Gamergate, Feminisim, and Journalistic Ethics

[Tahar Joblis]

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

We're talking, very directly and classically, about terrorism: Someone trying to use fear to accomplish a political goal.

It's terrorism when a Muslim tries to shoot a man because he was marked for death by some imam somewhere who thinks he was disrespectful to Islam. The idea is to terrify people into not saying nasty things about Islam. It's terrorism when someone phones in a bomb threat to try to stop people from assembling to discuss #GamerGate in person. The idea is to terrify people into not saying nasty things about, oh, SJWs, game journalists, or maybe feminists (depending on the anti-GG in question). Depends on the motives, but that would be the use of violence or threats thereof in order to accomplish a political goal by terrorizing people into submission.

Might it be a troll or false flag? Yes, this is possible, just as with the USU shooting threat. It's less likely; #GamerGate doesn't have the direct motivation of wanting to disrupt a meet-up, and the leading figures of #GamerGate don't operate on a business model of capitalizing threat narratives into donations. (Feminist Frequency's people have a very visible motive for making false flag threats against themselves, for example.)

It's a standard straightforward political move for anti-GGs: Deny the opposition the ability to assemble and meet in person. Third party trolls have a motive as much as they ever do: Throwing a bomb threat into the mix is guaranteed to produce frenetic activity. For GGs? It's a risky maneuver that requires that everything fall into place correctly in order to pay off politically. (It still may not have a non-trivial political payout in spite of the FBI reacting, the police reacting, and the bar owners reacting "correctly" for it to do so - there's very little press coverage of the event, so few people not already watching #GamerGate know about it.)

The right to freedom of assembly is one of the most fundamental rights within the model of liberal democracy, coupled with freedom of speech.

[Knask]

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?

It's a mystery. It cannot possibly be because the two situations had some important differences - one didn't permit weapons to be brought in, while the other did.

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.

It's not a lie. No one is ever identified or arrested, and no real crime is ever proven, which is strong evidence for Sarkeesian herself being behind the email.

[Knask]

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

We're talking, very directly and classically, about terrorism: Someone trying to use fear to accomplish a political goal.

It's terrorism when a Muslim tries to shoot a man because he was marked for death by some imam somewhere who thinks he was disrespectful to Islam. The idea is to terrify people into not saying nasty things about Islam. It's terrorism when someone phones in a bomb threat to try to stop people from assembling to discuss #GamerGate in person. The idea is to terrify people into not saying nasty things about, oh, SJWs, game journalists, or maybe feminists (depending on the anti-GG in question). Depends on the motives, but that would be the use of violence or threats thereof in order to accomplish a political goal by terrorizing people into submission.

But surely it is not terrorism to "threaten" to shoot up a lecture at a university? That "threat" isn't credible, and it's all just a part of her professional victimhood. Freedom of speech has no value when it comes to such individuals.

[Gauthier]

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.

It's not a lie. No one is ever identified or arrested, and no real crime is ever proven, which is strong evidence for Sarkeesian herself being behind the email.

And Anita Sarkeesian is so devious she faked the threat e-mail against herself and completely fooled the FBI too! Damn she's evil!

[Kelinfort]

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?

It's a mystery. It cannot possibly be because the two situations had some important differences - one didn't permit weapons to be brought in, while the other did.

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.

It's not a lie. No one is ever identified or arrested, and no real crime is ever proven, which is strong evidence for Sarkeesian herself being behind the email.

No, it just means the fuck who said it was a troll who never intended to commit the act because he wanted the Lolz.

There are people who are assholes, as hard as that is to believe.

[Autonomous Titoists]

We're talking, very directly and classically, about terrorism: Someone trying to use fear to accomplish a political goal.

It's terrorism when a Muslim tries to shoot a man because he was marked for death by some imam somewhere who thinks he was disrespectful to Islam. The idea is to terrify people into not saying nasty things about Islam. It's terrorism when someone phones in a bomb threat to try to stop people from assembling to discuss #GamerGate in person. The idea is to terrify people into not saying nasty things about, oh, SJWs, game journalists, or maybe feminists (depending on the anti-GG in question). Depends on the motives, but that would be the use of violence or threats thereof in order to accomplish a political goal by terrorizing people into submission.

