Welcome to Gaia! ::


Magical Girl

CuAnnan
Dion Necurat
I've been staying out of the whole GamerGate deal, primarily because I don't associate with the "Gamer" culture, despite being an avid gamer (mostly board, card, and tabletop games, not video games). But even I have noticed the decline of "gamers" in regard to the market.

Yeah, likewise.

Yoshpet
So what does this secret shadow court of 4Channers actually want out of all this? confused

Why the ******** are you responding to that toerag as though it were a real person?
It faked its suicide, faked its girlfriend and faked its conversion to radical christianity.
Nothing that parody of a human being says should be taken at face value, if you must reply to it, just reply with "faked your suicide, stormed off the forum and set up another sock puppet within 24 hours to see what people are saying about you recently".
Because that's the only thing that thing has ever done of note.
Now, I ain't been a friend to you, and it's not even close to my place but I'd say she's driving you past where you usually sit, if you'll pardon the expression. Just... It doesn't seem like you to dehumanize like that. Granted that she did some terrible things but this doesn't seem right for you. Don't let her bring you down. Please.

Quotable Prophet

Roih Uvet
Nobody Famous
Roih Uvet
Nobody Famous
Roih Uvet
Eden_hummel
I dont see CNN and MSNBC as news outlets for gameing related news. As for were i get my gameing related news, i perfer Screw Attack.
If you recall, I did also say "game journalists", which would include things like Kotaku and Gamasutra.

So, yes, #GamerGate is not pro-status quo since the status quo hates it quite openly.


Most people seem to believe they mean status quo as far as status of women in video games since it seems to be women they target. Or so says the "corrupt media". And the women they target.
Except practically nobody objects to women in video games. Certainly not the majority of #GamerGate supporters. This "boys' club" nonsense is just that. You aren't tho byught of as lesser by your average video gamer or your average GGer. It's just incorrect, and speaking to these people would reveal that.


I'm on the fence about that. Personally, I haven't had that many issues with other gamers due to being female. But then again, I don't play multiplayer that often, and I'm hearing stories from others who say they have and had to deal with a lot of rude statements. Plus there's been a lot more noted outrage targeted at female developers and writers for issues that seem almost disproportionate to whatever wrong people think they did than I've seen for guys. Doesn't mean they're gamergate or that gamergate supports that, but it doesn't help my impression of them when the most I'm hearing about them involves threats and harassment of people.
The objections you're most likely to hear are about pushing a political agenda in the games. For example they have much more of an objection to Anita Sarkeesian's outlook that catering to men in video games at all the form of having sexy women and violent plots is "problematic" than to women playing games. there is a very real sentiment among many feminists that women are entitled to half representation video games and that women not being catered to directly is inherently bad. Especially if you "sexualize" them.
As for respecting multiplayer: that's unheard of. Sometimes people can be nice in multiplayer but don't expect it. Pretty much everybody gets s**t talked on multiplayer games. It's an inevitability. Yes the fact that you will be spoken to in an unreserved and hostile manner is influenced by the male input, but that does not mean that treating women with the same level of open hostility is misogynist.

Video games truly are a male space. Man, not women, are what's made video games popular and relevant in the first place. This does grant them the power to dictate the rules to some extent. In order for women to gain influence in games they are going to have to produce more games. Men as a collective have no more obligation cater to women as a collective than vice versa.

Men catering to other men is not misogyny. Creating a product or service with men as your target audience and demographic is not misogyny. Women have every right to influence video games and media in general by producing video games and media in general; being the one that makes something means you have every right to make it your way. You are not however entitled to dictate to others how they ought to make their media. This is called freedom of expression. In trying to strong-arm into making games your way you undermine that freedom.

In conclusion if you want to influence culture you must contribute to it.


Your post here sounds a bit misogynistic and while I doubt it's your intent, it sounds like you're saying video games are for men and that the main problem is women infringing on that by being involved. Video games are no longer a male space when reports are saying almost half of video game players are women. And in multiplayer, while there is no doubt that there's negativity thrown at all players, reports show a notable increase in derogatory statements towards players that are believed to be female.

Women do try to contribute to video game culture. The problem is that the women who are contributing to it also tend to have lynch mobs screaming for their blood for various perceived ills, even when said ills are outright disproven or never had anything to do with them in the first place. All things considered, Anita Sarkesian, Zoe Quinn, Jennifer Hepler all contributed in some ways and all of them received torrents of angry responses, trolling, and death threats. They may not be ways you necessarily agree with, but they and others still made contributions and they were all harassed for them.

