Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers takes a look at video games


Video Games

151 to 200 of 597 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Necromancer wrote:
thejeff wrote:
This also speaks to the line thrown out earlier about "We can't have female avatars or the feminists will complain about violence against women." Which of course doesn't actually happen in any of the games with female avatars.
Those of us that play games and can make the connections understand this; some publishers might not so that reason is a possibility.

Of course it was you calling such accusations "inevitable" with a female avatar a couple of pages back. And yet, inevitable or not, they don't happen. Because the crazy radical feminists actually understand what "violence against women" means.

Necromancer wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Except in cases where things happen to them that don't happen to their male counterparts. Like having rape as their origin/motivation.
There's a reason why we rarely see male victims of rape in video games: many people believe men cannot be victims of heterosexual rape. Insane, right? Absolutely, but that is a big reason.

I should have expected it. Mention rape in a discussion about sexism and the "Men get raped too" thing pops up right away.

I suspect the main reason is that it would drive male players away in droves. At least if it's not played up as hot.
We also don't see male victims of homosexual rape very often. Certainly not as protagonists.


TheJeff wrote:

I suspect the main reason is that it would drive male players away in droves. At least if it's not played up as hot.

We also don't see male victims of homosexual rape very often. Certainly not as protagonists.

Can you remotely tie together any of those concepts with selling more video games? If not, there's your answer.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Necromancer wrote:
thejeff wrote:
This also speaks to the line thrown out earlier about "We can't have female avatars or the feminists will complain about violence against women." Which of course doesn't actually happen in any of the games with female avatars.
Those of us that play games and can make the connections understand this; some publishers might not so that reason is a possibility.
Of course it was you calling such accusations "inevitable" with a female avatar a couple of pages back. And yet, inevitable or not, they don't happen. Because the crazy radical feminists actually understand what "violence against women" means.
Necromancer wrote:


They do have "excuses" (or rather, reasons) why they've avoided the extra step: significant success without taking the extra step, few women play the games, decision to focus on additional mechanics (new weapons, vehicles, misc tech, etc.) in lieu of female models, and likely a publisher resistance to risk the inclusion of one element at the cost of other elements (e.g. mechanics or graphic improvements) that will be included by competitors. With the way some "critics" react, it's little wonder that publishers are wary of including female avatars out of a desire to avoid the inevitable "violence against women" accusations (despite the thousands of male character deaths piling up on scoreboards).

I was speaking from the publisher's (albeit perceived) perspective. Paragraph provided for reference.

thejeff wrote:
Necromancer wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Except in cases where things happen to them that don't happen to their male counterparts. Like having rape as their origin/motivation.
There's a reason why we rarely see male victims of rape in video games: many people believe men cannot be victims of heterosexual rape. Insane, right? Absolutely, but that is a big reason.
I should have expected it. Mention rape in a discussion about sexism and the "Men get raped too" thing pops up right away.

The immediate topic I was responding to was "rape as a motivation/background element" within a discussion of "alleged sexism in gaming". Please don't be dismissive about a very real and largely ignored problem.

thejeff wrote:

I suspect the main reason is that it would drive male players away in droves. At least if it's not played up as hot.

We also don't see male victims of homosexual rape very often. Certainly not as protagonists.

Correction: we don't see either gender as victims of rape very often. It's a mature matter and will discourage younger buyers as well as gamers that just want a title without an unpleasant story to work around.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
TheJeff wrote:

I suspect the main reason is that it would drive male players away in droves. At least if it's not played up as hot.

We also don't see male victims of homosexual rape very often. Certainly not as protagonists.
Can you remotely tie together any of those concepts with selling more video games? If not, there's your answer.

Good god. I only mentioned it because it's one type of "violence against women" that's actually been applied to female video game protagonists, at least as an origin. As a side note to the main point that putting a female character into an action role where she might get hurt isn't going to get the game attacked for "violence against women".

I don't think there should be games featuring male rape, hetero or homosexual. I know damn well they wouldn't sell. (Not in any market I want to know anything about anyway.)

By the way, why didn't you object to Necromancer's argument that you don't see heterosexual male rape in games because people don't believe it exists with your "Can you remotely tie together any of those concepts with selling more video games?", rather than my post where I explicitly say "it would drive male players away in droves."

Leave it. It's a side comment to a distraction from a side argument.


Necromancer wrote:

Just wanted to share this:

A sane feminist investigates the ongoing online moral panic surrounding video games and the gamers who buy them. The video's short (six and a half minutes) and doesn't play into any particular "side" of recent debates.

Thanks. I appreciate being made aware of this.


Necromancer wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Necromancer wrote:
thejeff wrote:
This also speaks to the line thrown out earlier about "We can't have female avatars or the feminists will complain about violence against women." Which of course doesn't actually happen in any of the games with female avatars.
Those of us that play games and can make the connections understand this; some publishers might not so that reason is a possibility.
Of course it was you calling such accusations "inevitable" with a female avatar a couple of pages back. And yet, inevitable or not, they don't happen. Because the crazy radical feminists actually understand what "violence against women" means.
Necromancer wrote:


They do have "excuses" (or rather, reasons) why they've avoided the extra step: significant success without taking the extra step, few women play the games, decision to focus on additional mechanics (new weapons, vehicles, misc tech, etc.) in lieu of female models, and likely a publisher resistance to risk the inclusion of one element at the cost of other elements (e.g. mechanics or graphic improvements) that will be included by competitors. With the way some "critics" react, it's little wonder that publishers are wary of including female avatars out of a desire to avoid the inevitable "violence against women" accusations (despite the thousands of male character deaths piling up on scoreboards).
I was speaking from the publisher's (albeit perceived) perspective. Paragraph provided for reference.

Yeah. I read it. That's all your perception. Publishers know better. Or they don't know anything about their own industry and should go out of business. Unless you can point me to some decent size company saying it, it's just stupid.

This thing, it doesn't happen. No one attacks games for the action heroine getting beaten on or shot up in her heroic fight scenes. All right, it's a big country, there may be someone out there dumb enough to, but even by the standards of feminist reviews of video games: No one pays any attention.