But surely it is not terrorism to "threaten" to shoot up a lecture at a university? That "threat" isn't credible, and it's all just a part of her professional victimhood. Freedom of speech has no value when it comes to such individuals.

Threats can be terrorism, it can spread fear which is the point of terrorism. Expecting something bad to happen is almost as bad as something bad happening.

[Natapoc]

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.

No I don't think what they are doing is misandry when taken in context. They are clearly a fetish region catering to a popular submissive male fantasy. And yes many men do fantasize about that. I have a friend who, at one time, was forced (due to economics) into sex work and became a dominatrix. Men would pay her obscene amounts of money to be literally walked all over and treated as "slaves". It's a very old fantasy:

Remember the myth of the Amazon's?

Their region is a sexual fantasy role play region for a particular segment of submissive men: Which is interesting given what Chessmistress previously said about porn.


edit: Now if there were a real culture where men had no rights and were treated as property then yes I'd agree with you that this culture would be misandrist.

[Chessmistress]

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

No I don't think what they are doing is misandry when taken in context. They are clearly a fetish region catering to a popular submissive male fantasy. And yes many men do fantasize about that. I have a friend who, at one time, was forced (due to economics) into sex work and became a dominatrix. Men would pay her obscene amounts of money to be literally walked all over and treated as "slaves". It's a very old fantasy:

Remember the myth of the Amazon's?

Their region is a sexual fantasy role play region for a particular segment of submissive men: Which is interesting given what Chessmistress previously said about porn.


edit: Now if there were a real culture where men had no rights and were treated as property then yes I'd agree with you that this culture would be misandrist.

Now I just beginning to understand why some people think us radical feminists we are "sex-negative", and your words are the proof, Natapoc.
You're confusing a free, willingly, sexual fantasy role play in a virtual environment with pornography.
Role play is characterized by the fact all involved persons are active, free and willingly, there's no objectification at all, there's no exchange of money nor coercion nor power.
Objectification is when your body or to be more precise the image of your body is turned in a commodity and selled, and that's the case of pornography, that also involves economical blackmail.
That's totally unrelated with a very light sexual fantasy role play in a virtual environment where there's no money exchange, no one is coercied, there aren't bodies turned into commodities but just only words, words willingly shouted by each person.
Still, you compare it to pornography.
That's why I suspect you're deeply confused about things like coercion, consent, objectification.
Without offense, but you sound to me a bigot, and anti-sex.

A little quote for you, from a great woman:

“It requires less mental effort to condemn than to think.” ― Emma Goldman

There's a certain content of misandry in Women Empire, anyone can clearly see it, denying it would be like denying that the Sun is brighter than the Moon.
I'm not an expert in male fantasies, quite the opposite, but, as far as I know, this kind of fantasies is popular among males.
The very fact that this kind of fantasies is much more popular among males than among women is a clear symbol of the greater power that men have in our society.
The very fact that such fantasies are very popular with males clearly shows that misandry is not threatening to them, just because women have far less power than males and that males are aware that generally women cannot hurt them (sadly, the opposite is far more likely to happens).

[Hirota]

The very fact that this kind of fantasies is much more popular among males than among women is a clear symbol of the greater power that men have in our society.

I'd have thought the fact that "mummy-porn" titles such as 50 shades is so popular would point to this not being the case.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

The very fact that this kind of fantasies is much more popular among males than among women is a clear symbol of the greater power that men have in our society.

I'd have thought the fact that "mummy-porn" titles such as 50 shades is so popular would point to this not being the case.

It's hard to find solid data on this, but thus article at least references a study:
http://m.mic.com/articles/102930/the-ps ... -fantasies

A significant number of female participants — 30 to 60 percent — reported fantasizing about being in a submissive situation, such as being spanked or tied up by a partner. Men, on the other hand, were much more likely to fantasize about having extramarital relations with other partners.