So explain this double standard to me, then. Women have the right to contribute but when they do they're vilified for it. You say women have the right to influence but apparently not the right to express an opinion like any critic or even anyone with an opinion does because them sharing their opinion is strong-arming as opposed to the people who are posting death threats against them for sharing said opinion. Strong-arming requires some measure of force or threat to require the person gets their way. Other than making videos expressing an opinion, what did Anita do that was strong-arming anyone? Other than making a game showing a point of view about a mental health issue, what did Zoe Quinn do? Hell, what did poor Jennifer do to warrant being considered a "cancer" for being part of the team making Dragon Age 2 when she wasn't even the one in charge? You and everyone else could have easily ignored them all. No one FORCED you to listen to Anita's videos or play Zoe's game. No one FORCED you guys to buy Dragon Age or blame Hepler for issues she didn't even have part in. And no one FORCED anyone to resort to harassing people just because they didn't agree or just didn't like what those people came out with.

I have seen worse statements made about games by Ben Croshaw, James Rolfe, and Joe Vargas and yet I haven't seen of them harassed. Ben has even blasted his own audience for supporting mainstream cookie-cutter games over anything new, and has expressed support of independent games. Hell, one male developer I did see harassed was Phil Fish just because he spoke out in support of Zoe. If anything, when even a good number of the current game developers are speaking out against the harassment, that should kind of tell you something about the people who do influence the video game industry and the direction they're leading it in.

I guess what I'm saying is that their opinions are opinions, just like everyone else's. We don't have to agree with them, but nobody needs to resort to harassing them for it either. You're fully capable of ignoring them just as easily as political sides ignore the news companies and people they don't like.
Nobody Famous
Roih Uvet
Nobody Famous
Roih Uvet
Nobody Famous


Most people seem to believe they mean status quo as far as status of women in video games since it seems to be women they target. Or so says the "corrupt media". And the women they target.
Except practically nobody objects to women in video games. Certainly not the majority of #GamerGate supporters. This "boys' club" nonsense is just that. You aren't tho byught of as lesser by your average video gamer or your average GGer. It's just incorrect, and speaking to these people would reveal that.


I'm on the fence about that. Personally, I haven't had that many issues with other gamers due to being female. But then again, I don't play multiplayer that often, and I'm hearing stories from others who say they have and had to deal with a lot of rude statements. Plus there's been a lot more noted outrage targeted at female developers and writers for issues that seem almost disproportionate to whatever wrong people think they did than I've seen for guys. Doesn't mean they're gamergate or that gamergate supports that, but it doesn't help my impression of them when the most I'm hearing about them involves threats and harassment of people.
The objections you're most likely to hear are about pushing a political agenda in the games. For example they have much more of an objection to Anita Sarkeesian's outlook that catering to men in video games at all the form of having sexy women and violent plots is "problematic" than to women playing games. there is a very real sentiment among many feminists that women are entitled to half representation video games and that women not being catered to directly is inherently bad. Especially if you "sexualize" them.
As for respecting multiplayer: that's unheard of. Sometimes people can be nice in multiplayer but don't expect it. Pretty much everybody gets s**t talked on multiplayer games. It's an inevitability. Yes the fact that you will be spoken to in an unreserved and hostile manner is influenced by the male input, but that does not mean that treating women with the same level of open hostility is misogynist.

Video games truly are a male space. Man, not women, are what's made video games popular and relevant in the first place. This does grant them the power to dictate the rules to some extent. In order for women to gain influence in games they are going to have to produce more games. Men as a collective have no more obligation cater to women as a collective than vice versa.

Men catering to other men is not misogyny. Creating a product or service with men as your target audience and demographic is not misogyny. Women have every right to influence video games and media in general by producing video games and media in general; being the one that makes something means you have every right to make it your way. You are not however entitled to dictate to others how they ought to make their media. This is called freedom of expression. In trying to strong-arm into making games your way you undermine that freedom.

In conclusion if you want to influence culture you must contribute to it.


Your post here sounds a bit misogynistic and while I doubt it's your intent, it sounds like you're saying video games are for men and that the main problem is women infringing on that by being involved. Video games are no longer a male space when reports are saying almost half of video game players are women. And in multiplayer, while there is no doubt that there's negativity thrown at all players, reports show a notable increase in derogatory statements towards players that are believed to be female.

Women do try to contribute to video game culture. The problem is that the women who are contributing to it also tend to have lynch mobs screaming for their blood for various perceived ills, even when said ills are outright disproven or never had anything to do with them in the first place. All things considered, Anita Sarkesian, Zoe Quinn, Jennifer Hepler all contributed in some ways and all of them received torrents of angry responses, trolling, and death threats. They may not be ways you necessarily agree with, but they and others still made contributions and they were all harassed for them.

