Jump to content
Roderick

Feminism

Recommended Posts

Some further clarification on that list:

 

I think the version JonCole posted was edited by Sean himself, namely the paragraph at the top.  The original image was of course warning people to stay away from the list rather than encouraging support.

 

Also it's very strange that Danielle isn't on the list.  And Adam Sessler isn't even a journalist anymore, though he does belong with this group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, right? And what happened to Daman McFerran? He was on the last list of SJW jorunalists. Has he become less social justicey, or have other SJW journalists out-SJWed him?

 

Really, without transparency into the judging process, this whole thing reeks of payola.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing the Twitter handles are an indication of how this list was assembled i.e. they're people who objected on Twitter to the harassment going on. Danielle checked out early.

 

There's been a lot of outside press about this particular attack, and PAX Prime is in a week. I'd think that it'll come to a head there, but PAX's guiding principle has always been making a cozy little gamer enclave and it's clear at this point that goal's incompatible with games being for everyone, which PAX does at least pay lip service to, and I'm pretty confident that when push comes to shove PAX will allow shitheel gamers to take it over rather than have games be for everyone except for people who can't play nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I added the Twitter handles, the original image both had a hateful statement instead of Sean's and had no Twitter handles. I added them because I was trying to find and add them all anyways, so I figured others might want to do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's been a lot of outside press about this particular attack, and PAX Prime is in a week. I'd think that it'll come to a head there, but PAX's guiding principle has always been making a cozy little gamer enclave and it's clear at this point that goal's incompatible with games being for everyone, which PAX does at least pay lip service to, and I'm pretty confident that when push comes to shove PAX will allow shitheel gamers to take it over rather than have games be for everyone except for people who can't play nice.

 

First I'm going to be nitpicky and say that PAX Prime has already started.  Secondly, I'm going to once again step in to defend PAX and say that I'm pretty confident that if push comes to shove the Enforcers would not allow PAX to be take over by shitheel gamers.  I know several Enforcers in real life and on average I've found them to be intelligent, responsible, and reasonable people.  There have certainly been incidents at PAX, it would be foolish to say otherwise.  And I won't call it a completely safe space for everyone because that would be denying reality.  But I honestly do think that if it got so bad that things came to a head, they would step in and kick these people out because I've seen it happen before with my own eyes.  I could be wrong and that would make me unbelievably sad because I really do love PAX.  It absolutely has flaws and they seem to be growing rather than shrinking, but I'm still hopeful this can and will change.

 

I'm sorry if this ends up derailing the thread to talk about PAX again.  It's an unfortunate truth for me that the only real contributions I can make to this thread are PAX related.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that if anyone commits their event to prejudiced shitheel gamers, they'll find they have a rapidly shrinking audience five years from now.

 

I'd love for good people to reclaim the term gamer, but I doubt it's going to survive this transition to games being ubiquitous without being a sink for negativity and stereotypes. Outside of gamer circles, it already has been for quite a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Secondly, I'm going to once again step in to defend PAX and say that I'm pretty confident that if push comes to shove the Enforcers would not allow PAX to be take over by shitheel gamers.

 

You're right, that's unfair. I should have said Penny Arcade, and I'd bet they'd be doing it over the protest of Enforcers.

 

The sole reason I'm going to PAX Aus is because I know an Enforcer. I'd be ambivalent enough about it at this point that I'd probably skip it if I didn't have a personal representative to try and resist the shittier elements that feel entitled to PAX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First I'm going to be nitpicky and say that PAX Prime has already started. Secondly, I'm going to once again step in to defend PAX and say that I'm pretty confident that if push comes to shove the Enforcers would not allow PAX to be take over by shitheel gamers. I know several Enforcers in real life and on average I've found them to be intelligent, responsible, and reasonable people. There have certainly been incidents at PAX, it would be foolish to say otherwise. And I won't call it a completely safe space for everyone because that would be denying reality. But I honestly do think that if it got so bad that things came to a head, they would step in and kick these people out because I've seen it happen before with my own eyes. I could be wrong and that would make me unbelievably sad because I really do love PAX. It absolutely has flaws and they seem to be growing rather than shrinking, but I'm still hopeful this can and will change.

I'm sorry if this ends up derailing the thread to talk about PAX again. It's an unfortunate truth for me that the only real contributions I can make to this thread are PAX related.

