Gamergate, Feminisim, and Journalistic Ethics

[Hirota]

Because you know, asking that females in games not be depicted as tit trophies or testicle-chopping feminazis marked for death is SJW bulllying. *nod*

Strawman away Gauthier - that's pretty much your MO with everything isn't it.

Nobody is saying that, and you trying to claim otherwise is nothing more than a lie intended to flamebait.

[Chessmistress]

Because you know, asking that females in games not be depicted as tit trophies or testicle-chopping feminazis marked for death is SJW bulllying. *nod*

I think you're wrong here.
It's just only about asking that females in games not be depicted as tit trophies, it's just only about asking that females in games not be depicted as passive, weak, sexualized objects.
Testicle-chopping feminazis wouldn't be harmful: at least it would be give a different image of women.
Asking just only for a positive depiction of women, as you seems suggesting, would be unfair. That would be asking for a privilege, and feminism is not about asking for privileges, is about asking for equality.
Men are depicted as good and powerful, many times, and even women should be.
Men are depicted as evil and powerful, many times, and even women should be.
I already said that women should be depicted as heras but also as villains, sometimes even as ridicolous as long as that doesn't fit with older stereotypes:

[New Edom]

I think you made a number of very good points and generally a good analysis of the problem. it probably doesn't help that at major discussions of the subject things either get polarized between self identified progressives and traditionalists or end up generally nitpicking what is already agreed with.

I observed a number of feminist events discussing rape culture, and noticed that the following kinds of men who were considered either feminists or allies to feminists were speaking.

1. Former patriarchs. Former sports heroes, coaches, actors, people at the top of the game recognizing what women suffer, their contributions to it, and urging men to change.

2. Marginalized men. Men who don't fit what is called the gender binary one way or another, who felt excluded and ashamed in general society.

3. Men who express a former ignorance before Gender Studies/attending a slutwalk/having talks and encounters with women enlightened them as to the freedom feminism offered.

I think that these men sharing their experience, while fair enough, doesn't really help people form a clear picture and just reinforces the narrative.

A counter to that would be probably rather unpleasant. It would involve things like men talking about say their abuse as a child by women. It would involve people pointing out that violence towards men in movies is far more acceptable to people than violence towards women in movies is. it would involve pointing out that human suffering is just human suffering.

.. pretty sure you identified exactly the type of people that seem to be given a platform in these kinds of events.
Celebrities, outcasts, & 'the enlightened'.
(The lattermost sometimes catches flak actually, given the tendency for them to still be ignorant of a lot of issues. Dunning-Kruger effect.)
Celebrities for sheer publicity/influence, outcasts because there's a group that ostensibly welcomes them & they serve to highlight the negative effects of the current culture on (some) men, & the lattermost because there's strength in numbers and it reinforces the progressive aspect.

No argument here. It enhances my point--these groups are trotted out entirely to support the views presented. That would be great--if the three types were representative of the norm or of a broad spectrum, which they are not.

I can see a potential issue with your proposed solution however:
People advocating for specific subsections of humanity tend to dislike the "But we're ALL HUMAN" angle, because it erases individual experiences and the difference in perspective.
(ie: White people in the USA being all "We all bleed red!" and conveniently ignoring the massive disparities between their experiences & the experiences of black people.)

They're not necessarily (always) wrong... but I find it absolutely ridiculous that any feminist would basically inform men that have experienced abuse (particularly abuse from women) that they (essentially) have no place in feminist discourse (& thus imply that they should basically go hang out with MRAs anti-feminists??).
It's frustrating (& I imagine even more-so for yourself).
.. would that potentially work? Pointing out "Look, either you stop being exclusionary or the only alternatives are going to be your opposition. Make a choice." ?

(Fuck knows. I feel like that would be overly optimistic and liable to just get a confrontational backlash because humans can be assholes. Granted phrasing it as above is pretty adversarial to begin with.)

I've tried. The result tends to be negative if it is about a discussion or topic that is considered to be entirely about women even if it really doesn't just involve women. Let's take one popular type of event: the Slutwalk. Overall the message is that men victimize women. The signs say this, the banner say this, the speakers say this. This is an impassioned event. The panels before and after it discuss largely a female experience, and occasionally the three types of add ons/allies/guests I mentioned above. This is a particular kind of female experience. Even women who don't fit within this narrative will be excluded and indeed accused not merely of disagreeing with the views and analyses but also with women's rights in general.

Best I can do is try to broach the issue/s with those I interact with personally if they come up.

I suppose the more aggressively unpleasant solution (which is absolutely one I would understand people not taking) is to speak in visceral detail of their own experience in such a way that it cannot reasonably be ignored or dismissed.
(Usually the response is either actual empathy as the other party realises they've fucked up and there is a human being in front of them OR.. they feel socially obligated to back down in order to avoid looking bad [due to either general asshole behaviour or contradicting themselves], and either way it tends to influence onlookers to realise there was a flaw in the presented reasoning/narrative.)