So explain this double standard to me, then. Women have the right to contribute but when they do they're vilified for it. You say women have the right to influence but apparently not the right to express an opinion like any critic or even anyone with an opinion does because them sharing their opinion is strong-arming as opposed to the people who are posting death threats against them for sharing said opinion. Strong-arming requires some measure of force or threat to require the person gets their way. Other than making videos expressing an opinion, what did Anita do that was strong-arming anyone? Other than making a game showing a point of view about a mental health issue, what did Zoe Quinn do? Hell, what did poor Jennifer do to warrant being considered a "cancer" for being part of the team making Dragon Age 2 when she wasn't even the one in charge? You and everyone else could have easily ignored them all. No one FORCED you to listen to Anita's videos or play Zoe's game. No one FORCED you guys to buy Dragon Age or blame Hepler for issues she didn't even have part in. And no one FORCED anyone to resort to harassing people just because they didn't agree or just didn't like what those people came out with.

I have seen worse statements made about games by Ben Croshaw, James Rolfe, and Joe Vargas and yet I haven't seen of them harassed. Ben has even blasted his own audience for supporting mainstream cookie-cutter games over anything new, and has expressed support of independent games. Hell, one male developer I did see harassed was Phil Fish just because he spoke out in support of Zoe. If anything, when even a good number of the current game developers are speaking out against the harassment, that should kind of tell you something about the people who do influence the video game industry and the direction they're leading it in.

I guess what I'm saying is that their opinions are opinions, just like everyone else's. We don't have to agree with them, but nobody needs to resort to harassing them for it either. You're fully capable of ignoring them just as easily as political sides ignore the news companies and people they don't like.

The correct way to interact with Roih Uvet is to remind him he got banned from Something Awful of all places for being too much of a whiny baby about feminism.

Quotable Prophet

Senator Armstrong
Nobody Famous
Roih Uvet
Nobody Famous
Roih Uvet
Nobody Famous


Most people seem to believe they mean status quo as far as status of women in video games since it seems to be women they target. Or so says the "corrupt media". And the women they target.
Except practically nobody objects to women in video games. Certainly not the majority of #GamerGate supporters. This "boys' club" nonsense is just that. You aren't tho byught of as lesser by your average video gamer or your average GGer. It's just incorrect, and speaking to these people would reveal that.


I'm on the fence about that. Personally, I haven't had that many issues with other gamers due to being female. But then again, I don't play multiplayer that often, and I'm hearing stories from others who say they have and had to deal with a lot of rude statements. Plus there's been a lot more noted outrage targeted at female developers and writers for issues that seem almost disproportionate to whatever wrong people think they did than I've seen for guys. Doesn't mean they're gamergate or that gamergate supports that, but it doesn't help my impression of them when the most I'm hearing about them involves threats and harassment of people.
The objections you're most likely to hear are about pushing a political agenda in the games. For example they have much more of an objection to Anita Sarkeesian's outlook that catering to men in video games at all the form of having sexy women and violent plots is "problematic" than to women playing games. there is a very real sentiment among many feminists that women are entitled to half representation video games and that women not being catered to directly is inherently bad. Especially if you "sexualize" them.
As for respecting multiplayer: that's unheard of. Sometimes people can be nice in multiplayer but don't expect it. Pretty much everybody gets s**t talked on multiplayer games. It's an inevitability. Yes the fact that you will be spoken to in an unreserved and hostile manner is influenced by the male input, but that does not mean that treating women with the same level of open hostility is misogynist.

Video games truly are a male space. Man, not women, are what's made video games popular and relevant in the first place. This does grant them the power to dictate the rules to some extent. In order for women to gain influence in games they are going to have to produce more games. Men as a collective have no more obligation cater to women as a collective than vice versa.

Men catering to other men is not misogyny. Creating a product or service with men as your target audience and demographic is not misogyny. Women have every right to influence video games and media in general by producing video games and media in general; being the one that makes something means you have every right to make it your way. You are not however entitled to dictate to others how they ought to make their media. This is called freedom of expression. In trying to strong-arm into making games your way you undermine that freedom.

In conclusion if you want to influence culture you must contribute to it.


Your post here sounds a bit misogynistic and while I doubt it's your intent, it sounds like you're saying video games are for men and that the main problem is women infringing on that by being involved. Video games are no longer a male space when reports are saying almost half of video game players are women. And in multiplayer, while there is no doubt that there's negativity thrown at all players, reports show a notable increase in derogatory statements towards players that are believed to be female.