Rape:
I'm dropping the whole rape thing. I shouldn't have mentioned it. The only reason I did was to forestall the "But feminists attacked Tomb Raider for violence against its female protagonist" line of attack. Instead it blew up in a different direction. I'm sorry. I should have known better.


thejeff wrote:
Well that's based on the assumption that either normal rational thinking people are common or that normal rational thinking people can't also be chauvinists, racists, and potential murderers and rapists.

Rational people can't be chauvinists, racists, etc. Those things do not combine. There are no rational people who are also racist and sexist because those things are conflicting.

Quote:

adjective

1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible:
a rational plan for economic development.
2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense:
a calm and rational negotiator.
3. being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid:
The patient appeared perfectly rational.
4. endowed with the faculty of reason:
rational beings.
5. of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers:
the rational faculty.
6. proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning:
a rational explanation.

Rationalism does not lend itself to bigotry and violence.


thejeff wrote:


By the way, why didn't you object to Necromancer's argument that you don't see heterosexual male rape in games because people don't believe it exists with your "Can you remotely tie together any of those concepts with selling more video games?", rather than my post where I explicitly say "it would drive male players away in droves."

Quote within a quote within a quote russian nesting doll. Couldn't tell who was saying what in his post.


Ashiel wrote:
Rational people can't be chauvinists, racists, etc. Those things do not combine. There are no rational people who are also racist and sexist because those things are conflicting.

I think many definitions of chauvanism have gotten so broad as to include many rational positions. For example from some of the videos linked up above, there was a push to declare the differences in upper body strength and endurance cultural and those who disagreed sexist.

Quote:


Rationalism does not lend itself to bigotry and violence.

It does if your goal is to act in your own best interests and one or the other of those things will let you do that. Using lots of violence is an excellent way of getting a lot more stuff. (Or even better, convince someone else to do lots of violence for you and take the risks while you get the rewards). Bigotry can make it easier for you to take advantage of groups for your own benefit.

Smart doesn't always mean nice.


Ashiel wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Well that's based on the assumption that either normal rational thinking people are common or that normal rational thinking people can't also be chauvinists, racists, and potential murderers and rapists.

Rational people can't be chauvinists, racists, etc. Those things do not combine. There are no rational people who are also racist and sexist because those things are conflicting.

Quote:

adjective

1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible:
a rational plan for economic development.
2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense:
a calm and rational negotiator.
3. being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid:
The patient appeared perfectly rational.
4. endowed with the faculty of reason:
rational beings.
5. of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers:
the rational faculty.
6. proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning:
a rational explanation.
Rationalism does not lend itself to bigotry and violence.

Then I'll fall back to the other half of my statement: rational thinking people aren't common. :)

Or the following line from my original post
Quote:
My observations of people (and even myself) suggest that rational thinking is much rarer than we generally think it is and that chauvinism and racism are sadly common - especially subtler forms of prejudice.

Really it depends on what you mean by "rational". There are 6 definitions there and they're not all incompatible with bigotry. (Or with violence, though neither racism or sexism necessarily imply violence.)

Prejudice tends to be emotional, so in that sense it's not rational, but we all work by both emotion and reason, so that's no reason to rule it out.
I certainly wouldn't say that anyone who is prejudiced isn't sane or lucid.
In some situations bigotry, or at least the appearance of it, is rational behavior. If you find yourself unexpectedly in a Klan meeting, anything but agreeing with their vies is more heroic than rational. :)


RainyDayNinja wrote:
Quote:
Making Call of Duty: Romance edition in nice pink box with hearts and flowers would, but no one is suggesting that.

"Cupid is back on the job! To fight against a world where superficial online interactions have left the world cynical, he's trading in his bow and arrows for a modern arsenal of 28 unique weapons, designed for maximum romantic carnage. The government wants him to stop, so he'll need all of it to get past armored tanks, take down enemy snipers, and eliminate the mutant super-soldiers sent to kill him. He won't rest until the city of New York is head-over-heels--or he'll die trying!

In stores Spring 2015."

I'd play it.

Needs a female lead. Stop being a bigot, Rainy. /joking


mechaPoet wrote:
Necromancer wrote:
Even without buying the pdf, it's clear that the real sexism is coming from those who criticize video games based on social issues alone. They ignore the countless male characters slaughtered, tortured, incinerated, blown apart, and electrocuted en masse and exist only as XP resources.

Nah. It ain't clear when we don't have their definition of what constitutes aggression or violence toward women in the study. So it's a bit of a wash in trying to argue whether they do or don't address violence against women as opposed to that against men without seeing the actual paper.

But here's the thing: in this context, "violence against women" most likely means a specific thing. Or at least, here's my take on it. Bioshock: Infinite, for instance, has some female police officer enemies (and later, female rebels to fight). When they're presented as equals in capability and agency to their male counterparts (even if you're just going to shoot them or summon a swarm of crows to attack them or whatever), that's fine.

However, their are tons of examples of violence against women in (mainstream and otherwise) games where this violence is used for reasons of plot (to motivate the almost-certainly-male protagonist) or shock value. Female characters are rarely given the same kind of agency as their male counterpoints (limited as an expendable mook's agency may be). The Feminist Frequency videos point out this discrepancy over and over again, so I'll direct you to those for examples.

Name any game with no violence against men. Any game with any violence will have it targeting men. most to damn near all have you/the main character harming and killing men and only men and if women are harmed at all it is as motive for revenge/saving them. Your targets are almost exclusively male.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
Necromancer wrote:

Just wanted to share this:

A sane feminist investigates the ongoing online moral panic surrounding video games and the gamers who buy them. The video's short (six and a half minutes) and doesn't play into any particular "side" of recent debates.

Thanks. I appreciate being made aware of this.

The OP and original video link is clearly a reasonable attempt to talk about a different perspective on the role of women in modern games. Now, I fall on the side that would like games to be more inclusive but to be truthful I play nowhere near 20 hours a week. Which was her definition of "core" gamers. I also do not tend to be a big fan of the market leaders aka GTA V most overrated game ever imho.

Now, I am however a huge rpg fan. I like for there to be an option for both male and female characters in an rpg. The story is the most important part for me. If the story dictates a male / female character than I would like the option to have the other sex available as secondary characters or main interaction points of the game.

Now, in regards to "Gamersgate" and Zoe Quinn, that discussion needs to be kept out of this thread because the poisonous atmosphere of that topic will lead to justifiable locking of the thread.


