Misogyny or Sexual Persecution? [Update!]

[Jesterscup]

persecution, yes. Even if it isn't what people mean the discussion is usually dragged into a hostile field. Where groups are lumped together and accused of some crime or insesitivity even if only part of the group are at fault. If those people would be more clear about that distinction (for example, prefacing a statement with "I'm aware that not all men are mysogonistic swines") and be a little heavier on the solutions rather then the accusations to give the men in question a way to get involved in the debate without either being completely black or completely white, that will probably give a much more constructive debate.

Bottom line, if you don't clearly state that you have, for example, nothing against men and video games in general, people will make those assumpions and you will antagonise people that might otherwise have been on your side.

Gamers have been sexually harassing, verbally abusing, and issuing death threat to gamers and journalists for more than a decade.

Did you just read that and automatically think I was referring to all gamers?

I never used the word "all." I'm clearly talking about those gamers.

I shouldn't have to write a disclaimer every time I say something like that, just because some people struggle with reading comprehension.

Women are manipulative. Black people steal cars. Hispanics don't pay taxes.

Oh, did you think I meant all women? All back people? All Hispanics? Clearly I meant only the women who are manipulative, only the blacks that steal cars, and the Hispanics that don't pay taxes.

I never used the word "all." I'm clearly talking about those women, blacks and Hispanics.

I shouldn't have to write a disclaimer every time I say something like that, just because some people struggle with reading comprehension.

That would be great a comeback, but those statements you made have no context. What I originally said had context to make it clear what I was saying. The "gamers are dead" articles had context.

What you said had no context. Are you saying only women can be manipulative and only black people steal cars and only Hispanics don't pay taxes? I'm pretty sure you don't believe that, but I think you see my point.

So it would be ok to generalize about black people stealing cars if I were commenting in an article about a person who stole a car who happened to be black? I find that really hard to buy. I mean, think about it:

Article: Man steals a car.

Comment: Damn it, black people need to stop stealing cars!

What was the context in the article? Did the author say all men or all black men steal cars?

My comment: Why just black people? All races need to stop stealing cars.

I blame the cars, if we didn't have cars then nobody could steal them, for for that matter kill people in them....

Spoiler: All Crime is committed by the living, so.....

There actually is a greater meaning to this post for those who will see it.

 

[AkaDad]

persecution, yes. Even if it isn't what people mean the discussion is usually dragged into a hostile field. Where groups are lumped together and accused of some crime or insesitivity even if only part of the group are at fault. If those people would be more clear about that distinction (for example, prefacing a statement with "I'm aware that not all men are mysogonistic swines") and be a little heavier on the solutions rather then the accusations to give the men in question a way to get involved in the debate without either being completely black or completely white, that will probably give a much more constructive debate.

Bottom line, if you don't clearly state that you have, for example, nothing against men and video games in general, people will make those assumpions and you will antagonise people that might otherwise have been on your side.

Gamers have been sexually harassing, verbally abusing, and issuing death threat to gamers and journalists for more than a decade.

Did you just read that and automatically think I was referring to all gamers?

I never used the word "all." I'm clearly talking about those gamers.

I shouldn't have to write a disclaimer every time I say something like that, just because some people struggle with reading comprehension.

Women are manipulative. Black people steal cars. Hispanics don't pay taxes.

Oh, did you think I meant all women? All back people? All Hispanics? Clearly I meant only the women who are manipulative, only the blacks that steal cars, and the Hispanics that don't pay taxes.

I never used the word "all." I'm clearly talking about those women, blacks and Hispanics.

I shouldn't have to write a disclaimer every time I say something like that, just because some people struggle with reading comprehension.

That would be great a comeback, but those statements you made have no context. What I originally said had context to make it clear what I was saying. The "gamers are dead" articles had context.

What you said had no context. Are you saying only women can be manipulative and only black people steal cars and only Hispanics don't pay taxes? I'm pretty sure you don't believe that, but I think you see my point.

So it would be ok to generalize about black people stealing cars if I were commenting in an article about a person who stole a car who happened to be black? I find that really hard to buy. I mean, think about it:

Article: Man steals a car.

Comment: Damn it, black people need to stop stealing cars!

What was the context in the article? Did the author say all men or all black men steal cars?

My comment: Why just black people? All races need to stop stealing cars.

Ok then, can you show me the context where it would be ok to make a generalized statement about black people being stealing cars? Because unless I am much mistaken your argument is that context alone can substitute for a qualifier in a generalized statement. Or was I incorrect?

Yes, context can be a substitute, that is my point.

Here's my original quote: Gamers have been sexually harassing, verbally abusing, and issuing death threat to gamers and journalists for more than a decade.

Now here's the same quote with a tweak: All gamers have been sexually harassing, verbally abusing, and issuing death threat to gamers and journalists for more than a decade.

Isn't adding a disclaimer to the first quote insulting your intelligence?

If someone else had wrote the first quote I wouldn't be offended because I don't verbally abuse, sexually harass, or issue death threats.

 

[gargantual]

Oh sure. I understand you're not saying it. Its just I've only found a few such as yourself who've measured their concerns with that precedent at heart. and that constant messaging isn't as 'pernicious' to everyone as culture critics claim it is. Combating stereotypes to me is as simple as adding variety to the mixture so people don't feel they are a monolith in a certain world, and have their go to people, if they take that world to heart. But art imitates life. We bat around TV tropes and debate their uselessness rather than asking in reality what is this media abstracting, or caricaturing? What in our world is mirroring so heavily through fiction. Instead we blame the fiction as the raisers of the dead. The prime facilitators of cultural backwardness. Its excusing real world perpetrators of abuse and misguidance from their responsibility. I still ask myself where do these fiction creators get their source material from?

I Like to use the term 'cultural artifact' , and yes art imitates life. But art has also been used to show us what life can be for both good and ill. I'd wager that the strongest source for creative inspiration comes from what already exists ( I've made this point before in the thread). We are still dragging round, like a millstone ( tap, force other player to discard 2 card from the top of their deck), the cultural legacy of thousands of years of oppression towards various groups. And it's only by having an awareness of these artifacts ( tropes and stereotypes are only 2 small facets of this ) that we can make informed choices.

