The Big Picture: Remembering the Real Jack Thompson

[Belaam]

The truth is, there are many areas of corruption in the industry and they don't have to be addressed exclusively. It starts with full disclosure of relationships and friendships and ends when both sides of the issue are discussed openly. It happens when charities aren't blacklisted just because someone's friend says they're bad. Heck, in those cases journalists should be even quicker to interview them to expose them as bad rather than just not interview them.

I agree. The problem seems to be that virtually everyone agrees that the corruption in games journalism is bad. I can't recall a single person defending Shadow of Mordor's marketing. The problem is that some see a critical analysis of a game being corrupt or unethical, while a review that avoids doing that is somehow more "valid". This is often paired with the somewhat odd view that no "real" gamers want critical analysis of games and that any attempt at such analysis is being forced on the medium by some nebulous outside force, with the additional fear that this force will somehow stop profitable games aimed at teen/twenties male audiences from being made.

 

[The Deadpool]

The argument isn't that everyone who disagrees with Anita is misogynistic. It is that people who are misogynistic are far, far, FAR more likely to disagree with her.

I would imagine that to be true. It would constitute an additional bias against her argument.

What is the argument then? Your condition then is basically axiomatic. Like saying that people who are against even numbers are more likely to disagree with a proponent of even numbers. Ugh... yep.

Well, if games make people misogynistic (as she claims) why are so many gamers on her side then?

If games cause misogyny, then most gamers would be misogynistic, then most gamers would disagree with her vehemently.

That's not what we see. We see a large portion of the gamer population AGREEING with her hypothesis, and thus, disproving it.

 

[The Deadpool]

Second of all, that first part is also more or less misrepresented. Saarkesian has said that negative tropes in video-games and other media perpetuates the same stereotypes in real life, because said tropes are originally spawned by negative trends and deep-rooted preconceptions about women in the first place. WHICH IS COMPLETELY TRUE! The whole point of her videos is that these tropes DOESN'T exist because some mustache-twirling bad guy in a game company got off on it, nor is it about tropes TURNING unsuspecting people into said raging misogynists. What it is ACTUALLY about is how the negative trends that have affected women for centuries show themselves through the disproportionate prelevance of these tropes in our media.

And replace "preconceptions about women" with "violence" and you have THE EXACT SAME ARGUMENT. Including examples of past events, and current perpetuation...

The effect line does not go from media -> mass unconscious. It goes from mass unconscious -> media. Always has, always will.

 

[CaitSeith]

From her video Damsel on distress Part 1:

The belief that women are somehow a ?naturally weaker gender? is a deeply ingrained socially constructed myth, which of course is completely false- but the notion is reinforced and perpetuated when women are continuously portrayed as frail, fragile, and vulnerable creatures.

Just to be clear, I am not saying that all games using the damsel in distress as a plot device are automatically sexist or have no value. But it?s undeniable that popular culture is a powerful influence in or lives and the Damsel in Distress trope as a recurring trend does help to normalize extremely toxic, patronizing and paternalistic attitudes about women.

She doesn't deliver proof of this statement either, but that's not the point we're arguing right now.

EDIT: Finally got the quotes right. Sorry.

Actually it's on wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism

Aggregated data of absolute strength indicates that females have, on average, 40-60% the upper body strength of males, and 70-75% the lower body strength.[64] [footnote] "Strength training for female athletes: A position paper: Part 1". NSCA 11 (4). 1989.[/footnote]

It even says at absolute peak training there will be a 30% consistent difference.

What Anita is arguing against according the multiple sources may be science itself in that statement. That is if you consider physical power to be the only form of strength that is.

According to studies women have better memories and a stronger immune systems.

Again large generalisations but still observed differences which are observable. The article in question has been edited a lot. It's a war ground on there at one point with claims that muscle mass differences were still observable on trained female vs untrained male and at one point a claim from a non scientific source that the only reason for the difference was social pressure for men to lift weights.


Testosterone, it's a hell of a drug.

I think she refered to things like thinking that the Olympic weightlifting champion in the women division can't beat an average male athlete, because she is a woman. To tell the truth, I haven't researched if she can do it or not.

At the highest level and at the average level, there are physical differences between men and women, and sheer strength is a noticeable one.

BUT even that ignores the obvious problem: We live in a society where physical strength has NOTHING to do with worth. I'm just random jackass down the street could bench press twice as much as any President we've had. It means nothing.

Depicting someone as physically weaker does not depict them as less worthy. REGARDLESS of gender.

I know that, you know that. But a lot of people think otherwise (no matter if it's true or false). That's what a "myth" is.

PS captcha: so far away You're right, captcha. We got really far away from the starting topic...

 

[UberPubert]

Ok, so long story short, I understand that you clearly don't support the sexists that try to abuse the Gamergate hashtag to harass people, and I appreciate how your policy is to get the proper authorities to get on the case whenever one of these threats show up. But just because the police are going after the guys who make death threats under the Gamergate name doesn't really mean Gamergate itself can ignore the fact the guys making death threats are there.

Well let's clarify under what context the harassers are being ignored, or should be: I think that threats and harassment are irrelevant when discussing ethics in gaming journalism and when criticizing people such as Anita Sarkessian. No matter how poorly treated someone is, placing their work and statements under intense scrutiny and criticizing the person is still fair.