JurgenV wrote:
mechaPoet wrote:
Necromancer wrote:
Even without buying the pdf, it's clear that the real sexism is coming from those who criticize video games based on social issues alone. They ignore the countless male characters slaughtered, tortured, incinerated, blown apart, and electrocuted en masse and exist only as XP resources.

Nah. It ain't clear when we don't have their definition of what constitutes aggression or violence toward women in the study. So it's a bit of a wash in trying to argue whether they do or don't address violence against women as opposed to that against men without seeing the actual paper.

But here's the thing: in this context, "violence against women" most likely means a specific thing. Or at least, here's my take on it. Bioshock: Infinite, for instance, has some female police officer enemies (and later, female rebels to fight). When they're presented as equals in capability and agency to their male counterparts (even if you're just going to shoot them or summon a swarm of crows to attack them or whatever), that's fine.

However, their are tons of examples of violence against women in (mainstream and otherwise) games where this violence is used for reasons of plot (to motivate the almost-certainly-male protagonist) or shock value. Female characters are rarely given the same kind of agency as their male counterpoints (limited as an expendable mook's agency may be). The Feminist Frequency videos point out this discrepancy over and over again, so I'll direct you to those for examples.

Name any game with no violence against men. Any game with any violence will have it targeting men. most to damn near all have you/the main character harming and killing men and only men and if women are harmed at all it is as motive for revenge/saving them. Your targets are almost exclusively male.

Nice way to miss the point. Did you read the post you're replying to at all?


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

No, it's not. That's what some people have made it about, and what Zoe "Drama" Quinn would like to turn everyone's attention to, but that's not what it's about.

It's about journalistic integrity, or lack thereof. Quinn was the catalyst in bring an issue that has existed for a long damn time to light.

If that was actually true, why is Zoe Quinn being the subject of all this hate? Why drag Anita Sarkeesian into it? Why is no one calling Nathan Grayson's mom and yelling "YOUR SON IS A WHORE"? (disclaimer: you shouldn't, but these are things that happens to Zoe right now.)

None of the "breaches" of "journalistic integrity" that sparked gamergate actually happened.

Should we have a discussion about the very close and probably very unhealthy relationship between gaming websites and game publishers? Sure. That would both be interesting and appropriate. But that's simply not what gamergate is about, and anyone trying to have a serious discussion under the '#gamergate' banner are hard to take serious. That tag comes with a lot of unbelievably vile baggage.

Frankly, that so many people here apparently supports that level of harassment has pretty much put me off these forums. Because ew.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Slaunyeh wrote:


If that was actually true, why is Zoe Quinn being the subject of all this hate?

Because many people are a%@+#+$s. Shocker, I know.

Slaunyeh wrote:
Why drag Anita Sarkeesian into it?

Near as I can tell somebody supposedly on her side dragged her into it, and it snowballed downhill from there.

Slaunyeh wrote:
Why is no one calling Nathan Grayson's mom and yelling "YOUR SON IS A WHORE"? (disclaimer: you shouldn't, but these are things that happens to Zoe right now.)

Because there's a double standard. Also a shock, yes.

Slaunyeh wrote:
None of the "breaches" of "journalistic integrity" that sparked gamergate actually happened.

?

News to me.

I'd be wary of making definitive statements about anything involving this issue. The details are muddier than a s!&$ creek. Everything surrounding it is a clusterf~@# of information both true and false and I honestly can't be bothered to sift through all that garbage to tell what is truly true and what isn't.

All that matters is that when all this nonsense started, before I, for the most part, washed my hands of it since all that was being talked about (and way too much) was the part about a lover's spat between some nobody and her ex, who in the grand scheme is also a nobody but happens to be on a website a bunch of people read, there were valid grievances in the journalistic integrity department. Whether these have been proven true or false at this point in time is irrelevant, they were simply the straw that broke the camel's back on this one.

Dorito Pope laid the tinder, this began a blaze that should have started a hell of a long time ago, which then whipped up into a flamewar of epic proportions about a side matter nobody in their right minds could give a s*&# about. I've seen more interesting drama on dreck like Dr. Phil.

This is actually the first time I've chimed in on this in any capacity since about day 1 of this nonsense, and will probably be the last. Everyone is too wrapped up in playing the victim, playing the victim for somebody else, in some few cases actually being the victim, or harassing the victim to make any discussion beyond this point worthwhile.

Slaunyeh wrote:

Should we have a discussion about the very close and probably very unhealthy relationship between gaming websites and game publishers? Sure. That would both be interesting and appropriate. But that's simply not what gamergate is about, and anyone trying to have a serious discussion under the '#gamergate' banner are hard to take serious. That tag comes with a lot of unbelievably vile baggage.

Frankly, that so many people here apparently supports that level of harassment has pretty much put me off these forums. Because ew.

You're assuming a lot of things here.

First, that I'm talking about #gamergate. I don't use Twitter, and I don't give a s&@& about Twitter. That's just what this thing is being called everywhere else as well, so it's what I'm talking about.

Second, that I'm supporting harassment. Which I'm not. Nobody deserves death threats from random f~*!wits on the internet, especially about something as insignificant as who, what, and how many people she decides to put in her vagina in her spare time (because that's all these people care about, for some reason).

The ironic part here is that Quinn's defenders (and Quinn herself, but it might be at least partially intentional in her case) are just as guilty of making the "Five Guys Saga" the only thing that's talked about. If they'd drop it and let idiots be idiots, that nonsense would have blown over a long time ago.

But no, we have equal parts stupid on both sides who refuse to see Quinn as a normal human being who has done nothing particularly noteworthy in her life.

You have the people on one side, pulling her down with the kind of vehemence you would expect to be reserved for the second coming of the daughter of Hitler and the Antichrist, who are stupid.

Then you have the people on the other side holding her up as some martyr for a cause, the last, best hope for humanity (or at least gaming with her, to them, amazing never before seen game design skills), who are equally stupid for different reasons.

Then you have Quinn, who is sort of innocent and sort of not in this whole mess, since initially I was a bit on her side (if not on her side in general) when it came to the whole boyfriend(s) thing but the way she's been stirring the pot this whole time, especially her chiming in with "Final thoughts" on this whole mess coincidentally juuuust as it was starting to die down, makes me think she's one of those people who thrives on the drama, even if she has gotten in over her head with it and probably regrets it now.