Now partly this could be solved by addressing the diversity of development groups, partly by teaching & informing. But Debate has to be had, because there are many dubious and tricky ethical questions hanging around here, and thats what ( for me) makes discussions like this thread, where we explore these. Seriously read through this thread, we've discussed adult media, chainmail loinclothes, stereotypes in childrens entertainment. I've no interest in having a 'meta-discussion' about the 'sides' only in taking part in the same discussion they are having.

Hmmm. the dragging about like a millstone part I'm not too certain. I think people are aware of the abstraction and attraction of certain tropes and playing them up like couples that role play. Accidental messaging can always happen for people who are on the outside that don't understand what they are seeing. I look at it as collateral damage. You mitigate it, while trying to keep your work what you originally intend.

I do agree that entertainers have a partial responsibility to watch their footprint for impressionable people. The expressions of one person can be the propaganda of the next. But the worse I've seen is Microsoft's or EA's vain promotion of bro culture to the exclusion of Japanese or kitsch VG interests, and where it succeeded in some areas with good games it failed very obviously from an advertisement perspective to savvy hardcore gamers. Everyone knew EA's 'sin to win' and 'your mom will hate this game' ads was cheap promotion and embarrassing for the community.

But where I think the divide is. When somebody enjoys something visually raw, yet with real world connotations of concern. They are merely entertained by the aesthetic and probably always will be.

I think they are trying to clarify they are not endorsers of blatant physical evil or perpetuators of harmful institutions, but simply reconciling their visual fascinations. I still enjoy listening to Onyx's Slam. Its nostalgic and enthralling, but as an endorsement of real violence? Depends on the person I'd have to say. Not me. Sure there's responsibility in that when you have an audience, but yeah as we said its easier to corral the preferred audience.

For example when I was young my parents were concerned as a peaceful christian family of me using my artist skills to sketch pictures of firearms. They saw I was a relatively friendly and peaceable kid that didn't endorse real violence while I admit like my peers did appreciate artistic displays of the fake and the sanitized variety.

Watching the late news and COPS with them I was aware of loud uncanny and dangerous they were to some degree but I found it hard to explain to them, that the sharp or slick curved and detailed craftsmanship and animation of them I found very interesting and difficult to reproduce so I kept trying to beat the challenge from different corners and visual angles.

Its hard under the spotlight of common standards and decency to explain that one is expressing or exploring abstractions. We know it subconsciously, but its not widely reconciled that this is what people are doing in explicit media. We say 'look at what this person is interested in! They clearly have issues or mental problems, instead of asking what sparked their interest in drawing certain subject matter.

When Cliff Blesinski announced another online shooter and said, hey it's in my blood. I wasn't disappointing at him not shifting interests at all (of course right? heh heh), or concerned about him perpetuating an cultural appetite for sanitized violence, because if you look at goal based sports and many war games over human history, those are also abstract expressions of the war energetic war-like interests, put into a concentrated environment but hardly the social and psychological bars and shackles of omnipotent deviant cabals of men upon humankind. Its great that people want a mirror of changing social paradigm shifts and interests. That should be recognized, but if people like the status quo, everyone deserves their fantasy. I couldn't hold up the 'culture card' and say due to the uncertain ramifications of larger media messaging you purveyors of explicit dark fantasy cant have as much of a platform anymore. Especially when it was a platform created by them for people like them.

Surely something outside the status quo might seem more imaginative, but its Copy, Transform, Combine. Like the very origins of life this cyclical process of absorption, transformation and self definition or repetition of ideas, and memes is our creative process, and everything is up for it.

So I was thinking. Good for Cliff. Do yourself, and show these Call of Duty kids what a REAL shooter is. Harder games might bring back that traditional hallmark and reinforcement of strife, practice, skill and growth into gaming culture that has been waning horribly since the Wii blew up.

As a concerned citizen from the outside, seeing violent imagery and constant dark romanticism and certain technical fetishes in music, games, literature and film it can certainly look weird to the uninterested and draw concern. Its our nature to bash what we dont understand enough with a stick or question, or at certain thresholds of growth and evolution to decide not to reconcile why we like certain things and cast them off. Its a decision enthusiasts can only truly make for themselves. Id rather games media that has a local political clout over the new breed of indie development allows them that room and doesn't generalize to culturally make it for them.

 

[Rahkshi500]

Are people out of line for saying that he has the artistic fetishm of a 12 year old? Yes. But, this game can't be exempt from the discussion. In this case, I'm not sure Dragon's Crown was designed to be a niche' audience game, but from the art you do get the impression it's a boy's only affair.

While I get that it is easy to jump to the assumption of this kind of fetishsm appealing to boys, given how much pandering there is in general, I do think it's pretty faulty to think that only boys would be attracted to stuff like this, since it generally outright ignores or dismisses what girls think(outside of those who criticize the Kamitani's art-style), because you would surprise(like I was) to find a significant number of women who either did like the art-style or at least didn't mind it.

And given how Vanillaware hasn't made that many games before, and their popularity wasn't that known except for a small dedicated fanbase, I think it would be safe to assume that it was indeed a game for a niche audience before the controversy happened.

-

Well, personally, the art gives me the impression that someone went a bit wild with the concept of 'ridiculously designed characters', more than anything. I can't see many women being attracted to the Dwarf, much like I can't see many men being attracted to the Amazon.

You'd be surprise to find that there are indeed a large number of guys who are attracted to the Amazon. While I can't say the same for women and the Dwarf, I have been able to find a significant number of women who were attracted to the Warrior and the Wizard.

-

I'll just say that I always get the idea that when people say 'ridiculously designed characters' they're referring to it being used as satire. Though It could just mean they're referring to the ridiculousness of how sexual it is.

