One person. They're obviously troubled. Are we really going to let the actions of one person change the frame of the whole discussion?
A game allowing you to beat up a woman is, I hope, repulsive to any HN reader. But its existence, especially when it's so easy these days, means nothing in and of itself. You could probably feed in any picture you like, man or woman. It's not a weighty factor in a discussion.
Did you see the other stuff on that page? There are a lot of violent and nasty things being directed at her, by (very likely) more than just one person.
> A game allowing you to beat up a woman is, I hope, repulsive to any HN reader. But its existence, especially when it's so easy these days, means nothing in and of itself.
I think it means a whole hell of a lot to a person who was targeted by it.
The purpose of the discussion, in my view, is not to pass judgement on whether the gaming community is good or bad, but to highlight the way that women are actually being treated, so that anyone with a sense of decency can be very clear that this behavior is not tolerated and shun/shame anyone who acts in this way. But I think that explaining it away as just the actions of one troubled person runs counter to this goal. Condemning it doesn't mean you're condemning yourself or your community, just the people who act in this way.
The game was made by one person, yes. But it's a little misleading to emphasize that this was "one person" when they were representative of the massive amounts of anti-feminist sentiment that was sent her way. If you look through the random sampling of comments her video garnered, it's hard to claim that the video game "changed the frame of the discussion" that was already well underway.
You aren't seeing a random sampling though, she deletes any comments that are critical of her work or her funding method. She only leaves comments that are supportive, and ones that are abusive trolling.
Not really, just first hand experience having her remove my post. You could consider the fact that there are no polite yet critical comments to her as evidence, but that could also be explained by there being absolutely no people who disagree with her and are polite.
I know it is not evidence. Which is why I said "not really". You are welcome to believe that there are no people in the world who disagree with her and are polite if you think that is a more likely explanation for the complete lack of polite criticism on channels she controls even though such polite criticism clearly does exist on channels she doesn't control. You are also welcome to believe that I posted a "hateful screed" and it was deleted, despite the obvious fact that she doesn't delete those, they are all still there to view right now, and she revels in them and uses them for publicity and sympathy.
I have tried to be polite, but you are being deliberately obtuse. Which part of "not really" is difficult to understand? I did not claim to have evidence, quite the contrary I told you clearly I do not have evidence. And I know you didn't say those things, but you would have to believe those things in order to explain the state of every communication channel she controls. Look up "implication" in the dictionary.
I am not trying to back up a claim for you. I do not care what you believe, you are not required to be rational. Believe whatever you like. But do try to at least be constructive if you wish to converse. Deliberately ignoring the words of the person you are responding to, and responding to the opposite of what they said is not productive.
You could simply show us what you wrote. More important than mere opinion on this forum is an actual contribution to the to the overall discussion. A claim without support is not a significant contribution.
Do you save a copy of every comment you write anywhere in case it is rejected by the moderator and then someone randomly insists you must be a liar? I'm not sure if that is common, but it hasn't been a habit of mine. And what exactly would that accomplish? Would you actually believe me that my post was not approved, or would you and the other troll insist that I am just making it all up? I don't have proof remember?
This entire thread of "prove the sky is blue" has not been a contribution to the discussion, your post included. So, why continue it? I simply pointed out that looking at the comments that were allowed through does not necessarily reflect on what comments were posted. This is incredibly obvious, and it is rather sad that "durrr prove it" is the level of hypocritical non-discourse here.
Anyone (yourself included) can look at how there is rational, polite criticism of her work on independent channels like twitter. And anyone (yourself included still) can look at how there is no such criticism on channels she controls. So painting the response to her work as being only trolling bullshit by pointing only at the channels that have been wiped of other responses is dishonest.
You could have said "I have no examples and didn't think to keep a copy of mine." Everyone would have realized you were basing your claim of censorship on circumstantial evidence and a lone anecdote. This whole subthread could have been avoided.