There is no right side here, any more. I still hold that the real issue behind this mess is games journalism being almost universally a joke, whether the events that sparked the discussion are real or perceived.

But you are correct, in a sense, that Gamer Gate is "about" Quinn's love life. Because that's what people have made it about. Just goes to show you it's not just middle aged housewives who get off on this sort of thing.


Hmmm one more opinion piece by Jimmy. Alright, I'll stop now. =D


JurgenV wrote:
mechaPoet wrote:
Necromancer wrote:
Even without buying the pdf, it's clear that the real sexism is coming from those who criticize video games based on social issues alone. They ignore the countless male characters slaughtered, tortured, incinerated, blown apart, and electrocuted en masse and exist only as XP resources.

Nah. It ain't clear when we don't have their definition of what constitutes aggression or violence toward women in the study. So it's a bit of a wash in trying to argue whether they do or don't address violence against women as opposed to that against men without seeing the actual paper.

But here's the thing: in this context, "violence against women" most likely means a specific thing. Or at least, here's my take on it. Bioshock: Infinite, for instance, has some female police officer enemies (and later, female rebels to fight). When they're presented as equals in capability and agency to their male counterparts (even if you're just going to shoot them or summon a swarm of crows to attack them or whatever), that's fine.

However, their are tons of examples of violence against women in (mainstream and otherwise) games where this violence is used for reasons of plot (to motivate the almost-certainly-male protagonist) or shock value. Female characters are rarely given the same kind of agency as their male counterpoints (limited as an expendable mook's agency may be). The Feminist Frequency videos point out this discrepancy over and over again, so I'll direct you to those for examples.

Name any game with no violence against men. Any game with any violence will have it targeting men. most to damn near all have you/the main character harming and killing men and only men and if women are harmed at all it is as motive for revenge/saving them. Your targets are almost exclusively male.

This reminds me of how much I really love Harvest Moon.


Oliver Campbell on "When A Black Game Journalist Spoke Up On #Gamergate"

posted here for convenience

Oliver Campbell wrote:

My week in interacting with the angriest

of consumer revolts

Gamergate. The dirty laundry of the game industry, the open secret that no one wants to speak of and yet everyone seems to be aware of.

At this point everyone pretty much knows what really sparked the consumer revolt that is known as Gamergate. I had been watching the story of it unfold over the past month on a rather casual basis, with no indication or expectation that I would end up in the middle of it. At no point did I believe that I would become someone that people would be paying attention to.

Starting around the middle of 2009 I began my attempt to claw my way up from the bottom of the lobster bucket as a game journalist. Writing game reviews and editorial pieces, building connections with other writers, public relations with game developers, and just trying to squeeze my way into the cracks to build an identity and career for myself. In some ways I was successful, others I was not. I would spend hours on end carefully writing and crafting the pieces that I would publish, with usually a few dozen views and not much more than that as compensation. The fact of the matter is that “game bloggers” at this point in time were starting to become a dime for a dozen, and it takes fairly substantial efforts to stand out from the crowd.

While some of my experiences as a game journalist have definitely been aspiration fulfilling, most of them were not and many outright negative. Being black while writing about games comes with certain unspoken disadvantages; such as having what I call a ‘credibility deficit’, being deemed eccentric, and receiving generally puzzling looks whenever you speak on the topic of games as an art medium worthy of discussion. Frankly, If you’re a black gamer and want to talk about anything that isn’t Call of Duty, Madden, or fighting games you’re deemed irrelevant, mostly ignored, and definitely expected to be quiet. From my experience and conversations with others, the unspoken rule of being a black game journalist was like that archaic thought of how children should be in society: “Seen and not heard.” If you’re going to be in that space the general expectation is that you keep your head down, shut up, and go with the flow; I was never good at doing any of those things. Of interesting note, none of these behaviors were ever present when I would speak with a developer; In fact they were pleasantly surprised and almost always welcoming to my point of view or insight. I would almost universally receive this negative treatment when dealing with other game journalists, or the general game enthusiast.

After attending E3 in 2010, I had decided to take a break from the struggle of getting ahead in writing about games and to shift my attention towards creating fiction novels with my wife. Just as there are only a small handful of notable black male game journalists, there are also few notable black male authors at present. At the time, I did not realize that most of the work I had done towards building my game journalism career would diminish significantly, as I became gravely ill in the late summer of 2011 while in the middle of creating our first novella. Although I did recover somewhat from the medical crisis, I have been left in a crippling state that I will never recover from. From that point on, any attempts to get my feet back on the ground and in the game again have been miserable at best. Some due to the fact that my ailing health has found my spirit weak, some due to my injuries not allowing me to put in the time necessary to keep to the grindstone with the required tenacity, and some due to having lost hard-earned connections due to the passage of time.

Last week, I had been sitting up later than usual on a particular evening, looking around the internet for something interesting to catch my eye in game news. I tend to keep my evenings low key and is when I make it a point to consume news for the day. General internet traffic is slow and front pages aren’t moving as quickly, so I find it to be a comfortable time to consume and disseminate information. For the life of me, I can’t remember how I ended up getting there, but I eventually settled on watching a video of someone agonizing about how they had been treated as a transgender person in the industry overall.

I have comically been a very poor utilizer of social media. Of course I have the usual accounts that other people do, but I came from the old school of the internet where lurking around in the background was considered fashionable and voicing an opinion was opening yourself up to a certain amount of likely unwanted scrutiny. Naturally, I would use my social networks in order to promote the books that I’ve written, but even then I have never had much voice in those spaces. A longstanding general vibe has been that black men have poor credibility in academic pursuits and should not be taken seriously. That being said, I don’t know what made me hop on my twitter account and speak to the person in the video, who had been airing so many of the grievances that I was more than familiar with. It was a very simple exchange. I said, “Hey, I just watched your video and I definitely empathize with you. I’ve seen a lot of that myself.” The person in question responded with, “If you’re going to talk about this, you should definitely use the Gamergate hashtag.” So, it all started with me going, “You know, I was a black game journalist and a lot of what you guys said is true, I have witnessed it myself.” I did not know that so many people had noticed and suspected what I had already known as the status quo.