Women do try to contribute to video game culture. The problem is that the women who are contributing to it also tend to have lynch mobs screaming for their blood for various perceived ills, even when said ills are outright disproven or never had anything to do with them in the first place. All things considered, Anita Sarkesian, Zoe Quinn, Jennifer Hepler all contributed in some ways and all of them received torrents of angry responses, trolling, and death threats. They may not be ways you necessarily agree with, but they and others still made contributions and they were all harassed for them.

So explain this double standard to me, then. Women have the right to contribute but when they do they're vilified for it. You say women have the right to influence but apparently not the right to express an opinion like any critic or even anyone with an opinion does because them sharing their opinion is strong-arming as opposed to the people who are posting death threats against them for sharing said opinion. Strong-arming requires some measure of force or threat to require the person gets their way. Other than making videos expressing an opinion, what did Anita do that was strong-arming anyone? Other than making a game showing a point of view about a mental health issue, what did Zoe Quinn do? Hell, what did poor Jennifer do to warrant being considered a "cancer" for being part of the team making Dragon Age 2 when she wasn't even the one in charge? You and everyone else could have easily ignored them all. No one FORCED you to listen to Anita's videos or play Zoe's game. No one FORCED you guys to buy Dragon Age or blame Hepler for issues she didn't even have part in. And no one FORCED anyone to resort to harassing people just because they didn't agree or just didn't like what those people came out with.

I have seen worse statements made about games by Ben Croshaw, James Rolfe, and Joe Vargas and yet I haven't seen of them harassed. Ben has even blasted his own audience for supporting mainstream cookie-cutter games over anything new, and has expressed support of independent games. Hell, one male developer I did see harassed was Phil Fish just because he spoke out in support of Zoe. If anything, when even a good number of the current game developers are speaking out against the harassment, that should kind of tell you something about the people who do influence the video game industry and the direction they're leading it in.

I guess what I'm saying is that their opinions are opinions, just like everyone else's. We don't have to agree with them, but nobody needs to resort to harassing them for it either. You're fully capable of ignoring them just as easily as political sides ignore the news companies and people they don't like.

The correct way to interact with Roih Uvet is to remind him he got banned from Something Awful of all places for being too much of a whiny baby about feminism.


Oh, I see. Thank you.

Newbie Noob

I think feminism can be troublesome and can be good, just as practically any societal movement has it's spectrum of positives and negatives. I say this because of course we can look to history and it's effects on present institutions. It doesn't take an intellectual to see that there is still the lingering of the remnants of past philosophy of the otherization of a gender, or a gender as subordinate.

Personally, I know the vague aspects of Gamer-Gate. I've heard that a woman was threatened to be shot on giving a lecture on violence on women in video games. Which is rather ironic.

Honestly, I do think that in certain video games, sure women are hyper-sexualized and objectified.
It could be potentially because the creators of the game were straight men (or not) and they felt that sexualization of women in the game would sell to their predominately straight male identifying audience, or maybe they have a different philosophy on why they chose to characterize the women in that sexual manner. But we don't know that because that information remains private and unreleased, so as to not procure backlash and stride on with the purpose of selling and making profit.

However or as a culture do we tend to sexualize certain parts of the female body more than the male body? And how did we begin to do that? Through media conditioning? Or is it something else?
The power of breasts on the straight male in terms of eroticism?

Yet I think we also sexualize men too. I think it is rather strange when we say that women are sexualized, yet then the reverse binary implication of that statement mean that men aren't sexualized.

But that's not true at all. So I think rather it is that men are sexualized, just not as on the same public display or ratio as women are. And however, women sexualize other women as well. For example, lipstick lesbians, or women who find other women attractive, who fit to a certain standard known as "femme" (or popular notions of femininity, heels, makeup, lipstick). And certainly men sexualize other masculine men as well.

But first, what does it mean to be sexualized? It means your representation of an identity you associate yourself with, is being violated or demeaned in a public display of sorts.

In this case of straight women as sexualized, clearly it just denotes you as use for sex, and that is it.

Yet in order to be sexualized, one must view a subject in an erotic perspective based on an aspect that triggers arousal. So what can be said about these forms of arousal in media?

No doubt the produces, screen writers, and people behind the creations and formation of certain media like hollywood films purposely typecast beautiful people.

Yet I have to ask the common person to rationally question that representation as truth, and it's realistic implications. Sure, it can be a thought that lingers in your head, but mostly you will face moral, societal, and juridical repercussions if you act out on that belief.

And I would also have to ask the question of perspective here too. Sex is subjective, some men won't find certain women attractive from a film, just as some women won't find some men attractive from a film. Regardless of if they are both shown naked. So to say one is sexualized, one imply that someone finds that form of sexualization erotic. Yet, that is not an all encompassing perspective.