The kids on ebaum and 4chan love exploiting the mainstream worlds extreme sensitivity and political correctness with these "raids".
The fact that it was a post about misogyny that sparked it was probably just incidental. It's the fact that she demonstrated sensitivity to language and had an online presence made her the perfect target for such an attack.
Mainly because the most that these kids can do in a raid is posting offensive things on web sites.
I don't really believe this. I've seen too much of the average gamer's opinions on women; this shouldn't be dismissed as a bunch of 4channers being 4channers. There are deep problems in the community and they need to be acknowledged and fought.
If you want to see how pervasive the problem is, there's a subreddit called ShitRedditSays which records horrible (and highly upvoted) submissions and comments. This is a real problem with real attitudes.
Edit: Ah yes, I should have known that mentioning SRS would garner such a reaction... people really don't seem to like being called out on their crappiness.
Well, first of all it's frankly impossibly difficult to distinguish between people who genuinely believe in the things they're saying, people who don't but say these things out of a perception that they're acceptable, and people who don't but say them to get a reaction. Attempts at lumping all of those into a single group and one-dimensionally analyzing are doomed to failure.
Second, SRS is... well. SRS is actually kind of a good example of that problem: it started out as a bunch of guys parodying (among other things) stereotypes of radical feminism for the lulz, and then picked up some people who went along because they took the posts seriously and as a sign that it was OK, and also picked up some true believers. Now it's impossible to tell those groups apart, and it's mostly just as shitty as everything else these days.
"I'm not a violently hateful person but I act like one, and that's the joke" is not something that helps; it's something that makes problems worse. And I certainly "get it" enough to know that if I said that there I'd receive a response of "LOL TONE ARGUMENT BENNED!!!11one", which just kinda proves the point in my original comment, y'know?
In all seriousness, if people want to do good and fight evil, donate to/volunteer at a shelter. SRS is, at best, the equivalent of a yellow-ribbon bumper sticker, and accomplishes about as much as those do. And at its worst, it's people who either are in need of or are pretending to be in need of a whole lot of counseling.
Point is, sometimes you just wanna vent because no one understands you. SRS is exactly that place. It’s not for activism, it’s not for changing stuff, it’s for venting frustration and having fun with that.
The point of SRS is not to change the world, it’s to have a place where you can laugh at idiots and have no one spoil that fun. And that’s perfectly alright.
People go there to vent because no one in the larger community understands them. SRS is of course a place where they are understood.
It’s like a tumblr making fun of fundamentalist christian screeds. It’s not intended to convince any fundamentalists that they are wrong, but it’s a place to vent and laugh together with like-minded people.
If "no-one understands" a typical SRS'er, why do they have I-don't-even-know-how-many-now subreddits with healthy numbers?
If it exists solely for the purpose of venting (not a downvote brigade, wink wink, don't touch the poop!) and not for accomplishing anything else, then why do SRS'ers so often seem to be charging into other parts of reddit and getting into such dramatic arguments?
Finally, if you really just want a place to make fun of stupid crap? Try /r/worstof or /r/subredditdrama, both of which actually do that.
You're proving the parent's point. ShitRedditSays is a troll subreddit created by SomethingAwful forums. It's purpose is to parody the extreme outrage that occurs anytime something un-PC is said. The fact it has attracted some people who are actually serious is like how The Colbert Report has a conservative following.
Well, the obvious starting point is this SA Thread that directly led to the Reddit-embarassing that resulted in the dropping of the pedo boards. You may or may not be able to view it, but the short version is that they created a "Reddit bomb" and sent it to a number of news agencies. There is a followup thread which confirms that several goons were the some of the first SRS subreddit mods, but with the exception of the thread below, most Reddit threads end up getting shitcanned because of the eventual devolution of the thread. I'm hunting through the archives, but I'm unsure if the thread even exists anymore, as the search can't find it.