My twitter account immediately blew up with followers and people asking me tons of questions. I was begged to get on a streaming service to talk more about what my career had been like. I’ve had a twitch.tv account more or less since it showed up, but have never had any substantial number of viewers. For the most part, only the occasional friend would show up when I was streaming and typically for only thirty minutes at a time. The day that I began streaming and sharing those experiences I had with people, my channel was a madhouse with folks coming in and asking about everything that they could think of. Many questions were brought up about the relationship that game developers and journalists had together, with me being able to corroborate quite a few of those things with my own experiences. I quickly learned that even being a guy so low on the totem pole, I still knew a great many things that the general public viewed as complete and utter mystery. The first day I ended up doing a nine hour straight stream simply talking about what I had experienced in my first year, and the next day I did a twelve hour stream covering the rest. People were amazed at my ability to maintain conversation over such a long period of time, and frankly I was damn surprised myself. I wasn’t aware of my own resilience in being able to do such a thing, usually because I become very tired anymore after trying to keep myself together from fighting residual and near constant chronic pain from my injuries.

As the days began to pass, more and more people began to show up and follow me in order to listen to the things that I had to say regarding the industry. We had frequent discussions about classic journalism ethics, and I helped explain and define for them exactly what their grievances were in comparison to the Society of Professional Journalists ethics code. We would have many discussions about certain behaviors shown by members of the Gamergate movement and the reactions of game journalists to those behaviors. I would talk about how changing the narrative of the situation was crucial to gamers getting what they wanted, expectations going forward and what they wanted to see changed for the better in game journalism. I’ve talked to them about changing their appearance from being an unruly angry mob and how to focus their attention to things that will cause the direct impact that they are looking for. I have asked them on repeated occasions to cease attacking individual people with threats and harassment, as it does no actual good and doesn’t help them. I have spoken extensively on the subject that many game developers actually DO agree with the Gamergate movement, but these particular developers will not speak out in open support of the movement. The fact of the matter is that it is dangerous for a business to take upfront positions on matters like these, and that doing so could be the end of them as a counter-smear campaign is likely to occur against them. Many of my streams have been highlighted with readings from Sun Tzu, showing Gamergaters that while they are not necessarily fighting a physical war, they are definitely fighting a war of ideas. More than once has the morale of the movement been visibly shaken and I’ve been asked to speak to calm people down and raise their spirits. They have come up with many different endearing terms for me, and more than once I’ve been told that people listen to my stream because they find me to be helpful and soothing to listen to. They love that they can speak in a space and interact with someone that will not stifle them. Often times my streams are punctuated with me saying, “Please speak up and ask me questions. I want to hear what you have to say, your view is important even if you disagree with me. You’re very smart and intelligent, and your words have value!”

I’ve only been involved in the Gamergate movement for a week, but there have been many things that I have found to be untrue. The narrative against Gamergate has been that they are nothing but a bunch of angry white men on the internet that hate women and minorities; I have found that to be outright false, in my experience. In fact, I have spoken to and interacted with an even split of men AND women gamers, other minorities, transgender individuals, those of varied sexual preferences , and more. One thing that I have found to be true about all Gamergaters is this: They are universally PISSED. They are quite tired of the treatment that they have received over an incredibly long period of time. I don’t think that Gamergate in and of itself is about an isolated incident; it has been a long time coming and this particular incident was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Many of the sites that have been in the eye of the storm of this cultural movement have been pushing a narrative on their customers that they are “dead”, they are irrelevant, that they don’t matter and that they are not welcome in any way, shape, or form. But I don’t think these sites expected them to push back.

I can’t speak of everyone’s experience in dealing with members of Gamergate, but the majority of what I have personally seen and experienced is that they are passionate people, they’re incredibly smart and savvy consumers, they are ridiculous levels of inviting and inclusive, and almost anyone that shows up is welcomed with open arms. My experience has been pretty much the direct OPPOSITE of the narrative that has been pushed about these people. Of course, there are always going to be extremists and those who engage in sketchy and questionable behavior on any side of a conflict, and I don’t think anyone is going to debate that.

Have I committed career suicide by directly putting my face forward and speaking openly about the issues I have encountered in the industry? I have zero doubts about that. But I will tell you this; the Gamergate community has ultimately been far more welcoming to me as a black man than anyone else has EVER been in my life. For the first time in my life, I’ve had a voice that genuinely matters to someone out there in the world. Isn’t that what a lot of people want, really? For their voice to matter to someone? I think it is.

During all this time, I’ve been very careful to not talk about things going on with me that aren’t relevant to Gamergate; would anyone else likely use this as an opportunity to self-promote, and perhaps to make money off of it by portraying themselves as a victim? They absolutely would. But this is about something WAY bigger than I, and there is a time and a place to promote my own works and what I have done with fiction and storytelling. Right now, in this space about changing a whole industry from the ground up, is not that time. Right now, I’ve become a voice of some sort on the side of Gamergate, one that people are paying a decent amount of attention to. If I can do some good with it, then that is what I’m going to do. If I can calm the masses with my words and have them work towards achieving their ends in a non-destructive and far less hostile fashion, then that is what I’m going to do.

I can’t directly speak for anyone else’s experiences but my own in this situation, but I can say this much. Gamergate has been very welcoming to me as a human being and what I have to say as a critic and editorialist, while the other side has not. The narrative that I have been told is not matching up with the experience that I’ve had. When a clearly identified and not anonymous minority is able to easily corroborate many parts of the overarching Gamergate fiasco from the bottom with his own experience, I would suggest many of the sites in question and anti-GamerGate people take a seriously hard look at their position and consider the possibility that they may be in the wrong in this scenario.

My story isn’t the only one out there. I’m just one of them that decided to speak up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mechaPoet wrote:

Right, well, I can see this is going nowhere fast.

So, let's just go in a completely different direction that pertains to the topic at hand: instead of (or in addition to, whatever) watching Dr. Sommers' video about sexism in video games that doesn't really go into many specifics, why not watch Anita Sarkeesian's videos? They do a great job of pointing out and giving in-depth explanations of prevalent and pervasive sexism in video games.

Probably because a lot of people have aversion to pouring acid on their braincells.


Necromancer wrote:
EDIT: Forgot the most important link - Richard Dawkins' Postmodernism Disrobed

OMG, Richard Dawkins! *swoons*

(I really love Richard Dawkins)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Slaunyeh wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

No, it's not. That's what some people have made it about, and what Zoe "Drama" Quinn would like to turn everyone's attention to, but that's not what it's about.