What you are saying above can happen, and this may be the best way to approach this kind of problem, is to simply humanize it with an example. I think however of how Karen Straughan (AKA Girl Writes What) tried to do this on a news interview where she was explaining why she had become an MRA, and was in effect being told by the interviewer that she was blowing things out of proportion and that the examples of abused men and boys she had brought up were not indicative of anything. So I thnk people can become so wedded to the narrative that empathy doesn't enter into it; those who oppose them do not deserve empathy and are simply trying to derail the (in their eyes) necessary narrative of victimization for women only,

In regards to the movies thing:
Male violence is normalised in general.
(Which could actually be tied back into the draft, where combat/violence is seen as the domain of men.)
In that instance, the cultural products reflect it more than they guide it, I think.
Alongside which we have a wide array of sexist fuckery towards women and men both.
(Which I'd like to think is liable to change over time, albeit after the whole progressive-reactionary thing flares up and subsequently settles.)
Oh. It's also probably worth noting that violence towards women in cinema is likely criticised so heavily because of the current issue of domestic violence and abuse towards women; it's seen as normalising/reinforcing the concept.
Particularly when it comes to completely unnecessary sexual violence, or 'rape for drama', which is (as far as I know?) exclusively towards female characters.
(Which could actually be argued as basically pretending male victims don't exist or aren't worth mentioning.)
To be honest, this sort of thing is increasingly coming across as an awful intersection of traditional sexism and flawed opposition to such. Which is irritating.
Is there a fix for that other than the above-mentioned "bring it up with those one knows and interacts with" ?

Movies and television are complicated, because they're no more real than say novels, short stories and comics, but the difference seems to be that because we can really see something happening it can actually FEEL more real to us. So it gets complicated because at the same time it is entertainment intended to make money. A lot of the time the dealing with of serious issues is very shallow.

I would say that 'girly' became more popular again in the 90s; in the 80s and early 90s there was a tendency increasingly to depict equality in action movies and adventure stories. People generally agreed that the female lead in "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" was really annoying, but liked Linda Hamilton in Terminator II and Sigourney Weaver in "Aliens". However I think that with "Sex and the City" becoming popular and the huge popularity of movies like "Titanic" and a resurgence of Jane Austen popularity and whatnot that a more girly kind of heroine began to emerge, including Keira Knightly being somehow very girly and yet action-y in the Pirates movies. So in a way there's been a kind of regression too I think in popular media that doesn't help. It appeals to the shallow degree of traditionalism that is sorta popular now.

Things like this obscure the conversations on violence and consent in a way that is unfortunate.

I'd also just like to state here that it's nice to have a productive and pleasant conversation with someone over topics like this (even if the topics themselves are not the most pleasant).
This thread in particular has gotten a bit silly at times, so it's much-appreciated.
So thanks for the well-reasoned honest communication.

I appreciate it too. The lack of flaming and argument about the subject is nice.

[New Edom]

Because you know, asking that females in games not be depicted as tit trophies or testicle-chopping feminazis marked for death is SJW bulllying. *nod*

I think you're wrong here.
It's just only about asking that females in games not be depicted as tit trophies, it's just only about asking that females in games not be depicted as passive, weak, sexualized objects.
Testicle-chopping feminazis wouldn't be harmful: at least it would be give a different image of women.
Asking just only for a positive depiction of women, as you seems suggesting, would be unfair. That would be asking for a privilege, and feminism is not about asking for privileges, is about asking for equality.
Men are depicted as good and powerful, many times, and even women should be.
Men are depicted as evil and powerful, many times, and even women should be.
I already said that women should be depicted as heras but also as villains, sometimes even as ridicolous as long as that doesn't fit with older stereotypes:

I would like to throw this at you then. What do you think of the idea that I have that there has actually been a regressino of women's depictions in popular media?

In the movie Aliens for instance, there are several female characters simply depicted as good marines. They are not shown as eye candy or love interests but simply as good comrades in arms. While there is a little of the love interest stuff in "Starship Troopers" generally women are shown to be effective pilots and infantry. The same goes for "Terminator II" showing Linda Hamilton as a kick ass but interesting person. And finally, there's "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome", which has both a female villain and a female supporting lead, neither of which are a love interest and simply have their own interests that move the plot forward in interesting ways.

The last film actually shows that the good society is a genuinely egalitarian one; in fact the female supporting character, Savannah, ends up being the more adventurous, brave and pure hearted of the two tribal leaders of the society of lost children living in the rain forest, and ends up founding a new society with hope for the future. (I'm partly ranting here because I thought it would have been a lot better to make a new movie about the Mad Max universe focus on that--on how this new society that Savannah established dealt with the crisis in the land around them, built a civilization of justice and goodwill and faced new trials and obstacles).

I believe that the shift from this to a more 'girly' focus for action movies is largely about profit rather than about degrading women on purpose. I think it is more about lazy writing and formulaic approaches, about appealing to a demographic that seems more profitable to appeal to--the Sex in the City/Jane Austen/Titanic type of thing, presuming that the male demographic will like eye candy rather than interesting female characters. I think this is nonsense, and the reason I disagree with Sarkeesian has less to do with what she has pointed out than what it means. If you consider the above female action characters I mentioned--they were hugely popular! It's like people have no memory of what has worked in the past.

What we need, in my opinion is better storytelling. Characters that are better written, better rounded. Men are just as stereotyped and objectified as women are in games and in movies and television.

I think there are glimmers of hope. I think better than say the re-writing of Mad Max are movies like "Z Nation" that actually show gritty casts of characters together doing interesting things, so it certainly is possible.

[Knask]

Getting back to the main subject....

http://techraptor.net/content/gamergate ... omb-threat
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/05 ... mb-threat/

Anywhere between 200 to 300 people met up in DC over the weekend, all of whom are part of gamergate. Some of the aGGros got a bit salty over it, and tried to prevent the event from happening.

