Jump to content
Roderick

Feminism

Recommended Posts

I was going to say I want it in the purple color anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too bad, I need that t-shirt in my life. :(

 

That's all I have to say. I'm really only here to listen. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Props to Joss Whedon for repping the latest Feminist Frequencies video. I think it's great for this sort of stuff to be reaching a wider consciousness outside of the usual channels of people talking about games on twitter. I can't help but notice that a lot of people are, 8 videos later, still complaining about her evidence being "cherry picked" despite the breadth of games covered at this point. That's weird. You can complain about cherry picked evidence in, say, political or economic disputes. However when someone is analyzing thematic elements of a work or multiple works, complaining about the evidence being cherry picked makes no sense. If you're able to find enough examples you have successfully identified a thematic element.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone else on Twitter was saying something about how identifying as a "gamer" is kinda weird. People don't really do that with other entertainment media, like a "TVer" or "Movier". I guess it is something that some hobbyists do, like a woodworker or something but it doesn't really seem particularly appropriate to begin with as a self-identification.

 

I think this is part of the problem when people take umbrage with that ESA study saying that women are a bigger demographic than adolescent men. True or not, I imagine that part of where that increase lies is women are becoming somewhat more comfortable self-identifying as gamers, but that doesn't mean they weren't playing games all along. Delineating a group as "gamers" can only exclude the masses of people who also play games but don't fit whatever definition you choose for that term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Edit: In reply to your second to last post, not the hilarious erotic fiction :))

 

I guess it's an awkward transition thing, with games moving from a hobby aimed at a small number of demographics, to something ubiquitous having parts for basically everyone. From the end of one of those pieces: "From now on, there are no more gamers—only players"

 

If this message spreads, I reckon we could use the term "gamer" as a sinkhole for a lot of the toxicity. The shitheads are already well into the idea of themselves as "true gamers", so it's a gentle push. As I said last week and will probably say for a while: Ruin video games harder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone else on Twitter was saying something about how identifying as a "gamer" is kinda weird. People don't really do that with other entertainment media, like a "TVer" or "Movier". I guess it is something that some hobbyists do, like a woodworker or something but it doesn't really seem particularly appropriate to begin with as a self-identification.

 

I know people who identify as bibliophiles, or cinephiles, or for whom golfer is a dominant part of their self-identity.  But I agree that gamer carries a significantly different type and volume of information along with it. 

 

 

Oh god, Jordan Owen, one of the crazy YouTube guys who is running that dumb Patreon, wrote some published erotic fiction - http://www.amazon.com/Eros-Empire-Jordan-Owen/dp/1593933762

 

For some reason this reminded me of the Male Novelist Joke, poking fun at how seriously the budding (and sometimes actually successful) male author takes himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone else on Twitter was saying something about how identifying as a "gamer" is kinda weird. People don't really do that with other entertainment media, like a "TVer" or "Movier". I guess it is something that some hobbyists do, like a woodworker or something but it doesn't really seem particularly appropriate to begin with as a self-identification.

 

I think I have mentioned this before, but it's not super out of left field. Cineastes and bibliophiles are things.

 

edit: and beat to the punch by Bjorn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something else from Matt Lees, a video aimed at people on the fence and who don't want to talk about politics, just about games:

 

 

tl;dw - talking about this stuff is talking about games because if all the diversity is harrassed out of the industry/medium, games will get even more homogenised and shitty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I have mentioned this before, but it's not super out of left field. Cineastes and bibliophiles are things.

 

edit: and beat to the punch by Bjorn.

 

Sowwy :getmecoat       :P

 

I actually think golfer might be the better comparison in some ways.  The people I know who are seriously into golf are like gamers.  They are active in forums, predominantly associate with other golfers, think about golf when they aren't golfing, and are highly, and often irrationally, resistant to change.  They claim that things like tradition are why women and minorities shouldn't be in their clubs.  They oppose moves by courses that attempt to diversify.  My preferred local course, which is dirt cheap compared to all the other courses in the area, recently attempted to add another revenue stream by building a foot golf course in parallel with existing holes and on unused land on the course.  Foot golf is a soccer/golf hybrid.  They either need to bring in more revenue, or raise prices.  Raising prices may drive customers to other courses, as it won't be as cheap, resulting in the course closing anyways.  And yet people are complaining about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone else on Twitter was saying something about how identifying as a "gamer" is kinda weird. People don't really do that with other entertainment media, like a "TVer" or "Movier". I guess it is something that some hobbyists do, like a woodworker or something but it doesn't really seem particularly appropriate to begin with as a self-identification.

