me.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Ashley Ross (@SudoRossy) posted an e-mail that he sent to Georgina Young at TechRaptor on his tumblr, which shares his thoughts on IGDA using the GGAutoBlocker.

What is more interesting than his initial post thought, is how sharing such a view publicly has impacted him in the short amount of time since posting it. He has since shared their experience with an update on his reddit post in the following manner:
http://redd.it/2n603f

Spoiler

Trigger Warning: KiA

I've seen other small indie developers express similar sentiments about their experiences in the past as well, but this person's description really caught my attention, especially considering their moderate stance on the subject (their Twitter demeanor says as much).


There is what Neoriceisgood posted above, and there is also GG's interpretation of what it was created for. The "not your shield" wording is referring to women/minorities who are a part of GG and don't want themselves being spoken for by anti-GG people; they don't want to be treated as a "shield" for anti-GG people ("shield" being chosen as the term here as a reference to "White Knighting" on the internet) in GG-related arguments basically.

The interpretation of this hashtag anomaly is up to the individual; use context and view it however you see fit. I don't think anyone can ignore the unsavory aspects of GG (or the unsavory aspects of this whole situation really), but people will respond to it differently, considering that GG is a very unorganized group with a lot of people who are simply acting under their own agendas.

Spoiler

Shameful side-note: I had no idea what "MRA" stood for until reading through the recent posts just now; I actually confused it with "NRA" the first time I saw it used in a post, which made it read rather odd to say the least.

Meh he even said he leans pro GG on twitter and that GGers are more ok with "neutrals"(because of course they are, "neutral" is basically at least a tacit endorsement that GG should exist), and likes to play the there's two sides game. GG is a hate campaign, I really don't feel bad for people who lose friends because they think a hate campaign is aok. And now he's talking all semi positive about 8 chan and the benefits of raw opinions that it provides so whatever.

He seems pretty content to have those new GG followers so yeah.

He also keeps saying he supports their goals, what goals? I meant considering he went to KiA and to 8Chan (and thus this isn't ignorance) he should know that despite the joke it's actually not about ethics in games journalism. Really people don't owe him friendship.

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

Has anybody considered taking legal action against the guy who started this whole thing? I realize that anyone who did it would be put at risk but this guy has shown no remorse over the mess he's caused over these last few months.

 

[RawNuts]

I find the complaints about having to "know the right people" kinda mindblowing to be honest. Like in what job field doesn't good PR with the in-group help you ahead?

You can certainly make a name for yourself with quality games, but I've found in my own experience that this field is far more competitive than most, and personal connections account for much more than they probably should, even more so than my experience in the VFX field which has an infamous reputation for being competitive.
It's been working out in my favor for a while, but it still feels dishonest at times.

There's an assumption that the real world runs on the XBL matchmaking system and that having social skills shouldn't be required for success, because using personal networking was somehow cheating. It's probably why the "clique" accusation is so common, because a lot of younger people on the internet might not be able to distinguish between a circle of friends and acquaintances in adult life and the cliques they're familiar with in school.

You're arguing against a pretty extreme view that I doubt anyone holds.

Meh he even said he leans pro GG on twitter (because GGers are more ok with neutrals because of course they are neutral basically is at least tacit endorsement that GG should exist), and likes to play the there's two sides game. GG is a hate campaign, I really don't feel bad for people who lose friends because they think a hate campaign is aok. And now he's talking all semi positive about 8 chan and the benefits of raw opinions that it provides so whatever, people don't owe people friendships.

He seems pretty content to have those new GG followers so yeah,.

He seems to has swayed after shit went down and he lost many of his anti-GG followers (which, according to him: "My followers are about 95% anti-GG"); he also still makes tweets calling out GG like this:

I hope that "Anti-GG" blocklist wasn't created in response to my post. People have missed the point entirely

 

[excelsiorlef]

You can certainly make a name for yourself with quality games, but I've found in my own experience that this field is far more competitive than most, and personal connections account for much more than they probably should, even more so than my experience in the VFX field which has an infamous reputation for being competitive.
It's been working out in my favor for a while, but it still feels dishonest at times.

You're arguing against a pretty extreme view that I doubt anyone holds.