I will, however, say that this art is kind of unfair. All the women in this game are beautiful sexy goddess and I had to look for the sexy bare-chested men who weren't big because it signifies strength. The last male image is a good example. That does look like a sexy muscular man. In fact, I can say George loves drawing women. 70-80% of the art I was looking for to source was female characters. The rest were creatures and the occasional dude. I counted four other half naked men in about 50 images.

Edit: Anyone else notice the skeleton in that sorceress pic in my last post? . . . or the fact her ass is so big she can't bend over without her staff riding up the crack? Ridiculous indeed.

Well, as someone who admits to loving Kamitani's artwork, I usually would be in favor for the more exaggerated designs, especially after being overexposed to so much gritty-realistic designs in a lot of mainstream gaming. So you find the art kinda unfair because of a lack of sexy guys for you? That's fair enough, given to what I have said in previous posts; I do think that there will be enough games in the future that will be able to cater to everyone.

Also, yes, I noticed the skeleton.

 

[Panda Pandemic]

persecution, yes. Even if it isn't what people mean the discussion is usually dragged into a hostile field. Where groups are lumped together and accused of some crime or insesitivity even if only part of the group are at fault. If those people would be more clear about that distinction (for example, prefacing a statement with "I'm aware that not all men are mysogonistic swines") and be a little heavier on the solutions rather then the accusations to give the men in question a way to get involved in the debate without either being completely black or completely white, that will probably give a much more constructive debate.

Bottom line, if you don't clearly state that you have, for example, nothing against men and video games in general, people will make those assumpions and you will antagonise people that might otherwise have been on your side.

Gamers have been sexually harassing, verbally abusing, and issuing death threat to gamers and journalists for more than a decade.

Did you just read that and automatically think I was referring to all gamers?

I never used the word "all." I'm clearly talking about those gamers.

I shouldn't have to write a disclaimer every time I say something like that, just because some people struggle with reading comprehension.

Women are manipulative. Black people steal cars. Hispanics don't pay taxes.

Oh, did you think I meant all women? All back people? All Hispanics? Clearly I meant only the women who are manipulative, only the blacks that steal cars, and the Hispanics that don't pay taxes.

I never used the word "all." I'm clearly talking about those women, blacks and Hispanics.

I shouldn't have to write a disclaimer every time I say something like that, just because some people struggle with reading comprehension.

You can't just swap any noun for another.

For example I doubt anyone would take "Police have been harassing him" to mean all the police ever. Identifying them by group implies there is something relevant about it. In the case of gamers that tends to tell you the context the harassment is occurring in. (Online, in games, generally in places where gaming culture is big.)

 

[DrOswald]

persecution, yes. Even if it isn't what people mean the discussion is usually dragged into a hostile field. Where groups are lumped together and accused of some crime or insesitivity even if only part of the group are at fault. If those people would be more clear about that distinction (for example, prefacing a statement with "I'm aware that not all men are mysogonistic swines") and be a little heavier on the solutions rather then the accusations to give the men in question a way to get involved in the debate without either being completely black or completely white, that will probably give a much more constructive debate.

Bottom line, if you don't clearly state that you have, for example, nothing against men and video games in general, people will make those assumpions and you will antagonise people that might otherwise have been on your side.

Gamers have been sexually harassing, verbally abusing, and issuing death threat to gamers and journalists for more than a decade.

Did you just read that and automatically think I was referring to all gamers?

I never used the word "all." I'm clearly talking about those gamers.

I shouldn't have to write a disclaimer every time I say something like that, just because some people struggle with reading comprehension.

Women are manipulative. Black people steal cars. Hispanics don't pay taxes.

Oh, did you think I meant all women? All back people? All Hispanics? Clearly I meant only the women who are manipulative, only the blacks that steal cars, and the Hispanics that don't pay taxes.

I never used the word "all." I'm clearly talking about those women, blacks and Hispanics.

I shouldn't have to write a disclaimer every time I say something like that, just because some people struggle with reading comprehension.

That would be great a comeback, but those statements you made have no context. What I originally said had context to make it clear what I was saying. The "gamers are dead" articles had context.

What you said had no context. Are you saying only women can be manipulative and only black people steal cars and only Hispanics don't pay taxes? I'm pretty sure you don't believe that, but I think you see my point.

So it would be ok to generalize about black people stealing cars if I were commenting in an article about a person who stole a car who happened to be black? I find that really hard to buy. I mean, think about it:

Article: Man steals a car.

Comment: Damn it, black people need to stop stealing cars!

What was the context in the article? Did the author say all men or all black men steal cars?

My comment: Why just black people? All races need to stop stealing cars.

Ok then, can you show me the context where it would be ok to make a generalized statement about black people being stealing cars? Because unless I am much mistaken your argument is that context alone can substitute for a qualifier in a generalized statement. Or was I incorrect?

Yes, context can be a substitute, that is my point.

Here's my original quote: Gamers have been sexually harassing, verbally abusing, and issuing death threat to gamers and journalists for more than a decade.

Now here's the same quote with a tweak: All gamers have been sexually harassing, verbally abusing, and issuing death threat to gamers and journalists for more than a decade.

Isn't adding a disclaimer to the first quote insulting your intelligence?

If someone else had wrote the first quote I wouldn't be offended because I don't verbally abuse, sexually harass, or issue death threats.

I get your point, but I disagree. And the reason I disagree is because in my experience context is never enough in virtually any other situation.

This is why I bring up general statements about race and gender groups. Consider the shape of what has been happening lately. Some news comes out about harassment:

News: A gamer harassed Anita Sarkeesian

Response: Gamers have been sexually harassing, verbally abusing, and issuing death threat to gamers and journalists for more than a decade.

When someone calls you out on this your justification is that because of the news item it is clear from context that you are only talking about gamers that do those things. I get that point of view. You didn't mean that all gamers do those things, you didn't even directly say it. But consider this exact same form replacing gamer with black person and harassment with stealing.

News: A black person stole Anita Sarkeesian's Car

Response: Blacks have been stealing cars for decades.

Following the same logic of justification by context that statement should be fine to make because of the news item. Clearly the context refers only to black people who steal cars.