However, outside of just a heterosexual culture, men are incredibly sexualized in gay culture and I feel as if many feminists are viewing these issues strictly through a heterosexual lens. Which is troublesome.

Many straight men who have been to gay clubs or predominately gay cities often profess that they feel the same way women do. They are leered at, touched against their will, hit on, and felt quite uncomfortable.

Yet female representation is certainly a problem in the predominate heterosexual culture.
There is, after numbers have been gathered of actual testimonies, of more of a violence, and harassment of women by men. Perhaps also because heterosexuality is the majority of the American population, but that may not just be an issue of sexualization. That may be in issue of the traditional philosophy emanating from the dawn of western civilization, as woman as subordinate.
Yet more needs to be examined in this case, as male on male violence is equally detrimental.

However, regardless is this more of an issue of respecting others boundaries when it comes to sexual advances? And is it also more of an issue of being able to appropriately learn to behave in a more ethical manner as to not cause any innocent people distress? (This applies to all "genders/sexes" wink .

And is this also an issue of really having an understanding of the severe consequences of having pre-conceived notions of an individual based on physical aspects alone? (I.e; this women is exposing her skin, or her cleavage, therefore I shall make an advance on her since I am aroused, or I believe that she is asking to be sexualized.)

The problem of courtship of any "gender/sex" and our ethical maxims and rules of conduct for going about this are rather undiscussed in an academic sense as well. I'm sure the common person would know the basics. Be respectable, of course.

I suppose yet another question to ask here is, in a world where media did not over-sexualize women in straight films, would women still be sexualized in other realms outside of media? Perhaps not. Perhaps the culture does objectify it. However this becomes problematic for women who want to be sexualized.

Yet in comparison, although children aren't sexualized by the media, whatsoever, we have an alarming prevalence of ***** in the world that really can not be ignored.

So perhaps we could look to media and representation as an issue, however I think that more discussions on how to behave ethically towards innocent people when one feels urges, is rather important. I've noticed it is typically in people who perhaps lack moral, parental figures, or a largely negative and psychologically traumatic childhood (or maybe they are just assholes.) that seem to not understand this ethical behavior.

I honestly think it's very unfortunate that there is an emotional oppression of the straight identifying men, or SIM, I think that SIMS can't enjoy the same freedoms as women in certain aspects.


--Anyways, these are just my thoughts and they're rather jumbled. I'm still working through these ideas myself.

9,050 Points
  • Brandisher 100
  • Generous 100
  • Signature Look 250
Nobody Famous
Capt Buckner CTO
You know, I've been doing some thinking as to exactly why the GG pushback has been so strong, and I think I got it. Gamers are just plain sick of their industry shitting on them.

Think about it. How much discontent has there been going around the past couple years in the community? Paid DLC to complete games, DRM rights and stuff like that, and in the past year or two, there's been an extremely vocal but tiny minority that's been demanding everything tailored to their tastes, and getting it.

Its also been pretty clear that a lot of publishers don't give a ******** what devs want to do.

First half is why the gamers are pissed, second half is why a lot of devs started backing GG. Makes sense to me.


I'm confused, who is this vocal minority and in what ways are they getting everything tailored to their tastes?

It's not so much a group as it is an ideology that is spreading everywhere, not just the gaming community: politically correct all the things. All male characters in a war game? Sexist. Black guy dies first? Racist. You know, stupid little things like those that nobody cared about a couple years ago, now it's suddenly a big deal. However, this ideology tends to be part of social justice SOP.

Quotable Prophet

Capt Buckner CTO
Nobody Famous
Capt Buckner CTO
You know, I've been doing some thinking as to exactly why the GG pushback has been so strong, and I think I got it. Gamers are just plain sick of their industry shitting on them.

Think about it. How much discontent has there been going around the past couple years in the community? Paid DLC to complete games, DRM rights and stuff like that, and in the past year or two, there's been an extremely vocal but tiny minority that's been demanding everything tailored to their tastes, and getting it.

Its also been pretty clear that a lot of publishers don't give a ******** what devs want to do.

First half is why the gamers are pissed, second half is why a lot of devs started backing GG. Makes sense to me.


I'm confused, who is this vocal minority and in what ways are they getting everything tailored to their tastes?

It's not so much a group as it is an ideology that is spreading everywhere, not just the gaming community: politically correct all the things. All male characters in a war game? Sexist. Black guy dies first? Racist. You know, stupid little things like those that nobody cared about a couple years ago, now it's suddenly a big deal. However, this ideology tends to be part of social justice SOP.