First of all, kudos to Polygon for improved reporting - with Ben Kuchera slightly out of the picture, hopefully they'll sort themselves out. Meanwhile Gawker continues to fail miserably. A number of videos are on youtube and photos on twitter showing a fairly diverse bunch on the streets of DC whilst the police check the building.

Is anyone else noticing a trend with how SJW's don't want benign individuals to gather?

I'm not going to claim the threats were credible because well, Sommers and Milo are still breathing.

[Oppressorion]

In semi-related news, Johnathan MacIntosh (writer for Feminist Frequency), has some, um, interesting Tweets regarding Age of Ultron and feminism (https://archive.is/Oqx02):

Age of Ultron had dialogue making fun of testosterone infused violence then proceeded to revel in testosterone infused violence for 2 hours.

Attention media makers: Lampshading a thing does NOT then automatically give you free license to go ahead and use that thing in your media.

Simply acknowledging something is not the same as critiquing it. Likewise self-referential humor is not the same as commentary or criticism.

The levels of toxic hegemonic masculinity on display in Age of Ultron was off the charts. That fact passes without comment in most reviews.

The core ideological underpinning of superhero stories is that violence is inevitable so "good guys” have a responsibility to be violent.

If that sounds strangely familiar, that's because it’s also the core ideological underpinning of US Military and US police force actions.

In essence, it is impossible for an superhero film ever live up to his, and by extension the Tropes vs. Women series', expectations. I needn't remind you that the film's director, Joss Whedon, is also the creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, a series praised for its feminist themes, as well as Firefly. The film has two female main characters, Black Widow and Scarlet Witch, which in my personal opinion were well-written.

[Chessmistress]

I think you're wrong here.
It's just only about asking that females in games not be depicted as tit trophies, it's just only about asking that females in games not be depicted as passive, weak, sexualized objects.
Testicle-chopping feminazis wouldn't be harmful: at least it would be give a different image of women.
Asking just only for a positive depiction of women, as you seems suggesting, would be unfair. That would be asking for a privilege, and feminism is not about asking for privileges, is about asking for equality.
Men are depicted as good and powerful, many times, and even women should be.
Men are depicted as evil and powerful, many times, and even women should be.
I already said that women should be depicted as heras but also as villains, sometimes even as ridicolous as long as that doesn't fit with older stereotypes:

I would like to throw this at you then. What do you think of the idea that I have that there has actually been a regressino of women's depictions in popular media?

In the movie Aliens for instance, there are several female characters simply depicted as good marines. They are not shown as eye candy or love interests but simply as good comrades in arms. While there is a little of the love interest stuff in "Starship Troopers" generally women are shown to be effective pilots and infantry. The same goes for "Terminator II" showing Linda Hamilton as a kick ass but interesting person. And finally, there's "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome", which has both a female villain and a female supporting lead, neither of which are a love interest and simply have their own interests that move the plot forward in interesting ways.

The last film actually shows that the good society is a genuinely egalitarian one; in fact the female supporting character, Savannah, ends up being the more adventurous, brave and pure hearted of the two tribal leaders of the society of lost children living in the rain forest, and ends up founding a new society with hope for the future. (I'm partly ranting here because I thought it would have been a lot better to make a new movie about the Mad Max universe focus on that--on how this new society that Savannah established dealt with the crisis in the land around them, built a civilization of justice and goodwill and faced new trials and obstacles).

I believe that the shift from this to a more 'girly' focus for action movies is largely about profit rather than about degrading women on purpose. I think it is more about lazy writing and formulaic approaches, about appealing to a demographic that seems more profitable to appeal to--the Sex in the City/Jane Austen/Titanic type of thing, presuming that the male demographic will like eye candy rather than interesting female characters. I think this is nonsense, and the reason I disagree with Sarkeesian has less to do with what she has pointed out than what it means. If you consider the above female action characters I mentioned--they were hugely popular! It's like people have no memory of what has worked in the past.

What we need, in my opinion is better storytelling. Characters that are better written, better rounded. Men are just as stereotyped and objectified as women are in games and in movies and television.

I think there are glimmers of hope. I think better than say the re-writing of Mad Max are movies like "Z Nation" that actually show gritty casts of characters together doing interesting things, so it certainly is possible.

Very interesting thoughts, indeed.
I noticed it too.
Depiction of women in "Aliens" was pretty perfect when it comes at gender equality.
I wouldn't stigmatise the love interest: in "Starship Troopers" relationships are absolutely equal.
Even "Titanic" cannot be blamed, I think: it's an historical depiction, you cannot expect something like a female marine at the end of Victorian era.
Right, there's a regression. I explain it with a reaction of patriarchal structure and culture beginning to feel threatened by female empowerment - such empowerment wasn't really relevant during eighties, at least not to the point to make patriarchy feeling threatened by it. Now it is.

[New Edom]

I would like to throw this at you then. What do you think of the idea that I have that there has actually been a regressino of women's depictions in popular media?

In the movie Aliens for instance, there are several female characters simply depicted as good marines. They are not shown as eye candy or love interests but simply as good comrades in arms. While there is a little of the love interest stuff in "Starship Troopers" generally women are shown to be effective pilots and infantry. The same goes for "Terminator II" showing Linda Hamilton as a kick ass but interesting person. And finally, there's "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome", which has both a female villain and a female supporting lead, neither of which are a love interest and simply have their own interests that move the plot forward in interesting ways.