Discussion of the involvement of harassers in gamergate is another matter entirely, one that I would argue is not really Gamergate's problem. Hunting down anonymous comments from no one in particular and then taking the opportunity to disassociate from them sounds like a full time and thankless job that nonetheless the "gamergate harassment patrol" (as in, they patrol for harassment and report it, not that they post it) does precisely, but they're a small group of volunteers - not music giants with the pull of record labels and PR agents.

And you can't just blame the media for exclusively trying to smear Gamergate's name. There wouldn't be much for the media to smear Gamergate with if it wasn't for the misogynists giving them plenty of material to cover.

I most certainly can blame the media. They have outright lied and distorted facts about gamergate and the people involved. They could smear anything simply by omitting reactions from others of the gaming and gamergate community towards harassment and threats, and it's never going to stop because they're the exact same kind of people gamergate is criticizing.

 

[Something Amyss]

Well, if games make people misogynistic (as she claims) why are so many gamers on her side then?

Where does she claim that?

If games cause misogyny, then most gamers would be misogynistic, then most gamers would disagree with her vehemently.

Well, evidently, feminsts and "social justice warriors" are simply a vocal minority, so isn't that the case?

 

[Silverspetz]

Second of all, that first part is also more or less misrepresented. Saarkesian has said that negative tropes in video-games and other media perpetuates the same stereotypes in real life, because said tropes are originally spawned by negative trends and deep-rooted preconceptions about women in the first place. WHICH IS COMPLETELY TRUE! The whole point of her videos is that these tropes DOESN'T exist because some mustache-twirling bad guy in a game company got off on it, nor is it about tropes TURNING unsuspecting people into said raging misogynists. What it is ACTUALLY about is how the negative trends that have affected women for centuries show themselves through the disproportionate prelevance of these tropes in our media.

And replace "preconceptions about women" with "violence" and you have THE EXACT SAME ARGUMENT. Including examples of past events, and current perpetuation...

The effect line does not go from media -> mass unconscious. It goes from mass unconscious -> media. Always has, always will.

1) Um, no, just no. Thombsson argued that playing violent video-games would actually CAUSE people to become violent. There is nothing even remotely similar about that and the argument that sexist tropes reflects and continues sexist mindsets in real life.

2) THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS SAYING FOR GOD'S SAKE!!! The Mass unconsciousness creates negative stereotypes in media, and media feeds those stereotypes straight back into the collective unconsciousness. That is not the same as media CREATING a mass unconsciousness or affecting people on a conscious level by turning them into wife-beaters or rapists. Learn the difference already.

Or are you saying that the effect is only one-way and that media has no effect whatsoever on how we think? In that case you are a prime example of the kind of people Bob's talking about when he says that the gaming community only wanted fake respect as a medium. The ability to make someone think about something, like an idea or a social issue is the very basis for something to be considered "high art".

 

[Lightknight]

From her video Damsel on distress Part 1:

The belief that women are somehow a ?naturally weaker gender? is a deeply ingrained socially constructed myth, which of course is completely false- but the notion is reinforced and perpetuated when women are continuously portrayed as frail, fragile, and vulnerable creatures.

Just to be clear, I am not saying that all games using the damsel in distress as a plot device are automatically sexist or have no value. But it?s undeniable that popular culture is a powerful influence in or lives and the Damsel in Distress trope as a recurring trend does help to normalize extremely toxic, patronizing and paternalistic attitudes about women.

She doesn't deliver proof of this statement either, but that's not the point we're arguing right now.

EDIT: Finally got the quotes right. Sorry.

Actually it's on wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism

Aggregated data of absolute strength indicates that females have, on average, 40-60% the upper body strength of males, and 70-75% the lower body strength.[64] [footnote] "Strength training for female athletes: A position paper: Part 1". NSCA 11 (4). 1989.[/fotnote]

It even says at absolute peak training there will be a 30% consistent difference.

What Anita is arguing against according the multiple sources may be science itself in that statement. That is if you consider physical power to be the only form of strength that is.

According to studies women have better memories and a stronger immune systems.

Again large generalisations but still observed differences which are observable. The article in question has been edited a lot. It's a war ground on there at one point with claims that muscle mass differences were still observable on trained female vs untrained male and at one point a claim from a non scientific source that the only reason for the difference was social pressure for men to lift weights.


Testosterone, it's a hell of a drug.

I think she refered to things like thinking that the Olympic weightlifting champion in the women division can't beat an average male athlete, because she is a woman. To tell the truth, I haven't researched if she can do it or not.

EDIT: Or emotionally weaker than men in danger situations.

She was talking about what she called a "socially constructed myth" that women are more "frail and vulnerable". The context of her statement was fairly universally across the board and including physical strength. She also says this more than once. The example cited above was in the first Damsel video, but she elaborated it again in the third video by saying: "Damselled female characters tend to reinforce preexisting regressive notions about women as a group being weak or in need of protection because of their gender."5:25 mark

So when she talks about weakness here she's talking about the belief that women are weaker as a gender than men. But this is factually true on average. This is why we have problems with things like rape and why domestic violence affects far more females than males.