Okay, but in what ways are they getting everything tailored to their tastes? They complain, sure, but so does everyone about some aspect of games.

Dapper Genius

5,875 Points
  • Person of Interest 200
  • Autobiographer 200
  • Dressed Up 200
HMS Thunder Child
Don't let her bring you down. Please.

You are 100% correct.
Consider the matter in dropping mode. I will do my best to let it go.
Nobody Famous
Roih Uvet
Nobody Famous
Roih Uvet
Nobody Famous


Most people seem to believe they mean status quo as far as status of women in video games since it seems to be women they target. Or so says the "corrupt media". And the women they target.
Except practically nobody objects to women in video games. Certainly not the majority of #GamerGate supporters. This "boys' club" nonsense is just that. You aren't tho byught of as lesser by your average video gamer or your average GGer. It's just incorrect, and speaking to these people would reveal that.


I'm on the fence about that. Personally, I haven't had that many issues with other gamers due to being female. But then again, I don't play multiplayer that often, and I'm hearing stories from others who say they have and had to deal with a lot of rude statements. Plus there's been a lot more noted outrage targeted at female developers and writers for issues that seem almost disproportionate to whatever wrong people think they did than I've seen for guys. Doesn't mean they're gamergate or that gamergate supports that, but it doesn't help my impression of them when the most I'm hearing about them involves threats and harassment of people.
The objections you're most likely to hear are about pushing a political agenda in the games. For example they have much more of an objection to Anita Sarkeesian's outlook that catering to men in video games at all the form of having sexy women and violent plots is "problematic" than to women playing games. there is a very real sentiment among many feminists that women are entitled to half representation video games and that women not being catered to directly is inherently bad. Especially if you "sexualize" them.
As for respecting multiplayer: that's unheard of. Sometimes people can be nice in multiplayer but don't expect it. Pretty much everybody gets s**t talked on multiplayer games. It's an inevitability. Yes the fact that you will be spoken to in an unreserved and hostile manner is influenced by the male input, but that does not mean that treating women with the same level of open hostility is misogynist.

Video games truly are a male space. Man, not women, are what's made video games popular and relevant in the first place. This does grant them the power to dictate the rules to some extent. In order for women to gain influence in games they are going to have to produce more games. Men as a collective have no more obligation cater to women as a collective than vice versa.

Men catering to other men is not misogyny. Creating a product or service with men as your target audience and demographic is not misogyny. Women have every right to influence video games and media in general by producing video games and media in general; being the one that makes something means you have every right to make it your way. You are not however entitled to dictate to others how they ought to make their media. This is called freedom of expression. In trying to strong-arm into making games your way you undermine that freedom.

In conclusion if you want to influence culture you must contribute to it.


Your post here sounds a bit misogynistic and while I doubt it's your intent, it sounds like you're saying video games are for men and that the main problem is women infringing on that by being involved. Video games are no longer a male space when reports are saying almost half of video game players are women. And in multiplayer, while there is no doubt that there's negativity thrown at all players, reports show a notable increase in derogatory statements towards players that are believed to be female.

Women do try to contribute to video game culture. The problem is that the women who are contributing to it also tend to have lynch mobs screaming for their blood for various perceived ills, even when said ills are outright disproven or never had anything to do with them in the first place. All things considered, Anita Sarkesian, Zoe Quinn, Jennifer Hepler all contributed in some ways and all of them received torrents of angry responses, trolling, and death threats. They may not be ways you necessarily agree with, but they and others still made contributions and they were all harassed for them.

So explain this double standard to me, then. Women have the right to contribute but when they do they're vilified for it. You say women have the right to influence but apparently not the right to express an opinion like any critic or even anyone with an opinion does because them sharing their opinion is strong-arming as opposed to the people who are posting death threats against them for sharing said opinion. Strong-arming requires some measure of force or threat to require the person gets their way. Other than making videos expressing an opinion, what did Anita do that was strong-arming anyone? Other than making a game showing a point of view about a mental health issue, what did Zoe Quinn do? Hell, what did poor Jennifer do to warrant being considered a "cancer" for being part of the team making Dragon Age 2 when she wasn't even the one in charge? You and everyone else could have easily ignored them all. No one FORCED you to listen to Anita's videos or play Zoe's game. No one FORCED you guys to buy Dragon Age or blame Hepler for issues she didn't even have part in. And no one FORCED anyone to resort to harassing people just because they didn't agree or just didn't like what those people came out with.