The last film actually shows that the good society is a genuinely egalitarian one; in fact the female supporting character, Savannah, ends up being the more adventurous, brave and pure hearted of the two tribal leaders of the society of lost children living in the rain forest, and ends up founding a new society with hope for the future. (I'm partly ranting here because I thought it would have been a lot better to make a new movie about the Mad Max universe focus on that--on how this new society that Savannah established dealt with the crisis in the land around them, built a civilization of justice and goodwill and faced new trials and obstacles).

I believe that the shift from this to a more 'girly' focus for action movies is largely about profit rather than about degrading women on purpose. I think it is more about lazy writing and formulaic approaches, about appealing to a demographic that seems more profitable to appeal to--the Sex in the City/Jane Austen/Titanic type of thing, presuming that the male demographic will like eye candy rather than interesting female characters. I think this is nonsense, and the reason I disagree with Sarkeesian has less to do with what she has pointed out than what it means. If you consider the above female action characters I mentioned--they were hugely popular! It's like people have no memory of what has worked in the past.

What we need, in my opinion is better storytelling. Characters that are better written, better rounded. Men are just as stereotyped and objectified as women are in games and in movies and television.

I think there are glimmers of hope. I think better than say the re-writing of Mad Max are movies like "Z Nation" that actually show gritty casts of characters together doing interesting things, so it certainly is possible.

Very interesting thoughts, indeed.
I noticed it too.
Depiction of women in "Aliens" was pretty perfect when it comes at gender equality.
I wouldn't stigmatise the love interest: in "Starship Troopers" relationships are absolutely equal.
Even "Titanic" cannot be blamed, I think: it's an historical depiction, you cannot expect something like a female marine at the end of Victorian era.
Right, there's a regression. I explain it with a reaction of patriarchal structure and culture beginning to feel threatened by female empowerment - such empowerment wasn't really relevant during eighties, at least not to the point to make patriarchy feeling threatened by it. Now it is.

I should qualify the thing about Titanic. It's not that I think that the depiction of the relationships is particularly unrealistic for the time period depicted--it's that romantic/erotic/beautiful woman's intimate relationship focus really became very popular at that time.

Also to clarify about Starship Troopers, you're right, the relationships were very equal and what I meant is that they didn't distract from the characters' sense of purpose or their heroism. Contrast this say with "Robin Hood Prince of Thieves" where Maid Marion starts out as a badass and then inexplicably becomes a hapless maid in distress at the end because...reasons.

Where I disagree with you is about the patriarchal structure as the reason for the regression. I think it's just greed and stupidity. It may end up serving the purpose of reinforcing stereotypes, but that's why I think that holding up a higher standard for storytelling is better.

A good example to me is shoehorning in female characters like Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit did. I felt that this was a bit irritating. Why not instead encourage the telling of stories that actually have heroic female characters, or tell new stories that do? It also brings up important questions like this:
- If Arwen can be around the Ring and save Frodo from the Black Riders, why not put the Ring in a box and send her to Mount Doom?

I don't think such a question is a mere nitpick, it's annoying. It shows to me that she was merely shoehorned in, and later inexplicably a la Maid Marion is shown in a long floaty dress waiting to die or be saved. Why?

Rather than do this, and rather than debate how sexist Lord of the Rings may or may not be, why not simply offer a better or more interesting story? I think this really is a better cure than just wanting to not have stories be about stereotypical men. I think there's nothing wrong with say a very male focused movie or game like "Thirteenth Warrior" or "Sid Meier's Pirates" provided that you can also make a really interesting story where women are the main characters or equal characters.

[Tahar Joblis]

I feel like there may be a false equivalence somewhere..

Regardless of that, does anyone on any side realistically agree with the sort of asshole that would make a bomb threat?
Really?
Are we going to consider those people representative?

Meanwhile, "companies that stand up against SJWs" ?? What?
Oh yeah, those people demanding social change are super scary, man.
Takes such strength to ignore a relative minority when doing so doesn't impact the company's profitability. *rolls eyes*

I feel like you've gotten a little overly invested in this 'anti-SJW' narrative perhaps.

Because you know, asking that females in games not be depicted as tit trophies or testicle-chopping feminazis marked for death is SJW bulllying. *nod*

The "asking" is based on:

(A) A misrepresentation of the genre as it currently exists.
(B) An argument that's exercising the base rate fallacy to completely ignore treatment of male characters to claim that female characters are treated particularly badly.
(C) Trying to censor those games if they do not comply with demands.
(D) Bad science.
(E) Slandering everyone who plays, develops, or markets "wrongthink" games as misogynist pig-dogs.
(F) Harassing anyone who points out the problems with the argument offered.

It's not "SJW bullying" to ask for more thoughtful treatment of women. It is bullying to slander, harass, and threaten anyone who disagrees with you, and we're seeing that from a mob of people who more or less agree with Feminist Frequency. (We also see that directly from some of the "LWs" and other anti-GGs.)

[Natapoc]

Because you know, asking that females in games not be depicted as tit trophies or testicle-chopping feminazis marked for death is SJW bulllying. *nod*

I think you're wrong here.
It's just only about asking that females in games not be depicted as tit trophies, it's just only about asking that females in games not be depicted as passive, weak, sexualized objects.
Testicle-chopping feminazis wouldn't be harmful: at least it would be give a different image of women.
Asking just only for a positive depiction of women, as you seems suggesting, would be unfair. That would be asking for a privilege, and feminism is not about asking for privileges, is about asking for equality.
Men are depicted as good and powerful, many times, and even women should be.
Men are depicted as evil and powerful, many times, and even women should be.
I already said that women should be depicted as heras but also as villains, sometimes even as ridicolous as long as that doesn't fit with older stereotypes:

Chessmistress, why is it that you are a member of a deeply misogynist region? Why do people in your region refer to men as "slaves"? this type of vocabulary is typical of male fetishism and is inherently misogynistic. Anyone who thinks a world run by women would reduce males to slavery implies that women are ethically disgusting. This is nothing more than male fantasy and projection of the worst crimes of masculinity onto women.

