Feminism

[Bjorn]

Tell me where I can find the people defending everything Microsoft does on Internet forums like this one, donating to Microsoft's charity, attending Microsoft's convention, and so on and I suspect I'll be able to tell you where you can find the list of stupid stuff Microsoft has done.

 

Lots and lots and lots of ignorant boys and men do defend Microsoft.  These are probably the same people abusing people on Xbox Live, defending PA and attacking the woman who made DQ.  The extreme edge of the fanboys won't stomach any criticism of their platform, combine that with the already simmering misogyny of parts of the gaming community and yes, I've seen people attacking the critics of MS and defending MS' right to do whatever they want with Xbox Live (this was around a lot during the banning gays from Live thing).

 

People don't donate to Microsoft's charity...but they do spend billions buying their hardware, games and accessories. 

 

Microsoft doesn't have it's own convention, but it does have Xbox Live, a community service that millions of people use every week, and around which many of its problems are centered.

 

Microsoft is a member and leader of the gaming community, along with PA.  And PA is a company the same way that Microsoft is. 

 

Other journalists boycotting PAX?  Off the top of my head Leigh Alexander and one of the writers for Wired have also declared they are done with PAX.  But remain silent on the subject of E3. 

 

I get part of the rage at PA.  We thought they were one of us.  We thought they represented us.  They were a powerful voice in the industry that mirrored ours, one that could speak and be listened to.  Which isn't try for so many people.  And then they ended up being damaged, flawed assholes.  It sucks.  But the long term targeted focus on them has no other analog in gaming, even though there are other companies who deserve the same level of scorn and attention.

[Bjorn]

Microsoft is a giant corporation that responds to what it thinks gamer culture wants. Penny Arcade actively helps to create gamer culture. That's why PA seems like much more of a target.

 

And plenty of games journalist did call for a boycott of E3, or they've certainly been more public in saying how worthless E3 has become in representing the games community.

 

If you agree that PA is in the wrong, then I don't understand what the argument is here. You want people to be as passionate when Microsoft messes up as they are when PA does? Well, that already happens.

 

The only serious time I've ever seen gaming journalists consider boycotting E3 was over SOPA, but never over the treatment of women.  I've certainly never seen an outlet make an argument for a blanket boycott of Microsoft coverage. 

 

The point I'm trying to make is that the reaction to PA is different than the reaction to other companies, even when the volume of issues over time is similar.  I think there are people now who are very emotionally tied to hating PA in a way that they are not emotionally tied to hating other companies.  It's an interesting dichotomy to me.

[TychoCelchuuu]

Who is emotionally tied to hating PA? Is it the journalists who boycott PAX but not E3? Or the other people on the Internet who boycott both? If it's the other people (like me), why think we're emotionally tied to hating PA more than we are to Microsoft? Or that we're emotionally tied to anything?

[Nachimir]

PA: They openly, consistently, and determinedly mocked rape victims with the dickwolves shirt, later expressing regret they took it off sale. The video of people cheering at that proclamation is one of the most intimidating things to emerge from videogame culture. Plenty of companies have fucked up, and plenty of games events are skeezy or have skeezy elements. None of those things are as extreme as a leader raising cheers from fans of his organisation over mocking the raped. If anyone is hating on PA just because they think it's cool to do so, I don't think that's a particularly big problem.

 

 

 

Aside: If anyone wondered about Stephen's own alignment on feminism during the discussion about Dave Sim, here he is tweeting today:

 

https://twitter.com/PageFortyFive/status/414116849819725824

https://twitter.com/PageFortyFive/status/414117918691954688

https://twitter.com/PageFortyFive/status/414120175227518976

https://twitter.com/PageFortyFive/status/414121006102364160

https://twitter.com/PageFortyFive/status/414131228724322304

[Nachimir]

Also, Matt Gemmell being excellent yesterday:
http://mattgemmell.com/gamers/
 

Show me an angry man who spews hatred towards someone he perceives as different or a threat to him, despite the whole industry catering to his own tastes above all else. Then show me a woman who persists in pursuing an activity she loves despite a vocal and hostile element throughout its community.

I know which one I’d call a gamer.

[Bjorn]

Who is emotionally tied to hating PA? Is it the journalists who boycott PAX but not E3? Or the other people on the Internet who boycott both? If it's the other people (like me), why think we're emotionally tied to hating PA more than we are to Microsoft? Or that we're emotionally tied to anything?

 

That comment wasn't aimed at anyone here, when I said it, I was specifically thinking of some interactions I've had in Joystiq comment threads in the past.  I say emotionally tied because those people I've interacted with seemed to care more about hating on PA than any other aspect of the situation.  They aren't particularly well versed in the idea of rape culture.  Prone to twist every single thing they could into yet another condemnation of PA (no matter how tenuous the connection might be).  What mattered was being angry, and that everyone else should be angry with them. 

 

Of course, maybe that's just an internet thing, as the reaction to PA is hardly the only time I've seen it.  But it's always online and never in person that I encounter it. 

[tegan]

[Zeusthecat]

That was pretty great! Thanks tegan.

[BadHat]

I laughed so fucking hard at "Woman Woman."

