
What Atari Was Really Like, According to Women Who Were There - panda88888
https://kotaku.com/sex-pong-and-pioneers-what-atari-was-really-like-ac-1822930057
======
seany
Seems like not everyone interviewed for this is quite happy with the angle
they took on it:
[https://twitter.com/lonireeder/status/963260767079317505](https://twitter.com/lonireeder/status/963260767079317505)

EDIT: This is the article she's talking about:
[https://medium.com/@Brad_Glasgow/the-metoo-fueled-
character-...](https://medium.com/@Brad_Glasgow/the-metoo-fueled-character-
assassination-of-nolan-bushnell-2405452b635d)

~~~
geofft
Do we know what the author of that article's biases are? (Everyone comes with
their biases, and I know pretty clearly what Brianna Wu's are because she's
reasonably famous, but I haven't heard of Brad Glasgow, I think.)

In particular, the casual dismissal of saying that someone "bills herself as a
game designer and activist" and the off-hand reference to "former GDC Pioneer
Award winner Markus 'Notch' Pearson" without mentioning Notch's _strong_
ideological biases re social issues and the game industry, make me feel like
there's something undisclosed here.

If we're going to be wary of journalists misrepresenting sources to fit an
agenda, I feel like we should apply that principle consistently.

~~~
thehardsphere
I've never heard of Notch having strong biases regarding social issues and the
game industry. I quickly googled but all I could find were references to some
tweets he deleted about some "heterosexual pride" or something that he later
apologized for.

Do you have a link or can you sumarize what those biases are?

~~~
jccalhoun
he has said a bunch of inflammatory things on twitter. Here is one thread
[https://imgur.com/gallery/8CBmG](https://imgur.com/gallery/8CBmG) Here's
another where he talks about pizzagate and how people around the Clintons keep
dying [https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/minecraft-creator-
pizzagate/](https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/minecraft-creator-pizzagate/)

I think some things he has claimed were jokes but I don't know.

~~~
seany
This is hilarious not inflammatory.

------
workthrowaway27
I don't understand why the standards[0] of 2018 are relevant to the culture of
a startup in the 1970s.

[0]: And these standards aren't broadly shared. Rather there's a vocal
minority who wants to classify much of what was previously common behavior as
harassment.

~~~
rayiner
It’s not fair to apply one era’s standards to people from another era, but it
is fair to hold people accountable for shitty culture that was recognized as
such at the time. For example, Loving v. Virginia was decided in 1968, at a
time when 70% of people disapproved of interracial marriage, and half thought
it should be illegal. There is nothing wrong with judging those people for
failing to meet a moral standard that was recognied, even if only by an
enlightened minority. Morality is not decided by popular vote.

As for Atari:

> Holding board meetings in hot tubs, asking a secretary to get in with them.
> Doling out “the best-looking secretaries” like prizes to the star employees.
> Code-naming the home version of Pong after a female employee whom Bushnell
> said in 2012 “was stacked and had the tiniest waist.” Making a 1973 game
> called Gotcha, with joysticks replaced by a pair of pink silicone domes,
> meant to look and feel like breasts.

Even in the 1970s, people knew this was wrong.

~~~
jerf
"Even in the 1970s, people knew this was wrong."

That is true. However... are you sure you would side with the people who knew
this was wrong, were you in 1970? Because in 1970, that would be the
conservatives, the church-goers, the ones who were not going along with the
sexual revolution and were sticking to older mores.

The direct linear ideological ancestors of the current dominant Silicon Valley
liberalism were not decrying this sexual liberation... they were the ones
_creating_ it, normalizing it, and outright celebrating it, and rubbing the
noses of the redneck rubes in flyover country over it, the same redneck rubes
in flyover country that the HN gestalt so frequently sneers at today.

The Silicon Valley of 1970 would not pick up the morals 2018 is trying to
impose on them. They would _actively_ rebel, because frankly the #meToo morals
are rapidly evolving into, if not already at, something even more strict than
what the people in 1970 were _already_ rebelling against as being square and
out of date!

~~~
rayiner
I don’t see your point. Conservative church goers weren’t wrong about
everything (and they’re certainly not wrong about everything now).

This is not a new observation. Many radical feminists, Dworkin for example,
were deeply skeptical of the sexual revolution, and acknowledged that she
shared some common ground with conservative women in that regard.

~~~
jerf
"I don’t see your point."

Well, part of my point is that Atari isn't "them". It is, for most of HN, "us,
only fifty years ago". And not just "us, as in Silicon Valley is like really
racist and stuff, but not _me_ , oh no, so us but not the us that includes
_me_ ", but literally _us_. These were the direct ancestors of Silicon Valley
liberalism.