[Tahar Joblis]

We're talking, very directly and classically, about terrorism: Someone trying to use fear to accomplish a political goal.

It's terrorism when a Muslim tries to shoot a man because he was marked for death by some imam somewhere who thinks he was disrespectful to Islam. The idea is to terrify people into not saying nasty things about Islam. It's terrorism when someone phones in a bomb threat to try to stop people from assembling to discuss #GamerGate in person. The idea is to terrify people into not saying nasty things about, oh, SJWs, game journalists, or maybe feminists (depending on the anti-GG in question). Depends on the motives, but that would be the use of violence or threats thereof in order to accomplish a political goal by terrorizing people into submission.

But surely it is not terrorism to "threaten" to shoot up a lecture at a university? That "threat" isn't credible, and it's all just a part of her professional victimhood. Freedom of speech has no value when it comes to such individuals.

Depends, as in the above, on your motive.

To build on the example, if the Muslim in question tries to shoot the guy because he's trying to mug him and never heard of Joe Imam, it's not terrorism.

As I said, if the bomb threat comes from a 3rd party troll or a #GamerGate, things are different.

Of course, I already talked about this in the part of the post that you clipped:

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

We're talking, very directly and classically, about terrorism: Someone trying to use fear to accomplish a political goal.

It's terrorism when a Muslim tries to shoot a man because he was marked for death by some imam somewhere who thinks he was disrespectful to Islam. The idea is to terrify people into not saying nasty things about Islam. It's terrorism when someone phones in a bomb threat to try to stop people from assembling to discuss #GamerGate in person. The idea is to terrify people into not saying nasty things about, oh, SJWs, game journalists, or maybe feminists (depending on the anti-GG in question). Depends on the motives, but that would be the use of violence or threats thereof in order to accomplish a political goal by terrorizing people into submission.

Might it be a troll or false flag? Yes, this is possible, just as with the USU shooting threat. It's less likely; #GamerGate doesn't have the direct motivation of wanting to disrupt a meet-up, and the leading figures of #GamerGate don't operate on a business model of capitalizing threat narratives into donations. (Feminist Frequency's people have a very visible motive for making false flag threats against themselves, for example.)

It's a standard straightforward political move for anti-GGs: Deny the opposition the ability to assemble and meet in person. Third party trolls have a motive as much as they ever do: Throwing a bomb threat into the mix is guaranteed to produce frenetic activity. For GGs? It's a risky maneuver that requires that everything fall into place correctly in order to pay off politically. (It still may not have a non-trivial political payout in spite of the FBI reacting, the police reacting, and the bar owners reacting "correctly" for it to do so - there's very little press coverage of the event, so few people not already watching #GamerGate know about it.)

The right to freedom of assembly is one of the most fundamental rights within the model of liberal democracy, coupled with freedom of speech.

If it's a false flag or a troll with apolitical motives, then it's not exactly terrorism as we classically understand it. In either case, this is true.

As I said, there is a clear and simple motive for Feminist Frequency's people to false flag threats against Sarkeesian: Sarkeesian's status as a threatened damsel in distress is at the center of their business model. There is also a clear and simple motive for anti-GGs to issue bomb threats... and anti-GGs were working overtime to stop the event from happening. For this pair of reasons, a false flag is less likely a priori in this case. Third party trolls? Well, perfectly plausible in either case.

By the way, since it's the news of the day, Joss Whedon quit Twitter amidst a rain of harassment from internet-feminists. His name is also being viciously dragged through the mud over on Tumblr. Yet another example in a growing chain of examples.

[Tahar Joblis]

It's not a lie. No one is ever identified or arrested, and no real crime is ever proven, which is strong evidence for Sarkeesian herself being behind the email.

And Anita Sarkeesian is so devious she faked the threat e-mail against herself and completely fooled the FBI too! Damn she's evil!

Note that the Feminist Frequency team doesn't just consist of Anita Sarkeesian. If you would prefer to blame a man, consider the possibility that McIntosh authored the threat. He's the writer of the two. Stuff like this isn't unprecedented. (Note from that link that the fact that nobody has been arrested is evidence against self-threatening, not in favor of it; if investigations had revealed the threat came from Feminist Frequency, there are consequences that would be likely to be applied.)