It's about journalistic integrity, or lack thereof. Quinn was the catalyst in bring an issue that has existed for a long damn time to light.

If that was actually true, why is Zoe Quinn being the subject of all this hate? Why drag Anita Sarkeesian into it? Why is no one calling Nathan Grayson's mom and yelling "YOUR SON IS A WHORE"? (disclaimer: you shouldn't, but these are things that happens to Zoe right now.)

None of the "breaches" of "journalistic integrity" that sparked gamergate actually happened.

Should we have a discussion about the very close and probably very unhealthy relationship between gaming websites and game publishers? Sure. That would both be interesting and appropriate. But that's simply not what gamergate is about, and anyone trying to have a serious discussion under the '#gamergate' banner are hard to take serious. That tag comes with a lot of unbelievably vile baggage.

Frankly, that so many people here apparently supports that level of harassment has pretty much put me off these forums. Because ew.

Gamersgate has for better or worse come to be tied to the absolutely vile death and rape threats issued against Zoe Quinn. For example, one person said they were going to "harass her until she commits suicide". I as well as most rational people can not and will not condone anything to do with such despicable behavior. Supporting such behavior does not make sense to me.

Gamersgate will always be associated to that behavior due to the fact this behavior outweighs all other factors. Threatening to rape and kill someone simply makes all other discussion seem very minor in comparison.


Necromancer wrote:

Oliver Campbell on "When A Black Game Journalist Spoke Up On #Gamergate"

posted here for convenience

Oliver Campbell wrote:

My week in interacting with the angriest

of consumer revolts

Gamergate. The dirty laundry of the game industry, the open secret that no one wants to speak of and yet everyone seems to be aware of.

At this point everyone pretty much knows what really sparked the consumer revolt that is known as Gamergate. I had been watching the story of it unfold over the past month on a rather casual basis, with no indication or expectation that I would end up in the middle of it. At no point did I believe that I would become someone that people would be paying attention to.

Starting around the middle of 2009 I began my attempt to claw my way up from the bottom of the lobster bucket as a game journalist. Writing game reviews and editorial pieces, building connections with other writers, public relations with game developers, and just trying to squeeze my way into the cracks to build an identity and career for myself. In some ways I was successful, others I was not. I would spend hours on end carefully writing and crafting the pieces that I would publish, with usually a few dozen views and not much more than that as compensation. The fact of the matter is that “game bloggers” at this point in time were starting to become a dime for a dozen, and it takes fairly substantial efforts to stand out from the crowd.

While some of my experiences as a game journalist have definitely been aspiration fulfilling, most of them were not and many outright negative. Being black while writing about games comes with certain unspoken disadvantages; such as having what I call a ‘credibility deficit’, being deemed eccentric, and receiving generally puzzling looks whenever you speak on the topic of games as an art medium worthy of discussion. Frankly, If you’re a black gamer and

...

First, that's way outside the bounds of Fair Use. Extract the bit that best makes your point and link.

Second, I'm not sure what the point of linking it is. That #gamergate isn't racist?
Interesting because the first link to gamergate in there is through transphobia and racism in the industry at large and then he talks about how he talked about his experiences and how gamergate welcomed him, but he never really talked in this article about what those were or anything about what gamergate is about.


mechaPoet wrote:
However, their are tons of examples of violence against women in (mainstream and otherwise) games where this violence is used for reasons of plot (to motivate the almost-certainly-male protagonist)

Right. Because if you cut a female in half on a sawmill the question is "How could anyone be that cruel?" Thats the bad guy. KILL HIM!

If you cut a guy in half on a sawmill the question is "What did that guy do?" For all you know that guys a pedophile or a murderer and deserves to be there, and thats something you'd have to spend more time estbalishing in story and less time beating mobsters to death with a tuna. Females have an assumption of innocence and purity along with the helplessness.

Quote:
Female characters are rarely given the same kind of agency as their male counterpoints (limited as an expendable mook's agency may be).

For protagonists guys want to BE the hero, want to think of themselves as the guy on the screen. Thinking of yourself as a pixilated hypermacho man with a machine gun usually works better than thinking of yourself as a pixilated girl with a machine gun.

For antagonists, its because most guys are turned off by the prospect of unloading a tommygun into a female boss.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
Necromancer wrote:
EDIT: Forgot the most important link - Richard Dawkins' Postmodernism Disrobed

OMG, Richard Dawkins! *swoons*

(I really love Richard Dawkins)

Sweet God. Well, I wouldn't recommend that article, cuz Richard Dawkins clearly has no idea what the hell postmodernism is.

Shadow Lodge

Does anyone have any substantial proof that gamergate existed prior to the Zoe Quinn thing? Because while some deny it, everything I have seen seems to point to gamergate 100% being spawned from her harassment.


xn0o0cl3 wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Necromancer wrote:
EDIT: Forgot the most important link - Richard Dawkins' Postmodernism Disrobed

OMG, Richard Dawkins! *swoons*

(I really love Richard Dawkins)

Sweet God. Well, I wouldn't recommend that article, cuz Richard Dawkins clearly has no idea what the hell postmodernism is.

Its postmodernism. Its whatever you want it to be.

Spoiler:
muahahahaahhaa


xn0o0cl3 wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Necromancer wrote:
EDIT: Forgot the most important link - Richard Dawkins' Postmodernism Disrobed

OMG, Richard Dawkins! *swoons*

(I really love Richard Dawkins)

Sweet God. Well, I wouldn't recommend that article, cuz Richard Dawkins clearly has no idea what the hell postmodernism is.

Feel free to explain what post-modernism is. :)

On an unrelated note, as I was reading this quote in the article:

Katherine Hayles wrote:
The privileging of solid over fluid mechanics, and indeed the inability of science to deal with turbulent flow at all, she attributes to the association of fluidity with femininity. Whereas men have sex organs that protrude and become rigid, women have openings that leak menstrual blood and vaginal fluids. . . From this perspective it is no wonder that science has not been able to arrive at a successful model for turbulence. The problem of turbulent flow cannot be solved because the conceptions of fluids (and of women) have been formulated so as necessarily to leave unarticulated remainders.

I couldn't help but laugh and imagine this scene.