I have seen worse statements made about games by Ben Croshaw, James Rolfe, and Joe Vargas and yet I haven't seen of them harassed. Ben has even blasted his own audience for supporting mainstream cookie-cutter games over anything new, and has expressed support of independent games. Hell, one male developer I did see harassed was Phil Fish just because he spoke out in support of Zoe. If anything, when even a good number of the current game developers are speaking out against the harassment, that should kind of tell you something about the people who do influence the video game industry and the direction they're leading it in.

I guess what I'm saying is that their opinions are opinions, just like everyone else's. We don't have to agree with them, but nobody needs to resort to harassing them for it either. You're fully capable of ignoring them just as easily as political is sides ignore the news companies and people they don't like.
I don't think you understand what a contribution is. Critiquing an industry is not contributing to it. Consuming it is not contributing to it, unless you're bringing money to the table. Even then, it's a relatively minor contribution.

Anita Sarkeesian does not contribute to the games industry. Zoe Quinn makes "games" so bad that you have to put quotes around the word "games" in order to justify the use of that word. I don't even know what Brianna Wu did aside from get a death threat on Twitter, which shows how important she is.

These women are not antagonized for contributing to video game culture. Their "contributions" to video game culture are negligible, anyway. They are antagonized for demanding, with a straight face, more than they are due (which is nothing), just for being women, and for gaining media support for this demand. They are antagonized for having openly anti-white, openly anti-male views. And before you say it, yes: complaining about "white men" and how ******** up they are is in fact both anti-white, and anti-male, and these women are notorious for that kind of commentary.

You are not, as a woman, entitled to the product of someone else's labor. Men have no obligation to cater to women, and failing to do so is not misogyny. Men do not exist to serve you. Even if they are white men. Let that simple fact sink in.

While I'm not a fan of the death threats these women have received, they are definitely due some antagony for their serious attitude problems, for their brazen sexism and racism, and for the level of media power they wield. Even though I do not approve of the threats, the simple fact that they are blowback is something you must recognize in order to call yourself a rational, sane human being. If you b***h and gripe and moan about "white men" and how evil they are, don't complain when one of them takes offense to this and decides to give you a hard time over it because yes, you do have that coming to you.

Also, part of why I don't take the death threats seriously is because these women routinely conflate disagreeing with them or not liking their content with harassment. Remember, Anita Sarkeesian did disable up/downvoting her videos on YouTube to avoid "harassment." You know, like downvoting her video is quintessentially harassment, since she is, after all, entitled to a good rating. These women cried wolf one too many times and now even if the threats are real, I just don't care anymore. The harassment card has been overplayed and now it means nothing. Just going to have to suck it up, buttercup.

The ultimate contribution to an industry, especially an artistic one like video games (or any other media for that matter) is to create original content. This is how the video game industry is not misogynist: you are allowed, as a woman, to create video games. There are no binding, legally required credentials to make a video game. You can just do it. Thanks to free speech, you can make it however you want. You can make an outright gynocentric video game if you like. Go create a Kickstarter and talk about how feminist it is. I'm sure there are people who will finance it. I mean, Anita got like $100k just to complain and gripe about video games. She didn't even make one! Just imagine how much money you could make from actually creating something?

And I guarantee that as long as you keep your s**t within the scope of the s**t you create -- that is, if you refrain from telling everyone else who makes video games how to make theirs by pain of being morally inferior to yourself -- the GamerGate crowd won't be calling for your head. They probably won't even notice you.

In conclusion, "make your own, then" is a valid rebuttal to the collective critiques on video games that feminists levy. Happy developing.

Magical Girl

CuAnnan
HMS Thunder Child
Don't let her bring you down. Please.

You are 100% correct.
Consider the matter in dropping mode. I will do my best to let it go.
heart I'm here to lend an ear if you want to talk about it.

Magical Girl

Capt Buckner CTO
Nobody Famous
Capt Buckner CTO
You know, I've been doing some thinking as to exactly why the GG pushback has been so strong, and I think I got it. Gamers are just plain sick of their industry shitting on them.

Think about it. How much discontent has there been going around the past couple years in the community? Paid DLC to complete games, DRM rights and stuff like that, and in the past year or two, there's been an extremely vocal but tiny minority that's been demanding everything tailored to their tastes, and getting it.

Its also been pretty clear that a lot of publishers don't give a ******** what devs want to do.

First half is why the gamers are pissed, second half is why a lot of devs started backing GG. Makes sense to me.


I'm confused, who is this vocal minority and in what ways are they getting everything tailored to their tastes?

It's not so much a group as it is an ideology that is spreading everywhere, not just the gaming community: politically correct all the things. All male characters in a war game? Sexist. Black guy dies first? Racist. You know, stupid little things like those that nobody cared about a couple years ago, now it's suddenly a big deal. However, this ideology tends to be part of social justice SOP.
Inclusion must be really hard to stomach when you're already included, so why bother with anyone else, amirite?