For what it's forth, I suspect pax is quite friendly because stripped of their anonymity and in real face to face situations your average Twitter troll is usually pretty meek.

I really can't help but look around and wonder which of the people on this train (headed to pax) have been sending shitty threatening tweets to someone in the last day and will probably do so again from the security of their hotel room later tonight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's forth, I suspect pax is quite friendly because stripped of their anonymity and in real face to face situations your average Twitter troll is usually pretty meek.

I really can't help but look around and wonder which of the people on this train (headed to pax) have been sending shitty threatening tweets to someone in the last day and will probably do so again from the security of their hotel room later tonight.

 

There's definitely truth to that.  I'm willing to bet that there are shitty people at PAX who won't publicly reveal themselves along with others who will.  But I know for certain that there are also really great people at PAX who do act publicly, some of whom are the ones that are actually in charge of running the show (by which I mean the Enforcers, not Mike and Jerry).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He lit a cigarette. His glass of whiskey lit a cigarette too. “I can only truly love my best friend,” he said, “but not in a gay way. Women wouldn’t understand it. They’re too gay.” Both of the cigarettes agreed.

 

Seems incredibly apposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey everyone, sorry for derailing any good conversation this, but I need some help.

 

I just very recently helped a friend of mine realize that his very regressive perspective on stuff (sexism and misogyny, some flippant racism) is hurtful, and that by looking at issues like the Zoe Quinn thing within a vacuum, you ignore the fact that minorities are getting harmed. He's come to realize that he's done bad things online and that he is confused on things like feminism actually are, so he asked me to link him anything that may help him understand what feminism is in a deeper sense, since he's completely at a loss where to look at. Dude's young, and I'm happy that he's learning from his mistakes, that he wants to become a more decent human being. If ya'll have articles, essays, anything explaining what feminism is in a detailed, but concise manner, I'd appreciate it. I could literally just link him a Wikipedia page, but I want him to read a fact sheet, if you know what I mean.

 

Thanks. <3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think mockery is one of the most valuable tools at our disposal though. And, since their appearance is to some degree a manifestation of their ideals of masculinity, that's fair game. I might refrain, though, from mocking things which they have less control over -- their bone structure, follicular deficiencies, etc

I'll give it that some nice sharp satire is good. The Daily Show always brings out some pretty great bits. I don't think most of twitter users really climb to that level of wit or insightfulness. 

 

 If there is rhetoric claiming that the moment any member of an oppressed group succumbs to their urge to retaliate against the violence of their oppressors, then they have proven themselves to be less than worthy of not being oppressed, then that rhetoric is in the service of keeping those people down.

I did not say that, or argue that. That is not my position. 

 

 

The thing about Martin Luther King, Jr. is that the violence won, in a way. He was killed, his movement was hijacked, and his dream was derailed. So yeah, I fully believe that reasoned discourse, built around non-violent principles, is an essential component of being a kind, good, and progressive person, but I also do not want to deny people their anger. We shouldn't have to be saints to have things change for the better. If there is rhetoric claiming that the moment any member of an oppressed group succumbs to their urge to retaliate against the violence of their oppressors, then they have proven themselves to be less than worthy of not being oppressed, then that rhetoric is in the service of keeping those people down. Demanding that people be superhuman in order to weather attacks on their very humanity really just isn't the way forward, in my considered opinion.

 

I also resent the notion that responding with the smallest bit of mockery to a torrent of abuse and harassment somehow puts us all on the same level. There is just no way that you can draw a moral equivalency between occasionally joking about the apparent hygiene of misogynist assholes and persistently posting graphic descriptions of female mutilation to an anonymous twitter account.

I strongly disagree with that statement that MLK lost. Shit is real bad, but I think it's disingenuous to say that he didn't help make some progress. I also get annoyed when people say this kind of thing because it's often used as an excuse for apathy and not giving a shit or being involved in making things better. Cynicism is easy as fuck. 

Also I'm not saying that everything is equivalent. We're talking in huge generalizations here so it doesn't even make sense to make a statement like that because there's a vast number of possible statements involved. This is a case by case basis thing, so I'm only speaking to a principle not a specific comparison. 