He seems to has swayed after shit went down and he lost many of his anti-GG followers (which, according to him: "My followers are about 95% anti-GG"); he also still makes tweets calling out GG like this:

He clearly likes the both sides argument and says stuff like this:

Yeah, as I stated, I'm not a writer so I have trouble getting my full views across, but I'd definitely want it to be neutral, or at least have an even number of judges from both sides. It's one of those idealistic things, it bugs me that the harassment and bullying from anti-GG isn't represented well at all, even not at all on the GGAutoBlocker list. I'd hope that all kinds of harassment be brought to light, I'm sure we can all agree that despite best efforts, a lot of awful stuff is said in the name of gamergate, be it from troll accounts or real people under the delusion that the movement is something it's not. Those people need to go away, and it seems that twitters report system, while effective against the absolute horrendous offenders, isn't perfect, and a community moderated list, with a lot of very careful thought, planning and as much effort to remove bias as is possible might help that.

He clearly has no idea about who created it, or why. He clearly thinks GG opinions should have equal value and that this is truly something that should be debated. Again he knows of 8 chan and Kia so ignorance cannot be an excuse.


And he ran to GG to claim "oppression" but then says this:

Like I said, with a lot of bigger names + friends unfollowing/blocking recently, it makes me think there's a correlation there, although it could just be a run of bad luck, which I ran into around the same time last year

 

[Neoriceisgood]

You're arguing against a pretty extreme view that I doubt anyone holds.

I've seen people take it to that degree before myself. It kinda falls in the same weird category of complaints as all the GGers demanding "objective reviews".

 

[excelsiorlef]

Also this discussion takes the cake, comparisons to cults and Hitler and Stalin and he just doesn't say shit.

And he overtly states he thinks GG is not about harassment. So yeah whatever, guy lost some friends, oh well.

 

[Pepboy]

This is the second time you've tacked on "or female" or "or women" to the stat about men being more likely to be murdered.

Men kill men at a much larger rate than women kill men, hell men kill women at a much larger rate then women kill men.

Yes the baselines are indeed different, men are more likely to murder. But both males and females are 3 to 4 times more likely to murder a man than a woman. I'm not sure how that's disingenuous, it's a simple interpretation of the statistics you yourself provide. I'm not blaming women for all or even most of the murders, as you point out they are a smaller fraction of the overall murders.

I think you misunderstood this as me claiming women are primarily at fault, which would indeed be disingenuous. But the fact that both sexes are 3-4 times more likely to kill a man than woman suggests to me issues of how men are represented by the media -- possibly as disposable or otherwise portraying fatal violence against men as acceptable.

I can also see the confusion over multiple definitions of "likely". Perhaps it's more accurate to say the victims of both male and female murderers are statistically 3 to 4 times more likely to be a man than a woman. Put another way, out of 5 murder victims, 4 of them will be male, regardless of the sex of the killer.

So stop using that stat. Or at least stop tacking on (man or woman) and (Male or female), cause it's men killing men that make that stat true, nothing else.

This last sentence is patently false. Both male and female murderers are statistically 3 to 4 times more likely to kill men than women; this is true whether you aggregate the male and female murderers or whether you consider them separately. By definition, this latter statistic (analyzing female murderers) cannot be driven solely by men killing men. I think you may have misunderstood my statistic, but let me know if the sections above clarifies. I understand the defensive feeling because you may have misunderstood me to be blaming women for the majority of murders in aggregate, which would also be patently false. But I did not make such a claim.

 

[Deleted member 126221]

Hideo Kojima's favorite game of 2014 is Framed, a game Zoe Quinn worked on.

Do you think the gators will now boycott Metal Gear / harass Kojima / say he was corrupted by the skeletons?

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I am not sure how this is supposed to work out, but someone actually threatened to release the source code of freebsdgirl's GGAutoBlocker

Spoiler

which is an open source project

. I get this feeling from reading a lot of Tweets and posts on KiA that a lot of people don't really know much about programming when they decide to talk about anything related to this program.

This is hilarious to me.

 

[Beelzebufo]

Haven't checked in on this thread in a while. Is anyone taking #GG seriously anymore? Are they still a thing?

 

[The Technomancer]

Hideo Kojima's favorite game of 2014 is Framed, a game Zoe Quinn worked on.

