
Gamers - ingve
http://mattgemmell.com/gamers/
======
gametheoretic
As usual, a discussion of bullying which makes no attempt to understand the
bullies beyond broad suppositions of demography. Approximately 16 billion
words have been written about how bullies are terrible people, etc. etc., yet
your condemnations seem to have little effect - what was Einstein's definition
of insanity? Try something new.

When you want to harass someone - and let's be honest, you, dear reader, have
indeed wanted to harass someone at some point in your life - what do you do?
You pick something you believe they will be sensitive to and remind them of it
in a mean-spirited way. So, if the bully can tell you're a girl in a male-
dominated space, that's what he's going to pick. You may (and problably do)
_receive_ this as worse harassment than I receive being called a faggot ("Lol
another guy calling me a faggot"), but the bully doesn't need to be a worse
person in order to choose to harass you in that way. Both times, it's the
exact same guy, and both times, he's just reaching into his insult grab bag.
What's he's not doing (necessarily, anyways) by calling you a "stupid slut" is
revealing his deep-seated mistrust of women. If you're coming to that
conclusion, you're overrating the complexity of the thought process that goes
into online harassment. Which is to say, the problem is not _what_ he thinks -
it's that he's not.

~~~
pyrocat
Would you agree that there's a difference in severity between telling a man
"I'm going to come to your house and rape you, you stupid faggot" and telling
a woman "I'm going to come to your house and rape you, you stupid whore"? The
latter has much more weight, as at least 1 in 5 women in America will be raped
in their lifetime. (edit: 1 in 6 is more accurate [http://www.rainn.org/get-
information/statistics/sexual-assau...](http://www.rainn.org/get-
information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims)) It's not an unrealistic
threat, and it's much more likely to bring up trauma.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Would you agree that there's a difference in severity between telling a man
> "I'm going to come to your house and rape you, you stupid faggot" and
> telling a woman "I'm going to come to your house and rape you, you stupid
> whore"? The latter has much more weight, as at least 1 in 5 women in America
> will be raped in their lifetime.

Granting, for the sake of argument, the basic premise that the latter
statement would have greater weight if the proportion of women who would be
raped in their lifetime was greater than the proportion of men for whom that
is true [1], and granting the assertion about the lower bound on the
prevalence of rape victimization for women [2], you would need to also provide
[3] an upper bound on the prevalence of rape victimization for men that was
lower than that lower bound for women for this to work.

[1] Which I would not grant except for the sake of argument, without
additional argument for it, because there are a number of problems I see with
that premise on its face, but they are secondary to the more glaring problem
of the missing comparison.

[2] Which really should be supported by something.

[3] And, as in [2], support.

~~~
pyrocat
You're really going to argue that more men are raped than women in America?

~~~
dragonwriter
> You're really going to argue that more men are raped than women in America?

No, I'm going to argue that if you choose to make an argument implicitly
premised on the different rape victimization by sex, you can't support it with
just an unsupported statistic for one sex.

~~~
pyrocat
[http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-
assau...](http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-
victims)

> About 3% of American men — or 1 in 33 — have experienced an attempted or
> completed rape in their lifetime.1

> In 2003, 1 in every ten rape victims were male.2

~~~
ps4fanboy
Male rape is highly stigmatized, my uncle was raped and never reported it.
Reported != Actual.

~~~
pyrocat
That's a great point, and I completely agree that reported stats are not equal
to the actual stats. I would still say that there are more women raped in
America than men.

~~~
transitionality
You would be lying if you did that.

[http://betweenletters.quora.com/More-Men-Are-Raped-In-the-
US...](http://betweenletters.quora.com/More-Men-Are-Raped-In-the-US-Than-
Women)

~~~
ceol
That article didn't cite any of its data, and it even conflates reported rapes
with rape estimates.

~~~
transitionality
It's US Justice Department figures.

------
PaulHoule
Sometimes sexual harassment is just harassment.

Many male dominated institutions (the army) are hotbeds of sexual harassment
that has nothing to do with desire on anybody's part. It's just an effective
way to rattle somebody.

The primary sexism is that any male victim to speak out will be ostracized or
further harassed. Thus the bad behavior continues until a woman, empowered to
speak out by her gender, becomes a target.

~~~
Qworg
Actually no. This is a specious argument that make men the victim. He
specifically called out three instances where women were "empowered to speak
out by her gender" and had the roiling mass of manchildren strike back,
specifically with more sexual harassment (as well as some of the more mundane
harassment).