WE WALK IN THE VALLEY OF HIS TUUUUUURBULANCE!

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
mechaPoet wrote:
However, their are tons of examples of violence against women in (mainstream and otherwise) games where this violence is used for reasons of plot (to motivate the almost-certainly-male protagonist)

Right. Because if you cut a female in half on a sawmill the question is "How could anyone be that cruel?" Thats the bad guy. KILL HIM!

If you cut a guy in half on a sawmill the question is "What did that guy do?" For all you know that guys a pedophile or a murderer and deserves to be there, and thats something you'd have to spend more time estbalishing in story and less time beating mobsters to death with a tuna. Females have an assumption of innocence and purity along with the helplessness.

There's nothing inherently sexist about establishing the evilness of an antagonist through their depraved acts of violence. What is a problem is that it's almost exclusively women who receive this violence at the hands of men. They are the kicked puppies and drowned kittens of lazy evil character development. Which is to say that they are given no more agency than animals. The problem isn't necessarily that violence is being done to women, it's that this violence is almost exclusively used as plot-fuel to encourage the male protagonist. And a lot of people are pretty tired of seeing women treated as pawns and plot devices in order to bolster the narratives of dudes all the time.

Quote:
Quote:
Female characters are rarely given the same kind of agency as their male counterpoints (limited as an expendable mook's agency may be).

For protagonists guys want to BE the hero, want to think of themselves as the guy on the screen. Thinking of yourself as a pixilated hypermacho man with a machine gun usually works better than thinking of yourself as a pixilated girl with a machine gun.

For antagonists, its because most guys are turned off by the prospect of unloading a tommygun into a female boss.

I'm a guy, and I would take playing a girl with a machine gun over playing a hyper-macho man 100% of the time. I do at every given opportunity. I don't know who that scowling white guy on the cover of the Mass Effect games is, but I know that Shepherd is a badass woman saving the galaxy from the Reapers. I'm half-surprised at such a broad generalization.

Why are there dudes who are hesitant to shoot at a well-armed female boss, but have no problem unloading on a male one? Is it because they are conscious of the widespread real-world violence against women? Or because of some notion that women are, to quote you from earlier, " Females have an assumption of innocence and purity along with the helplessness"?

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

Kthulhu wrote:
Does anyone have any substantial proof that gamergate existed prior to the Zoe Quinn thing? Because while some deny it, everything I have seen seems to point to gamergate 100% being spawned from her harassment.

This article outlines the 4channer IRC logs (with a link to the primary source itself) that show that Gamer Gate was explicitly a sexist hate campaign against Zoe Quinn (and Anita Sarkeesian to a lesser extent). It also very explicitly outlines how they planned the Gamer Gate tag as an illusory front about "journalistic integrity" to make their attack less overt. Primary Source. Right here. Over 3000 pages. Gamer Gate as it relates to being some ethical crusade about impartiality is, and has always been, a sham.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mechaPoet wrote:
I'm a guy

It bugs me that this even needs to be stated.

Quote:
I would take playing a girl with a machine gun over playing a hyper-macho man 100% of the time

Me too.

Quote:
I don't know who that scowling white guy on the cover of the Mass Effect games is

Wow, racist.

Quote:
Why are there dudes who are hesitant to shoot at a well-armed female boss, but have no problem unloading on a male one?

Might have to do with society's history of protective privilages towards women. It's frequently considered dishonorable, immoral, and make you a failure as a man to strike a woman. Like how men are punished more fervently than women for the same crimes. It's pretty sexist, and people are taught that sexist protection of women is a good thing, and so when you are taught from an early age that it is wrong to hit women (often even in self defense) you might be subject to the brainwash.

Quote:
Females have an assumption of innocence and purity along with the helplessness"?

It's a privilege that they get, yeah. The assumption that they are just more right, honorable, innocent, pure, and/or undeserving of scorn from the get-go. If they are presented as strong, then they are all of those things and that much greater for it, whereas if they are weak they are given an understanding pass. While males are treated as though they are expected to be strong, weakness is a discredit to their value, and they lack the association of positives such as innocence, purity, and often even honor.

It's kind of sad how biased it is in their favor, really. Fortunately, my mother taught me to believe in equality, and told me if another girl attacks me, fight right back. It has solved a number of problems in my life and shocked some of my boy friends. I have no problem kicking the snot out of Chun Li or Cammy while playing Ryu or Juri Han. Squeaky wheel gets the kick!


mechaPoet wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Does anyone have any substantial proof that gamergate existed prior to the Zoe Quinn thing? Because while some deny it, everything I have seen seems to point to gamergate 100% being spawned from her harassment.
This article outlines the 4channer IRC logs (with a link to the primary source itself) that show that Gamer Gate was explicitly a sexist hate campaign against Zoe Quinn (and Anita Sarkeesian to a lesser extent). It also very explicitly outlines how they planned the Gamer Gate tag as an illusory front about "journalistic integrity" to make their attack less overt. Primary Source. Right here. Over 3000 pages. Gamer Gate as it relates to being some ethical crusade about impartiality is, and has always been, a sham.

Regardless of how it started and what 4chan's intentions were originally or remained all along, it's possible that the illusory front took on a life of it's own and that those now keeping it alive are actually focused more on the journalistic integrity cover story and aren't actually part of the sexist hate.

That said, I've seen almost nothing here that actually goes into the journalistic integrity side of it, despite all the talk about how that's the real point. A lot of attacks on Quinn and Sarkeesian, though no open support for the actual misogynistic attacks, and a lot of focus on sexism and how it's not really bad, but modern feminists are.


Mecha Poet gets it. It's not about singular instances. It's not about the act. It's about the trend.


thejeff wrote:
sexism and how it's not really bad, but modern feminists are.

Let's meet in the middle and agree both are.


And what, pray tell, is a "modern feminist". Why don't you explain to me what's so bad about them, because I count myself among "modern feminists".


Ashiel wrote:
thejeff wrote:
sexism and how it's not really bad, but modern feminists are.
Let's meet in the middle and agree both are.

But since modern feminists are bad for pointing out sexism, I don't think that works.


Albatoonoe wrote:
And what, pray tell, is a "modern feminist". Why don't you explain to me what's so bad about them, because I count myself among "modern feminists".