Do you think the gators will now boycott Metal Gear / harass Kojima / say he was corrupted by the skeletons?

Are we entirely sure Zoe didn't sleep with him?

I'm just asking questions!

 

[partyphone]

Haven't checked in on this thread in a while. Is anyone taking #GG seriously anymore? Are they still a thing?

there's still the very real problem of people getting harassed and threatened. but it seems like most of the people left visibly supporting it are complete twits. so there's a small degree of fun to be had at their expense.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Yes the baselines are indeed different, men are more likely to murder. But both males and females are 3 to 4 times more likely to murder a man than a woman. I'm not sure how that's disingenuous, it's a simple interpretation of the statistics you yourself provide. I'm not blaming women for all or even most of the murders, as you point out they are a smaller fraction of the overall murders.

I think you misunderstood this as me claiming women are primarily at fault, which would indeed be disingenuous. But the fact that both sexes are 3-4 times more likely to kill a man than woman suggests to me issues of how men are represented by the media -- possibly as disposable or otherwise portraying fatal violence against men as acceptable.

I can also see the confusion over multiple definitions of "likely". Perhaps it's more accurate to say the victims of both male and female murderers are statistically 3 to 4 times more likely to be a man than a woman. Put another way, out of 5 murder victims, 4 of them will be male, regardless of the sex of the killer.



This last sentence is patently false. Both male and female murderers are statistically 3 to 4 times more likely to kill men than women; this is true whether you aggregate the male and female murderers or whether you consider them separately. By definition, this latter statistic (analyzing female murderers) cannot be driven solely by men killing men. I think you may have misunderstood my statistic, but let me know if the sections above clarifies. I understand the defensive feeling because you may have misunderstood me to be blaming women for the majority of murders in aggregate, which would also be patently false. But I did not make such a claim.

1) It's not 3-4, it's under 3.

2) Total numbers count too. For example if we looked only at Men who kill Women and Women who kill Men. The stat would inverse. Women would be over 4 times (there's your 4) more likely to be murdered than Men. It is Men killing men that cause the stat you reference to be true.

In short men are more likely to be murdered than women because men kill each other at an incrediblely high rate.

 

[zeldablue]

1) It's not 3-4, it's under 3.

2) Total numbers count too. For example if we looked only at Men who kill Women and Women who kill Men. The stat would inverse. Women would be more likely to be murdered than Men. It is Men killing men that cause the stat you reference to be true.

In short men are more likely to be murdered than women because men kill each other at an incrediblely high rate.

I'm not sure how you can blame that on feminism though. Misandry seems to be a bigger pervasive problem with men's view of other men. Just like misogyny is a pretty big problem amongst women.

 

[mo60]

Haven't checked in on this thread in a while. Is anyone taking #GG seriously anymore? Are they still a thing?

Yes. They still exist, but they are slowly dying or are not really increasing in popularity anymore.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I'm not sure how you can blame that on feminism though. Misandry seems to be a bigger pervasive problem with men's view of other men. Just like misogyny is a pretty big problem amongst women.

Huh? That's my point. You can't blame it on feminism or even "female privilege" or whatever MRAs that often use this statas a gotcha against feminists (ignoring that it's predominately a men on men issue) want to call it.

Female privilege is especially rich from MRAs when you consider Men kill women at a rate over 4 times higher than women kill men.

 

[Beelzebufo]

there's still the very real problem of people getting harassed and threatened. but it seems like most of the people left visibly supporting it are complete twits. so there's a small degree of fun to be had at their expense.

Ick, that's awful. I guess at this point all you have left is the extremists, who were probably the ones sending the worse death threats in the first place?

 

[partyphone]

Ick, that's awful. I guess at this point all you have left is the extremists, who were probably the ones sending the worse death threats in the first place?

i think the extremists are sociopaths who have tricked a lot of idiots into believing they're fighting the good fight. it's very cult-like. most gaters aren't sending death and rape threats. they're just clogging timelines with questions and insane allegations and offensive images.

they're also sending mass emails to the employers of people they see as enemies. which becomes hilarious when they do something like mistakenly email a public listserv and then accuse people of doxxing them.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

Haven't checked in on this thread in a while. Is anyone taking #GG seriously anymore? Are they still a thing?