So there's a difference between reinforcing a stereotype and just depicting the statistical average. Stereotyping comes into play when you suddenly assume that any woman you ever meet is automatically weaker than you (if you're male). Now, I'm strong and quite competent in physical force but I know full well that a pro-female boxer could likely take me to task and fast. This would be because she has raised her body above the average and has developed skills to use her body to a higher degree of efficiency. But I'm also not wrong when I say that I am far stronger than the average female because I am also stronger than the average male. This isn't stereotyping, this is accepting facts and talking in aggregate like Anita is.

Additionally, there are also significant differences between genders emotionally:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/games-primates-play/201201/gender-differences-in-personality-are-larger-previously-thought

That's a 10,000 participant study split 50.1 female/49.9 male. Women score significantly higher in Sensitivity, Warmth, and Apprehension while males scored significantly higher in Emotional Stability, Dominance, Rule-Consciousness, and Vigilance. There's only about a 10% overlap between genders in these traits.

I think it's time to start owning the fact that we're a sexually dimorphic species. Both genders have specialized via evolution in specific areas and as such are generally weak in others. It's time we've started celebrating our differences rather than going forward pretending like we're all the same. Having differences doesn't mean one gender is better. Only that one gender on average will have a higher propensity for success in some areas but less in others.

Now, if you can somehow establish that she ONLY believes that the socially constructed myth is that women are emotionally weaker than men? Then ok. But the context is fairly damning that she was somehow under the impression that the average woman can go toe to toe with the average man when that isn't the case and is a reason for the issues the power disparity causes.

She also consistently confuses the definition of a grammatical object (the thing in a sentence which is acted upon) with the definition of the term objectification (treating a person as a thing without respect for their dignity). So I have a pretty significant argument against her believing that women receiving an action in a game from the protagonist somehow qualifies as objectifying her. By that sort of ridiculous definition "Anita defends feminists" would be a sentence in which she is objectifying feminists because they're the object of the sentence being acted upon.

I think the thing most people have issues with is her damsel argument. Her women as non-important background or sex toys is generally seen more favorably. I mean, we've all talked about the ridiculous nature of the chainmail bikini or whatever, long before Anita showed up.

 

[MaddKossack115]

Can you tell me exactly WHO in Anti Gamer Gate are "a Neo Nazi,many racists and sexists who go around bullying LGBT organizations and the like?" Like, with links showing the people making Neo-Nazi, racist and sexist comments? I'm not even being sarcastic, or anything - if guys like that really are running around Anti Gamer Gate, they deserve to be called out for their radical beliefs just as much as if they were running around Gamer Gate instead.

Ian Miles Cheong is a admitted Neo Nazi who is one of the vocal Anti GG members around,Samantha Allen wrote a article that is very hateful towards men.GaymerX was guilt tripped and in some messages outright coerced into denouncing GamerGate.Just read for yourself.It's pretty sickening.

http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_14152252162148&key=81bbad36819532991d8639869d59381d&libId=d182373f-a10b-4ed6-8c77-638d53071edb&loc=http%3A%2F%2Ftechraptor.net%2Fcontent%2Fgaymerx-lgbt-gaming-convention-fire-gamergate-remarks&v=1&out=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FGaymerX%2Fstatus%2F519890536753160192&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dgaymerx%2Bgets%2Bbullied%26src%3DIE-TopResult%26FORM%3DIETR02%26conversationid%3D&title=GaymerX%20LGBT%20Gaming%20Convention%20Under%20Fire%20Over%20%23GamerGate%20Remarks%20-%20TechRaptor&txt=Yesterday%20the%20organization%20reported%20that%20they%20(GaymerX)%20were%20receiving%20hate%20mail%20from%20both%20sides%20of%20the%20issue%2C%20after%20one%20of%20t...

Ok, I admit that Ian Miles Cheong definitely shouldn't be an advocate for Anti-GG, even though, as far as I can tell, he's only in it to insult GG members instead of trying to argue what the points of Anti-GG really are in comparrison. Samantha Allen does seem a little extreme in her feminist arguments, but it seems more to be stretching the truth of how women are short-changed by men - it's not like she would call for men to stay out of gaming altogether, like some misogynists do when the bash feminists for being 'fake gamers' or whatnot. And as far as I can tell on the GaymerX tweets, he seemed to keep a cool head throughout the one Tweet post you had a link to, and even though a few commentators did get out of control, I didn't see GaymerX give in and then 'denouncing GamerGate' because he was 'outright coerced' into doing so. And to be fair, he personally sounds like what GamerGate as a whole keeps trying to claim they are - a gamer with legitimate concerns over gaming journalism who doesn't try to make erroneous "well this person can't talk about games because she does so with a feminist perspective" arguments.

 

[MaddKossack115]

Ok, so long story short, I understand that you clearly don't support the sexists that try to abuse the Gamergate hashtag to harass people, and I appreciate how your policy is to get the proper authorities to get on the case whenever one of these threats show up. But just because the police are going after the guys who make death threats under the Gamergate name doesn't really mean Gamergate itself can ignore the fact the guys making death threats are there.

Well let's clarify under what context the harassers are being ignored, or should be: I think that threats and harassment are irrelevant when discussing ethics in gaming journalism and when criticizing people such as Anita Sarkessian. No matter how poorly treated someone is, placing their work and statements under intense scrutiny and criticizing the person is still fair.