As I said, third party trolls acting for lulz can't be ruled out in either case. The only real difference comes in the motivations to false flag - which are much more compelling for Feminist Frequency than for #GamerGate.

[Natapoc]

A little quote for you, from a great woman:

“It requires less mental effort to condemn than to think.” ― Emma Goldman

So both you and the MRA types think I'm a bigot. Oh well, I'm used to being the only one in a thread who thinks like me. According to economic theory that should make me more valuable right? lol

Yes Emma Goldman really was a great writer and a great woman: But even more an amazing revolutionary. I've read many of her works. Did you know she was one of the most influential anarchists of all time?

Have you read any of her works? If not I suggest you read them, they are very insightful and brilliantly, and passionately written.

edit: I don't mind THAT much that you participate in a region that advocates male slavery as an outlet for whatever power dynamic fetishes you and other participants may have.

I just think you do a poor job at representing feminism when you do so.

I've said many times that I think it would be funny if a real female supremacist (good luck finding one, most women are so focused on equality they never even consider anything like that) joined nation states to argue against feminism on the grounds that they disagree with being equal to men... It would be funny to see how the MRA types reacted to that.

Again my main problem with what you're doing is that you are conflating a submissive male fetish with a serious movement for justice and equality and selectively quoting real feminists to do so.

[Tahar Joblis]

A little quote for you, from a great woman:

So both you and the MRA types think I'm a bigot. Oh well, I'm used to being the only one in a thread who thinks like me. According to economic theory that should make me more valuable right? lol

Yes Emma Goldman really was a great writer and a great woman: But even more an amazing revolutionary. I've read many of her works. Did you know she was one of the most influential anarchists of all time?

Have you read any of her works? If not I suggest you read them, they are very insightful and brilliantly, and passionately written.

edit: I don't mind THAT much that you participate in a region that advocates male slavery as an outlet for whatever power dynamic fetishes you and other participants may have.

I just think you do a poor job at representing feminism when you do so.

I've said many times that I think it would be funny if a real female supremacist (good luck finding one, most women are so focused on equality they never even consider anything like that) joined nation states to argue against feminism on the grounds that they disagree with being equal to men... It would be funny to see how the MRA types reacted to that.

Except a real female supremacist would most likely embrace the feminist label. Most do, most of the time. Like Chessmistress - whether troll, radfem nutjob, or both - has been doing. There's no individual claim made by Chessmistress that is unique to Chessmistress; everything Chessmistress posts is little more than what some radical feminist somewhere has said.

It is not at all unusual for feminists to argue that women are superior in one or another way.

Very serious academic example: The mythology that has grown up around the idea of early matriarchy. Bought wholesale by feminists in the 1970s, kept alive as much as possible by feminists, and with frequent attempts to salvage it by claiming a hypothetical matriarchy would be superior. Very fluffy tabloid example: Author starts off with feminist talking points and then launches into a celebration of female superiority.

Nor is it at all unusual for women to seriously misjudge what "equality" actually is in their own favor. For example, men with low levels of sexism are often judged sexist for lacking benevolent sexism. Another example is the insistence by NOW and other feminist organizations that women are somehow secretly being discriminated against by family court, in spite of evidence to the contrary. Seriously.

So you have two problems. One is that female supremacists are attracted to things labeled "feminism," and you have to go really far (I'm glad to see Chessmistress is far enough for you) before other feminists start to question (let alone reject) their feminist identity on that basis.

The other is that, as a matter of basic self-serving biases, most modern Western women view female privileges as being part of a state of "equality," and read the absence of privilege as oppression. The long struggle of feminist groups against equality in child custody is enough to establish that (a struggle in which feminists fought against even merely de jure equality, much less de facto equality); so is the collective feminist response to boys failing out of school disproportionately.