I'm saying that if the moral harridans of 2018 are going to be going back in
history to the 1970s to condemn people (and beyond), I'd like to see some sort
of reckoning with the history of what's going on here, if for no other reason
than to perhaps convince people to _slow down_ a bit and dampen the wildly
swaying pendulum before rewriting the social contract willy-nilly again next
week. It honestly blows my mind how the direct lineal descendants of the
Sexual Revolution are now putting forth a morality that is actually _stricter_
than what conservatives have stuck too, a morality in which even if everyone
is adult and consents it can _still_ be condemned if it isn't 2018-approved,
with just-barely-not-nonexistent examinations of how that happened and whether
it's really a good idea. Where will the pendulum swing next?

~~~
rayiner
I’d instead say it’s an instance of “tried it, didn’t care for it” and nothing
more. Both conservatives and radical feminists in the 1970s pointed out that
the sexual revolution was in some ways perpetuating patriarchy, except that
instead of expecting women to be wives and mothers it demanded sexual
availability in all settings and accommodation of mens’ sexual impulses. But
that doesn’t mean that there wasn’t bad things about it or that there is any
reason to “slow down.”

I also disagree with the idea that it’s a “pendulum.” It’s moving in the
direction of increased autonomy and self determination for women. Sexual
revolution: “we don’t want to be trapped into marriage and motherhood by
sexual mores.” Women didn’t want “sex in the workplace”—they were just willing
to accommodate it because it freed them from something worse. But now women
aren’t forced into marriage and motherhood. But they have more demands. “We
noticed that men still have most of the power in the workplace. We want to
advance in our careers without having to deal with men trying to use that
power to get sex.” These are not contradictory at all.

~~~
jerf
That is a pretty theory.

But I'm a pragmatist and have the annoying habit of looking at the facts on
the ground before accepting the theory. When I read the Twitter stream that
was linked by seany, I do not see women celebrating that they no longer have
to "deal with men trying to use that power to get sex". I see real women being
brushed aside, and I see modern day harridans simply assuming and telling them
what to feel and _de facto_ what morality they should subscribe to, and
whether they should be offended, and if the real women doesn't want to play
ball with that, I see real women being essentially disenfranchised from the
conversation.

I don't care what pretty theory you wrap around that. It's wrong, and a
pendulum that has swung too far. People getting offended on behalf of other
people, for events that may very well have happened before the offended people
were even _born_ , and disenfranchising them if they disagree is not progress.
It's not respectful of women. It is one very loud group using other people, in
the worst sense of the term "using", and not caring about what facts get in
the way. That is not sustainable, and it will not last, and the longer people
try to maintain it by paying too much attention to the pretty theories while
ignoring the ugly facts on the ground, the worse the backlash is going to be.

------
creep
I really liked this article. As a woman who is surrounded by radical feminists
and red pillers alike-- and those who are in-between-- I have a hard time
parsing how exactly I feel about all of _this_ (whatever "this" is). I don't
know where the line is, if there is a line at all, and most alarmingly I don't
know how sexuality fits into 2018 society. I was not alive during the 70's, I
don't know what it was like to feel sexually liberated for the first time, I
don't know what it was like in emerging tech culture. I don't know what it
_should_ be like. I don't know the ideal dynamics, I don't even know what
people are talking about when they talk about "female empowerment". I feel
empowered, I guess? I mean I definitely don't feel oppressed. I honestly go
through life with the outlook that I'm responsible for the people I surround
myself with and I'm responsible for creating my own opportunities, standing up
for myself, the whole 9-yards. I don't think we have reached the "right"
perspective in society, even though many people think we're very close. We're
apparently simultaneously very close to "equality" (whatever that means) and
very far away from it. But it's necessary.

Analyzing an era retrospectively is really interesting for that reason. You
can see the mass-consciousness that influenced everyone, you can see people
getting caught up in the energy of their time. And I wonder what will be said
about _our_ time in 50 years. We still look at things with a dualistic
perspective; is it right, or is it wrong? I think what I'm looking for in
general is balance-- in that, there is no right or wrong, it's a dynamic
definition, if it should be defined at all-- and I think the movements of
different times take extremes in order to bring balance. A good deal of my
thoughts about our culture at the moment is that we are right at the tip of
extremism, trying to balance the opposite extremes of the ages before us. So I
wonder what balance looks like. If equilibrium can be reached, does that mean
stagnation? Surely a bomb will be thrown at the resting pile and we'll have to
find balance within that system once again.

Maybe the question I'm asking, maybe the question every body is asking, is
what's my role in this? I'd rather not think about it and just live my life
the way I want to live, but surrounded by so many extremes, so many ideals, I
find I'm constantly being pushed to participate. And maybe that's not a bad
thing. I tend to throw a little middle-ground in there. It's very complex at
the moment.

------
rayiner
For those people citing anecdotal accounts of "well the employees were okay
with it," it's probably worthwhile to read what someone who was a professional
woman in the 1970s has to say about what things were like back then:
[http://wgntv.com/2018/01/22/ruth-bader-ginsburg-describes-
fa...](http://wgntv.com/2018/01/22/ruth-bader-ginsburg-describes-facing-
sexual-harassment).

> “Every woman of my vintage knows what sexual harassment is, although we
> didn’t have a name for it,” she told the session’s moderator, Nina
> Totenberg, before detailing an incident when she was a student at Cornell in
> the 1950s and preparing for a chemistry test.

> “My instructor said … ‘I’ll give you a practice exam,'” Ginsburg said. The
> next day she discovered that the practice exam was, in fact, the real test.
> “And I knew exactly what he wanted in return,” she said. “And that’s just
> one of many examples.”

> Ginsburg said there was nothing a young woman could do about harassment at
> the time. The general attitude of the day, she said, was “get past it” and
> “boys will be boys.”

------
noobermin
I think it's becoming clear that the 70s and certainly the 60s were just a
different time, with different standards of behavior. While much of the
behavior[0] we're learning about is probably indefensible, I also don't know
how I feel about telling people who don't feel bothered by what they
experienced that it was wrong and they should feel it was wrong. Perhaps that
isn't what people who tweeted #NoNolan meant to do, I admit though.

[0] speaking in general, not just this story

~~~
drharby
Cultural relativism is lost to many, i feel

~~~
Nav_Panel
I've heard the current trend described as "relativistic across space,
absolutist across time".

EDIT: found the source
[https://twitter.com/roundsqrcupola/status/927331324574216193](https://twitter.com/roundsqrcupola/status/927331324574216193)

~~~
drharby
I have to steal that one - rings very true, i feel

------
bryanlarsen
Please read the conclusion of the article. According to the author, the
problem isn't the Atari culture of the 70's, it's the culture of _today_ that
celebrates perceived misogyny there instead of its inclusiveness.

"If it isn’t the women of Atari who paint a bad picture of Nolan Bushnell,
it’s the culture he created there that, decades later, has mushroomed into
something else. It’s a culture where bragging about “stacked” secretaries as
late as 2012 garnishes Atari’s mythos instead of muddying it. It’s a culture
where Carol Kantor’s groundbreaking research isn’t evoked as often as a hot
tub purchased to lure in new talent. It’s a culture that, today, celebrates
the sexiness of Atari’s early women employees more loudly than their
contributions. If it isn’t the women of Atari who paint a bad picture of Nolan
Bushnell, it is his braggadocio attitude, his carnival-barker hype with a
chauvinist tinge, that does."

~~~
ghostbrainalpha
Nolan Bushnell was forced out of Atari in 1978. How long should he be
responsible for their culture? Will we blame the White House culture's issues
on Barack Obama in 2056? This seems to be pushing it.

Also why does anyone care what the culture of Atari is today? Look at their
website [https://www.atari.com](https://www.atari.com) . They are NOT a force
in the gaming industry. No one looks to them to set expectations of behavior.
They basically only exist to port classic implementations of ancient games
onto new hardware. If there core offering is nostalgia, I wouldn't be
surprised if there office culture is a little behind the times.

This feels like the a take down piece on the shitty culture at my local
gamestop. It might not disagree that Atari culture sucks, but I don't
understand why anyone should care.

Disclaimer: Nolan Bushnell was briefly my neighbor. He was a super shitty
neighbor and his construction workers parked on my lawn. In case he reads
this... all the neighbors still don't like you 15 years later. Should I write
on article about it to expose him?

~~~
bryanlarsen
When I and the author are talking about the "culture of today", we're not
talking about Atari any more.

~~~
ghostbrainalpha
Ahhh.... understood.

I should probably delete my comment but I will let the dumbassary stand for
shaming purposes.

------
rhapsodic
I'm old enough to remember when self-described "liberals" used to say that
what went on between consenting adults was no one else's business.

~~~
gaius
Right. That's what disturbs me about this. Everyone is a product of their
time. Would the people applying 2018's standards today have applied 1968's
standards, if they'd happened to be born 50 years earlier? Would _they_ have
been homophobic, opposing interracial marriage, and all the rest? How will the
people of 2068 judge them?

~~~
rhapsodic
Imagine if it were Christian fundamentalists going after Bushnell for the
"hedonistic atmosphere of Atari's workplace and its corrupting influence on
young women." The fundies would be universally mocked (rightfully so) and
Bushnell would be hailed as a hero.

------
allthenews
The puritanical regression of modern "feminism" is laughably contradictory
with the roots of women's sexual liberation.

Brianna Wu, Anita Sarkeesian, and the like, have weponized victimhood into
lucrative careers. They embody everything wrong with the direction into which
modern feminism is morphing - this article, what transpired at google
recently, gamergate, all symptomatic of narcissistic, sociopathic women using
perceived, and in some cases invented, oppression and harassment, in order to
accumulate power and wealth.

For some reason, the tech industry seems to be particularly accommodating for
this toxic culture, and the spread of unnecessary guilt. These divisive
politics are infesting every facet of our first world culture.

We should not give these people attention. They damage the movement that they
claim to champion by behaving so irrationally, so viciously, so selfishly.

Dont believe me? Look up Anita's past as a literal con artist.

~~~
rhcom2
I've seen all those criticisms applied to every feminist, maybe even every
activist. This is just one long ad hominem attack on people whose views you
don't like.

~~~
allthenews
Perhaps what you are perceiving is backlash against a growing culture. These
"activists" behave fairly consistently, after all.

I'm not interested in making personal attacks. I'm only highlighting two of
the more prominent scammers that hide behind this facade of tolerance and
inclusiveness, a behavior which I find particularly abhorrent, especially when
combined with life ruinous doxxing and trial by twitter, which these women
specifically and hypocritically complain about.

There are two sides to every story, after all. It isn't fair to simply dismiss
any inconvenient argument as an ad hominem. Perhaps you should make an open
minded attempt to understand why there are millions of successful, rational,
adjusted people who feel as I do, but only in secret. Ask yourself, why is it
taboo to critically analyze anything associated with these women or modern
feminism?

~~~
rhcom2
I'm not dismissing your argument because of inconvenience, I am because there
isn't any actual criticism outside of name calling and opaque references to
alleged misdoings.

Name calling like "symptomatic of narcissistic, sociopathic women", claiming
they invented harassment for personal gain and calling one a "literal con
artist" (a person who isn't involved or mentioned at all in this article btw)
without explanation are all personal attacks.

And then you actually complain of "divisive politics"? Maybe consider taking
some of your own advice, and ask yourself why people might react negatively to
the things you write.

~~~
allthenews
What you are interpreting as personal attacks are only included to serve as
context. You only believe that I am slandering these people because you have
not been exposed the other side. Unfortunately, the only evidence one could
assemble would typically consist of twitter screencaps, discord discussions,
and some degree of testimony.

I have none assembled, and am not interested in searching reddit, for example,
which you could easily do yourself; But I encourage you to look into it,
because this is my highest rated comment on HN, suggesting that there is a
distinct population on this forum who share these views, but perhaps are
unwilling to express them publicly because of what has become a taboo.

~~~
rhcom2
Call it whatever you want, calling someone "narcissistic" and "sociopathic" is
a personal attack. Dropping allegations of being a con artist without any
explanation or reference is just an attack, not intelligent or interesting
criticism. And this is about person you just randomly brought into the
conversation, obviously with an axe to grind.

If you can't believe I hold my opinions honestly, not based on ignorance or
because I haven't "looked into it", then you are in an echo chamber of the
worst kind.

------
Gargoyle
"Over the last week, Kotaku interviewed 12 of Atari’s earliest female
employees, in the hopes of hearing their stories—good or bad—about working at
Atari in the ‘70s and early ‘80s. The culture they told us about was
certainly, as Playboy described it, one of “sex, drugs, and video games,” but
one in which all 12 employees say they freely participated, if they
participated at all. Many interviewees said it was the best job they ever had,
adding that news of Bushnell’s rescinded award struck them as shocking or
unfair."

~~~
danieltillett
I wonder what the activity that seems OK now will be seen as beyond the pale
in 20 to 30 years time. Tattoos are all that come to mind.

~~~
wlesieutre
Really? My perception is that it's going the other way; the people who care
whether someone else draws on their skin tend to be older generations on the
way out.

Could be a sampling bias, an old friend's sister is a tattoo artist in
Pittsburgh and I know numerous people with tattoos, but I don't see them going
anywhere. Quite the opposite, I think they'll become more common in more
segments of the population.

~~~
danieltillett
If you were to consider what was acceptable sexual activity in the 1970s and
1980s and the direction of the change you would not have predicted the current
thinking.

The important thing is not if tattoos will become unacceptable in the future,
but trying to think what might change. Porn is another one especially if the
pseudo-anonymity aspect is removed. I could certain imagine a future where
porn returns to the margins.

~~~
wlesieutre
Porn could work around that with mocap and CG, I hear they're a forward
thinking industry tech-wise. 3D rendered characters works better for VR
anyway!

I do see your point though. Guess we'll see!