Edit: It doesn't exist in my post history anymore, so I'm pretty sure that entire thread was purged.
A humanitarian mission from the Something Awful forums to combat the omnipresent misogyny on reddit to follow up on the successful removal of child porn might be ironic, unprecedented and doomed to fail, but I don't see why it's necessarily in bad faith or "trolls"?
Just an aside, it wasn't child porn, but the collation of public photos of under-dressed minors. The witch-hunt associated was basically a witch-hunt against thoughtcrimes (the horror of someone wanking it to a minor), not against actual child abuse.
I feel this is important because I've used Reddit for years and I don't think it's fair to associate them with child porn, because they have never tolerated child porn.
Believe it, they brag about it. The whole thing was just some people using a bot to spam the same couple comments over and over. They did it because it gets a reaction. People who tried posting well thought out arguments as to why Anita is wrong had their comments removed. Any form of abusive crap was highlighted, as a means to extract further sympathy. So the 4chan crowd jumped on it and started spamming shit comments.
/r/SRS is a really bad example to bring up, given that 95%+ of the stuff they post is just hypersensitive whining about politically incorrect jokes or obvious trolling. Normal people don't care about politically incorrect jokes. The 5% that are actual bad posts are almost always in the negatives, not "highly upvoted".
First of all, your assertion that people should care about politically incorrect jokes is both baseless and irrelevant. Whether you think people should have a sense of humour or not is a matter of opinion, not fact. But I wasn't sharing an opinion on it, simply pointing out that the majority of people do not share the view of the hypersensitive whiners on SRS.
As for the content of that subreddit, go look for yourself. Current front page:
1. Obvious joke
2. Pretending it isn't possible for women to be privileged
3. Being offended at the notion that teenage girls are attractive
4. Obvious joke
5. Being angry at finding a woman attractive
6. Obvious joke
Looking at your posts in this thread, there's nothing I could possibly say that would change your mind on any of these points. All I can say is that third-wave feminism is valuable, and I hope you come to see its wisdom one day.
If you are convinced that I won't change my mind, why would you then try to take a parting shot at changing my mind? I hope you never have to grow up and meet the real world, and realize how trivial and pointless modern "feminism" is. I hope you can hang on to your naivety for as long as possible.
I don't have the ability to downvote, sorry to disappoint you. I know it can be hard to accept, but it is possible that I am not the only person who thinks your post was childish and condescending, and added nothing to the discussion.
> The fact that it was a post about misogyny that sparked it was probably just incidental. It's the fact that she demonstrated sensitivity to language and had an online presence made her the perfect target for such an attack.
Yes, I have some insight, I believe, into the responses she received. There is an internet culture which violates taboos and cultural sensitivities in the most shocking way possible. This culture is rooted in centers like 4chan, somethingawful, ebaumsworld, etc. It is very much "trolling".
The goal is to spark the outrage. Mission accomplished. It is a mistake to think that the ideas they express are deeply held. Rather than reflecting the personal beliefs of the troll, they are calculated to attack sensitivities. The exact nature of the sensitivity is a reflection of the victim and not the perpetrators.
This is explicitly not blaming the victim. The point is, it would be misleading to extrapolate a targeted campaign to make one person feel bad, in terms of that to which she is most sensitive, to society at large.
If she were a minority in some other respect, or had a physical disfigurement, or she had expressed some other sensitivity, it is my belief that the internet trolls would choose the most shocking violations of that other sensitivity to send her way. If I am correct, and you want to extrapolate this behavior to a larger society, focus on the aspect of "trolling" and not the specific manner in which this troll was executed. It's my belief that there is no there there.
I kind of expected someone to reply saying I was blaming the victim when I wrote that.
But if you read my comment, I'm just analyzing the motives of the raiders. The point being, it takes very little to spark them as we've seen this same type of thing happen a hundred times in the past over petty things.