After all, ain't nobody matter ain't like yew.
HMS Thunder Child
CuAnnan
Dion Necurat
I've been staying out of the whole GamerGate deal, primarily because I don't associate with the "Gamer" culture, despite being an avid gamer (mostly board, card, and tabletop games, not video games). But even I have noticed the decline of "gamers" in regard to the market.

Yeah, likewise.

Yoshpet
So what does this secret shadow court of 4Channers actually want out of all this? confused

Why the ******** are you responding to that toerag as though it were a real person?
It faked its suicide, faked its girlfriend and faked its conversion to radical christianity.
Nothing that parody of a human being says should be taken at face value, if you must reply to it, just reply with "faked your suicide, stormed off the forum and set up another sock puppet within 24 hours to see what people are saying about you recently".
Because that's the only thing that thing has ever done of note.
Now, I ain't been a friend to you, and it's not even close to my place but I'd say she's driving you past where you usually sit, if you'll pardon the expression. Just... It doesn't seem like you to dehumanize like that. Granted that she did some terrible things but this doesn't seem right for you. Don't let her bring you down. Please.


*SIGH* Doesn't matter to him, I suppose, that I actually feel guilty about that stunt and wish I never pulled it off. I can't even justify it to myself anymore.

Magical Girl

GSK Lives
HMS Thunder Child
CuAnnan
Dion Necurat
I've been staying out of the whole GamerGate deal, primarily because I don't associate with the "Gamer" culture, despite being an avid gamer (mostly board, card, and tabletop games, not video games). But even I have noticed the decline of "gamers" in regard to the market.

Yeah, likewise.

Yoshpet
So what does this secret shadow court of 4Channers actually want out of all this? confused

Why the ******** are you responding to that toerag as though it were a real person?
It faked its suicide, faked its girlfriend and faked its conversion to radical christianity.
Nothing that parody of a human being says should be taken at face value, if you must reply to it, just reply with "faked your suicide, stormed off the forum and set up another sock puppet within 24 hours to see what people are saying about you recently".
Because that's the only thing that thing has ever done of note.
Now, I ain't been a friend to you, and it's not even close to my place but I'd say she's driving you past where you usually sit, if you'll pardon the expression. Just... It doesn't seem like you to dehumanize like that. Granted that she did some terrible things but this doesn't seem right for you. Don't let her bring you down. Please.


*SIGH* Doesn't matter to him, I suppose, that I actually feel guilty about that stunt and wish I never pulled it off. I can't even justify it to myself anymore.
Reckon you'll find there isn't much of a market for your apologies.

I AM R U's Spouse

Blessed Rogue

10,775 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Mega Tipsy 100
HMS Thunder Child
Capt Buckner CTO
Nobody Famous
Capt Buckner CTO
You know, I've been doing some thinking as to exactly why the GG pushback has been so strong, and I think I got it. Gamers are just plain sick of their industry shitting on them.

Think about it. How much discontent has there been going around the past couple years in the community? Paid DLC to complete games, DRM rights and stuff like that, and in the past year or two, there's been an extremely vocal but tiny minority that's been demanding everything tailored to their tastes, and getting it.

Its also been pretty clear that a lot of publishers don't give a ******** what devs want to do.

First half is why the gamers are pissed, second half is why a lot of devs started backing GG. Makes sense to me.


I'm confused, who is this vocal minority and in what ways are they getting everything tailored to their tastes?

It's not so much a group as it is an ideology that is spreading everywhere, not just the gaming community: politically correct all the things. All male characters in a war game? Sexist. Black guy dies first? Racist. You know, stupid little things like those that nobody cared about a couple years ago, now it's suddenly a big deal. However, this ideology tends to be part of social justice SOP.
Inclusion must be really hard to stomach when you're already included, so why bother with anyone else, amirite?

After all, ain't nobody matter ain't like yew.


Who's not being included? Between developers and characters alike, pretty much every kind of person you can have, is represented in video games, at least by some margin or another.
Yoshpet
GSK Lives
Even after realizing how astroturfed by Anon goons the whole movement was.


So what does this secret shadow court of 4Channers actually want out of all this? confused
Same thing they want out of everything: lulz.
Or maybe they actually believe they can achieve or prevent some kind of social change.


Anyways: not directly related to the thread but somewhat interesting:
http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/
Someone conducted a study about online harassment (going from name calling to threads of violence). tl;dr: men are harassed a little more overall, women have to deal with more sexual harassment and way more stalkers, men get more threads of violence.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum