Feminism

[Apelsin]

I can't tell if this took place within Facebook's messaging system or on her actual Facebook wall. Either way, it's a pretty nasty situation, but if it's on the wall, it's downright terrible.

 

It's the message system.

 

But shit, I really thought Josh Mattingly was a good guy and then he goes and does a thing like this.

I mean, sure he has mental and substance abuse issues but he should still be able to understand that what he did isn't acceptable...  

[Justin Leego]

Unless I'm misremembering, the original story named the woman who originally shared and conversation, which is NOT the woman who had the conversation. The woman who shared it had asked permission, and was willing to publicly name herself.

 

You're right, I did make a mistake. Even though my mind tells me the first article must have been altered after I read it, it'd be super odd if no-one else had noticed out such an obvious contradiction in policy!

 

Apologies for the confusion, and thanks for correcting it.

[Twig]

I mean, sure he has mental and substance abuse issues but he should still be able to understand that what he did isn't acceptable...  

I think that he does, based on him coming out and saying it is unacceptable.

[Apelsin]

Don't get me wrong, it's great that he understands that what he did was wrong and that he is getting help for his problems.

I just wish he would've realized it before he actually wrote to her.

[syntheticgerbil]

Through some links from the original Kotaku article, I found my way to a Neogaf thread that had someone on Twitter saying this isn't the first time Josh Mattingly acted like this, but instead is the first time he was caught. I didn't want to go through 40 pages to see if anyone dug up any examples, but if that's the case his apology comes off as fake. Any word on other examples?

[SilentBtAmazing]

Through some links from the original Kotaku article, I found my way to a Neogaf thread that had someone on Twitter saying this isn't the first time Josh Mattingly acted like this, but instead is the first time he was caught. I didn't want to go through 40 pages to see if anyone dug up any examples, but if that's the case his apology comes off as fake. Any word on other examples?

I didn't find his apology very compelling at all and the newer Kotaku article I think points out that disingenuousness somewhat (e.g. They weren't actually "friends"). Also using an excuse while saying you aren't using an excuse doesn't make it so; I'm sure many of us have had rough times but managed to avoid sending repeated xxx private messages to business acquaintances.

That said, the main thing I credit kotaku for here is highlighting the power balance issues in the games industry. I spent time in the US military and you get the impression that the same dynamics that propagated / continue to propagate our sexual harassment problems seem present in the video games industry. It's sad that this stuff goes on and that the commenter attitudes remain so prevalent - BUT - at least we are having these conversations, which I don't think people really had even 20 years ago

[clyde]

Sorry everybody.

[Nachimir]

I didn't find his apology very compelling at all and the newer Kotaku article I think points out that disingenuousness somewhat (e.g. They weren't actually "friends"). Also using an excuse while saying you aren't using an excuse doesn't make it so; I'm sure many of us have had rough times but managed to avoid sending repeated xxx private messages to business acquaintances.

 

I think it's difficult to dissect this kind of thing when it comes to people's motives, especially when involves depression and/or substance problems. None of them are valid excuses, but they do make it almost impossible to accurately measure how sincere his apology was or wasn't. For all we know he could have had anything in his head at the time he sent the messages, ranging from "I get away with this every time!" to completely misunderstanding whatever rapport and connection he had with the developer.

 

Can't find it again, but that skeezy youtube pick up series he was in doesn't do him any favours.

 

I saw (but didn't post in) a very long facebook thread in which the editor of one site argued naming and shaming people is just damaging to them and not helpful. I strongly disagree though: Giving anyone a pass will just reinforce the horrifically toxic environment that infects big bits of the games industry. He weakly argued "motive is everything", in which case a bunch of things that are crimes wouldn't be.

[Justin Leego]

Quite. Intent is the difference between murder and manslaughter, but it's moot to those on the receiving end of the criminal act.

[clyde]

We should figure out why public apologies are important and then determine whether or not this one meets our objectives.                                   

[Zeusthecat]

I think the key thing about an apology is, at the very least, that you need to apologize to the person you hurt. Mattingly has yet to personally apologize to Mercier (according to the article) and until he does his lame, excuse riddled apology doesn't hold any weight.

[clyde]

I think the key thing about an apology is, at the very least, that you need to apologize to the person you hurt. Mattingly has yet to personally apologize to Mercier (according to the article) and until he does his lame, excuse riddled apology doesn't hold any weight.

I think that there are a few things going on here. There is the actual personal instance of sexual-harassment between two real people; then there is the public discussion in which Mattingly is being made an example of and the larger social issue of patriarchy is being addressed. Those two things have different needs in order for justice to occur.

[SilentBtAmazing]

I don't think the apology really relates to trying to change power structures, and "justice" isn't really the objective here. I think the objective here is change or consideration of change, and is best served by her disclosure and the discussion that ensues.

I think a public apology is meant to persuade us that so-and-so is not such a bad person (typically so we will maintain our relationship with the public figure or company). For me this fell short but that's an individual judgment call. I can see how others would feel differently but it just rang the bs alarms in the basement of my brain. Maybe it would be different if I were more familiar with this guy or something though.