A guy who tells a girl he's going to do some sexual act to her over an XBox
Live chat isn't doing it to rattle his opponent. He's doing it to drive her
away.

~~~
ps4fanboy
I think hes saying people who are lashing out are trying to choose the most
effective tool at their disposal, I have received many xbox live taunts, "you
are gay", "fagget" etc. Because that is what they believe to be the best way
to hurt my feelings, it isnt an inherit desire to be homophobic, or in the
case of women sexist, but the desire to be hurtful in a way tailored for the
intended target.

~~~
sockypuppy
> "you are gay", "fagget" etc.

> Because that is what they believe to be the best way to hurt my feelings

TLDR: These people probably aren't trying to hurt your feelings, their
language -- while shocking to you -- is a product of a different culture.

I think this is a cultural difference between you and them. You must realize
that much of HN -- I'm assuming this includes you -- lives in a bubble of
left-leaning people from left-leaning urban areas.

Growing up in a different time and place, in middle and high school I always
thought calling someone "faggot" or "gay" was roughly the same as "idiot",
"jerk" or "asshole" \-- a generic insult not meant to be taken literally. And
in the context of a multiplayer game, especially online, such a word is
typically used to express momentary anger at the in-game situation, not trying
to attack you personally.

It was quite a culture shock to me when I got to college and discovered that
most people on campus viewed insulting someone by calling them a "faggot" to
be political incorrectness of the same order as calling someone a "nigger" or
"retard".

~~~
ps4fanboy
I understand what you are saying but I can assure you this isnt delivered in
the same way you are describing, its not hard to misinterpret the intent of
someone sending you all caps messages and screaming down their mic.

------
pyrocat
I agree with this article but disagree with the authors choice to not call
himself a gamer. Be the change you want to see in the world. Own the label and
be "one of the good ones" and eventually you can be proud to call yourself a
gamer. At least, that's what I'm going to do.

------
anon4
Oh come on. I can't talk about the others, but Dina Karam had no business
being within ten metric AUs of Mighty No.9

She was hired, BY HER OWN ADMISSION, because her bf works for Comcept. The
only bit of art she posted was a godawful female version of Beck (the main
character) with a lip piercing and lipstick like a companion-for-hire after a
busy night. Much better versions were made by fans later, btw. The outcry is
because she's completely unqualified at her job. Here's a youtube video
summarising the first few days of the disaster
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXDSfUJBCj0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXDSfUJBCj0)
.

It's like hiring a dudebro who has only played Madden on the team for a
spiritual successor for Ico.

There have been MegaMan games with female protagonists, btw. Of the newer ones
ZX springs to mind.

Sorry for the hasty post, I didn't back that kickstarter and it still makes me
mad. I went and backed Shantae. At least the designer on that team is a sane
woman who knows her craft.

~~~
anon4
You know what, here's a few representative snapshots from the backer forums.
[http://imgur.com/a/oUd1p](http://imgur.com/a/oUd1p) There may be duplicates.

------
kenster07
Lots of broad generalizations without any stats. I have gamed in the past in
guilds with female members, and none of them have been treated particularly
poorly.

The anonymity of the internet will always bring out the worst in some, and
that is a much more powerful factor than being a gamer.

~~~
flocial
I think the majority of the trash talking happens with anonymously matched
competitions where voice chat is enabled.

------
mscottmcbee
I've been thinking about this lately, and I wonder how much of the problem is
a result of the games themselves. A majority of games, and almost all "real
games" (as categorized by people who identify themselves as gamers), are not
only violent, but portray violence as the most straight forward way to resolve
conflict.

If someone is truly engrossed in a medium where the default interpersonal
resolution method is to "defeat" the opposing party by whatever rules are
deemed legal by the system, it's not hard to see why every time that person is
provided with an alternate viewpoint it would be met with toxic hostility.

If the only tool you have is a gun or sword, everything looks like a target or
monster.

~~~
sukuriant
As a side note, I've been finding puzzle and adventure games much more
appealing as of late because it's not all about killing other people.

I get that a lot of games aren't about such things, even if weapons and
shooting are their medium; but it seems like a few choice games recently have
been about that and it's really awkward. The new Killzone is about two racist
factions where you basically play the bad guys, for example.

On the other hand, games like League of Legends and Counter Strike may have
death, but they have about as much impact as getting shot with a paintball
round. It's a way to say 'tag' in an effective way (Counter Strike) , or to
push someone out so you can complete your objective (League of Legends), and
those are just normal sporting activities.