I think dmix's point was just that it would be a mistake to assume that the root cause of the problem is rampant misogyny, because it's not. That's probably an issue as well, but it's not really fundamental to this attack - the real problem here is the general antisocial culture of some parts of the internet.
These people find pleasure in harassing people, pure and simple. The fact she's a woman doesn't matter much - it's just the particular flavor of the attack. They'd be just as happy to go after any other obviously sensitive group of people (race, religion, gender, sexuality, emotional teens on youtube, etc). Ultimately, if we want to address these attacks, then that's the problem that needs to be fixed.
I see what you're saying here, but I think you are exactly wrong. There are a large number of people who target others specifically because they are women, and I think it directly results in women being under-represented in some significant portions of the internet/tech world.
In my reading of your post the thesis seemed to be "no real problem here, just internet kids being internet kids".
I don't think it is helpful to gloss over the legitamately serious issue of outsized misogyny and threats against women with a presense on the internet. I think it is likely that this sort of behavior inhibits female contributors to open source software and the tech world.
I can see your point, but the sheer viciousness of the attacks in this case is beyond the pale.
I've seen 4chan trolling before, but this is a very different beast. 4chan tries to get your goat, and will resort to any level of childishness to do it. But it's all done in order to make the person look foolish and laugh at them. These attacks, on the other hand, were filled with bile and hate and uncontrolled rage. Death threats are no laughing matter.
Note that this is not necessarily the misogyny of the gaming community, but rather of the much wider demographic who encounter her writings. That is far more troubling.
It's rather interesting to note that as a society we have advanced enough to the point that we can donate the resources to support roughly 3 average size families for a year to a "pop culture critic" to study video games.
No condemnations or moral objections, just merely stating an interesting observation.
"It's rather interesting to note that as a society we have advanced enough to the point that we can donate the resources to support roughly 2 average size families for a year to a "game designer" to make a tabletop game about Lego robots."
Honestly, your scare quotes and italics kind of hurt your claim of "no condemnations or moral objections" and make your post come off as kind of judgmental.
 just guessing that $40k might be enough to support an "average sized" family depending on the part of the country
I was afraid those editorial annotations would get me in trouble with my neutral stance...
"Pop culture critic" is in quotes, as that is how the author describes herself in the kickstarter video. I italicized "video games" to emphasize the triviality of what is being studied, not to trivialize the actual study (Though you could argue that's still what I'm doing).
Social surplus. To put this in perspective, I believe there's a stat that the total number of man hours spent creating wikipedia is equivalent to a fraction of the time the US spends watching prime time television on an average weekday evening. (I think it's from a Clay Shirky essay.)
Why would you think that? We're talking about what Anita wanted money for. She wasn't asking for people to fund " the entire field of racial studies and gender/queer/men's gaze theory". She was asking for money to keep making the same videos she's already been making. And which you can view for yourself to see that calling them "rehashing tvtropes" is actually being pretty generous.
I find it humorous that someone claiming the throne of righteousness and correctness about rising above the evil men dominating the world of video games has reacted to criticism by posting a drawing branding men (and ONLY men) as "trolls" (accompanied with a 'hss' sound effect, even! ,) yet somehow has the unmitigated temerity to complain about sexism. Plank in your eye and all that.
Step back for a second. Your 'criticism' is extremely far fetched -- there's nothing whatsoever to indicate that the three trolls in the picture are supposed to symbolize men in general -- but somehow you did choose to go down that road of thought because you had a need to neutralize and downplay the issue here.
Where does that come from? A knee-jerk reaction to the concept of 'feminism'? A primitive tribal association with a gender?
There's a line between criticism and what happened to her. Are you seriously comparing a cartoon mocking non-specific trolls* to sustained abusive material (and doxing) aimed directly at an individual target?
*One of the trolls in that picture is most likely male, the others (smaller ones) are really non-descript and genderless. Are you sure this isn't just a case of you using "male" as the default gender for an androgynous picture?