Basically they are operating under the "We have lost the war, but the fight is not over yet" idea. (Quite literally if you look at how often they refer to this thing as "war").

They are like those japanese officers after the defeat of Japan in World War II.

 

[Pepboy]

As I point out later, those (very limited) areas which are hostile for men are that way because they are viewed as lesser roles relegated to the purview of women and in some cases, as you point out, non-hetero people. I also doubt very much, based on people I know in those fields, that that hostility is coming from within most times.

Also, the existence of these small and limited spaces where men are less catered to does nothing to invalidate my point that the vast, vast majority of spaces cater far more to men than women.

Well your point was literally everywhere, which you emphasized twice. I'm not sure it's worth getting into a debate about how common these spaces are, though I would probably agree it's a majority of spaces.

Man. I've definitely seen these out-of-context stats before. Now where was it... Oh yeah. Every time anyone says anything about how shitty things are for women "But 11 times more likely to die on job sites!" Yes. Because women are implicitly or explicitly not trusted in situations involving dangerous things. Because of the underlying sexist assumption that they're incompetent.

This isn't men shouldering some burden unwillingly. This is the men in charge only trusting men to do the dirty work, and the men being hurt because of it. Again. It's can be laid entirely at a shitty patriarchal culture. My entire point was that it hurts everyone.

If agree that men are also being hurt by patriarchy (or whatever drives the gender inequality), how does that fit with the idea that "Everywhere" is a safe space for men? By your own argument, patriarchy creates unsafe spaces for men -- including professionally. Just because you believe this inequality is driven ultimately by men does not make these spaces "safe" for men.

That does not then mean that that Patriarchal culture also doesn't impart innumerable privileges to men.

I did not argue that women don't suffer from inequality or that men don't have certain privileges. Your original argument was literally that everywhere was a safe place for men.

No, and no. I'm honestly not sure where you even got any of this. I certainly didn't say anything to indicate it.

I'd like you to actually point out where I was perpetuating myths, and not where you apparently imagined sections where I was. This is almost entirely projection of stuff I didn't say or imply.

Okay so please explain to me why "everywhere is the men's shelter" in cases where men are not the financial earner, where men are weaker than the woman and suffering from domestic abuse, or otherwise lack power in a relationship.

In short, you perpetuated myths by implying that men cannot suffer from a lack of power, that men do not need domestic abuse shelters because "everywhere" is a shelter for men. This belittles domestic violence against men, though I'm not sure why you would want to.

Also it's important to note that men are much more likely to be the perpetrators of violence in the situations you mention. This does lead to the unfortunate consequence, due to our human love of blindly trust in patterns, of male victims not being given due trust. But do try not to so disingenuously use out-of-context statistics if you choose to further engage people.

I'm sorry you seem to have misinterpreted the statistic; I was not blaming women for men being killed, but rather it is both men and women that perpetuate fatal violence against men at an alarming rate. Regardless of the "source" of the violence, this does not invalidate the claim that men are not "safe everywhere". I can understand why you feel like I might be blaming women for this, as several MRAs have probably done so, but I am merely using it as evidence that the world is an unsafe place for men. I'm not sure how this would be "out-of-context" when you literally argue that men are safe everywhere.

Addressing the final sentence here. There's a pretty simplistic view of the concept of patriarchy. It's not just men having the power. It's an entire culture chock-full of myths about gender. One of which you perpetuate right here ("Both Genders")!

I apologize, I often use gender and sex interchangeably and often think in binary terms of sex but it's something I am trying to work on. I should have said "Both men and women".

It's a lot of things. And yes, it is almost universally the cause of issues of Gender inequality. Other kinds of inequality are different and often far more complex (hence why many people practising intersectional thinking now prefer to use the concept of kyriarchy, the theorhetical framework that considers numerous intersecting layers of privilege pervading society)

I think kyriarchy sounds like an interesting framework that I will have to read more about, thank you.

Dunno where you got the idea that MRAs are "By the same token" of anything. They're simultaneously a shitty thing all to their own and also unshakably similar to other bigoted movements that pop up when their privilege is threatened.