Discussion of the involvement of harassers in gamergate is another matter entirely, one that I would argue is not really Gamergate's problem. Hunting down anonymous comments from no one in particular and then taking the opportunity to disassociate from them sounds like a full time and thankless job that nonetheless the "gamergate harassment patrol" (as in, they patrol for harassment and report it, not that they post it) does precisely, but they're a small group of volunteers - not music giants with the pull of record labels and PR agents.

What I meant to say was Metal FANS were banding together to disavow Neo-Nazis, not Metal MUSICIANS (although them voicing the same thing as the fans certainly helped). And again, disavowing sexists from GamerGate doesn't have to be a game of whack-a-mole of finding every last sexist in the movement and calling them out one by one; just openly state that the GamerGate community as a whole ISN'T in this to call out feminism instead of gaming journalism in general, and DOESN'T support sexist and anti-feminist behavior under the guise of the movement (to link it back to the metal fans uniting against Neo-Nazis, it isn't because they called out each and every skinhead who claimed to like metal - it was just a matter of saying 'I like metal, but it's NOT because I'm a Nazi, and I WON'T accept the behavior of Neo-Nazis who just happen to like metal').

And you can't just blame the media for exclusively trying to smear Gamergate's name. There wouldn't be much for the media to smear Gamergate with if it wasn't for the misogynists giving them plenty of material to cover.

I most certainly can blame the media. They have outright lied and distorted facts about gamergate and the people involved. They could smear anything simply by omitting reactions from others of the gaming and gamergate community towards harassment and threats, and it's never going to stop because they're the exact same kind of people gamergate is criticizing.

Ok, fine, the media gave GamerGate as a whole a bit of a raw deal - I certainly would've hoped that some voices of reason from GamerGate's side could have at least gotten some lip service to how they're denouncing the sexists abusing the GamerGate name - but you still can't blame the media entirely if the sexists using GamerGate gave them the ammunition to use against the movement in the first place. If you don't think GamerGate can't get its message to the media with the way it's going right now, take a step back and try changing the strategy so you can make your message about gaming journalism without it being soiled by sexists.

 

[WhiteNachos]

After the Kickstarter, all the videos comments filled up with some pretty vile stuff.

That is actually untrue.

She used to close off her comments section before the Kickstarter. FOR the Kickstarters she opened them, and stated (herself) that she was doing so to prove that there would be a negative reaction.

Actually she never opened the comments as such.

Since very early into the campaign the comments were set to backers only so the only way for anyone to have sent abuse would have been to actually put money towards funding her.

That happens in every kickstarter. Before she did the kickstarter she had to approve all comments on her youtube videos before they were posted and she rarely let any through that disagreed with her.

 

[MaddKossack115]

Can you tell me exactly WHO in Anti Gamer Gate are "a Neo Nazi,many racists and sexists who go around bullying LGBT organizations and the like?" Like, with links showing the people making Neo-Nazi, racist and sexist comments? I'm not even being sarcastic, or anything - if guys like that really are running around Anti Gamer Gate, they deserve to be called out for their radical beliefs just as much as if they were running around Gamer Gate instead.

Ian Miles Cheong is a admitted Neo Nazi who is one of the vocal Anti GG members around,Samantha Allen wrote a article that is very hateful towards men.GaymerX was guilt tripped and in some messages outright coerced into denouncing GamerGate.Just read for yourself.It's pretty sickening.

http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_14152252162148&key=81bbad36819532991d8639869d59381d&libId=d182373f-a10b-4ed6-8c77-638d53071edb&loc=http%3A%2F%2Ftechraptor.net%2Fcontent%2Fgaymerx-lgbt-gaming-convention-fire-gamergate-remarks&v=1&out=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FGaymerX%2Fstatus%2F519890536753160192&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dgaymerx%2Bgets%2Bbullied%26src%3DIE-TopResult%26FORM%3DIETR02%26conversationid%3D&title=GaymerX%20LGBT%20Gaming%20Convention%20Under%20Fire%20Over%20%23GamerGate%20Remarks%20-%20TechRaptor&txt=Yesterday%20the%20organization%20reported%20that%20they%20(GaymerX)%20were%20receiving%20hate%20mail%20from%20both%20sides%20of%20the%20issue%2C%20after%20one%20of%20t...

Ok, I admit that Ian Miles Cheong definitely shouldn't be an advocate for Anti-GG, even though, as far as I can tell, he's only in it to insult GG members instead of trying to argue what the points of Anti-GG really are in comparrison. Samantha Allen does seem a little extreme in her feminist arguments, but it seems more to be stretching the truth of how women are short-changed by men - it's not like she would call for men to stay out of gaming altogether, like some misogynists do when the bash feminists for being 'fake gamers' or whatnot. And as far as I can tell on the GaymerX tweets, he seemed to keep a cool head throughout the one Tweet post you had a link to, and even though a few commentators did get out of control, I didn't see GaymerX give in and then 'denouncing GamerGate' because he was 'outright coerced' into doing so. And to be fair, he personally sounds like what GamerGate as a whole keeps trying to claim they are - a gamer with legitimate concerns over gaming journalism who doesn't try to make erroneous "well this person can't talk about games because she does so with a feminist perspective" arguments.

Samantha Allen believes misandry doesn't exist,to me that's pretty telling of her mindset.

There were more tweets aside from the one I linked to but sadly got deleted and I don't feel like wading through hundreds of pages on the GG megathread just to find the archived copy.Before that one tweet though GaymerX put one saying they thought GG had some good points and that everyone should try to have a civil discussion.They got absolutely torn apart by several Anti GGers,one of which led a campaign to get them to "reconsider" their statement.