I'll quote the "sane" "Factual Feminist" whose video take started this thread: "today’s male-bashing, propaganda-driven, female chauvinism."

Which appears to refer to anyone who thinks there's a problem with sexism in video games or in the industry.

Sovereign Court

So how does this sexism problem get fixed?


Albatoonoe wrote:
And what, pray tell, is a "modern feminist". Why don't you explain to me what's so bad about them, because I count myself among "modern feminists".

Anita Sarkeesian ("modern feminist") vs Christina Hoff Summers ("feminist"). At least, that's how I've seen it, but I'm always collecting more data.


thejeff wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
thejeff wrote:
sexism and how it's not really bad, but modern feminists are.
Let's meet in the middle and agree both are.

But since modern feminists are bad for pointing out sexism, I don't think that works.

Bad for pointing out sexism? Oh no, never. Bad for using dishonesty, bigotry, and broken logic? Oh, very much so. Very, very much so.


Ashiel wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:
And what, pray tell, is a "modern feminist". Why don't you explain to me what's so bad about them, because I count myself among "modern feminists".
Anita Sarkeesian ("modern feminist") vs Christina Hoff Summers ("feminist"). At least, that's how I've seen it, but I'm always collecting more data.

That still doesn't answer the question.


Ashiel wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
thejeff wrote:
sexism and how it's not really bad, but modern feminists are.
Let's meet in the middle and agree both are.

But since modern feminists are bad for pointing out sexism, I don't think that works.

Bad for pointing out sexism? Oh no, never. Bad for using dishonesty, bigotry, and broken logic? Oh, very much so. Very, very much so.

Bad for pointing out sexism that isn't apparent to the person calling them bad.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:
So how does this sexism problem get fixed?

Well my parents taught me not to treat people differently. It seems to be working pretty well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:
So how does this sexism problem get fixed?

Same way all problems get solved in our postmodern age: By having lots and lots of people point out structures and calling lots of other people evil a!*%#&~s, except it is not them as individuals, they are victims of the structures too. If this is done enough, the problem goes away.


Albatoonoe wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:
And what, pray tell, is a "modern feminist". Why don't you explain to me what's so bad about them, because I count myself among "modern feminists".
Anita Sarkeesian ("modern feminist") vs Christina Hoff Summers ("feminist"). At least, that's how I've seen it, but I'm always collecting more data.
That still doesn't answer the question.

"modern feminists" are the current militant, radical, man-hating, female chauvinistic, hysterical, attention seeking feminists.

You know, all things feminists have always been accused of by the defenders of the status quo and even the prior waves of feminists.


mechaPoet wrote:


There's nothing inherently sexist about establishing the evilness of an antagonist through their depraved acts of violence. What is a problem is that it's almost exclusively women who receive this violence at the hands of men.

Its almost exclusively used on women because, said as it is to say, doing it to a man doesn't establish you as a villain. It might just establish you as a badass.

Quote:
The problem isn't necessarily that violence is being done to women, it's that this violence is almost exclusively used as plot-fuel to encourage the male protagonist.

The protagonist is male because its easier for the player to identify with them, which gets you better sales.

Quote:
And a lot of people are pretty tired of seeing women treated as pawns and plot devices in order to bolster the narratives of dudes all the time.

But not enough to move sales onto something else apparently.

Quote:
I'm a guy, and I would take playing a girl with a machine gun over playing a hyper-macho man 100% of the time. I do at every given opportunity.

You're also using a female avatar. You may not have a problem with it, but many people seem to.

Quote:
I don't know who that scowling white guy on the cover of the Mass Effect games is, but I know that Shepherd is a badass woman saving the galaxy from the Reapers. I'm half-surprised at such a broad generalization.

We're talking about a broad subject. You cannot simply embrace the true but broad generalizations that

It's almost exclusively women who receive this violence at the hands of men
Female characters are rarely given the same kind of agency as their male counterpoints

But then reject the idea that, from a marketing standpoint, you will lose more customers than you'd gain with a female protagonist simply because "Guys don't want to play as girls" is also a broad statement.

Quote:
Why are there dudes who are hesitant to shoot at a well-armed female boss, but have no problem unloading on a male one?

Because even absent any possible biological rationales, "you don't hit girls" is implicitly and explicitly enforced in our society at every level from preschool to law enforcement.

Quote:
Is it because they are conscious of the widespread real-world violence against women? Or because of some notion that women are, to quote you from earlier, " Females have an assumption of innocence and purity along with the helplessness"?

Most of the latter, since the sort of violence you see in videogames is usually the sort thats more often visited on males (shootings, stabbings, disintegrated by a ray gun etc)


The idea of "modern feminist" is dishonest at best. It's a diversionary tactic. By calling the other side "crazy" you don't have to acknowledge them. You don't acknowledge crazy talk.

So, drop it. Drop this arbitrary division between "feminists" and "modern feminists" because it's starting to sound like the crazy ones are the ones you don't agree with.


Albatoonoe wrote:

The idea of "modern feminist" is dishonest at best. It's a diversionary tactic. By calling the other side "crazy" you don't have to acknowledge them. You don't acknowledge crazy talk.

So, drop it. Drop this arbitrary division between "feminists" and "modern feminists" because it's starting to sound like the crazy ones are the ones you don't agree with.

Talk to Dr. Sommers, whose video at the start of this thread is little but an attack on a kind of feminism she doesn't agree with.


Kthulhu wrote:
Does anyone have any substantial proof that gamergate existed prior to the Zoe Quinn thing? Because while some deny it, everything I have seen seems to point to gamergate 100% being spawned from her harassment.

"Harassment" is not criticism of a person's professional behavior and their associate's behavior. Adam Baldwin invented the tag after viewing some criticism directed at Quinn and connected journalists.

Soundcloud interview link; Baldwin's segment starts at the five minute mark.

No sane, mature person involved with gamergate condones harassment. And again, criticism is not harassment.

Related articles by the interviewer that I'm aware of.

Sovereign Court

Ashiel wrote:
Pan wrote:
So how does this sexism problem get fixed?
Well my parents taught me not to treat people differently. It seems to be working pretty well.

I agree with that but im not after how you personally don't contribute to sexism. I guess what I am after is what needs to be done so that videogames are not sexist.

151 to 200 of 597 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Entertainment / Video Games / Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers takes a look at video games All Messageboards