Have you seen any of her work? She hardly preaches the "correctness about rising above evil men". In her existing Youtube videos, which talk about film and TV, she simply calls attention to potentially troubling aspects of the portrayal of women that are often ignored. I certainly don't agree with all of her criticisms, but she's not breathing fire. Her commentary is thoughtful enough to be part of a legitimate conversation.
While they are probably mostly male, they are certainly not 100% male, I know a woman who was part of the trolling effort. Also, we should look at the other side of the coin also. 90% of the people supporting her and funding her videos are male also.
Any call to end any kind of specific artistic expression is (rightly) going to be met with resistance and derision. Whether that be sex, swearing, misogyny, what have you.
Attacks are of course going too far, but not expecting some form of legitimate resistance is naive, at best. Combine that with the outrage the internet tends to generate, and this behavior, while reprehensible, shouldn't come as a surprise.
Morals never have, never do, and never will dictate art. The sooner people recognize that the answer to something offending your sensibilities is to move on from that particular thing, rather than writing screeds which will be ignored by the perpetrators at best and heckled at worst, the happier we'll all be.
Guess that's what I get for not reading the link. Site's being websense'd, so I can't actually see it. Thanks for the editorialized, BS headline, submitter > : (
Death threats and rape threats are not responses from being concerned about unfettered artistic expression. They're responses from people who hate women. Freedom of artistic expression is not a major part of the current online discussion being reported on.
It will probably just end up like her last Tropes vs Women series where she banned all movies and television and forcibly castrated every male director and screenwriter. How do we keep letting her get away with this stuff? /s
You're saying that any form of call to end a specific form of artistic expression is rightly going to be met with resistance and derision. Whether that be sex, swearing, misogyny what have you. Ok. Then let's push it a little further and imagine a video game scene where Blacks are almost always portrayed following certain negative tropes. Or Jews. Or imagine a video game scene where sex is always between adults and children. I'm not saying that when these sort of thing are occasionally present in a game, then we should freak out and ask for a ban of everything. But when a whole genre is dominated by something like that, when someone stand up and ask for change in the way "art" understand people most of times, I don't think it's right to enter in resistance mode being ridiculously outrageous about it, and violent.
Same applies for any form of art who's also a form of massively popular entertainment. Like movies. If women or blacks where always represented like dumbasses with big boobs or big dicks, even if it was art, a call for change would be welcome.
I think the reaction to Anita's Kickstarter campaign has gone WELL beyond resistance and derision, and into scary hostility. I don't get what motivates people to respond in this way—why does the accusation of misogyny in video games kick up a more vicious and hateful response than some many other topics? Is it just a defense mechanism of sorts?
If I had to guess, it's part defense mechanism, part exasperation. Defense mechanism because misogyny is a pretty insidious thing, and like racism, it's also percieved as harsh to accuse someone of it.
Exasperation, because, for me at least, you see more and more of the label being thrown around, and the response turns from "Hmm, this is a bad thing, good to know!", to "Jeez, I GET IT ALREADY. Sexism is bad! Enough!"
To use TVTropes terminology, anvils are falling from the sky like raindrops. One of my favorite webcomics, Sinfest (http://sinfest.net) has been beating this drum non stop for the past month or two.
It's a poor headline, the goal that's earned her all the hate is this:
"This video project will explore, analyze and deconstruct some of the most common tropes and stereotypes of female characters in games. The series will highlight the larger recurring patterns and conventions used within the gaming industry rather than just focusing on the worst offenders."
Her cause is different because her documentary wants to explore stereotypes of female characters in popular video games. It's not about how this leads to ... whatever you think she claims this to leads to.
The outcome of her exploration is 'expectable' because it's self-evident. I'm an avid gamer. To put it mildly, in comparison to video games, Isaac Asimov's portrayal of female characters had more depth, grace and truth in them.
Considering how abysmal Asimov was in this matter...