Also people don't have to be saints to make things better. MLK had his own skeletons in the closet. Gandhi was into some reaaaaallly weird shit. Gandhi actually supported Hitler. Nelson Mandela got in trouble for... like bombing little kids. Humans do a lot of bad stuff, nobody's perfect. 

 

I read it and had the same exact take.  He's taking their claims at face value and his ultimate conclusion is "nah, you're totally right, this Zoe chick is bullshit."

 

Tone policing sucks, man.  People are allowed to have reactions.

I think actually what she was doing was tone policing. I'm saying that tone shouldn't be people's primary focus. Which is the opposite of tone policing...    

But yeah people are allowed to have their reactions, that's completely fair. 

 

Pretty much every time a white person uses Martin Luther King as an example of the importance of polite, principled, gently-gently protest, I find this passage, from "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" springs ineluctably to mind:

 

 

Here I find it, again, highly appropriate.

Look I said it was hacky, I know that. I'm not a dummy. But if I make a reference to Tolstoy or Dorothy Day it's simply not going to hit as well because it's less accessible and also less potent an image. 

I believe in direct action. I believe it must be carried out in a peaceful and love filled manner. Stirring the shit pot is not the end goal and is counter productive to the cause. Direct action causes unrest but it gets shit done. Ad Hominem screeds do not push the conversation forward. What's more important, progress, or one's self righteousness?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe in direct action. I believe it must be carried out in a peaceful and love filled manner. Stirring the shit pot is not the end goal.

I don't think anyone has argued that in this thread. If your point is that we shouldn't go too far or be too deep in our mockery, then I think we actually agree. Mockery is not an end in and of itself, but that isn't the purpose it's been serving here anyway.

I am just very leery of telling an oppressed group, as an outsider, that their cause would be helped by more politeness towards their oppressors. Those women have every right to be angry. I don't know that love is always the answer there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that the thing that started this whole line of discussion was my original comment:

 

I've been a bit annoyed at the people who are saying stuff like, "I'm on the SJW side, but I'm still disappointed that some feminists are getting petty and making fun of the appearance of these MRAs". Frankly, if I was being harassed by as many people as these people are, I don't think I could keep it together 100% of the time. Making fun of what baldy and erotic fictionman look like feels good and I don't particularly blame anyone who is under fire for chomping at that low hanging fruit.

 

If I wasn't clear, "[not keeping] it together 100% of the time" was my way of saying that making petty remarks and jabs are reactions that shouldn't invalidate or undermine the sentiments of these feminists. I'm not saying that the campaign should shift from substance to personal attacks, I'm simply saying that if you're under pressure and harassment at all hours you deserve a few slip-ups where you might not be so nice. That's far from "stirring the shit pot".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that the thing that started this whole line of discussion was my original comment:

 

 

If I wasn't clear, "[not keeping] it together 100% of the time" was my way of saying that making petty remarks and jabs are reactions that shouldn't invalidate or undermine the sentiments of these feminists. I'm not saying that the campaign should shift from substance to personal attacks, I'm simply saying that if you're under pressure and harassment at all hours you deserve a few slip-ups where you might not be so nice. That's far from "stirring the shit pot".

I think the word "deserve some slip ups" is kind of weird but maybe that's getting into too abstract philosophy. 

But yeah, I don't think that personal attacks invalidate people's positions. Ad Hom is a fallacy but there's also the "Fallacy Fallacy" you know? I'm just saying I wish people would focus on getting shit done. Also I think some people (this isn't specific) are saying some pretty scummy things. Like virgin shaming which is the flip side of the coin of slut shaming. That's just gross. Asexual people and all that. 

Also this comic is awesome and feels pretty relevant. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think actually what she was doing was tone policing. I'm saying that tone shouldn't be people's primary focus. Which is the opposite of tone policing...    

But yeah people are allowed to have their reactions, that's completely fair.

Well, the comment about tone policing was in response to a different comment of yours but it's applicable to the first part too, I suppose. She disagreed with both the content (eg taking the harassers at face value) as well as the tone of the column you linked, and she provided several examples.  You responded to her by saying "I think your interpretation is uncharitable."