Am I wrong? If so, what is the difference?

 

[Jack Action]

You'd be surprise to find that there are indeed a large number of guys who are attracted to the Amazon. While I can't say the same for women and the Dwarf, I have been able to find a significant number of women who were attracted to the Warrior and the Wizard.

Eh, the Wizard's the most reasonably-designed of the main characters. I mean, he actually looks like a human being, for one. As for the Warrior, I imagine it has something to do with him being a prettyboy. His face makes Korean popstars look like cave trolls. The fact that it's bolted to a body that makes Space Marines seem normal makes this hilarious.

 

[DrOswald]

persecution, yes. Even if it isn't what people mean the discussion is usually dragged into a hostile field. Where groups are lumped together and accused of some crime or insesitivity even if only part of the group are at fault. If those people would be more clear about that distinction (for example, prefacing a statement with "I'm aware that not all men are mysogonistic swines") and be a little heavier on the solutions rather then the accusations to give the men in question a way to get involved in the debate without either being completely black or completely white, that will probably give a much more constructive debate.

Bottom line, if you don't clearly state that you have, for example, nothing against men and video games in general, people will make those assumpions and you will antagonise people that might otherwise have been on your side.

Gamers have been sexually harassing, verbally abusing, and issuing death threat to gamers and journalists for more than a decade.

Did you just read that and automatically think I was referring to all gamers?

I never used the word "all." I'm clearly talking about those gamers.

I shouldn't have to write a disclaimer every time I say something like that, just because some people struggle with reading comprehension.

Women are manipulative. Black people steal cars. Hispanics don't pay taxes.

Oh, did you think I meant all women? All back people? All Hispanics? Clearly I meant only the women who are manipulative, only the blacks that steal cars, and the Hispanics that don't pay taxes.

I never used the word "all." I'm clearly talking about those women, blacks and Hispanics.

I shouldn't have to write a disclaimer every time I say something like that, just because some people struggle with reading comprehension.

You can't just swap any noun for another.

For example I doubt anyone would take "Police have been harassing him" to mean all the police ever. Identifying them by group implies there is something relevant about it. In the case of gamers that tends to tell you the context the harassment is occurring in. (Online, in games, generally in places where gaming culture is big.)

But that example in itself betrays why generalization is a bad thing. Years are years of statements like "police have been harassing black people" have lead to overly generalized views about the attitudes of police towards minorities. I know several people who hate ALL police because in their mind ALL police are racists.

Of course not all police hate black people. Many of them are black people. Of course generalized statements like "police harass black people" doesn't refer to all black people. But that doesn't matter because years and years of generalized statements like that have ended up coloring the common perception of the police. No one ever had to say "all the police harass black people" for many to believe it. I know people who literally believe it is impossible for a police man to not be racist.

As far as using the term "gamers" to impart the context of places where gamers tend to be, I see absolutely no difference in using the term "blacks" to communicate the context of places where black people tend to be. I would certainly hope I would never see the headline "blacks harass woman" because a black man did it in the part of town with many black people.

 

[Panda Pandemic]

persecution, yes. Even if it isn't what people mean the discussion is usually dragged into a hostile field. Where groups are lumped together and accused of some crime or insesitivity even if only part of the group are at fault. If those people would be more clear about that distinction (for example, prefacing a statement with "I'm aware that not all men are mysogonistic swines") and be a little heavier on the solutions rather then the accusations to give the men in question a way to get involved in the debate without either being completely black or completely white, that will probably give a much more constructive debate.

Bottom line, if you don't clearly state that you have, for example, nothing against men and video games in general, people will make those assumpions and you will antagonise people that might otherwise have been on your side.

Gamers have been sexually harassing, verbally abusing, and issuing death threat to gamers and journalists for more than a decade.

Did you just read that and automatically think I was referring to all gamers?

I never used the word "all." I'm clearly talking about those gamers.

I shouldn't have to write a disclaimer every time I say something like that, just because some people struggle with reading comprehension.

Women are manipulative. Black people steal cars. Hispanics don't pay taxes.

Oh, did you think I meant all women? All back people? All Hispanics? Clearly I meant only the women who are manipulative, only the blacks that steal cars, and the Hispanics that don't pay taxes.

I never used the word "all." I'm clearly talking about those women, blacks and Hispanics.

I shouldn't have to write a disclaimer every time I say something like that, just because some people struggle with reading comprehension.

You can't just swap any noun for another.

For example I doubt anyone would take "Police have been harassing him" to mean all the police ever. Identifying them by group implies there is something relevant about it. In the case of gamers that tends to tell you the context the harassment is occurring in. (Online, in games, generally in places where gaming culture is big.)

But that example in itself betrays why generalization is a bad thing. Years are years of statements like "police have been harassing black people" have lead to overly generalized views about the attitudes of police towards minorities. I know several people who hate ALL police because in their mind ALL police are racists.

Of course not all police hate black people. Many of them are black people. Of course generalized statements like "police harass black people" doesn't refer to all black people. But that doesn't matter because years and years of generalized statements like that have ended up coloring the common perception of the police. No one ever had to say "all the police harass black people" for many to believe it. I know people who literally believe it is impossible for a police man to not be racist.

As far as using the term "gamers" to impart the context of places where gamers tend to be, I see absolutely no difference in using the term "blacks" to communicate the context of places where black people tend to be. I would certainly hope I would never see the headline "blacks harass woman" because a black man did it in the part of town with many black people.

Do you have any proof that "years of statements like x have lead to overly generalized views..." ? First off you'd have to prove there are overly gwneralized views and then most importantly you would have to prove they were the cause.

Yeah no, trying to use race to indicate location? That itself is questionable. Race does not have anything to do with the surrounding location. Gamers do suggest a certain context. Gamers are defined by their hobby and a hobby does have a place. Races don't.

 

[Agayek]

If some of you denied this, then I post the question and the topic of this thread.
Is the reason why people hate these discussions on feminism and gaming because they are being "sexually persecuted" or feel they are being so?