This is one of those situations where one should be very careful with concluding anything.
As I read and understood it the misogyny in effect is for instance female players being sent pictures of mens penises. Not that different from what we know from the chat roulette experiment.
Now that is obviously bad style but it's definitely not something that only exist in games and media and thus treating it as if it's something specific to media or games is probably what created the outcry (not defending it just explaining it). Try and go to a disco and see the hot ladies being hit on from all sides.
In some countries they suppress this behavior by forcing the women to wear vails so no one can see them and stoning them to death for adultery.
Whether receiving "dick shots" is the other side of men and woman having equal rights I am not sure, but calling an end to misogony is like calling and end men.
> Now that is obviously bad style but it's definitely not something that only exist in games and media and thus treating it as if it's something specific to media or games is probably what created the outcry (not defending it just explaining it).
Uh, this project has nothing to do with blaming sexism on media and games. The project was designed to be an examination of those areas and how they relate to sexism. If you are suggesting that examining an issue is just cause to harass someone, you are most certainly silencing those you disagree with.
> In some countries they suppress this behavior by forcing the women to wear vails so no one can see them and stoning them to death for adultery.
This is just straight up islamophobia. This whole situation indicates you don't need to look any farther than your own back yard to find people willing to attack, harass, and silence others.
> Whether receiving "dick shots" is the other side of men and woman having equal rights I am not sure, but calling an end to misogony is like calling and end men.
You can be a man and not be a misogynist. Heck, you can be female and be a misogynist. What you are saying is that you consider misogyny to be the norm and that we shouldn't change it nor discuss it. In other words, you yourself are admitting to being a misogynist and you have no problem with that.
I don't think this is necessarily a reflection of HN's biases.
Rather, there is simply little new to be said about this in a vacuum: yes, there is a problem with sexism and yes, the reaction to her project is disgusting (regardless of your stance on the issue) but all that is clear from the article. What more to say about it? I suppose people could offer sympathy--certainly a nice gesture--but not with much substance. Since she probably does not read HN, those types comments would not be very useful at all.
So most of the people agreeing with the article do not really have a good reason to post at the top level. On the other hand, they have plenty of reason to respond to other people. So the sympathetic posts are all framed as responses to others' comments largely because there isn't much to respond to in the article.
The trolls are why it was funded to 2600%. She didn't ignore them, she didn't delete their posts. She used them to drum up publicity and sympathy. She doesn't want to ignore them, they are her best ally. That's why the "after 4chan stopped trolling her, she got some people to keep reposting the troll comments anyways" conspiracy theory is so popular.
Are you seriously suggesting that someone who is the target of a campaign of harassment is "using" the aggressors as a way to boost their visibility? The reason why this project blew up is because other people saw what was happening and decided to donate to the Kickstarter project.
Further, these people are not anyone's ally, least of all the person who is being attacked. You are very deliberately saying that she deserves what she gets and that it is her fault that she is being attacked and doxed. This is 100% victim blaming and you yourself are not only siding with the mysoginistic aggressors, but being one.
>Are you seriously suggesting that someone who is the target of a campaign of harassment is "using" the aggressors as a way to boost their visibility?
Yes. And you agree in your next sentence, the reason it blew up is because of all the trolling.
>You are very deliberately saying that she deserves what she gets and that it is her fault that she is being attacked and doxed.
I said nothing of the sort, what on earth are you talking about? I said she doesn't ignore the trolls as the parent poster suggested, because the trolls are how she got so over funded, and how she is trying to further this event into a career. How exactly is "she is being smart and taking advantage of the trolls, so it is not in her best interests to ignore them" blaming her for being attacked? Glad you can tell I hate women from your imagined version of me saying things that don't even vaguely resemble anything I said though.
The fact that she approaches media outlets with the story? The fact that her funding didn't happen until she did this? The fact that she didn't delete the comments, or ignore the comments, but rather focused all of her efforts on talking about those comments? Even to the exclusion of talking about the actual project itself that she was trying to get funded.