[Twig]

We should figure out why public apologies are important and then determine whether or not this one meets our objectives.                                   

Yeah that's always SO FUN and USEFUL and gets us places FAST!

[clyde]

I don't think the apology really relates to trying to change power structures, and "justice" isn't really the objective here. I think the objective here is change or consideration of change, and is best served by her disclosure and the discussion that ensues.

I think a public apology is meant to persuade us that so-and-so is not such a bad person (typically so we will maintain our relationship with the public figure or company). For me this fell short but that's an individual judgment call. I can see how others would feel differently but it just rang the bs alarms in the basement of my brain. Maybe it would be different if I were more familiar with this guy or something though.

I'm confused or just wrong or something. I must be coming at this from a very different angle. I understand that the objective of Mattingly is to persuade the public to trust him. But I'm paying attention to this story from a distance. I don't think I know anyone involved and I don't frequent Indie Statik either. For me, this story is a demonstration of a larger system of inequality and that's how the Kotaku story seems to also be treating it. What do you mean by "I think the objective is change or consideration of change"? What are you talking about changing?

 

 

Yeah that's always SO FUN and USEFUL and gets us places FAST!

The reason I posted that statement is because I'm reading everyone's impression on whether or not the apology is satisfactory. Without determining any common objectives, we are all just talking to ourselves in public. 

[Twig]

Sure I'm just annoyed because anytime anyone does something fucked up and apologizes for it, the conversation inevitably trends toward whether or not it was a real apology. I should just stay away from such conversations. Which I will do now! Sorry. ):

[SecretAsianMan]

I've only casually been aware of these events but I read his apology and it doesn't read as insincere to me.  I don't buy into the argument that he's just making excuses or the idea that just because some people can handle loss or depression means that everyone should be able to.  I generally consider myself to be a reserved, level headed individual but there have been times I've been depressed or angry enough to do things I later regretted (nothing like this but again, I'm not him).  I don't know the guy, maybe he really is a jerk and this is the way he always acts.  But in this particular instance it seems to me he feels bad.  It doesn't excuse what he did at all.  He did a dumb, hurtful thing and he should feel like shit that he did it.  My point is that hopefully he'll learn something more than "next time don't get caught".

 

Part of what I'm afraid of when things like this happen is that it's very easy to become cynical and think everyone is disingenuous.  I'm sure many people are, but I'd also like to think that at least some people can learn and grow.

[Gormongous]

Generally speaking, I only mistrust an apology if it seeks only to excuse the one making the apology from blame or otherwise tries to redirect the discussion away from the need for an apology.

 

While Mattingly goes on for a bit more than I'm comfortable about his own hard circumstances, which are regrettable but ultimately irrelevant, he does explicitly call out his own behavior and explain why he believes it to be wrong, so I don't see any reason to impugn his apology. I wish he hadn't said the things he said in the first place, but hopefully this is the first step towards fixing himself and what he's done.

[Zeusthecat]

What I've been getting frustrated with lately are these "apologies" that only take place after they have been publicly outed for what they did and aren't even directed toward the victim. I suspect if someone was truly sorry for something they would apologize to that person directly and not wait to see if they were caught.

This guy waited till he was caught and never apologized to the victim. For those two reasons and because of the excuses he made in his apology I call bullshit.

[Gormongous]

What I've been getting frustrated with lately are these "apologies" that only take place after they have been publicly outed for what they did and aren't even directed toward the victim. I suspect if someone was truly sorry for something they would apologize to that person directly and not wait to see if they were caught.

This guy waited till he was caught and never apologized to the victim. For those two reasons and because of the excuses he made in his apology I call bullshit.

 

No, that's fair. My gut says that sometimes it takes one's laundry being dragged out in public to see how dirty it is, but it does make any contrition a bit more suspect. Regardless, the fact that these apologies are seen as necessary, even if obligatory, is a good place for the culture to be.

 

Ugh, I don't know. This whole thing still has my stomach all sour.

[SecretAsianMan]

What I've been getting frustrated with lately are these "apologies" that only take place after they have been publicly outed for what they did and aren't even directed toward the victim. I suspect if someone was truly sorry for something they would apologize to that person directly and not wait to see if they were caught.

This guy waited till he was caught and never apologized to the victim. For those two reasons and because of the excuses he made in his apology I call bullshit.

 

I'm a little more sympathetic (although not much) because sometimes it's hard to know if you've upset or offended someone until after everything has been made public.  Again, I haven't been following this very closely but did she ever tell him that what he said offended or hurt her, or did that only happen at the time the conversation became public knowledge?  I'm not trying to blame the victim here but I can understand making a public apology rather than a personal one if he didn't realize one was needed until after it became a public matter.  I think it was a shitty thing to say but I have the benefit of hindsight.

[SilentBtAmazing]

Sorry what I meant re: change is that this incident points out underlying power dynamics within the Video game industry that probably need to be changed or somehow mitigated if we think this kind of behavior towards women in the industry is wrong. At least that is what I get out of the various articles here; and that's what I was trying to compare to the military in a previous post.