I don't know. Pardon me while I wave my cane and yell loudly to get off my
lawn, but I agree with you about these sorts of issues in recent games.

~~~
mscottmcbee
I see it less being an issue of violence, and more of an issue of conflict
being the only means of resolution. It's become so pervasive, that a game
where you don't fight or compete against SOMETHING is considered very weird.

As for puzzle and adventure games, have you tried Antichamber or Gone Home?
Those two are among my favorite games to have come out this year.

~~~
sukuriant
I'm working through Gone Home right now. I had no idea what the story was
going to be about when I bought it. I thought it was a horror game. It's good
so far, to say the least.

I shall continue playing it in the coming days / weeks.

------
f00_
It's not a "gamer" problem, it's societal problem, issues with
children/teenagers who tend to gravitate towards games and then have an
anonymous mask to hide under. Social norms push men towards, and women away,
just as blue is for boys, pink for girls. Obviously the social context for
video games is changing, and with that doesn't not come full cultural
acceptance, in fact the opposite. With anonymity to hide behind, people will
voice their opinions more openly, and without consequence.

The Depression Quest story is not one of misogyny, rather the state of Steam
Greenlight, who's "community" has a strong opposition to experimental games,
and personal attacks against Quinnzel were simply called misogyny. This is why
people dislike the movement. Misogyny and any personal attack on women are not
the same. Anything that can remotely offend a woman is not misogyny. Things
like the PyCon incident, and ideas like this further damage the movement.

Side Note: The holier than thou attitude through out the whole article is
really off-putting. It's extremely prevalent throughout (game/tech industry at
least, can't say I read too many other feminist material) feminist articles,
and it only hurts the cause. Sarkeesian is the worst offender.

~~~
flocial
I agree that the "gamers" as defined by the author are a rowdy bunch (for lack
of a better term) but I have a hard time understanding the author's motive. Is
the article trying to bring a feminist perspective to gaming?

While it would be nice if we could all be respectful of race and gender while
shooting at the pixel versions of each other, what problem does it solve? Do
we want more female gamers? Is this behavior of immature people anonymously
venting or raging harmful to society or to the individual's development?

Games are really one of the few outlets for aggressive behavior in the modern
world with zero risk of physical harm. It satisfies competitive urges and
requires a variety of mental and physical coordination skills (that may or may
not be domain specific). Even if you cleaned up the language used there's
always going to be trash talk and new "leet speak" or euphemisms to get around
censorship.

It just reads like a half-baked article that lobs a blanket insult at male
gamers without any real substance.

------
hubtree
You can see a nice list of the costs of gaming consoles with inflation here,
[http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/10/15/the-real-cost-of-
gami...](http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/10/15/the-real-cost-of-gaming-
inflation-time-and-purchasing-power). Add in the cost of games at around $50
to $60.

You can do the math, but based of this statement " I’ve owned most of the
consoles and handhelds, and I’ve played games on various computers too" I'm
going to say he is several grand in, conservatively. I only point this out
because it seems to me that gaming is something he actively pursues, if not in
time then financially.

I get called a faggot multiple times a game pretty much every time I play
online. Usually it's a kid that I'm beating. I don't particularly enjoy that,
so I mute the person and talk to friends. It is what it is. I still proudly
consider myself a gamer though.

I play all types of games. I do find the harassment tends to come from first
person shooters, but it's an aggressive idea to virtually kill someone. For me
it's a nice thirty minute way to blow off steam after a long day.

I would like to add that when I hear someone talking to a female player in a
sexually degrading way I say something. Others do to. People also get called
out for using racial slurs.

There is this odd overlap of adolescence and adults in the gaming world. Kids
shouldn't be playing some of these games, but they are, and they act like kids
act. Stupid.

Adolescent boys have a long history of doing and saying repulsive things. It's
not ok, but it isn't new. My experience is that this behavior is getting
better. Especially as we dialogue about it.

I appreciate that he wants to discuss this topic, but the entire piece rubbed
me the wrong way.

~~~
flocial
I think the crux of it is despite being a gamer, the author wants to distance
himself while criticizing said "gamers" from his high horse. Also, the author
admits to avoiding multiplayer so it's mostly his opinion on secondhand
information from female gamers (selected from a pool of the most offensive
stuff).

Not saying that etiquette isn't an issue but this article doesn't really
advance the cause. However, the way you call out the behavior and setting an
example is really the only viable solution.

------
flocial
As an opinion piece I think it does more of a disservice than anything not
just with the blanket statements but the author basically does the very thing
he's criticizing only in more civilized language, essentially calling "gamers"
(of which he conveniently disassociates himself from) a bunch of socially-
stunted basement dwellers.