[Greater Soviet Ukraine]

So both you and the MRA types think I'm a bigot. Oh well, I'm used to being the only one in a thread who thinks like me. According to economic theory that should make me more valuable right? lol

Yes Emma Goldman really was a great writer and a great woman: But even more an amazing revolutionary. I've read many of her works. Did you know she was one of the most influential anarchists of all time?

Have you read any of her works? If not I suggest you read them, they are very insightful and brilliantly, and passionately written.

edit: I don't mind THAT much that you participate in a region that advocates male slavery as an outlet for whatever power dynamic fetishes you and other participants may have.

I just think you do a poor job at representing feminism when you do so.

I've said many times that I think it would be funny if a real female supremacist (good luck finding one, most women are so focused on equality they never even consider anything like that) joined nation states to argue against feminism on the grounds that they disagree with being equal to men... It would be funny to see how the MRA types reacted to that.

Except a real female supremacist would most likely embrace the feminist label. Most do, most of the time. Like Chessmistress - whether troll, radfem nutjob, or both - has been doing. There's no individual claim made by Chessmistress that is unique to Chessmistress; everything Chessmistress posts is little more than what some radical feminist somewhere has said.

It is not at all unusual for feminists to argue that women are superior in one or another way.

Very serious academic example: The mythology that has grown up around the idea of early matriarchy. Bought wholesale by feminists in the 1970s, kept alive as much as possible by feminists, and with frequent attempts to salvage it by claiming a hypothetical matriarchy would be superior. Very fluffy tabloid example: Author starts off with feminist talking points and then launches into a celebration of female superiority.

Nor is it at all unusual for women to seriously misjudge what "equality" actually is in their own favor. For example, men with low levels of sexism are often judged sexist for lacking benevolent sexism. Another example is the insistence by NOW and other feminist organizations that women are somehow secretly being discriminated against by family court, in spite of evidence to the contrary. Seriously.

So you have two problems. One is that female supremacists are attracted to things labeled "feminism," and you have to go really far (I'm glad to see Chessmistress is far enough for you) before other feminists start to question (let alone reject) their feminist identity on that basis.

The other is that, as a matter of basic self-serving biases, most modern Western women view female privileges as being part of a state of "equality," and read the absence of privilege as oppression. The long struggle of feminist groups against equality in child custody is enough to establish that (a struggle in which feminists fought against even merely de jure equality, much less de facto equality); so is the collective feminist response to boys failing out of school disproportionately.

Did you just say female supremacist?

[Natapoc]

Did you just say female supremacist?

Like the much more common male supremacists except without systematic sexism behind them. It's incredibly difficult to find real female supremacists but it's really easy to find male supremacists.

[The Black Forrest]

Did you just say female supremacist?

Indeed. Even I did a double take on that.

[The Black Forrest]

Did you just say female supremacist?

Like the much more common male supremacists except without systematic sexism behind them. It's incredibly difficult to find real female supremacists but it's really easy to find male supremacists.

Indeed. I did know a female gay separatist. She was interesting. When we had problems of "fag bashing" she would get her girls and go hunt for the bashers.

[Natapoc]

Like the much more common male supremacists except without systematic sexism behind them. It's incredibly difficult to find real female supremacists but it's really easy to find male supremacists.

Indeed. I did know a female gay separatist. She was interesting. When we had problems of "fag bashing" she would get her girls and go hunt for the bashers.

Sounds like a fun person.

[The Black Forrest]

Indeed. I did know a female gay separatist. She was interesting. When we had problems of "fag bashing" she would get her girls and go hunt for the bashers.

Sounds like a fun person.

What is funny is her last name. It just adds to the vision of a bull dyke lesbian.

She is fun to hang around! Not at all for the timid.

[Tahar Joblis]

Did you just say female supremacist?

Like the much more common male supremacists except without systematic sexism behind them. It's incredibly difficult to find real female supremacists but it's really easy to find male supremacists.

Not really. People who think men are better than women tend to know their opinion is no longer PC, so they tend to keep quiet in mixed company. People who think women are better than men feel free to fly the flag and pronounce women superior.

It's not even really that unusual.