Movie buffs absolutely do self-identify as movie buffs. There are even movies that specifically target those audiences because a certain level of familiarity with the breadth or history of the medium is required to fully appreciate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how abandoning the term "gamer" will do anything to stop this toxic environment, but I do remember that this seems to happen every time trolls from a certain group do something horrible, people just want to abandon the "group" as if that will somehow make the bad people go away.

 

It feels like we want to distance ourselves from the problem instead of confronting it.

 

I remember pretty recently when many people wanted to abandon the term nerd after some awful harassment in a con, instead they started the "Cosplay is not Consent" campaign, which seems to be helping, at least people are now more appalled when a creeper tries something with a cosplayer, which is a step in the right direction.

 

I don't even know how to start a campaign, but I'm pretty sure it's better to make the MRA man babies aware that we will stand for their atrocious conduct instead of telling people to stop using a word, seriously, the MRA won't magically go away if we stop using the term "gamer".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Movie buffs absolutely do self-identify as movie buffs. There are even movies that specifically target those audiences because a certain level of familiarity with the breadth or history of the medium is required to fully appreciate it.

 

I think the useful distinction is that movie buffs don't aggressively assert themselves as a the only kind of people who really enjoy movies. Movie buffs don't harass mom and pop showing up at the theater for being casuals. There's an ugly and pernicious tribalism to "gamers" that is mostly unique among other collective labels of media appreciation. Most "gamers" I've met seem to assume that they're the only people really playing games and therefore that their voice is the only one that belongs in a conversation about them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Movie buffs absolutely do self-identify as movie buffs. There are even movies that specifically target those audiences because a certain level of familiarity with the breadth or history of the medium is required to fully appreciate it.

 

I guess this is what I meant by it being strange, because gamer doesn't actually just refer to someone who someone having a "certain level of familiarity with the breadth or history of the medium". Gamer is a hard to define term because it encapsulates something else that isn't just a lot of game knowledge/experience, it's kind of self-referential because being a gamer means that you're also into gamer culture. I don't think you necessarily need that connection to the larger "culture" of those media to be considered a cineaste, movie buff, bibliophile, etc, but it seems almost required when you're a "gamer".

 

I don't know if I'm really capturing my argument correctly, but I hope you get what I'm saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said this before, and I'll say it again.

 

I call myself a gamer because video games are a huge part of my identity. I play them, I make them, and I study them. Without games I would not be who I am.

 

I am not a gamer FIRST, but I am definitely a gamer. I'm not going to let a bunch of shitbirds on the internet ruin things for me.

 

Why is it that we work hard to reclaim words like "slut" with things like the slut walk, etc., but then we let words like "gamer" go because we don't like a lot of people who identify with that word? I know that's not a fair comparison - slut vs gamer - because there's a lot of connotation and context that differentiates what they are and who those people are and how they've been treated their whole life and privilege and and and!!, and I do apologize for that, but I couldn't think of a better one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess this is what I meant by it being strange, because gamer doesn't actually just refer to someone who someone having a "certain level of familiarity with the breadth or history of the medium". Gamer is a hard to define term because it encapsulates something else that isn't just a lot of game knowledge/experience, it's kind of self-referential because being a gamer means that you're also into gamer culture. I don't think you necessarily need that connection to the larger "culture" of those media to be considered a cineaste, movie buff, bibliophile, etc, but it seems almost required when you're a "gamer".

 

I don't know if I'm really capturing my argument correctly, but I hope you get what I'm saying.