It was like watching a mobster intimidate someone first hand,of course you will never see their side denounce such atrocious behavior because it's "justified".

Well, assuming the context of "Samantha Allen believes misandry doesn't exist" is indeed a literal statement (as opposed to one quote being taken out of context), then yeah, she should probably stay out of the discussion too. But as for the Anti GG members harassing GaymerX, it honestly doesn't sound different from GG members harassing somebody else - they all just sound like a bunch of no-name reactionaries who aren't influential outside of the GG/Anti GG war, compared to the people with cool heads at both GG or Anti GG. I sure wouldn't think that harassing GG would've been 'justified', but I wouldn't think that harassing Anti GG would've been any more 'justified'. People making valid criticisms with backup evidence is justified, but a mob shouting it all down, whether from GG or Anti GG, ins't 'justified'.

 

[Belaam]

oh, good grief. Okay. Since you seem hell bent on spending pages on this, let's break it down, starting from the beginning:

this is OUR medium, not the feminists

I'm a feminist who has been gaming since [young]. It's far more my medium than yours. ... Not sure how in the world you think you can claim a media that makes more money than movies and music together.

I'm clearly asserting that you are dumb in claiming gaming as your own medium; asserting that if one were to try to claim the medium as a whole, I would have a better claim; and ending with the argument that no one person can claim the entire medium. This is not rocket science. It's not even Kerbal rocket science.

Where exactly did you arrive at the conclusion, this magical idea that a bunch of gamers need to create a website because we disagree with people? that's most bizarre notion I've ever heard.

Months of GGers whining about how corrupt and unethical games journalism is has led me to the conclusion that they should either go create their own sites or quit hypocritically griping about sites on those sites, which gives them money from hits. I kinda thought that's where you were going with the whole vote with your wallet thing.

I think you're working from a faulty timeline if you think that's what came first. What came first was a false accusation of trading sex for reviews. GG would be on FAR stronger footing if the instigating event and continued focus was Shadow of Mordor marketing or the like.

? Zoe Quinn never had sex with five guys?

She didn't trade sex with Nathan Grayson for a positive game review, which was the original claim. Even if she had, and the real issue were journalism ethics, the focus would have been on the journalist(s) involved. Yet, it was never Grayson-gate, Kotaku-gate, or anything else related to any actual game journalists who may or may not have been involved. That the whole initial subject was "quinnspiracy" points away from journalists being the focus.

since you've just denied the allegations that these incidents took place.

This would probably go a lot easier for you if I just let you speak for me, it seems.

That's how and why debates exist, hon.

Um.. Thanks for the info, sweetie.

Really? feminist analysis has been going on for hundreds of years?

Yeah; that's why I included the link and some recommended reading.

As a feminist who surely lives in a first world country, how do you feel about David Cameron refusing to wear a pro-feminist t-shirt? ... Now, how do you feel about the fact that these t-shirts are made entirely on a small, foreign island called Mauritius by women who who work in sweatshop conditions, for a dollar an hour when these t-shirts sell for 70? ... why haven't your feminist ideals extended to the women who make t-shirts supporting your cause, and have David Cameron looked down upon by other women? I thought feminism was about extending equal rights to all women? not very fair that these girls get driven like slaves.

First off, this sounds like it may be more of a Marxist issue than a Feminist issue - including cost of living information in Mauritius would have helped (maybe $1/hour is a great wage for women there). But regardless, more details may cast it more of a feminist issue. What jobs do men have there have and how much do they pay? What kind of women work these jobs and what would they be doing if they weren't working them? For instance, in early Industrial US, factory jobs were usually either held by young women saving up for marriage or widows looking for enough income to not be homeless. Though wages were comparatively low, this was generally seen as a net positive for feminism as it allowed young women to be more discerning in choosing spouses and older women to remain independent. Likewise, if women are making $1 an hour making shirts, but men are making $1 a day doing construction, then this isn't a feminist issue at all. But yeah, it could be. I'm not sure why you think being interested in feminism in gaming means I'm uninterested in feminism elsewhere. Or why as an American, I'd care much about David Cameron's politics.

 

[CaitSeith]

snip

She was talking about what she called a "socially constructed myth" that women are more "frail and vulnerable". The context of her statement was fairly universally across the board and including physical strength. She also says this more than once. The example cited above was in the first Damsel video, but she elaborated it again in the third video by saying: "Damselled female characters tend to reinforce preexisting regressive notions about women as a group being weak or in need of protection because of their gender."5:25 mark

So when she talks about weakness here she's talking about the belief that women are weaker as a gender than men. But this is factually true on average. This is why we have problems with things like rape and why domestic violence affects far more females than males.

So there's a difference between reinforcing a stereotype and just depicting the statistical average. Stereotyping comes into play when you suddenly assume that any woman you ever meet is automatically weaker than you (if you're male). Now, I'm strong and quite competent in physical force but I know full well that a pro-female boxer could likely take me to task and fast. This would be because she has raised her body above the average and has developed skills to use her body to a higher degree of efficiency. But I'm also not wrong when I say that I am far stronger than the average female because I am also stronger than the average male. This isn't stereotyping, this is accepting facts and talking in aggregate like Anita is.