I haven't read the last couple pages yet, so apologies if things have moved on from this point, but I feel like I have a pretty solid understanding of the reasons behind the original questions and I want to share it.

In my experience, the reason there's so much vitriol over the discussions of feminism and minority representation in gaming is precisely because gaming is an escapist hobby. It's a thing people do to get away from the bullshit of their everyday lives. As such, most people don't want the issues that plague said everyday lives to enter their primary escape from it. That's where a lot of the ire comes from, I feel. Many, I'd even go so far as to say most, don't particularly care about gender identity, racial representations, or whatever the political talking point of the week is. They just want to go about their lives and have some fun playing fun games.

But in recent times, there's been a notable push among the media and a vocal minority of gamers that all games must be about the political talking point of the week. It's been slowly growing over the years, but more and more often games are being called to task for not being political enough, or not espousing the 'right' political ideals, or whatever and the people who just don't care about the political bullshit, who just want to have fun games they can use to have fun with, are being more and more often bombarded with political bullshit. The fun games they could have harmless fun with before now can't be made, looked at, enjoyed, or discussed without someone rushing in and making it political. Naturally, this leads to some of them getting upset.

From there, people latch onto the 'face' of the person or persons who are actively campaigning to make games political (in this case, Sarkeesian, previously Thompson), and demonize them as the source of All Evils in the Gaming World(tm). They latch onto the public face of the movement that's apparently assaulting their ability to simply have fun playing good games without political bullshit attached and try to get rid of them. This oftentimes ends up being expressed as naked hostility, simply because a lot of people just aren't eloquent enough to express their displeasure in a more comprehensive way. Then the opposition, given sufficient leverage, sees that hostility and uses it as proof of their original point, further aggravating the guy who just wants to play games, who expresses that in more hostility, etc, etc. It forms a negative feedback cycle that polarizes opinions and leads to incredible vitriol over the topic in question.

It's not entirely rational, on either side, but it's a very human response to the whole thing.

That's my two cents anyway. It seems to be at the core of a lot of the 'controversies' surrounding gaming and gaming culture.

 

[Trunkage]

Much of the issue with objectification of women come from two current sources.

1. During the initial outbreak of AIDS, it was seen as a "gay disease." At the time, gay was also seen effeminate. This lead to the hypermasculinity of the late 70s/ early 80s. And you had to prove that you weren't gay as well; it was deemed an atrocity by other males to be seen even somewhat gay. You had to focus on the parts of the women that men "should" find interesting. It was still prevalent during the early 2000s. We had a gay friend who still hadn't come out yet. He was the one always pointing which part of which female we should be looking at to make sure he wasn't caught. 99% of the time the rest of us didn't do anything like that (we were late teenage/ early 20s it happened sometimes, but not anywhere near what society expected us.) He also said later, when discussing why he couldn't talk about being gay, that although we didn't "persecute" him specifically (or even being gay), our jokes about being gay made him feel oppressed.

2. Women are still obsessed with how they look. I'm the only male at my work, and I find that everyone else is very obsessed with how they look and if they can find a male to look after them. Like they don't have any other value. It bums me out how females don't realise they aren't help those stereotype that are out there.

SO let me see the objectification of women is due to gay men in the 70's and 80's and women's own vanity, and not the cultural artefacts left over from thousands of years of oppression?

"Thousands of years of oppression."?
Are serious?

Also, women vanity stems from their biological imperative to find a mate.

Again, not to be That Guy, but to dismiss our basic urges and instincts is to deny science. Just like men have a biological urge to jizz everywhere and fight over stupid crap, women have a biological urge to attract the most suitable mate and have babies.

There are obviously exceptions, but for the majority this holds true.

Sorry, I'm making a commentary on first hand experience. The people I met as colleagues are generally not interested in a career. They only want to find someone so they can stop work and have kids. I find it sad that they see they're only value is the man they get their hooks into.

Also, when talking to one of these ladies, she stated that only the man should be in control of the relationship

 

[AkaDad]

persecution, yes. Even if it isn't what people mean the discussion is usually dragged into a hostile field. Where groups are lumped together and accused of some crime or insesitivity even if only part of the group are at fault. If those people would be more clear about that distinction (for example, prefacing a statement with "I'm aware that not all men are mysogonistic swines") and be a little heavier on the solutions rather then the accusations to give the men in question a way to get involved in the debate without either being completely black or completely white, that will probably give a much more constructive debate.

Bottom line, if you don't clearly state that you have, for example, nothing against men and video games in general, people will make those assumpions and you will antagonise people that might otherwise have been on your side.

Gamers have been sexually harassing, verbally abusing, and issuing death threat to gamers and journalists for more than a decade.

Did you just read that and automatically think I was referring to all gamers?

I never used the word "all." I'm clearly talking about those gamers.

I shouldn't have to write a disclaimer every time I say something like that, just because some people struggle with reading comprehension.

Women are manipulative. Black people steal cars. Hispanics don't pay taxes.

Oh, did you think I meant all women? All back people? All Hispanics? Clearly I meant only the women who are manipulative, only the blacks that steal cars, and the Hispanics that don't pay taxes.

I never used the word "all." I'm clearly talking about those women, blacks and Hispanics.

I shouldn't have to write a disclaimer every time I say something like that, just because some people struggle with reading comprehension.

That would be great a comeback, but those statements you made have no context. What I originally said had context to make it clear what I was saying. The "gamers are dead" articles had context.

What you said had no context. Are you saying only women can be manipulative and only black people steal cars and only Hispanics don't pay taxes? I'm pretty sure you don't believe that, but I think you see my point.

So it would be ok to generalize about black people stealing cars if I were commenting in an article about a person who stole a car who happened to be black? I find that really hard to buy. I mean, think about it:

Article: Man steals a car.

Comment: Damn it, black people need to stop stealing cars!

What was the context in the article? Did the author say all men or all black men steal cars?

My comment: Why just black people? All races need to stop stealing cars.