I care much much less about an individual perpetrator's level of contrition than "what can be done to protect future innocents." Because sure this was just a few Facebook posts but 100% guaranteed the same dynamics have led to some kind of sexual assault in other cases. The hotel room invitation anecdote in one if these articles to me suggests that kind of power-based sexual misbehavior has to take place. Dudes like that don't just attempt that kind of shit one time, and they're never the only one.

Sorry for rambling so long about this but in the military I felt like I saw systemic things that led to sexual assault over and over and these articles suggest pretty strongly the games industry has many of the same structural underpinnings.

[Zeusthecat]

I'm a little more sympathetic (although not much) because sometimes it's hard to know if you've upset or offended someone until after everything has been made public.  Again, I haven't been following this very closely but did she ever tell him that what he said offended or hurt her, or did that only happen at the time the conversation became public knowledge?  I'm not trying to blame the victim here but I can understand making a public apology rather than a personal one if he didn't realize one was needed until after it became a public matter.  I think it was a shitty thing to say but I have the benefit of hindsight.

 

I see where you're coming from and that could be a valid reason for why he waited to apologize. However, the fact still remains that he never actually apologized to her. That tells me he is really saying "I regret what I did because of the damage it did to my public image" rather than "I regret what I did because it hurt somebody else".

 

I think there should be at least three cardinal rules of apologizing:

1. Don't wait until you get caught.
2. Apologize to the person or people you hurt and save public apologies for when it is truly the public you owe an apology to.
3. Don't make excuses when apologizing. Say "I'm sorry for doing what I did to hurt you", not "I'm sorry for doing what I did to hurt you but I'm an alcoholic so I couldn't help myself".

Sorry for my ranting. I think I just reached critical mass with these situations and the public apologies that come afterward (notice how I just violated rule number three above). If it weren't for the valuable discussion that comes afterward I would prefer for these public apologies to go away in most circumstances and I would be more than content just knowing whether the person made amends or not. But we wouldn't be having this discussion if that were the case so I'll just shut up.

[jmbossy]

I think there should be at least three cardinal rules of apologizing:

1. Don't wait until you get caught.
2. Apologize to the person or people you hurt and save public apologies for when it is truly the public you owe an apology to.
3. Don't make excuses when apologizing. Say "I'm sorry for doing what I did to hurt you", not "I'm sorry for doing what I did to hurt you but I'm an alcoholic so I couldn't help myself".

 

This is by far the most important part of this argument for me. Personally, I'm not looking for any one person's blood in this situation which is emblematic of something much worse I want to be able to address. Instead Mattingly attempted to rationalize his actions and has blockaded us from the real conversation.

 

It is by definition, rationalization. It doesn't make your actions any more right but your mind uses these excuses to protect itself from any real self-analysis. It is the mentality of children and addicts, and though Mattingly does need help, he doesn't deserve sympathy, which is what he was looking for*** with his apology.

 

***This sympathy may not be from the public, but from himself, he is apologizing in a way which makes him see himself as the victim.

 

---Edited for abrasion---

[SecretAsianMan]

I see where you're coming from and that could be a valid reason for why he waited to apologize. However, the fact still remains that he never actually apologized to her. That tells me he is really saying "I regret what I did because of the damage it did to my public image" rather than "I regret what I did because it hurt somebody else".

 

I think there should be at least three cardinal rules of apologizing:

1. Don't wait until you get caught.
2. Apologize to the person or people you hurt and save public apologies for when it is truly the public you owe an apology to.
3. Don't make excuses when apologizing. Say "I'm sorry for doing what I did to hurt you", not "I'm sorry for doing what I did to hurt you but I'm an alcoholic so I couldn't help myself".

Sorry for my ranting. I think I just reached critical mass with these situations and the public apologies that come afterward (notice how I just violated rule number three above). If it weren't for the valuable discussion that comes afterward I would prefer for these public apologies to go away in most circumstances and I would be more than content just knowing whether the person made amends or not. But we wouldn't be having this discussion if that were the case so I'll just shut up.

 

If zero attempts at a personal apology were made, then yeah I can agree with you that the public one is more to save face than to actually be remorseful.  I am going to argue with you a bit on your rules though.

 

For rule 1, I'm again going to say how do you know you need to apologize?  Let's say someone says something I think is offensive but they didn't think it was at the time.  Clearly they're not going to apologize until after I or someone else points out that it's offensive, at which point they've been "caught".  Otherwise you're going to have to preemptively apologize for everything you say because you never know who may be upset by it.  I think maybe a clearer meaning would be "before you get caught in the public", assuming at least some kind of personal attempt was made.

 

Rule 2 I agree with.

 

Rule 3 is tricky to me.  Personally, if someone hurts me, I want to know why.  An apology doesn't have much meaning to me without knowing the reason why the thing was said in the first place.  If someone says something because of depression or some other personal life problem, then I'm going to be more understanding and accepting of that remorse.  If all that's said is "I'm sorry", I'm going to question the sincerity of it without more context.  I want "I'm sorry and here's why".  It doesn't justify the inciting action, but it will tell me the intent and that means a lot to me.