 

I do, but I find those kind of cultural-identity politics to be deeply weird wherever they show up, so I'm probably not a good sounding board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Props to Joss Whedon for repping the latest Feminist Frequencies video. I think it's great for this sort of stuff to be reaching a wider consciousness outside of the usual channels of people talking about games on twitter. I can't help but notice that a lot of people are, 8 videos later, still complaining about her evidence being "cherry picked" despite the breadth of games covered at this point. That's weird. You can complain about cherry picked evidence in, say, political or economic disputes. However when someone is analyzing thematic elements of a work or multiple works, complaining about the evidence being cherry picked makes no sense. If you're able to find enough examples you have successfully identified a thematic element.

 

The funniest thing to me about the "cherry picking" argument is that I've seen a lot of people call her a liar and a fraud using only the way she portrays the Hitman games as evidence.  They're taking a single example, which may or may not even be true, and using it as the basis to attack her.  They are doing the exact thing they accuse her of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The funniest thing to me about the "cherry picking" argument is that I've seen a lot of people call her a liar and a fraud using only the way she portrays the Hitman games as evidence.  They're taking a single example, which may or may not even be true, and using it as the basis to attack her.  They are doing the exact thing they accuse her of.

 

It used to be funny to me, but it's become increasingly horrifying, because that is why you can't engage them on any level, because they are either naturally or willfully blind and ignorant to their own behavior and methods.  Their goal is not discussion, it is destruction.  Early in the Ferguson thread, Merus linked to this piece about the Confederate/Tea Party mindset. 

 

But the enduring Confederate influence on American politics goes far beyond a few rhetorical tropes. The essence of the Confederate worldview is that the democratic process cannot legitimately change the established social order, and so all forms of legal and illegal resistance are justified when it tries.

 

That worldview is alive and well. During last fall’s government shutdown and threatened debt-ceiling crisis, historian Garry Wills wrote about our present-day Tea Partiers: “The presiding spirit of this neo-secessionism is a resistance to majority rule.”

 

The Confederate sees a divinely ordained way things are supposed to be, and defends it at all costs. No process, no matter how orderly or democratic, can justify fundamental change.

 

When in the majority, Confederates protect the established order through democracy. If they are not in the majority, but have power, they protect it through the authority of law. If the law is against them, but they have social standing, they create shams of law, which are kept in place through the power of social disapproval. If disapproval is not enough, they keep the wrong people from claiming their legal rights by the threat of ostracism and economic retribution. If that is not intimidating enough, there are physical threats, then beatings and fires, and, if that fails, murder.

 

That's obviously about politics, and the history and politics of racism in this country, but I think you can see that same attitude and methodology at work in multiple groups, including the people who are so angry and resentful about gaming changing in the slightest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I can't help but notice that a lot of people are, 8 videos later, still complaining about her evidence being "cherry picked" despite the breadth of games covered at this point. That's weird. You can complain about cherry picked evidence in, say, political or economic disputes. However when someone is analyzing thematic elements of a work or multiple works, complaining about the evidence being cherry picked makes no sense. If you're able to find enough examples you have successfully identified a thematic element.

 

As someone who continues to have this problem with her (and I hope her popularity leads to someone better coming along to pick up the torch), I'd argue that the charge of cherry picking is much, much more relevant in art/cultural criticism than it is in politics.

 

At least in politics and economics you've got some hard, objective facts to work with. In criticism, you have to build the case that you're creating the best possible context in which to understand something. So you absolutely can't cherry pick, you can't just throw out 30 examples of a phenomenon when 7 of them are being mislabeled or fudged in some way. You have to be intellectually honest to a much higher degree because you need the reader/viewer to trust your judgement and trust that you're playing fair. I can't talk about Gertrude Stein in the same way I talk about the prison population or the minimum wage, there aren't facts and figures that will get me very far.

 

Basically, criticism requires an insanely high hit to miss ratio. Cultural critics can come to all kinds of conclusions that I'm not on board with and I'll still enjoy reading what they've written, but when the process of getting there seems haphazard or lawyerly ('look at all this evidence, it speaks for itself'), the whole thing comes to a dead stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×