Can you explain why you tolerate being in such a misogynist region? One that helps spread the lie that female leadership results in male servitude?

[Gauthier]

I think you're wrong here.
It's just only about asking that females in games not be depicted as tit trophies, it's just only about asking that females in games not be depicted as passive, weak, sexualized objects.
Testicle-chopping feminazis wouldn't be harmful: at least it would be give a different image of women.
Asking just only for a positive depiction of women, as you seems suggesting, would be unfair. That would be asking for a privilege, and feminism is not about asking for privileges, is about asking for equality.
Men are depicted as good and powerful, many times, and even women should be.
Men are depicted as evil and powerful, many times, and even women should be.
I already said that women should be depicted as heras but also as villains, sometimes even as ridicolous as long as that doesn't fit with older stereotypes:

Chessmistress, why is it that you are a member of a deeply misogynist region? Why do people in your region refer to men as "slaves"? this type of vocabulary is typical of male fetishism and is inherently misogynistic. Anyone who thinks a world run by women would reduce males to slavery implies that women are ethically disgusting. This is nothing more than male fantasy and projection of the worst crimes of masculinity onto women.

Can you explain why you tolerate being in such a misogynist region? One that helps spread the lie that female leadership results in male servitude?

Probably because it's a Poe designed to mock feminists?

[Hirota]

I'm not going to claim the threats were credible because well, Sommers and Milo are still breathing.

It appears the experts disagree with you Knask. The FBI advised the DC Police who DID find the threat credible.

D.C. Metro Police told GamePolitics on Sunday that it received a tip from the FBI, perceived it to be a real and credible threat, and acted on it swiftly:

"On Friday, May 1, 2015 at 9:30 pm the Metropolitan Police Department received information from the FBI in reference to an individual posting on Twitter that a bomb would be detonated inside of 1602 U Street, NW (Local 16 restaurant and bar) if the event they were having was not postponed," a spokesperson for the D.C. Metro Police department told GamePolitics. "The establishment was hosting a gaming event."

"MPD contacted management at the establishment, and the decision was made by the management to evacuate the location and check for hazardous devices," the spokesperson added. "The establishment was evacuated and the premises was then swept for hazardous materials with nothing found."

D.C. Metro Police said that the bomb threat "remains under investigation," and that "any persons with information about this incident are asked to call police..."

Put this in contrast to the "threat" which was deemed not credible.

Throughout the day, Tuesday, Oct. 14, USU police and administrators worked with state and federal law enforcement agencies to assess the threat to our USU community and Ms. Sarkeesian. Together, we determined that there was no credible threat to students, staff or the speaker, and that this letter was intended to frighten the university into cancelling the event.

Lets compare further shall we?

We have a threat against 200 to 300 people which was considered credible by local law enforcement. On the other example, we have a threat against one person and attendees (an unknown number) which was not considered credible.

One caused widespread news reporting, and the event being cancelled. Widespread condemnation of trolls ensued, focusing on Gamergate.

The other - the more credible threat - was largely ignored by the press. You'd think a bomb threat in dc would get more inches regardless of the target, but apparently not.

As for Sommers and Milo still breathing, yes, so they are, and were laughing and enjoying themselves, rather than pointing people to back their Patreon.

[The Lone Alliance]

I wouldn't be so sure.
What makes you think there is no merit whatsoever to it?
Is that not a rather bold ideological stance to take without an absolute understanding of what you are passing judgment upon?

Like I said, if they want their ideas to be seen as merit then they should drag it out into the sun and allow it to be criticized, if you're not allowed to criticize an idea then there's something very shifty about the idea.

If it survives criticism then I will hold Merit in it, but if a bunch of group thinkers tell me it's the answer when it's all them just nodding their heads in agreement and saying it's oppression to question it?

Nope

Um, it's not exactly about dividing people up?

I mean, yeah you could probably make that argument.

Of course at it's core it's not supposed to be about dividing people up, but there are certain people who use it as a tool in order to divide people up.

The problem with any cause is that there are asshole leaders who will use the cause for their own advantage.

But you'd be missing out the rather important subsequent step of recognizing the diverse experiences and struggles and supporting one another.

Susurruses, there are struggles of people I know that I won't list here out of respect for their privacy and because if did try to say it it would most likely trigger people, stuff so horrible that you wonder how people who could do such things to others could exist. Stuff that still to this day haunts me sometimes.

But despite all of that, I still would support them because they're my friends and because they're good people, not because of what their experiences are.

I don't look at them as a 'survivor' or whatever other terms you make them because to me, that's the worst kind of objectifying you can give a person, they're not being remembered as who they are, or what their hope dreams, personality, etc, are, they're only being remembered as "That person who had something horrible happen to them."

Recognizing difference does not mean advocating internecine conflict.

But its not the only way, you can recognize people for what makes them different, but you can also recognize people by what makes them alike. You can both advocate differences and still find common ground. I find more success in common ground personally.

... I also find it a little strange that you don't realise you're engaging in the very thing you're accusing others of. I mean, you're doing the whole 'othering' thing and tribalising and demonising and just.. cognitive dissonance?