------
wudf
It's great to be aware of social issues, but I find myself disagreeing with
the foundation of this article. While online gaming is a very easy way to
expose yourself to the harsh realities of prejudice in the world, I don't
believe there is a relevant relationship between sexism and games as a medium.
Considering the differences between Call of Duty players and Animal Crossing
players, I think the studious will quickly recognize that the same differences
are identifiable between firing range patrons and a members of a gardening
club. Proof-reading that last sentence gives me one thought "well, that's just
a no-brainer!" as it should. The gaming community comprises hundreds of niches
that have their own personalities and behavior, just as the "television-
watching community" does. To draw conclusions about the whole based on
behavior of the relative few is offensive to me as a gamer.

~~~
ps4fanboy
I do agree with his sentiment that aggressive games breed aggressive behavior.
I am not entirely sure this is bad per say but its pretty obvious? Cant we all
be nice and civil to each other while we run around trying to murder each
other. I personally do not understand this long running commentary about
sexism in games, isnt it just a function of those types of games? If its not
sexism, its homophobia or its racism anything to bring your opponent down,
Call of Duty is not the sport of gentlemen, its mock warfare.

~~~
dragontamer
Is it really the "violence" ??

Have you ever played "Mortal Kombat" at a house party? As super-violent as it
is, people generally are pretty chill about winning and losing... as long as
its person-to-person.

On the other hand, I've played a game of Chess online once, and after making
one or two good moves, I've been called homophobic names before the guy rage-
quit on me.

You can take the least stressful activities, and if they're online, you WILL
find people screaming death-threats at each other for some insane reason.

I think the online environment makes people somehow susceptible to stress and
anger. At least, I personally go online to relax after the day... but with
that relaxation... my inhibitions are released as well. I'm an introvert by
nature, when I'm in public, I'm keeping tabs on my own behavior, watching what
I say and trying to not be an asshole.

But when I'm at home and just browsing the internet, I'm not going to be
holding back my words or thinking about other people's feelings. I'm
completely tired of doing that all day. Plus, I'm at home, and (mostly)
anonymous online. Why should I care about how I look or about other people's
feelings?

I know it is lazy, but I'm just trying to be honest. And if anyone disagrees,
please tell me about your experience with "Online Chess" vs "In-Person games
of Mortal Kombat". I can almost guarantee you, the behavior of online-chess
players is probably worse.

~~~
ps4fanboy
I agree with you 100%, the anonymity gives people incredible courage, but face
to face people are more likely to be civil. But I think that is because the
threat of physical violence is high if you said such hurtful things to other
people.

~~~
dragontamer
As an introvert, I disagree. Simply being around more than 2 people stresses
me out... and part of that stress means that I'm quieter and more reserved.
But that stress does not apply to me online, perhaps its the lack of face-to-
face contact.

Besides, the whole Youtube experiment has proven that "anonymity" means
absolutely nothing to your typical troll. Forcing people to display their
names has only made the system worse.

~~~
ps4fanboy
You could argue that Youtube's experiment didnt actually stop anonymity.

------
Tycho
_The gaming world is a cesspit of maladjusted, comically aggressive,
emotionally (and maybe actually) adolescent males who have a deep fear and
distrust of women._

The thing is, if you forget about the _abusiveness_ towards women in online
games (most people aren't even aware it happens), this is still the prevailing
societal view of 'gamers.' Losers who don't get any girls. _That 's_ why many
don't like to call themselves 'gamers,' or admit to a new group of people that
video games are one of their hobbies.

------
alan_cx
I think it is always a huge mistake to assume people mean the literal meaning
of words they use. Im not even sure people using such words in a sort of
banter (Im sure I could have chosen a better word there...) environment even
think of them as words, more like they are sounds, like a contemporary growl
or bearing of teeth replacement.

I mean, when someone says "fuck you", should I take them up on the offer?

~~~
ps4fanboy
Context and delivery is everything.

------
richforrester
_> The gaming world is a cesspit of maladjusted, comically aggressive,
emotionally (and maybe actually) adolescent males who have a deep fear and
distrust of women. The problematic gamers are, naturally, almost exclusively
male – and no doubt skew towards the young side. No-one’s surprised by that.
I’m not surprised._

Well thanks. Man, I don't even know where to start.

I'm male, 30+, and have been cursed at too. Sure, they didn't tailor their
insults towards me being female (because I'm not) but that's just it; online,
it's just words. Ignore them. That's what you do.

