Like some fundamentalist Christians wallow in their persecution complex the author of that piece certainly enjoys portraying women as perpetual victims. It's interesting that she simply asserts that women receive harassment because of their sex, but men don't, because... reasons? Well, since this thread is mostly about gaming I can only assume this refers to this 2007/2008 study by the Nottingham Trent University. From the abstract:
It's not a portrayal, it's an accounting of the various ways women are victimized online. That you would compare them to Christians with a persecution complex is further evidence of not only your own misogyny but of the misogyny that runs rampant among the gamer gate community. Are you implying that women who face harassment online aren't more likely to find that harassment sexual in nature or the insults gender-based? If so let's see a link to a study or report supporting that argument.
Ah, "misogyny". That word is thrown around groundlessly like so much candy during carnival these days that it has lost all its sting as an accusation and an insult. The majority of women online are not "victimized". The majority of women online can deal with the rough nature of online-interactions quite well. The portrait the author of that piece paints is only a reflection of the individual cases and not something that is experienced by most people most of the time. Women aren't this powerless, marginalized and oppressed group the authors tries to make us believe they are. If that view makes me a "misogynist", well, then so be it. Are you implying that women who face harassment online aren't more likely to find that harassment sexual in nature or the insults gender-based? If so let's see a link to a study or report supporting that argument.[/quote] http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/pi_2014-10-22__online-harassment-03/ http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/pi_2014-10-22__online-harassment-02/ So, yes it is "more likely" but not the norm, pervasive or something women in general face on the net. Oh, and you think men don't receive "gender-based" insults?
It's hardly groundless when you're describing women who've had real threats made to them as having a persecution complex. Neither are the majority of the people offline, doesn't mean it's not a problem when they are. Yeah, apparently according to a lot of these articles they do so by pretending to be men. The point is that they shouldn't have to and the fact that you and the rest of the neck bearded, man boob brigade that makes up gamer gate thinks they should just deal with threats of violence and rape is exactly why the rest of the world has dismissed you pathetic ballsacks as the disgusting misogynists that you are. Who said they were powerless? They're fighting back. They're giving interviews on TV, speaking to college campuses and world leaders and helping to reshape the way we deal with online threats. Meanwhile you sad, socially stunted semen sippers are regulated to ranting to one another on youtube. FTW
http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2015/...to-threaten-supporters-of-a-gamergate-critic/ Classy bunch of guys, those gamergaters.
Everyone with a functioning brain can understand that I'm not talking about those people who did receive actionable threats. Who said it wasn't? Have you ever heard of the concept of male gamers pretending to be girls/women in games to garner all that positive attention? Of course, you do have evidence that GamerGaters are misogynists? Trashtalking in games, btw, isn't the same as actual threats of violence and rape; it just what gamers do when the play. Oh, and if that bothers you, shut you mice off and mute the conversations - as many people who play online do. Ah, the utter hatred to seem to feel towards gamers is so... honest. But, "semen sippers"? I'm not sure whom you are trying to insult here. Women who like to swallow? Gay men who like to swallow? My, you sexist homophobe, you. As for Quinn and Sarkeesian speaking at the UN; do you just ignore that Quinn distanced herself afterwards from the (now retracted) report that was the basis for that meeting, and that Sarkeesian simply wants to silence everyone who basically, even if not eloquently or politely, disagrees with her? So, it's conclusive: You are an intellectually dishonest moron.
Yeah, and a bit of reading would have revealed to you that this Sam Smith wasn't threatening anyone, but actually pointing out to those people that their information and data is out there. If he were threatening and blackmailing them he must be the worst blackmailer ever doing this so in public for everyone to see.
Gamergate - the twattery that just won't quit. http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...-vox-pull-out-sxsw-canceled-panels-story.html
The media is reeeeeeally pushing the GamerGate-as-Bogeyman narrative. Just like the "Gamers Are Dead" articles from last year - a handful of independent news sites, publishing articles within hours of each other, curiously identical bullshit narrative. The LA Times article Flashlight posted is especially laughable. Some of the more ridiculous excerpts: Post hoc. The author is assuming SXSW removed the panels because people in a subreddit were saying mean things about the panelists of the Level Up panel. Is there a statement from SXSW that indicates this? This excerpt is just a bullshit bukkake compressed into two sentences. First off, the movement eventually called GamerGate was initially started in response to the revelation that a female developer of a text-based adventure game was getting positive coverage and exposure in games media while having sex with specific journalists who were providing the coverage. The game journos in response decided to put out a fire with gasoline and released numerous articles within hours of each other declaring gamers as 'over'. The movement caught fire and took right off after that, and over a year later it's still going. Second, video games were already diverse and "less of a boys' club". Anyone who's been following video games for the past few years can come up with dozens of examples of positive female/non-white protagonists. The only ones suggesting otherwise are the ones who have a monetary and/or philosophical reason to keep the false narrative going (see: Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu). Third, many people on the anti-GamerGate side of the trenches have considered any criticism of their ideas as "verbal attacks". When actual harassment has happened, GamerGate has actually helped track the person down and report them. You won't hear about that, because it doesn't fit the "gamers are eeeevil white male misogynist basement dwellers" narrative. Harassment has happened, however most of it has been directed at GamerGate. And the media will never report on it, because that would take journalistic integrity. Another post hoc fallacy. The author assumes (on top of using suggestive language like 'their targets', implying Gamergate is violent and exists solely to take out certain individuals) that because Sarkeesian and Wu receive threats after GamerGate was started, it must be GamerGate doing the harassing. There has never been any proof of this; if anything, there's been evidence to the contrary. Pure bullshit. Sarkeesian cancelled her Utah State appearance because of the campus' concealed carry laws. There was a threat made, no mention of GamerGate anywhere in it though everyone attached it to GamerGate anyway. The FBI did an investigation and did not deem the threat as credible. The author is being intentionally misleading. All in all, more bullshit and narrative-spinning from people who call themselves journalists.
And isn't it also true that, when the "anti-GG" panel was announced no one really gave a shit, but when the panels with the "pro-GGers" was announced the antis started to fling shit? Have you seen #bigmilo yesterday? Koretzky suggested he would, and we all should, give money to the effort of some people to make both panels happen independent from SXSW.
Aww, no one wants to give misogynists a platform to spew their bigoted nonsense. Poor babies. But go ahead and crowd fund that panel that will be seen by absolutely no one. Maybe Sakeesian will get another speaking engagement dissecting the ass hurt emminating from it.
Not only is he drams, but he is sexist drams. He sounds like one to many girls have caught him peeping up their short skirts and touching the merchandise and he does not like it. Don't do it around me at any gamer area I happen to wander into. I am not down for all of that Mr. @BeamMe rapey creepy peeper.
You are quite divorced from reality, aren't you? Show us the evidence for the misogyny you cry about. Oh, and I know you suffer from selective reading, people on the GamerGate side want to see both panels to take place. BTW, the "pro-GamerGate" panel (even though GamerGate really isn't the topic) was supposed to include Mercedes Carrera and Lynn Walsh, the new head of the Society of Professional Journalists in the US - my what a bunch of bigoted misogynists these two women must be for you too cry out like that.
This Anita Sarkeesian sounds like the Lena Dunham of the gaming world. You know, Lena started whining about "harassment," "hate speech" and "oppression" when people told her they weren't interested in seeing her naked fat body anymore. That's when she wasn't busy fabricating false rape allegations against fictional men, or talking about underage "exploration" with her little sister. So Anita spread her legs to get some good press and then started using SJW buzz words to shut down criticism? Typical. And now she's got a cottage industry reciting a canned speech about the "misogyny" of gamers? Spare me.
OMG dim bulb just knocked you on your squirrley little head. You gotta be pretty damn stupid for him to get you. Way to go dim bulb.
If I paid anywhere from $50-$300 to attend one of these overpriced conventions, I sure as hell could find better things to do with my time other than sit in some stupid SJW panel discussion and listen to Anita Sarkeesian or some other bedwetter whine about being a victim.
Okay, I am only on page 3 of this thread, but I still don't get it. Call my fossil. Call me slow. But: is the point here that 21st century gamers, don't get the attention they think they deserve, an item on the evening news or any other chance to get their 15 minutes of fame? Btw that last bit is a reference to some other fossil (google it). And is the controversy in this thread about the fact that some here - whom you might call the original gamers, as chances are good that we were gamers before you were even wetting your diapers - call you out on the fact that gamers don't deserve the attention they, in their 21st century form, seem to demand? Because I still don't get why they should. So, the gaming industry is a $21 billion industry. Okay, that warrants attention, and afaik that attention is given: events like E3 DO get global news coverage, because the gaming industry employs a lot of people, for one. But why would that mean that gamers themselves get similar attention? Do we ask random people exiting a movie theater about the movie industry? Do we invite soccer fans into the CNN studios to hear their point of view on that industry? (Well, okay, sometimes we do, but we all know that's just for laughs). No - all that matters is where they spend their money, and which companies in the industry sink or swim as a result. The same applies to the gaming industry. Gaming is taken seriously as far as the money involved is concerned. The rest is just entertainment, like any form of entertainment. And even if that is an understatement, and you might want to bring home the point made in the article that games can be an art-form, I would say: sure, someone convince me and I'll believe it (e.g. there is this photographer who is actually taking photo's of beautiful locations inside games and exhibiting them as art, really cool) - but that still excludes the gamer himself. Gamers getting that kind of attention would be like fans of celebrities demanding to be 'taken seriously' because they really really really love their [insert celebrity]. The only ones to take that crowd seriously, is the group of people selling glossies, because, well, they have to sell glossies. So the only ones taking the gamer seriously, is the game publisher himself, because they need your cash. So apparently there is some kind of controversy over reviewers (the ones some insist on calling journalists, with apologies to real journalists) being too close to the industry itself? My question: why should I care? And if all this was not the point, please explain what is, because believe it or not - I've never heard of Gamer Gate, with or without the #. p.s. if you spend 50 hours a week on games, you seriously need to get a life. You will regret wasting so much time on games when/if you grow up. Believe me, I've been there. If you're already grown up, then never mind, you're a lost cause.
Alright then. But to be honest, the jab @Archangel is just about those hours, the post itself is not directed against him, but at anyone taking gamers too seriously.
Think about people who watch movies. Movies are roughly a 10 billion dollar annual industry, it's big business like video games. Fans of movies generally go to movies and say "that was a great film" or "it was ok" or "that sucked" and that's that. But you have a subsection of movie fans that demand to be taken seriously and bore you to death with what they would have done to the movie, or yell and stomp their feet so everyone can hear about how bad a movie was - think about how some Star Trek fans are, for crying out loud. The sense of entitlement with these people is astounding. Does anyone take those people seriously? Haha no. Are those people mocked and laughed at? Haha yes. You're just the angry, petulant and entitled Star Trek fans, Gamergate.
Games are generally more expensive and take up a lot of more time than films. Gamers just don't want to be insulted and degraded by the press that writes about their hobby.
You mean you don't want to be confronted with uncomfortable truths about the way you and some developers treat female gamers. It's hilarious though that you and your ilk call female gamers whiney bedwetters and suggest that people who don't want to hear the sort of trash talking that includes threats of rape and violence to shut off their mic. and yet here you are playing the victim because the gaming media dares to call you out on your despicable behavior. You sad fucks are the real victims.
You keep bringing up that "uncomfortable truth". Care to provide evidence that female gamers are treated badly by developers? I'm sorry, if you can't handle trash talking, whether you are male or female, then maybe gaming isn't for your. We know that aggression-levels rise, in males and females, while playing (as in most competitive situations). That means that males and females alike trash-talk. It's part of the "game". If you can't handle that, whether your a male or female, shut the mic and the chat off or get the fuck out. Trash-talk, btw, isn't the same as serious threats of rape and violence.
Of course all one has to do to find out just how poorly women are treated by developers is do a Google search and you'll be inundated with article after article but here you go. http://www.stetson.edu/today/2015/03/salaries-sexism-pose-challenges-for-women-gamers/ And again the hilarious irony of telling women to deal with the disgusting and often sexual trash talking in online games or fuck off while at the same time whining about game "journalists" trashing you and the rest of gamergate completely eludes you. This is why you will always be seen as a joke.
Interesting, a Gamasutra-study. Did they take the years of experience into account when they calculated the average salaries, the hours worked? Isn't it illegal in the US to pay someone a different hourly wage for the same kind of job? Granted, I only skimmed the article but it finally lost all credibility when the it brought up GTA and the horrible, horrible violence that is done to pixel-women in that game. They neglect to mention that you play a criminal in that game and that you can harm pixel-persons of both sexes. But why let reality enter into a perfectly skewed point of view. And, of course, the go-to talking-point of Ms. Sarkeesian and the (even-then deemed not credible) threat against her university-appearance. The schools didn't cancel the event, she decided not to appear. As for the article's objectification argument; what a shocker, depictions of many male and female characters are idealized. Ever read a romance novel? The vital difference here, darling, is that gamers can take it. They just give back as good as they get. The journalists just can't handle that the shit they fling is thrown back at them.