I do realize it Susurruses, I'm not pretending to be holier than thou, if someone strikes me the only reason I'll turn the other cheek is because I'm grabbing my beating stick.

I can be a real ass to someone who gets on my bad side.
But here's my mentality.

MLKjr said he wanted a day when a person would be judged not by the color of their skin but by the conduct of their character.

That's something I follow, and in this case, I'm not liking the character of the SJW.
The cause of equality and so on? Nothing wrong there, but if you act like an arrogant dickwad in the name of your ideology? I'll give it right back.

Strawman away Gauthier - that's pretty much your MO with everything isn't it.

That's because Gauthier is made of straw, specially between the ears.

C'mon, you can do better. Be as critical of your own 'side' in things.

Except you're assuming that I'm really on a side in the identity politics game, the only side I'm on is the one being attacked. I've sided with several of the people I fight against in this thread in other threads for example, everything is situational, and in this situation?

This whole gamergate thing? when I look between the two groups, on one side I see an extremely dysfunctional group of people who are willing to work together despite their differences, who come from all walks of life, who have experiences vastly different from one another, and yet despite that, were able to throw that aside and work together, sure they argue, they fight each other, and they will disagree, but they'll still work it out, and why?

Because they were wronged, insulted, smeared, and are being told that they must believe certain things and certain things only and when they didn't were accused of a crime they have no evidence of committing.

But when I look at the other side I see nothing but white people, white journalists, white game developers, white professors, and white hipsters, most which are middle to upper class and many who don't know a damn thing about suffering.

Yet they claim they 'know' that 'they' have all the answers and that everyone else should shut up and let them tell you how the world works. And that if you don't believe them? Then there are "No bad tactics only bad targets".

To use their own term, they should check their damn privilege.

*Johnathan MacIntosh being stupid*

John's one example of those rich white people claiming they know what the down trodden feel.
Guy came from a rich family and then after 9/11 he went off the deep end. His claim to understanding the oppressed was that he went on a paid photo tour of the poorer parts of Europe.
Oh and apparently Joss Whedon is getting death threats!
But he has a penis so it's acceptable.

I'm not going to claim the threats were credible because well, Sommers and Milo are still breathing.

So is Anita and Zoe Quinn, your point?

[Chessmistress]

Chessmistress, why is it that you are a member of a deeply misogynist region? Why do people in your region refer to men as "slaves"? this type of vocabulary is typical of male fetishism and is inherently misogynistic.

Women Empire is not misogynistic, is misandrist: misandry is the opposite of misogyny, you know?
The original region wasn’t founded by me but by danielaland
http://www.nationstates.net/region=womenempire 
We leaved it because it becomed founderless and then invaded by TBR.
I discussed with the original founder about founding a region dedicated to Radical Feminism, she said it was interesting but for a game she tought it was more suitable and palatable a female supremacist region.
That was an occasion, for me, to challenge my beliefs, and I reached a conclusion.
Why not? That's just a game, and there’s a difference between IC and OOC.
A region not necessarly is representative of your ideas, sometimes it can be even the opposite: I don't think users in nazi regions within NS are nazis, nor users in extreme islamists regions are extreme islamists, also, and that's maybe the more interesting comparison, I don't think that users who have a factbook where they wrote the king have an harem are male supremacists.

Anyone who thinks a world run by women would reduce males to slavery implies that women are ethically disgusting.

Anyone who thinks a world run JUST ONLY by women wouldn’t be unfair towards males is a matriarchist / female supremacist in disguise.
Some women can be ethically disgusting, just like some men: negating it is exactly the basis of gender supremacy.
True feminism is even about admitting that women can be evil, just like men.
When you ask for an always positive depiction of us, you're asking for a privilege, and feminism is about equality, not about asking for privileges.

“Women are not inherently passive or peaceful. We're not inherently anything but human. ” ― Robin Morgan

"Why is it that men can be bastards and women must wear pearls and smile?" - Lynn Hecht Schafran

This is nothing more than male fantasy and projection of the worst crimes of masculinity onto women.

Right.
The region is not just only a fantasy, but also a STRAIGHT fantasy, mostly typical of males. And I’m not straight nor male. But most users here are straight males, and I hope some of them will join us.
We are a little community, I hope will grow and that even men would join and play with us: the region is meant to play within the game, is not meant as a mean for propagation of feminist ideas – a game is not the right place for that.

Can you explain why you tolerate being in such a misogynist region? One that helps spread the lie that female leadership results in male servitude?

Beside, I’m frankly a little scared by your “Orwellian” interpretation of “misandry is misogyny”.
I think misandry exist.
I don’t think misandry is relevant just because we haven’t, on the whole, the same power of men.
I already suggested that women cannot be sexist because sexism = prejudice + power.
It seems to me you’re going far beyond that, in a really wrong direction: it seems to me you’re suggesting that women cannot be prejudiced, regardless the level power we have. I think this is a very dangerous and twisted and wrong interpretation, also biological determinism at its epitome.

It depends what you mean for “female leadership”.
A Government composed by 60% females and 40% males would led to male servitude? Obiousvly NOT.
But what about a Government composed by 100% females? That would NOT led to male servitude, that IS male servitude.
And, as Feminist and one who truly believe in real equality, I would OPPOSE the latter.

Probably because it's a Poe designed to mock feminists?

It may be due I’m not afraid to challenge themes like misandry / female supremacy because I haven’t a latent misandry to hide.

"Nothing is more deceitful than the appearance of humility. It is often only carelessness of opinion, and sometimes an indirect boast." - Jane Austen

I don’t like people too serious, zealots, and without sense of humor: we even joked with Black raiders when they invaded us.

There are two levels of respect: a basic respect, that I automatically grant to every human being, and an higher level of respect, that I grant just only to some individuals, due their thoughts and actions.
That user is a feminist, but she oppose Radical Feminism
http://www.nationstates.net/nation=zetsubo
She earned my respect, on the higher level I mean, with a single telegram where she criticised my beliefs.
You have still a long way to reach that.

[Hirota]

Oh and apparently Joss Whedon is getting death threats!
But he has a penis so it's acceptable.

Hopefully he's realised that inspite of drinking the kool-aid, that's never enough for SJW's and they will, relentlessly, seek to curtail artistic freedom to comply with their world view.

[Knask]

I'm not going to claim the threats were credible because well, Sommers and Milo are still breathing.

It appears the experts disagree with you Knask. The FBI advised the DC Police who DID find the threat credible.

D.C. Metro Police told GamePolitics on Sunday that it received a tip from the FBI, perceived it to be a real and credible threat, and acted on it swiftly:

"On Friday, May 1, 2015 at 9:30 pm the Metropolitan Police Department received information from the FBI in reference to an individual posting on Twitter that a bomb would be detonated inside of 1602 U Street, NW (Local 16 restaurant and bar) if the event they were having was not postponed," a spokesperson for the D.C. Metro Police department told GamePolitics. "The establishment was hosting a gaming event."

"MPD contacted management at the establishment, and the decision was made by the management to evacuate the location and check for hazardous devices," the spokesperson added. "The establishment was evacuated and the premises was then swept for hazardous materials with nothing found."

D.C. Metro Police said that the bomb threat "remains under investigation," and that "any persons with information about this incident are asked to call police..."

Thankfully it's taken seriously as it's the first time we've gotten such a threat. If the next meetups get similar threats, it will simply be dismissed as being the norm for this group.

Put this in contrast to the "threat" which was deemed not credible.

Throughout the day, Tuesday, Oct. 14, USU police and administrators worked with state and federal law enforcement agencies to assess the threat to our USU community and Ms. Sarkeesian. Together, we determined that there was no credible threat to students, staff or the speaker, and that this letter was intended to frighten the university into cancelling the event.

I love the scare quotes, and the implications that USU and the local police force in Utah were being hysterical. Just read the threat. Sorry, "threat". There's nothing in it suggesting that USU take any precautions, nor anything likely to scare its recipients.

I will also hasten to add that I completely agree that the comparison should be with the threat of a mass shooting in Utah, and not with the bomb threat at the Game Developers Choice Awards. Because... well, that doesn't sound as good to us, does it? The police determining there was a credible threat, Sarkeesian going through with her speaking engagement... It just doesn't fit the correct narrative. Best not to mention.

Lets compare further shall we?

Sure.

Security had been tight, but Garland police said there had been no credible threats in advance

Two dead, one injured, despite no credible threat.

I'm sure the credibility of a threat is important somehow, but I get confused...

The other - the more credible threat - was largely ignored by the press. You'd think a bomb threat in dc would get more inches regardless of the target, but apparently not.

Yeah, I don't understand either, especially since meeting at a bar has more free-speech-value than holding a lecture.

As for Sommers and Milo still breathing, yes, so they are, and were laughing and enjoying themselves, rather than pointing people to back their Patreon.

Yeah, they're not doing anything to enrich themselves. Now lets click on the link to his Breitbart story and buy his book!

[Knask]

I'm not going to claim the threats were credible because well, Sommers and Milo are still breathing.

So is Anita and Zoe Quinn, your point?

I'm not sure, I think I might have posted the wrong TB-quote...

[The Lone Alliance]

Oh and apparently Joss Whedon is getting death threats!
But he has a penis so it's acceptable.

Hopefully he's realised that inspite of drinking the kool-aid, that's never enough for SJW's and they will, relentlessly, seek to curtail artistic freedom to comply with their world view.

Someone could most likely outright murder him and the media would paint a sob story about how he triggered them into doing it.

So is Anita and Zoe Quinn, your point?

I'm not sure, I think I might have posted the wrong TB-quote...

Oh, oh yeah TB, I wouldn't know anyway.

[Great Empire of Gamilus]

I already suggested that women cannot be sexist because sexism = prejudice + power.

Just dropping in to say thats utter bullshit and no amount of hogwash can prove that.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Oh and apparently Joss Whedon is getting death threats!
But he has a penis so it's acceptable.

Yeah, it was the radfem takes on Joss Whedon, which included the insistence that he must rape his wife, that started to drive me out of any direct association with feminism.

[Chessmistress]

I already suggested that women cannot be sexist because sexism = prejudice + power.

Just dropping in to say thats utter bullshit and no amount of hogwash can prove that.

That's your opinion and I respect it, but I still disagree.
Sexism need power, otherwise it's just only prejudice, a lesser thing.
However my "utter bullshit" is absolutely nothing compared to the thoughts that both Natapoc and Gauthier seems to put forward (I apologize with them if I misunderstood): the thought that no woman can be evil nor ethically disgusting, the thought that women are uncapable of sexism / discrimination against men even in a situation where we would have 100% of power, the thought that no woman should be depicted as evil because we are inherently incapable of evilness, the thought that saying that a woman of a group of women can be evil is "misogynist".
That's not Feminism, that's justificationism for matriarchy / female supremacy.
That's, according me, the only real "utter bullshit".

[Hirota]

I love the scare quotes, and the implications that USU and the local police force in Utah were being hysterical.

Not them at all. I was implying an entirely different group was hysterical.

Because... well, that doesn't sound as good to us, does it? The police determining there was a credible threat, Sarkeesian going through with her speaking engagement... It just doesn't fit the correct narrative. Best not to mention.

Honestly? That incident slipped under my radar.
I'll give credit where it's due, Sarkessian, the Game Developers Choice Awards and law enforcement handled that properly, and without causing a scene, which I understand is what should be done with threats like that.

Although why Feminist Frequency changed tack and went from actually following law enforcement advice to broadcasting threats is unclear.

It's also before Gamergate was a name for the consumer revolt, which adds credibility to the argument that the harassment is conducted by third party trolls.

Yeah, they're not doing anything to enrich themselves. Now lets click on the link to his Breitbart story and buy his book!

I don't recall Milo advertising his book on the back of the bomb threat. The Breitbart news article was not written by Milo.

Edit:

Yeah, I don't understand either, especially since meeting at a bar has more free-speech-value than holding a lecture.

I know you are trying to be sarcastic..but universities have a track record of suppressing free speech. 1, <other sources soon>

[Knask]

I love the scare quotes, and the implications that USU and the local police force in Utah were being hysterical.

Not them at all. I was implying an entirely different group was hysterical.

Surely it was the institution notifying law enforcement, and them launching a multi-law enforcement agency task force, including the FBI, over a clearly non-credible threat? We're talking about the Bureau who're still wasting time and money investigating the non-credible threat. Oh. OH! Sure. You're right. The person being frightened by the threat of a mass shooting was the hysterical one.

EDIT: The link is to a YouTube video referring to the investigation of a bomb threat sent at the same time as the threat of the mass shooting, so that probably doesn't count after all.

Because... well, that doesn't sound as good to us, does it? The police determining there was a credible threat, Sarkeesian going through with her speaking engagement... It just doesn't fit the correct narrative. Best not to mention.

Honestly? That incident slipped under my radar.
I'll give credit where it's due, Sarkessian, the Game Developers Choice Awards and law enforcement handled that properly, and without causing a scene, which I understand is what should be done with threats like that.

Hey, hey, hey! Don't drag up that incident! It doesn't fit our narrative! Besides, it was third-party trolls, and it was all faked by her. She didn't even report it to the FBI! We know, because they said they don't comment on ongoing investigations, and they haven't made any arrests yet.

Yeah, I don't understand either, especially since meeting at a bar has more free-speech-value than holding a lecture.

I know you are trying to be sarcastic..but universities have a track record of suppressing free speech. 1, <other sources soon>

Which is all OK, as long as they don't stop people from meeting up at a bar. That's the important thing!

[Hirota]

Surely it was the institution notifying law enforcement, and them launching a multi-law enforcement agency task force, including the FBI, over a clearly non-credible threat? We're talking about the Bureau who're still wasting time and money investigating the non-credible threat. Oh. OH! Sure. You're right. The person being frightened by the threat of a mass shooting was the hysterical one.

I remember why I blocked you now - you're perpetually incapable of being sensible. Have you considered coaching?

My point - that you deliberately ignore because it suits you acting like a jerk - is that making a scene over a threat is not recommended by law enforcement. As you rightly pointed out, no scene was made of the bomb threat, so why the change of tack between the bomb threat and the shooting threat?

Nonetheless, I wasn't even implying Sarkessian as the primary source of hysteria - I didn't imply anyone was hysterical over it. You invented that yourself. If I implied anyone was hysterical, it was the press when I pointed out the mainstream press reports on one but fails to report on the other.

Hey, hey, hey! Don't drag up that incident! It doesn't fit our narrative! Besides, it was third-party trolls, and it was all faked by her. She didn't even report it to the FBI! We know, because they said they don't comment on ongoing investigations, and they haven't made any arrests yet.

This is a lie, and one that is patently obvious one at that for anyone capable of reading. Stop your stupid strawmanning. I gave them full credit for doing things properly.

[Ostroeuropa]

I think you're wrong here.
It's just only about asking that females in games not be depicted as tit trophies, it's just only about asking that females in games not be depicted as passive, weak, sexualized objects.
Testicle-chopping feminazis wouldn't be harmful: at least it would be give a different image of women.
Asking just only for a positive depiction of women, as you seems suggesting, would be unfair. That would be asking for a privilege, and feminism is not about asking for privileges, is about asking for equality.
Men are depicted as good and powerful, many times, and even women should be.
Men are depicted as evil and powerful, many times, and even women should be.
I already said that women should be depicted as heras but also as villains, sometimes even as ridicolous as long as that doesn't fit with older stereotypes:

Chessmistress, why is it that you are a member of a deeply misogynist region? Why do people in your region refer to men as "slaves"? this type of vocabulary is typical of male fetishism and is inherently misogynistic. Anyone who thinks a world run by women would reduce males to slavery implies that women are ethically disgusting. This is nothing more than male fantasy and projection of the worst crimes of masculinity onto women.

Can you explain why you tolerate being in such a misogynist region? One that helps spread the lie that female leadership results in male servitude?

Lol. You don't think it's misandry to call for men to be slaves?
You think men fantasize about being slaves?
Wow.


For everyone else:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDYAVROaIcs

Karens videos are all pretty great.

Runs through how feminism is a hateful ideology.