Additionally, there are also significant differences between genders emotionally:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/games-primates-play/201201/gender-differences-in-personality-are-larger-previously-thought

That's a 10,000 participant study split 50.1 female/49.9 male. Women score significantly higher in Sensitivity, Warmth, and Apprehension while males scored significantly higher in Emotional Stability, Dominance, Rule-Consciousness, and Vigilance. There's only about a 10% overlap between genders in these traits.

I think it's time to start owning the fact that we're a sexually dimorphic species. Both genders have specialized via evolution in specific areas and as such are generally weak in others. It's time we've started celebrating our differences rather than going forward pretending like we're all the same. Having differences doesn't mean one gender is better. Only that one gender on average will have a higher propensity for success in some areas but less in others.

Now, if you can somehow establish that she ONLY believes that the socially constructed myth is that women are emotionally weaker than men? Then ok. But the context is fairly damning that she was somehow under the impression that the average woman can go toe to toe with the average man when that isn't the case and is a reason for the issues the power disparity causes.

She also consistently confuses the definition of a grammatical object (the thing in a sentence which is acted upon) with the definition of the term objectification (treating a person as a thing without respect for their dignity). So I have a pretty significant argument against her believing that women receiving an action in a game from the protagonist somehow qualifies as objectifying her. By that sort of ridiculous definition "Anita defends feminists" would be a sentence in which she is objectifying feminists because they're the object of the sentence being acted upon.

I think the thing most people have issues with is her damsel argument. Her women as non-important background or sex toys is generally seen more favorably. I mean, we've all talked about the ridiculous nature of the chainmail bikini or whatever, long before Anita showed up.

I'm a little exceptical about that study. It's based on data from 1993 from the 16PF questionnaire (and it's recomended to avoid over-interpretation of its results). The USA of that time was a different environment from the USA of today.

However, one thing I want to point out is that I don't deny the existance of the sexual dimorphism. And my personal comments about it end here, because it's not the topic I'm interested right now.

 

[Silvanus]

So your argument is that games have a positive effect on gender issues? Then welcome, you disagree with Anita too. Have a nice stay.

Stop simplifying things. Media influences people in different ways. It should be rather obvious that if media has an influence, it's not all going to influence in the same direction. Positive images or positive messages can have positive influences; that doesn't somehow mean that negative images and messages cannot have negative influences.

But, yes. I do disagree with Anita Sarkeesian on a whole host of things. I never claimed otherwise. I also disagree with you.

Games are violent (undeniably so). They glorify and incentivize players to to acts of violence (also, undeniably so).

If games affect behavior, then violent games makes people more violent, leading to extra assaults and death, etc... Why WOULDN'T you want that regulated?

No, that's not my train of thinking. It does not follow that somebody who believes games can influence behaviour must believe that they "make people more violent", or that they "lead to extra assaults and death". That's just reductionist on an almost absurd scale.

Is there any meaningful difference?

Uhrm, well, yes. There's quite a meaningful difference between advocating censorship and not advocating censorship.

Yeah... That's not true. No one defended him when it happened. Certainly not the media. Hell, several articles thought it was kinda funny...

Well, I was referring rather to people around here. In this thread [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.862072-Was-it-fair-how-Jack-Thompson-was-treated?page=1], I count 19 explicit condemnations, and nobody supporting the treatment (though several people responded dismissively, which is depressing).

As for the media, I'd agree the response was bad. It was covered [http://www.gamespot.com/articles/rumor-control-update-bush-bros-in-madden-x05-lands-in-amsterdam-revolution-picsagain/1100-6130286/] in a couple [http://archive.wired.com/gaming/gamingreviews/news/2005/11/69404] of places [http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/04/men-are-harassed-more-than-women-online.html], though.

A minority. Every news outlet, not just online but even TV, largely agrees with the premise all of a sudden.

Righto. But, on forums, it's utterly unavoidable, nonetheless.

The way media influences people is usually to play on existing behaviors. People are usually talking about ads, for example. So if you want to try a new soda, Coca-cola will inform you about a product that caters to your need (or that they claim caters to it).

What people do not mean is that media necessarily makes you sexist or violent. We can tell the difference between reality or fantasy as long as we're not schizophrenic. So I would never once have considered it legitimate to take the lessons on femininity that Princess Peach taught me (which is nothing, FYI, she did not teach me anything at all) and apply them to real life because even as a kid I understood that she was a character.

So, you've got some steep evidence to amass here that Jack Thompson tried and failed to get.

I'd agree with you that media is (far) more likely to reinforce existing behaviour than to create entirely new behaviour, by the way. That's a fairly significant influence. If somebody is already a fairly anti-establishment individual, for example-- suspicious of surveillance, or tyranny-- then reading Nineteen Eighty-Four may well reinforce that outlook. If somebody is already slightly misogynistic, then reading about heroic, suave James Bond treating women as conquests may well reinforce that outlook, too.

I refer to literature, because the idea that literature influences peoples' outlook is pretty widely recognised, I would have thought.

 

[Jaytr13]

oh, good grief. Okay. Since you seem hell bent on spending pages on this, let's break it down, starting from the beginning:

this is OUR medium, not the feminists

I'm a feminist who has been gaming since [young]. It's far more my medium than yours. ... Not sure how in the world you think you can claim a media that makes more money than movies and music together.