I've met my girlfriend online, and we've been together for about 5 years now.
I've been active in the unreal tournament community, counterstrike, world of
warcraft, Utopia, etc. Many, varied.

Sure there are some rotten apples, just like in real life.

Just ignore them, just like you ignore that drunk guy at the cafe that keeps
getting close. If you can ignore the beggar on the street, or the street-
marketeer, or the adds messing with your movie experience, you can ignore
idiots on the web too.

.edit: okay, let me stress that YES this is an issue, but;

1) I take offense to calling the entire gaming world a cesspit of maladjusted,
comically aggressive, emotionally adolescent males. I'm a gamer. Calling me
the above doesn't put me in a great mood.

2) The site linked in that post has whole posts dedicated to getting the
middle finger + the word "bitch". _Learn to ignore them damnit_.

3) _> The problematic gamers are, naturally, almost exclusively male_

\- well sure, you're female. Females aren't going to do this because, well,
they'd be insulting their own sex?

\- well yeah, they're in the majority. In most communities I've been active
90% is male, so chances are 9 in 10 off of sheer numbers alone.

\- well of course, females won't approach you in a sexual context because most
people are straight.

\- well obviously, if there is any discrimination, it'll be practiced by the
larger part of the community, vs the smaller part. It just doesn't happen the
other way around.

None of these make me respect the writers opinion.

If the point of this article is to piss off the good guys, it's working. Now
get the hell off my internet, because you're just as bad as the people sending
you nasty messages.

~~~
pyrocat
> it's just words. Ignore them.

This advice is pretty hollow coming from someone who doesn't have to put up
with constant sexual harassment, who doesn't have to deal with cat calls and
the fear of being raped that comes with them, and who can use their real voice
on game chat without getting rape threats. Check your privilege.

~~~
ps4fanboy
You dont think being called a fagget is sexual harassment?

~~~
pyrocat
It is, but unless you actually are gay in real life and have had to deal with
being called a faggot in real life, I'm going to have more sympathy for
females who have to deal with sexual harassment online. They're both terrible
behavior that we (as a gaming community) should object to when we hear it.

~~~
ps4fanboy
I have sympathy for everyone who is harassed online, I do not think anyone is
actually being singled out for harassment because of who or what they are. If
people really wanted to fix it they need to admit that this fact is true
first, because treating this as a sexism problem is disingenuous.

~~~
pyrocat
Women get way way way more shit online than men. Ignoring that is
disingenuous.

~~~
ps4fanboy
You seem to be making a lot of assertions of fact without anything to back it
up. I would say that is disingenuous.

~~~
pyrocat
Fair enough, I just assumed people would accept the premise that women get
more harassment online than men without me having to cite a study. It seems
pretty obvious to me.

~~~
ps4fanboy
Lets think about it for a second though, if gaming is male dominated and
incredibly hostile and full of harassment wouldn't the victim of the
harassment be predominately male?

~~~
pyrocat
> the premise that women get more harassment online than men

If you are a woman, online, than you'll be harassed more than if you were a
man, online.

If you want to go by ratio, then yeah, but that has nothing to do with the
argument. The point is that the gaming community is driving away women with
this behavior.

~~~
hrkristian
The "community" has no obligation to keep people in, it is the individual's
choice what to do and how to deal with anything resulting from that choice.

As for women vs men, we all take our daily abuse, and in an anonymous online
community the level of abuse is just that much higher. We learn to deal with
the adolescent abuse because that's the only remedy.

Bullies will be bullies, they hone in on (perceived) weaknesses, when a woman
feels harassed in an online community, it's not the fault of the community at
large, it's just a fact of the world we live in.

I no longer play games, but I used to play a lot online, the abuse was daily.
I and men I know receive non-violent abuse daily in real life well, not to
mention the physical threats flying around; know that as a man anyone anywhere
has the "right" to threaten you just for being a man. (Check your female
privilege.)

Female harassment is a sham, it's just general harassment. Difference is women
are allowed to complain and make a fuzz. Ideally we'd all be allowed to do so.

~~~
pyrocat
You're assuming I'm female.

------
ps4fanboy
"The problematic gamers are, naturally, almost exclusively male" \- Source? If
50% of gamers are women I find this hard to believe.

------
transitionality
> Show me an angry man who spews hatred towards someone he perceives as
> different or a threat to him,

I'm sorry, but this describes you.

And your screed is nothing but unadulterated hate speech.

How is this shit even allowed on this site?