Men's Rights Activism is not just "An alternative method/solution to combat gender inequality." It's an entire framework of thinking that almost necessitates ignorant ideas like "Gender Inequality is over/has actually swung the other way! Men are the oppressed minority now!" or "Feminism is about female supremacy!"

I disagree that MRA necessitates those ideas. At the very least, regardless of the debate regarding origins / sources of inequality, they do successfully highlight and raise awareness for some of the inequalities men face. Furthermore I feel it's potentially shortsighted to suggest that is what MRAs will always be defined by. Feminism has also changed over the years, and though they are not "equivalent", I see them both as movements with a variety of members.

It's all about a blinkered focus solely on the areas where yes, men face problems as a result of our patriarchal society and culture. While also mixing it in with an entirely unhealthy dose of complete denial of most of the issues affecting people who aren't cis men, as well as more than a pinch of completely invented or imagined injustices against men, and a sprinkling of Pick Up Artist bullshit and gender essentialism.

See above. It's not just an alternate name. It does not have the same aim. It is not about reducing gender inequality except in the very few situations where men are disadvantaged. If somehow men stopped being looked down upon for being fashion designers and nurses, and got about equal distribution of custody, the Men's Rights movement would be entirely satisfied. They don't give a shit about anyone but themselves, except for when they're imagining them as evil aggressors.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Although I don't identify with MRAs, I see it as a movement still defining itself and working to combat gender inequality. Although they focus on mens issues for now, over time I believe there will be other waves of thinking, potentially addressing female inequality. In any case, hypotheticals does not change the fact that they are attempting to address real inequalities that exist today.

Yeah this is just so fucking crazy I almost want to stop addressing you right here. No. Blaming Feminism (Which actually involves blaming an imagined version of feminism or even just some imagined inherent evil in women) and correctly identifying patriarchal culture (With extensive research and academic documentation to back up the assertion) are not equivalent situations. There are no non-vile segments of the MRM. They're bigoted or ignorant. Often both, never neither. People actually fighting gender inequality rather than ignoring it or actively preserving or increasing it are called Feminists.

I didn't say they were equivalent, but somewhat analogous. No two things will ever be equivalent -- everything is a false equivalence when you take it seriously. Yes, there are differences, but if the movements both raise awareness about inequality (even if they differ by their current beliefs regarding origins), I see that as fighting the same enemy.

Cool. Nobody has actually denied men face problems in certain areas. Once again you're literally fabricating arguments.

You literally said, "Everywhere is a safe place for men." That is literally denying the fact that men face problems in certain areas. I don't need to fabricate the arguments when you provide the quotes yourself.

MRAs don't say anything worth addressing because the closest thing they get to is occasionally saying "Men sometimes have it bad too!" That's it. It's a worthless statement. Because everyone already knows that. Those issues are being addressed by feminism in its currently dominant form.

This is disgenuous of what MRAs say. And the fact that they are addressed by some people, again, does not argue why a new group cannot be started to further focus on them and spread awareness / conduct research.

When MRA's bring them up they're usually wilfully ignorant about the cause/source of those problems. This is not me "Disagreeing with MRAs about the source of Inequality" this is me pointing out that they're almost always flat out wrong. They ignore inequality in almost every case but when combating it would benefit them. Pointing out "They occasionally correctly identify situations everybody always knows about!" is pretty much a "Making the Trains run on time" observation.

Again I understand you believe very strongly in one system but the fact that they attract members shows that they are succeeding in raising awareness about problems that not everyone knew about.

 

[partyphone]

MRAs are garbage people with bullshit ideas who have only inserted themselves into gamergate because they love to hate women.

 

[Pepboy]

1) It's not 3-4, it's under 3.

2) Total numbers count too. For example if we looked only at Men who kill Women and Women who kill Men. The stat would inverse. Women would be over 4 times (there's your 4) more likely to be murdered than Men. It is Men killing men that cause the stat you reference to be true.

In short men are more likely to be murdered than women because men kill each other at an incrediblely high rate.

1) The 3-4 figure is from a larger sample of data (1980-2010, I believe) rather than just looking at one year which will naturally have some variance. Though if you believe the ratio has significantly changed over time, I'm happy to address that.