I'm clearly asserting that you are dumb in claiming gaming as your own medium; asserting that if one were to try to claim the medium as a whole, I would have a better claim; and ending with the argument that no one person can claim the entire medium. This is not rocket science.

But you don't, so it's a hypothetical. Was that all? it was really that important you needed to get that out? O-K.

Where exactly did you arrive at the conclusion, this magical idea that a bunch of gamers need to create a website because we disagree with people? that's most bizarre notion I've ever heard.

Months of GGers whining about how corrupt and unethical games journalism is has led me to the conclusion that they should either go create their own sites or quit hypocritically griping about sites on those sites, which gives them money from hits. I kinda thought that's where you were going with the whole vote with your wallet thing.

I shouldn't have said that. All I meant was that journalists need to be called out on their BS. I couldn't less how they earn their money as long as it ain't corrupt BS.

I want journalists to be held accountable for their actions, not boycotted. Gaming journalism is a good thing.

I think you're working from a faulty timeline if you think that's what came first. What came first was a false accusation of trading sex for reviews. GG would be on FAR stronger footing if the instigating event and continued focus was Shadow of Mordor marketing or the like.

Really? Zoe Quinn never had sex with five guys?

She didn't trade sex with Nathan Grayson for a positive game review, which was the original claim. Even if she had, and the real issue were journalism ethics, the focus would have been on the journalist(s) involved. Yet, it was never Grayson-gate, Kotaku-gate, or anything else related to any actual game journalists who may or may not have been involved. That the whole initial subject was "Quinnspiracy" points away from journalists being the focus.

Well, to be honest I don't have any evidence to the contrary, I'm just getting into this. Buuutt..it is about ethics in games journalism. Quinnspiracy was what started it off just like you said already?

I think you're working from a faulty timeline if you think that's what came first. What came first was a false accusation of trading sex for reviews.

Quinnspiracy, I'm sure is still an issue talked about and debated. How exactly does you stating your opinion that Zoe Quinn never fucked Grayson make it suddenly any less valid that games journalists were involved?

1.The men were approached and asked about the incident
2. Her ex-boyfriend wrote that tumblr post
3. The claim exists in the first place

Just like you already said, that's why GamerGate exists. TO TALK ABOUT ETHICS IN GAMES JOURNALISM BECAUSE THERE WERE CLAIMS ZOE QUINN WAS TAKING SEX FOR REVIEWS. Any clearer to you yet?

As a feminist who surely lives in a first world country, how do you feel about David Cameron refusing to wear a pro-feminist t-shirt? ... Now, how do you feel about the fact that these t-shirts are made entirely on a small, foreign island called Mauritius by women who who work in sweatshop conditions, for a dollar an hour when these t-shirts sell for 70? ... why haven't your feminist ideals extended to the women who make t-shirts supporting your cause, and have David Cameron looked down upon by other women? I thought feminism was about extending equal rights to all women? not very fair that these girls get driven like slaves.

First off, this sounds like it may be more of a Marxist issue than a Feminist issue - including cost of living information in Mauritius would have helped (maybe $1/hour is a great wage for women there)

1$ is the US equivalent, love. I would've thought it would be good sense to consider the payment low. Why would a news outlet bother looking into it if there wasn't any legitimacy into any type of poor treatment? a sensationalist piece? into something like feminism where we are right now? I don't buy it.

What kind of women work these jobs and what would they be doing if they weren't working them? For instance, in early Industrial US, factory jobs were usually either held by young women saving up for marriage or widows looking for enough income to not be homeless. Though wages were comparatively low, this was generally seen as a net positive for feminism as it allowed young women to be more discerning in choosing spouses and older women to remain independent.

I don't know, I don't live in Mauritius so I couldn't tell you the financial situation. But this isn't about the financial situation, because I just told you how much they get paid. As a feminist, how do you feel about the fact that these women are living in poor living conditions and being paid extremely poor wages? that is not equal rights.

That is what I asked you, nothing else.

...Or why as an American, I'd care much about David Cameron's politics.

Never asked you about Cameron's politics. I asked you how you felt that a shirt with such controversy is approved by women, because you said feminism is completely open to analysis and has been going on for hundreds of years. I'm asking you, a feminist, your thoughts.

 

[daibakuha]

She was talking about what she called a "socially constructed myth" that women are more "frail and vulnerable". The context of her statement was fairly universally across the board and including physical strength. She also says this more than once. The example cited above was in the first Damsel video, but she elaborated it again in the third video by saying: "Damselled female characters tend to reinforce preexisting regressive notions about women as a group being weak or in need of protection because of their gender."5:25 mark

So when she talks about weakness here she's talking about the belief that women are weaker as a gender than men. But this is factually true on average. This is why we have problems with things like rape and why domestic violence affects far more females than males.

The problem comes from the fact that not only does it reinforce that women are objects to be used as goals for male players but that they lack any form of agency themselves. Another comment-er pointed this out, but we live in an age where physical power matters very little in day to day life, so the differences should be moot.


So yes there are differences between men and women, but they shouldn't matter, especially in games where they exaggerate physical prowess to sometimes extreme levels. Lara Croft in the new tomb raider didn't beat all those dudes on that island with sheer physical force, she outsmarted, out maneuvered and out-skilled them all. Come to think of it, it's the exact same way Nathan Drake manages to beat people who are way stronger than himself too.