[Nappi]

Haha.. that was excellent!

[Bjorn]

Well that was the best thing I'm going to see on the Internet today.  The "bullets" were awesome!

[Twig]

That is fantastic.

[James]

I laughed so fucking hard at "Woman Woman."

Yep.

[clyde]

I wrote a post on some fellow's Youtube video. He seemed to be honestly confused about the difference between promoting risk-management and victim-blaming. I also find the subject difficult to figure out, so I empathize with him. I read a few articles and tried to come up with a basic explanation of how I feel about the matter. I welcome criticism, because I am not confident on this issue. Here is my post, and I'll link his video afterwards.

I imagine that it must feel terrible when you've been victimized and the response you get is "Didn't you get the memo? That's a dangerous area."

This belief that there is a common sense tends to mix with just-world hypothesis, and becomes a subtle form of victim-blaming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis

As fair as assessing risks and disseminating warning, consider where this leads. Let's suppose women listen to you and stop going to Central Park at night. I would expect that a sexual assault would end up happening elsewhere. At this point would you begin to compile a list of places women should not go? It may be more efficient to simply state that they should never allow themselves to be alone with men. This consideration for risk does nothing to reduce the actual threat; it may actually increase the threat by demarcating publicly accepted safe-zones and danger-zones. I would consider the mere existence of these zones as an institutional violence against women. When a woman strays from the protective instruction of those around her, she is told that she must accept the consequences. But it was the broader society which gave up on her freedom to roam wherever she sees fit.
http://streetharassmentdisruption.blogspot.com/2011/06/victim-blaming-threats-and-risks.html

For me, the solution seems to be in assessing the causes of sexual assault behaviors, and taking action to destroy them. Focusing on risk management seems to simply affirm the illusion that we live in a society in which anyone is safe if they chose to be safe. I imagine that you do not believe that this is the actual case. 

http://youtu.be/pVBLHGPByNQ

 

[SecretAsianMan]

I hate that my only contributions to this thread are PA related, but Mike has put up post about his past behavior and a New Year's resolution.  He basically says that he's realized he's a bully, explains why he thinks he's become that way, and that's he's going to try and be better from now on.  There's also a bit about how PA is trying to separate itself from Child's Play and PAX because they realized that the PA brand is hurting more than helping.  Whether or not he actually does change remains to be seen, but I still think the fact that he acknowledges hurtful things have been said and done is some progress.  It certainly doesn't absolve him of guilt, but it's a better step than purposefully remaining ignorant.

[Ben X]

He should also resolve not to sign off posts with "Gabe out" like he's a rebel broadcaster or in the military.

[Twig]

He should also resolve not to sign off posts with "Gabe out" like he's a rebel broadcaster or in the military.

Confession: I do that frequently when I leave an IRC chatroom. IT'S FUN!

 

Don't judge me. ):

[Bjorn]

Confession: I do that frequently when I leave an IRC chatroom. IT'S FUN!

 

Don't judge me. ):

 

Soooooo disappointed that you didn't sign that post -Twig out.

[Twig]

I did consider it but there's literally nothing I hate more in forum culture than someone signing their name at the end of a forum post.

 

Maybe someone using colored text. Actually yeah that's number one.

 

...Feminism, woo!

[I Saw Dasein]

Dear Sirs/Mesdames:

I write to you in regards to a posting made by one Mr. Twig, wherein he cast aspersions on the practice of "signing" forum posts. Contrary to Mr. Twig's assertions, singing posts is a clear indicator of courtesy in internet communications and a welcome reminder of a more congenial time. Please remove said assertion forthwith.

Regards,

i saw dasein.

[Twig]

diiiiiiiiiiiiiiiie

[Bjorn]

I'm reminded of an epic 7 page argument on the Giant in the Playground forums about the etiquette of signing your name.  It eventually ended in tears and bans. 

 

On topic, the NY Times actually ran a rebuttal to their review of the Last of Us by one of the developers, providing counterpoint to the concerns in the review about whether or not the game was negative in its treatment of women. 

 

And in sad nerdy news, Kevin Smith had to berate and lecture some of his fans after they decided to drop a misogyny bomb on a woman blogger for making a casual joke about Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back.

[James]

It's sad that he had to, but it's pretty gratifying that he did. Hopefully his site is a venue that people who need to hear that message will actually read – it can be all too easy to avoid the voices you don't want to hear.

Then again, in doing a little extra reading on the whole affair, I saw someone describing Smith as "pussywhipped", so perhaps that's how misogynists reconcile their feelings on women with an explicitly contradictory appeal from a person they otherwise respect. It's almost like a conspiracy theory: "women are bad, and any man who says otherwise must be under the influence of a woman".

[SecretAsianMan]

I feel like Smith is the kind of person who would probably agree with the assessment of being "pussywhipped".  But he's also pretty open and honest to his fans so hopefully at least some of them will take the message to heart.

[Bjorn]

Unfortunately that is exactly the way a lot of guys react to something like this.  If someone they respect suddenly disagrees with them, then that person gets branded as the "other" who now unqualified to have a legitimate opinion on the subject.  Because, much like objective video game reviews, they don't have opinions.  They know facts and everyone else is wrong.