2) I agree total numbers count -- women commit in aggregate, less murder. Women are not the driving force of murder. But women are still going to kill 4 men for every 1 woman. Men are also going to kill 3-4 men for every 1 woman. This isn't a "blame game", it's trying to address what is driving this inequality. My current belief is that it may be about media portrayals of men as disposable (such as Rambo shooting up a dozen men, etc), but I am happy to discuss what other's feel might be driving this.

Your last sentence is false -- both men and women kill men at a higher rate than women. If all male murderers were locked up, more men would still be killed, as borne by the statistics. Again, in aggregate, women do not solely shoulder the "blame" for this statistic, or even a majority of "blame", but it is false to claim they do not contribute toward it.

However as I mentioned, I'm less interested in assigning the blame as I am in addressing why men are much more likely to be victims of murder from either a male or a female murderer. If it was just "men kill men" That might suggest men are seeing each other as competition. If male murderers were more likely to kill females, I think that might align with the idea of women being objectified. Alternatively, since men are more likely to kill men than women, that might suggest a belief of women innocence or perhaps women being controlled in other ways (through violent but non-fatal methods).

However, the fact that a woman is also more likely to kill men than another woman is interesting and I believe sheds some light on the matter, or at least raises important questions. Are women more likely to kill a man than a woman because they feel otherwise powerless to escape? Or do both men and women kill men at a higher rate because of a common denominator such as media portrayals? I am also open to other research or explanations on this topic.

 

[zeldablue]

1) The 3-4 figure is from a larger sample of data (1980-2010, I believe) rather than just looking at one year which will naturally have some variance. Though if you believe the ratio has significantly changed over time, I'm happy to address that.

2) I agree total numbers count -- women commit in aggregate, less murder. Women are not the driving force of murder. But women are still going to kill 4 men for every 1 woman. Men are also going to kill 3-4 men for every 1 woman. This isn't a "blame game", it's trying to address what is driving this inequality. My current belief is that it may be about media portrayals of men as disposable (such as Rambo shooting up a dozen men, etc), but I am happy to discuss what other's feel might be driving this.

Your last sentence is false -- both men and women kill men at a higher rate than women. If all male murderers were locked up, more men would still be killed, as borne by the statistics. Again, in aggregate, women do not solely shoulder the "blame" for this statistic, or even a majority of "blame", but it is false to claim they do not contribute toward it.

However as I mentioned, I'm less interested in assigning the blame as I am in addressing why men are much more likely to be victims of murder from either a male or a female murderer. If it was just "men kill men" That might suggest men are seeing each other as competition. If male murderers were more likely to kill females, I think that might align with the idea of women being objectified. Alternatively, since men are more likely to kill men than women, that might suggest a belief of women innocence or perhaps women being controlled in other ways (through violent but non-fatal methods).

However, the fact that a woman is also more likely to kill men than another woman is interesting and I believe sheds some light on the matter, or at least raises important questions. Are women more likely to kill a man than a woman because they feel otherwise powerless to escape? Or do both men and women kill men at a higher rate because of a common denominator such as media portrayals? I am also open to other research or explanations on this topic.

It's probably a flawed overgeneralization, but female murderers usually target people very close to them. So their targets were probably fathers, sons and ex-boyfriends/husbands. The most likely scenario I see is a woman pushing blame on a key male figure in her life. (most likely her children, spouse or parents.)

Most people are taught not to hit a girl, but aren't taught not to hit people in general. So I suppose that would be a good place to start. Video games don't do much to help the disposable male thing. But I stay away from games where I have to kill men. Unless they are zombies/possessed, the idea never sat well with me in the first place. I'd rather kill zombies, aliens, demons, monsters or anything else. The fact that games where you gut men over and over again are insanely popular tells us a bit about the problem I'd say. The focus on low empathy towards males is the main problem we are facing.

Misandry IS low empathy (antipathy) towards males and misogyny is low empathy (antipathy) towards women. The problem is always going to be an empathy problem. And that's a tough thing to teach.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

MRAs are garbage people with bullshit ideas who have only inserted themselves into gamergate because they love to hate women.

If I'm not mistaken that's actually the official definition for MRA.

 

[Deleted member 126221]

Misandry IS low empathy (antipathy) towards males and misogyny is low empathy (antipathy) towards women. The problem is always going to be an empathy problem. And that's a tough thing to teach.