 

[The Deadpool]

Where does she claim that?

Tell you what, what do YOU think her argument is?

"help to normalize extremely toxic, patronizing and paternalistic attitudes about women."

Well, evidently, feminsts and "social justice warriors" are simply a vocal minority, so isn't that the case?

Where? Every article, every news outlet, every public figure. Developers, TV personalities, journalists, bloggers... When did this become the vocal minority?

1) Um, no, just no. Thombsson argued that playing violent video-games would actually CAUSE people to become violent. There is nothing even remotely similar about that and the argument that sexist tropes reflects and continues sexist mindsets in real life.

I'm confused. Are you saying we don't have pre existing violence tendencies from the past eons, or that Anita's argument doesn't draw a causality line between the media we digest and our treatment of women.

The ability to make someone think about something, like an idea or a social issue is the very basis for something to be considered "high art".

Make me think about something and making me act immorally are two widely different things. Or do you blame Sallinger for every murder when the culprit is found with The Catcher In The Rye in his hands? Are we still blaming the Quran for terrorist acts?

Or is literature no longer "high art" because it doesn't make me think about things?

I think the thing most people have issues with is her damsel argument. Her women as non-important background or sex toys is generally seen more favorably.

Yes and no. She certainly has stronger ground here, but her lack of experience in gaming shows.

She continually compares NPCs to PCs and finds them wanting. A large portion of her background video "problems" with how these women are treated are a function of them being NPCs and not WOMEN.

Remember, the problem shouldn't be women being treated poorly, it should be women being treated DIFFERENTLY.

Stop simplifying things. Media influences people in different ways. It should be rather obvious that if media has an influence, it's not all going to influence in the same direction. Positive images or positive messages can have positive influences; that doesn't somehow mean that negative images and messages cannot have negative influences.

Right. But the argument, as presented, is that video games' effect on gender relations nets noticeably negative.

Considering gender relations has improved as exposure to video games has increased, one has to wonder where the evidence is coming from.

No, that's not my train of thinking. It does not follow that somebody who believes games can influence behaviour must believe that they "make people more violent", or that they "lead to extra assaults and death". That's just reductionist on an almost absurd scale.

Remember, this isn't about YOUR argument as YOU put for-- Well, you haven't put it forth, just believed it in your head.

Regardless, this is HER argument (and his) as it presents itself. Although I have to ask: If it doesn't influence behavior in any meaningful way, why should we care? If it does, and causes deaths, why shouldn't we regulate it?

Uhrm, well, yes. There's quite a meaningful difference between advocating censorship and not advocating censorship.

Not when talking of the validity of the premise that LEADS to censoring.

If I believe the sky is pink, it doesn't matter if I think we should live it with, or if we should dance naked at noon to worship it, or if we should spend a million dollars to fly rockets up there and paint it blue again: The basic premise is wrong, what I think we should do about it is IRRELEVANT.

As for the media, I'd agree the response was bad. It was covered [http://www.gamespot.com/articles/rumor-control-update-bush-bros-in-madden-x05-lands-in-amsterdam-revolution-picsagain/1100-6130286/] in a couple [http://archive.wired.com/gaming/gamingreviews/news/2005/11/69404] of places [http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/04/men-are-harassed-more-than-women-online.html], though.

Yes. It was reported. Often as a matter of fact (while still sneaking in negative information on him). Sometimes in jest. Especially the Mortal Kombat mod that let you play against him.

Compare it to the reporting on Anita's harassment. For giggles compare it to the treatment of the rudimentary flash game where you punch her. Do I have to find links?

The difference is astounding.

The depressing thing is, you know who actually treat them the same are the terrible people who SENT the damned death threats. Or sure, Sarkeesian likes the narrative that this is all some anti woman, "get out of our games!" thing. But for all the vitrol Sarkeesian, Quinn, Wu and the like got, it's not like Thompson, Ebert or Vonderhaar had it any better. The media just didn't care as much... Nor did they.

 

[Farther than stars]

You know what
here
I feel this was a much better and hell much more interesting attempt to analyze things.
And better yet I feel pretty fucking hopeful about the game industry then when I've had the misfortune to watch Anita's regurgitation.

An interesting perspective, but I would still say it's ultimately flawed, for the following reason: all the analysis is based on what the characters of Peach and Zelda are 'in the game', essentially on how great they are. But we're not talking about overt sexism where women are placed in a negative light for misogynistic reasons, but on a subversive sexism based on how the player perceives the character (essentially, the developers' design is more important than the product of that design). I'm sure that fictionally speaking Princesses Peach and Zelda are very much appreciated within their own kingdoms, but this does not change the fact that most important piece of information being relayed to the player is that the princesses are objectives on the hero's journey (from a gaming point of view). In the over-aching perspective offered to the player, the back story is really a fairly minor factor in the game (not unexpectedly, considering these games developed from a stage in gaming where stories were generally considered to be fairly trivial to gaming).
Also, the video to which you give a link seems to imply that Sarkeesian herself believes these characters to be inferior, which is not the case. When she refers to them as 'property', she's doing this as a hyperbole to illustrate the way in which the character is treated by developers, who merely use the princess as a plot device, instead of a character in her own right. Sarkeesian's also not saying that women are inferior for being victims but making this the most ubiquitous aspect of their character is problematic.