Ok then, can you show me the context where it would be ok to make a generalized statement about black people being stealing cars? Because unless I am much mistaken your argument is that context alone can substitute for a qualifier in a generalized statement. Or was I incorrect?

Yes, context can be a substitute, that is my point.

Here's my original quote: Gamers have been sexually harassing, verbally abusing, and issuing death threat to gamers and journalists for more than a decade.

Now here's the same quote with a tweak: All gamers have been sexually harassing, verbally abusing, and issuing death threat to gamers and journalists for more than a decade.

Isn't adding a disclaimer to the first quote insulting your intelligence?

If someone else had wrote the first quote I wouldn't be offended because I don't verbally abuse, sexually harass, or issue death threats.

I get your point, but I disagree. And the reason I disagree is because in my experience context is never enough in virtually any other situation.

This is why I bring up general statements about race and gender groups. Consider the shape of what has been happening lately. Some news comes out about harassment:

News: A gamer harassed Anita Sarkeesian

Response: Gamers have been sexually harassing, verbally abusing, and issuing death threat to gamers and journalists for more than a decade.

When someone calls you out on this your justification is that because of the news item it is clear from context that you are only talking about gamers that do those things. I get that point of view. You didn't mean that all gamers do those things, you didn't even directly say it. But consider this exact same form replacing gamer with black person and harassment with stealing.

News: A black person stole Anita Sarkeesian's Car

Response: Blacks have been stealing cars for decades.

Following the same logic of justification by context that statement should be fine to make because of the news item. Clearly the context refers only to black people who steal cars.

Am I wrong? If so, what is the difference?

The difference being that not all conversations are exactly the same. My comment was in the context of a much larger conversation.

Your example is taking one incident by one black person then extrapolating that to "blacks."

Look, I get your point too. People shouldn't generalize and I agree, but when situational context is added, imo, it's not a generalization.

Occasionally, I feel some people know exactly what other people are saying, but they act all outraged to deflect from the point being made.

 

[DrOswald]

persecution, yes. Even if it isn't what people mean the discussion is usually dragged into a hostile field. Where groups are lumped together and accused of some crime or insesitivity even if only part of the group are at fault. If those people would be more clear about that distinction (for example, prefacing a statement with "I'm aware that not all men are mysogonistic swines") and be a little heavier on the solutions rather then the accusations to give the men in question a way to get involved in the debate without either being completely black or completely white, that will probably give a much more constructive debate.

Bottom line, if you don't clearly state that you have, for example, nothing against men and video games in general, people will make those assumpions and you will antagonise people that might otherwise have been on your side.

Gamers have been sexually harassing, verbally abusing, and issuing death threat to gamers and journalists for more than a decade.

Did you just read that and automatically think I was referring to all gamers?

I never used the word "all." I'm clearly talking about those gamers.

I shouldn't have to write a disclaimer every time I say something like that, just because some people struggle with reading comprehension.

Women are manipulative. Black people steal cars. Hispanics don't pay taxes.

Oh, did you think I meant all women? All back people? All Hispanics? Clearly I meant only the women who are manipulative, only the blacks that steal cars, and the Hispanics that don't pay taxes.

I never used the word "all." I'm clearly talking about those women, blacks and Hispanics.

I shouldn't have to write a disclaimer every time I say something like that, just because some people struggle with reading comprehension.

You can't just swap any noun for another.

For example I doubt anyone would take "Police have been harassing him" to mean all the police ever. Identifying them by group implies there is something relevant about it. In the case of gamers that tends to tell you the context the harassment is occurring in. (Online, in games, generally in places where gaming culture is big.)

But that example in itself betrays why generalization is a bad thing. Years are years of statements like "police have been harassing black people" have lead to overly generalized views about the attitudes of police towards minorities. I know several people who hate ALL police because in their mind ALL police are racists.

Of course not all police hate black people. Many of them are black people. Of course generalized statements like "police harass black people" doesn't refer to all black people. But that doesn't matter because years and years of generalized statements like that have ended up coloring the common perception of the police. No one ever had to say "all the police harass black people" for many to believe it. I know people who literally believe it is impossible for a police man to not be racist.

As far as using the term "gamers" to impart the context of places where gamers tend to be, I see absolutely no difference in using the term "blacks" to communicate the context of places where black people tend to be. I would certainly hope I would never see the headline "blacks harass woman" because a black man did it in the part of town with many black people.

Do you have any proof that "years of statements like x have lead to overly generalized views..." ? First off you'd have to prove there are overly gwneralized views and then most importantly you would have to prove they were the cause.

Do I have explicit proof that years and years of repeated generalizations lead to stereotyping? I guess not. Honestly, I am really surprised that you would contest that one, so I didn't have anything prepared. I've never come across anyone who has so blatantly deny the idea that repeated generalization leads to stereotyping or, as some insist, actually is stereotyping.

Yeah no, trying to use race to indicate location? That itself is questionable. Race does not have anything to do with the surrounding location. Gamers do suggest a certain context. Gamers are defined by their hobby and a hobby does have a place. Races don't.

I don't know where you have lived before, but in the cities in which I have lived your race had a lot to do with where you were and where it was ok (read: safe) to be. There were black neighborhoods, white neighborhoods, Hispanic neighborhoods. Like it or not, races have a place in many cities. Certainly every city I have ever lived in. Have you never lived in a city that has a black part of town?

 

[Adam Lester]

"I don?t know and I don?t care. The biggest problem we have is, that there is a group of people that think they know what?s right and what?s wrong and that they have a mission to make the world a better place and protect the oppressed by any means. They don?t even care what the ?oppressed? people think. They censor any feedback they don?t like. They try to censor Twitter. They think that they are better than the rest. It?s funny that they are absolutely unable to have any discussion or provide solid arguments. Have you ever seen any of them in direct confrontation with their opponents? I guess you didn?t, because they only know how to bark at others from behind the fence and then how to play victims when somebody barks back.
And they will never be happy. If you don?t have a gay character in your game, you are homophobic, if you do have gay character in your game, you are homophobic, because they don?t like the character. If women in your game look good, you are sexist, if they look bad, you are sexist, if you can fight with them, you are misogynistic, if you can?t fight with them, you are using them as objects, if you don?t have any women, because there is no correct way how to have them, you are misogynistic.
It?s a witch hunt and it?s affecting my artistic freedom."

-Daniel Vavara.

 

[DrOswald]

persecution, yes. Even if it isn't what people mean the discussion is usually dragged into a hostile field. Where groups are lumped together and accused of some crime or insesitivity even if only part of the group are at fault. If those people would be more clear about that distinction (for example, prefacing a statement with "I'm aware that not all men are mysogonistic swines") and be a little heavier on the solutions rather then the accusations to give the men in question a way to get involved in the debate without either being completely black or completely white, that will probably give a much more constructive debate.

Bottom line, if you don't clearly state that you have, for example, nothing against men and video games in general, people will make those assumpions and you will antagonise people that might otherwise have been on your side.

Gamers have been sexually harassing, verbally abusing, and issuing death threat to gamers and journalists for more than a decade.

Did you just read that and automatically think I was referring to all gamers?

I never used the word "all." I'm clearly talking about those gamers.

I shouldn't have to write a disclaimer every time I say something like that, just because some people struggle with reading comprehension.

Women are manipulative. Black people steal cars. Hispanics don't pay taxes.

Oh, did you think I meant all women? All back people? All Hispanics? Clearly I meant only the women who are manipulative, only the blacks that steal cars, and the Hispanics that don't pay taxes.

I never used the word "all." I'm clearly talking about those women, blacks and Hispanics.

I shouldn't have to write a disclaimer every time I say something like that, just because some people struggle with reading comprehension.

That would be great a comeback, but those statements you made have no context. What I originally said had context to make it clear what I was saying. The "gamers are dead" articles had context.

What you said had no context. Are you saying only women can be manipulative and only black people steal cars and only Hispanics don't pay taxes? I'm pretty sure you don't believe that, but I think you see my point.

So it would be ok to generalize about black people stealing cars if I were commenting in an article about a person who stole a car who happened to be black? I find that really hard to buy. I mean, think about it:

Article: Man steals a car.

Comment: Damn it, black people need to stop stealing cars!

What was the context in the article? Did the author say all men or all black men steal cars?

My comment: Why just black people? All races need to stop stealing cars.

Ok then, can you show me the context where it would be ok to make a generalized statement about black people being stealing cars? Because unless I am much mistaken your argument is that context alone can substitute for a qualifier in a generalized statement. Or was I incorrect?

Yes, context can be a substitute, that is my point.

Here's my original quote: Gamers have been sexually harassing, verbally abusing, and issuing death threat to gamers and journalists for more than a decade.

Now here's the same quote with a tweak: All gamers have been sexually harassing, verbally abusing, and issuing death threat to gamers and journalists for more than a decade.

Isn't adding a disclaimer to the first quote insulting your intelligence?

If someone else had wrote the first quote I wouldn't be offended because I don't verbally abuse, sexually harass, or issue death threats.

I get your point, but I disagree. And the reason I disagree is because in my experience context is never enough in virtually any other situation.

This is why I bring up general statements about race and gender groups. Consider the shape of what has been happening lately. Some news comes out about harassment:

News: A gamer harassed Anita Sarkeesian

Response: Gamers have been sexually harassing, verbally abusing, and issuing death threat to gamers and journalists for more than a decade.

When someone calls you out on this your justification is that because of the news item it is clear from context that you are only talking about gamers that do those things. I get that point of view. You didn't mean that all gamers do those things, you didn't even directly say it. But consider this exact same form replacing gamer with black person and harassment with stealing.

News: A black person stole Anita Sarkeesian's Car

Response: Blacks have been stealing cars for decades.

Following the same logic of justification by context that statement should be fine to make because of the news item. Clearly the context refers only to black people who steal cars.

Am I wrong? If so, what is the difference?

The difference being that not all conversations are exactly the same. My comment was in the context of a much larger conversation.

Your example is taking one incident by one black person then extrapolating that to "blacks."

Look, I get your point too. People shouldn't generalize and I agree, but when situational context is added, imo, it's not a generalization.

Occasionally, I feel some people know exactly what other people are saying, but they act all outraged to deflect from the point being made.

I think your thinking is backwards. All sorts of accusations of misogyny and harassment and general assery in relation to gaming culture are being thrown around right now. This, of all times, is when you don't generalize. You speak with as much clarity and precision as you can. It seems crazy to me that in such a turmoil of emotions you would count on your posts being interpreted with level headed benefit of the doubt.

 

[carnex]

Sorry for not quoting but there I wouldn't know where to start. Anyway it's about Dragon's Crown design, that it's for boys, 12 years old sexual fantasies and all that stuff.

Well, I don't buy it on the simple premise that there are plenty of females that actually enjoy same titillating design and visuals. And I don't mean only those who are interested sexually in females, but just enjoying that. I wouldn't dare stating the percentage of females that find that appealing compared to percentage that actually find that off-putting, as in negative. Almost all females I personally know that saw that are actually totally neutral, with one liking it and two comparing it to "gentleman's journals".

I really don't see why there is so much stink raised about Dragon's Crown and almost none about Scarlet Blade for example. Even if one is serious about confronting what one sees as sexist content, content that leads to false ideas and deformation of character of entire gender, selective targeting of products that actually have limited target market makes little sense to me.

 

[Don Incognito]

"I don?t know and I don?t care. The biggest problem we have is, that there is a group of people that think they know what?s right and what?s wrong and that they have a mission to make the world a better place and protect the oppressed by any means. They don?t even care what the ?oppressed? people think. They censor any feedback they don?t like. They try to censor Twitter. They think that they are better than the rest. It?s funny that they are absolutely unable to have any discussion or provide solid arguments. Have you ever seen any of them in direct confrontation with their opponents? I guess you didn?t, because they only know how to bark at others from behind the fence and then how to play victims when somebody barks back.
And they will never be happy. If you don?t have a gay character in your game, you are homophobic, if you do have gay character in your game, you are homophobic, because they don?t like the character. If women in your game look good, you are sexist, if they look bad, you are sexist, if you can fight with them, you are misogynistic, if you can?t fight with them, you are using them as objects, if you don?t have any women, because there is no correct way how to have them, you are misogynistic.
It?s a witch hunt and it?s affecting my artistic freedom."

-Daniel Vavara.

I have no idea who Daniel Vavara is, but I do know he doesn't have any idea what the word "censor" means.

 

[carnex]

"I don?t know and I don?t care. The biggest problem we have is, that there is a group of people that think they know what?s right and what?s wrong and that they have a mission to make the world a better place and protect the oppressed by any means. They don?t even care what the ?oppressed? people think. They censor any feedback they don?t like. They try to censor Twitter. They think that they are better than the rest. It?s funny that they are absolutely unable to have any discussion or provide solid arguments. Have you ever seen any of them in direct confrontation with their opponents? I guess you didn?t, because they only know how to bark at others from behind the fence and then how to play victims when somebody barks back.
And they will never be happy. If you don?t have a gay character in your game, you are homophobic, if you do have gay character in your game, you are homophobic, because they don?t like the character. If women in your game look good, you are sexist, if they look bad, you are sexist, if you can fight with them, you are misogynistic, if you can?t fight with them, you are using them as objects, if you don?t have any women, because there is no correct way how to have them, you are misogynistic.
It?s a witch hunt and it?s affecting my artistic freedom."

-Daniel Vavara.

I have no idea who Daniel Vavara is, but I do know he doesn't have any idea what the word "censor" means.

He used it in right context here. Erasing comments that are opposed to your idea, political view, propaganda etc is censoring content that people send. Erasing any kind of comments from discussion is censoring, but then messages that are insults, threats, ad hominem attacks and various other logical fallacies is usually seen as acceptable since they are counter productive to discussion. Removing any dissent isn't and is considered unfair censorship.

That said, person that does it in it's own little garden has every right to do so, but that person also gets the obligation to suffer the ramifications of those actions.

 

[Trunkage]

SO let me see the objectification of women is due to gay men in the 70's and 80's and women's own vanity, and not the cultural artefacts left over from thousands of years of oppression?

Nope its just one of the many issues that never get raised when talking about these sorts of issue. Much like how there being around 200 million "missing women" around the world at any moment. They have been suggested to be murdered or used as sex slaves. Or how the Catholic churches wishes to stop lord's son from possessing churches in the early 1000s (via the time honoured tradition of sending your third and further son to the church to become priest and brothers) caused to the church to dredge up the old celibacy ideas for priest in the early church and impose them on priest so they couldn't have children (and thus inheritors) that could legally steal church buildings. I.e. some academic report that the child abuse in the church system (which seems to be more prevalent in the Catholic system) may be somewhat attributed to celibacy that wasn't actually asked for in the Bible. I bring this up also to highlight some other 'troupes' that come from the Bible.

Women should stay at home and men should go to work (that people are still using the Bible to prove although now in a small minority) was more of a societal survival mechanism of the initial industrial revolution than anything to do with something written. Before then, men and women would equally work on their own farm (or more likely Lord's) and housework. Once its in place, conservative always use whatever means to keep "tradition" in place.

A few hundred years ago, it would have been weird for a woman to wear more make up than a man, particularly in court. A couple hundred years ago, marriage was generally still a contract between parents or successful male. 80 years ago, society started change boys and girls colours around (boys liked pink and red and girls liked blue), 70 years ago, it really wasn't acceptable for husband and wives to sleep on the same bed. 30 years ago, marketers realised that they could get twice the amount of money out of parent (and families and friends) if they stopped colouring everything in white (particularly clothes) and separated them into 'girls' and 'boys' colours. They also created 'neutral' colours (which have even themselves separated into gender colours).

This doesn't even scratch the surface of the contributing issues to this debate. I picked one that is very under reported and I think very impactful, and the second was my own anecdotal observation.

I dunno. The 80s were pretty gay. Not sure about that though, I'd need some source to it or something. I never heard of that story before. I think 70s and 80s were a time when being gay was starting to at least "slowly" become something that was comfortable.

Not disagreeing with you there. But when things change, many people increase their fight to resist that change. You might not know this but much of the protests around racism in the middle of the century was heavily coupled with sexuality, especially homosexuality. I've seen proposed as a reason why racism was changed was homosexuality was seen as the 'worse' of two evils and they needed to 'throw society a bone'. I don't know how I feel about that comment but its seems far too conspiratorial. A better suggestion I've seen is the way the education system changed over 20-30s from a pure knowledge/ recall base to a more complex reasoning one. This lead to idea like putting yourself into another race's shoes (almost unheard before the 50s). These young college students were at odd with their parents who when asked, "Try to imagine yourself as ..." would answer "Why would you do that?" It wasn't malicious, they just didn't think that way.

There was a part of the "story" I glossed over. It's a bit of a rehash but might help. 'Gay' was linked with being effeminate during the 70s. Women are seen as weak, especially back then. So when AIDS came around, making you look (and obviously feel) weak and being commonly associated with the gay scene, society look at ways to make you look strong to prove you didn't have AIDS. The gay scene split, with many trying to become hypermasculine to prove they didn't have AIDS (you may forgot how scared people were of AIDS. It was terrifying. I remember the Grim Reaper ad. It scared the crap out of me). This segment (and many others) felt they had to prove they weren't gay (i.e. muscles and interest in women = not gay).

The other segment embraced the effeminate. Which lead to many other changes. I did a paper at uni on this sort of stuff. Back in 2000. I tried to find my work to give you some sources but haven't been able to find it. Sorry

 

[grassgremlin]

The other segment embraced the effeminate. Which lead to many other changes. I did a paper at uni on this sort of stuff. Back in 2000. I tried to find my work to give you some sources but haven't been able to find it. Sorry

Oh, dangs. I'd like to see it. You've made some fascinating points here.