[Gender] separatists would be something quite different from [gender] supremacists. Review your terminology: A white nationalist, or separatist, or segregationalist wants a pure white nation / polity / community; a white supremacist thinks whites are best. In terms of racism, these overlap much more heavily.

In terms of gender identity, well, since most people are straight or heavily leaning that way, it's very hard to pitch gender separatism. (Not that it doesn't exist.) Gender supremacy, on the other hand, is everywhere.

Mind you, I provided concrete examples of people claiming women to be superior, so nobody really has the least cause to be incredulous when they realize just how banal female supremacy is. It's just thinking women are better. Like claiming that the world would be better if women dominated leadership roles instead of men. Or claiming that women are simply smarter, and this is why women/girls are doing better in school than men/boys. Or claiming that being male is a "birth defect." (I wish I was making that last one up. I'm not.)

Female supremacists may be male or female. They will often identify as feminist, particularly the more virulently one-sided types.

[Natapoc]

Like the much more common male supremacists except without systematic sexism behind them. It's incredibly difficult to find real female supremacists but it's really easy to find male supremacists.

Not really. People who think men are better than women tend to know their opinion is no longer PC, so they tend to keep quiet in mixed company. People who think women are better than men feel free to fly the flag and pronounce women superior.

It's not even really that unusual.

[Gender] separatists would be something quite different from [gender] supremacists. Review your terminology: A white nationalist, or separatist, or segregationalist wants a pure white nation / polity / community; a white supremacist thinks whites are best. In terms of racism, these overlap much more heavily.

In terms of gender identity, well, since most people are straight or heavily leaning that way, it's very hard to pitch gender separatism. (Not that it doesn't exist.) Gender supremacy, on the other hand, is everywhere.

Mind you, I provided concrete examples of people claiming women to be superior, so nobody really has the least cause to be incredulous when they realize just how banal female supremacy is. It's just thinking women are better. Like claiming that the world would be better if women dominated leadership roles instead of men. Or claiming that women are simply smarter, and this is why women/girls are doing better in school than men/boys. Or claiming that being male is a "birth defect." (I wish I was making that last one up. I'm not.)

Female supremacists may be male or female. They will often identify as feminist, particularly the more virulently one-sided types.

I'm more concerned with systematic sexism than I am with the incoherent ramblings of a few gender supremacists. Especially gender supremacists who have no ability to enact their goals.

[Hirota]

Gamergate just got invited to the big table.

A board member for the society of professional journalists (whose code of ethics I have posted in this thread several times as an example of how journalists - video game or otherwise - should behave) has invited key members of Gamergate to participate. The GG hangouts are discussing who should go, collating the evidence we have, and in a couple of months Gamergate will have the opportunity to sit down and debate face to face.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

I'm more concerned with systematic sexism than I am with the incoherent ramblings of a few gender supremacists. Especially gender supremacists who have no ability to enact their goals.

Today's incoherent ramblings sometimes have a way of becoming tomorrow's systematic oppression.

[New Edom]

As I said before, I think the entire approach of Feminist Frequency is wrong, whether you agree with their concern about sexism or not. The issue really with games/movies/media in general when it comes to depiction of anyone is more a matter of greed/ignorance/laziness/complacency than systemic anything, in my opinion. While racism or sexism may be issues, they are more the result, in my opinion, than the actual reason for why some things are regressing or not changing fast enough.

As I mentioned before, in the late eighties there was a surge of rather egalitarian perspectives both in games and in popular media. Games increasingly offered female characters (Mortal Kombat for instance) that were tough, interesting and so on; movies offered entirely egalitarian perspectives such as the movies "Aliens", "Terminator II" "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome" and others.

The key to getting around some elements of unfairness is sometimes simply making sure that good talent goes forward. I'm not discounting other knids of activism, but focusing on whether or not sexism is systemic or not to me misses the point in this arena. It is more about the fact that if you show a good story and a good set of characters, it will cause people generally to appreciate them, history seems to show. There will be holdouts and traditionalists but gaming in particular is a field where people want newer, better, faster, more interesting, more fun. This is what the battleground should really be, providing and encouraging the development of the best games that more people will enjoy.