 

"People (women) would get farther if they were not so mean sometimes" is pretty much tone policing.  And I mean, it has some validity occasionally, but it's demonstrably false in this whole situation.  Sarkeesian's videos are as academic as they come.  And yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's come to realize that he's done bad things online and that he is confused on things like feminism actually are, so he asked me to link him anything that may help him understand what feminism is in a deeper sense, since he's completely at a loss where to look at. Dude's young, and I'm happy that he's learning from his mistakes, that he wants to become a more decent human being. If ya'll have articles, essays, anything explaining what feminism is in a detailed, but concise manner, I'd appreciate it. I could literally just link him a Wikipedia page, but I want him to read a fact sheet, if you know what I mean.

 

Thanks. <3

 

The following quote from a book by Nicholas Kristoff.  If nothing else this should convince him of the need for feminism.

 

“More girls were killed in the last 50 years, precisely because they were girls, than men killed in all the wars in the 20th century. More girls are killed in this routine gendercide in any one decade than people were slaughtered in all the genocides of the 20th century.

The equivalent of 5 jumbo jets worth of women die in labor each day... life time risk of maternal death is 1,000x higher in a poor country than in the west. That should be an international scandal.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I first watched bits and pieces of Sarkeesian's videos I was kind of skeptical...and my reaction to anything is to pick it apart and nitpick...but I've pretty much come around now (especially with this last video).  I think the fact that I'm not that familiar with this kind of critical study/analysis means its going to seem odd to me at first and it took me a while to wrap my mind around what it was.

 

The thing is...even if I didn't like the videos at all I probably wouldn't be voicing that too much; because I don't feel like giving the asshats who are harrassing her any ammunition.  I feel like they've poisoned the well to the point where its difficult to have any sort of discussion about her videos...and that's sad because instead of having any sort of thought provoking discussion about anything these guys have made the whole thing about them and their harrassment of Anita Sarkeesian.  I feel sick that any converstation about Tropes vs Women in Video Games will inevitably have to mention these assholes and their repugnant actions...and it feels like they're "winning" just by distracting from the conversation about TvWiVG.

 

Edit: I would add that my reaction is pretty much irrelevant...I just threw it in there to illustrate my personal experience.  I often find that with this stuff what I don't know drastically outweighs what I do.  I'm not very familiar with critical studies and I had to become a little more familiar to form any sort of opinion.

Edited by Vorlonesque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried to engage with some of the shitbirds on twitter because, well, I feel so powerless in the face of the gaming community being so crappy right now and what else am I going to do?

 

The responses are just staggering. People do seem genuinely convinced that Anita Sarkeesian has not only orchestrated the attacks on herself but is also a scam artist who has found some kind of get rich quick scheme. The analogy of this being like arguing with someone who thinks the moon landings were a hoax is not an exaggeration at all. None of this should be surprising at this point, but facing this stuff head on makes it so much more real and saddening. Maybe I just forgot what it feels like to step into the fray as it has been years since I actively engaged with any trolls. I felt myself slipping towards shittier and angrier tweets.

 

In the back of my head I know that things are going to change for the better, and slowly but surely people will have to grow up and get wiser (both in terms of how to debate/disagree as adults as well as the substance of the issues of sexism and misogyny). But I wish we could get there much faster, and I wish there was something I could do. I almost feel like I don't want to identify with the gaming community anymore because of this horrible minority (??) of 4channers.

 

Sorry, this brings nothing new to the table in this thread. I'm just feeling frustrated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've felt weird about the term gamer for a while, and don't generally use it. I know lots of people who play games but would never regard themselves as gamers either. I think any battle for that term is probably lost already, and I think game developers are closer to having a diverse, ubiquitous audience than they think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a screenshotted exchange between a journo and some troll where the journo asked the troll if Roger Ebert's relationship with Martin Scorcese made him any worse equipped to fairly cover his work. The troll responded with something like, "did Ebert review any more than two or three of Scorcese's works?" to which the journo responded "yes, and he wrote a whole book about him too" which seemed to boggle the mind of the troll. I mean, I honestly think that a large contingent of the actual trolls (shit-stirrers who don't have much allegiance to the actual substance, if there is any, of the argument) are actually children/teenagers with no historical context or experience even talking about anything. That particular anecdote is more appropriate to the ethics thread, but I think it also illustrates just how out of touch some of the trolls are and how uninterested they are in engaging with facts and reason.

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

×