I don't think the problem is "misandry" as much as it's men being "taught" they need to be strong/competitive/aggressive/dominant/etc.

 

[JackDT]

I haven't checked in on GG in a week or so. I don't even understand what they are so mad about now?

Some organization 99% of people have probably never heard of recommended a spam blocking twitter tool which people can use if they want? THAT is the issue of the week? WTF?

 

[More_Badass]

So the lack of self awareness here is just...wow
http://np.reddit.com/r/KotakuInActi...ristina_hoff_sommers_has_become_a_new/cmbn5jb

Okay, first the guy's proposal. Probably joking, but it's GG and KiA so you never know

The Longer this goes on, the more i start to think we should have a new focus. Contacting the parents of these 30 year old children and telling the parents to instill some long overdue discipline. A couple of smacks on the bum and a temporary shut down of their trustfunds should wake them up to reality. (Those without trustfunds need their accounts frozen by the IRS and a full investigation into their taxes)

Someone with common sense responds

Am I correct in understanding that you guys want to email the parents of people who disagree with you because of ethics?
Also, that people who disagree with you are engaging in tax evasion and should have their bank accounts frozen by fiat becuase of ethics?
Just so I understand.

And then this wonderful reply

Technically yes but no.
As a good person if you see someone having mental health problems and going out of control, it is your duty to contact someone who can be responsible for them to get them the support they need to get themselves back on track. We have seen multiple cases of mental health issues on the anti-side and people literally destroying their lives with cult like behaviour. I would very much like these people to be de-radicalised and to get themselves some help to bring themselves back to reality and be less self destructive. In that line of thinking, yes I do think it would be a good idea to contact their parents, to try and help them come back to reality before they end up hurting themselves in ways they can't fix. Many of us consider the SJW mindset to be on par with a religious cult because it fits the definition of a cult extremely well.
People have already reported some of them to the IRS for tax evasion and shit. I don't care about that, isn't my concern and I wouldn't be involved.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

GamerGate sure is doing a great job destroying Gawker and Kotaku

Huge month for Kotaku so far, skyrocketing past 14m readers (18m uniques) - thanks to everyone who keeps reading!

 

[Lalalandia]

GamerGate sure is doing a great job destroying Gawker and Kotaku

So much victory, GG is many win.

It's almost as if people have judged Kotaku by the quality of their enemies and decided they were worth a second look...

 

[Pepboy]

It's probably a flawed overgeneralization, but female murderers usually target people very close to them. So their targets were probably fathers, sons and ex-boyfriends/husbands. The most likely scenario I see is a woman pushing blame on a key male figure in her life. (most likely her children, spouse or parents.)

Most people are taught not to hit a girl, but aren't taught not to hit people in general. So I suppose that would be a good place to start. Video games don't do much to help the disposable male thing. But I stay away from games where I have to kill men. Unless they are zombies/possessed, the idea never sat well with me in the first place. I'd rather kill zombies, aliens, demons, monsters or anything else. The fact that games where you gut men over and over again are insanely popular tells us a bit about the problem I'd say. The focus on low empathy towards males is the main problem we are facing.

Misandry IS low empathy (antipathy) towards males and misogyny is low empathy (antipathy) towards women. The problem is always going to be an empathy problem. And that's a tough thing to teach.

I read something along the same lines -- about women being more likely to kill individuals they know (relative to male killers). I think that could fit with the theory of oppression and murder as a last resort. I wonder if it's related to the male suicide rate as well.

Your dedication is impressive -- although I avoid games from time to time due to poor portrayals of men or women, I'm not sure I could do it so thoroughly.

On your point about empathy, on further reflection I realized that this thread may not be the best place to voice my thoughts. I felt I was reacting to some overly strong statements about men's role in society, but I realize this thread may be a place to help victims suffering from online abuse, rather than a thread for debate on specifics of feminism or gender inequalities. So I sincerely apologize to those who are looking at this thread to help deal with that ongoing harassment and make an effort to stop posting. However I welcome comments and will reply to further quotes here via PM.

 

[DrPizza]

Pax Dickinson is now trying to actively court GG in his idiotic campaign to dig up dirt on "corrupt journalists", which is to say, "try to score points against the people who got me fired and which have meant I'm now unemployable".