Why do you seem to think it is some kind of sinister plot? If you were trying to get funding, and someone threw a golden opportunity to generate a ton more publicity and exposure into your lap, wouldn't you take advantage of it?
The question is: Why do YOU think it's some kind of plot?
If someone who is embarking on a project to expose and discuss misogyny suddenly finds themselves on the receiving end of vicious misogynous attacks, would it not make sense to bring that to the fore? After all, the sheer viciousness of the attacks only serves to prove that misogyny is alive and well, and most importantly, damaging.
Bringing inconvenient truths to light goes to the very heart of journalism.
So nothing should change ? And when asking to change how women are represented in TV ... what if they say : "Hey, women are portrayed in TV the same way and for the same reasons they are portrayed on video games and in magazines. This is ridiculous."
How did this story already get buried to the second page of HN, when there are half a dozen of stories with roughly the same age and votes in the first half of the first page? I can even see a 4h older post with the exact same number of votes, still in the first page. I don't like to be cynical but it's hard not to notice the exceptionally angry comments against this topic and the oddly low position of this thread.
full disclosure: i'm a kickstarter backer of this project, however...
the article title is exaggerated linkbait: Sarkeesian's project is a sociological exploration of the representation of women in video games, NOT a call to end videogame misogyny. while i'm sure that she'd like 'end video game misogyny', that's not the immediate point of this project
In a male dominated hobby (video games), calling out to have less female characters that are portrayed how men want them to be portrayed is of course going to be met with extreme resistance.
I find some of the attacks quite outrageous, but not surprising considering what people have done on the internet in the past. It is not like we force women who are offended by video game media and the community to play games. If they really dislike it and hate the community, just play single player games or don't play at all.
Just like Karunamon said, video games are a form of art. And if you tell somebody that they should do their art a certain way, you will not be looked kindly upon.
I find the more extreme reactions and death threats disappointing and sad, but do not feel a lot of sympathy for such a person.
>It is not like we force women who are offended by video game media and the community to play games. If they really dislike it and hate the community, just play single player games or don't play at all.
If just blows my mind that someone can harbor an opinion like this. Women playing games like Halo need to keep their gender a secret or risk being bombarded with constant threats of rape, being called a bitch or a cunt and then finding their inbox filled with pictures of dicks.
And you come in here protecting horrible men for acting in such cruel ways by telling the victims it is their fault for daring to step into a man's world?
How about telling the guys to stop being rude, cruel, vindictive and downright perverted?
Frankly I'm surprised you weren't too embarrassed to submit that post.
If history and religion are any evidence of this, telling people to not be aggressive and violent will literally get you nowhere. Either ignoring these people or making your own communities where such actions are not allowed is probably the only viable options.
"It is not like we force women who are offended by video game media and the community to play games. If they really dislike it and hate the community, just play single player games or don't play at all."
No, you don't force us to play games, thank you very much. Women gamers play games because they love them, despite their flaws. I will not be told that I should just 'play single player or don't play at all'. I want change. Just because these attacks from the gaming community are no surprise does not mean that that they are acceptable and should just be allowed to stay that way. Games and the gaming community are both rapidly evolving, and Sarkeesian's project is part of the conversation that promotes a change in both for the better.
Just because you want change doesn't mean you should expect to get it, and yes people have a right to freedom of speech, even the speech you disagree with. Be a grown up and deal with it, you don't get to ban what you don't like.
I don't think tiffchow said she expects to get the change she wants and I don't think Sarkeesian is presuming to tell game developers what they can or can't do. In both cases, I think these women are expressing their particular point of view in a responsible way (one by thoughtfully commenting on HN; the other by creating a series of videos analyzing the issue). In other words, they are both "being grown ups" and "dealing with it." The fact that Sarkeesian is being attacked for pointing a spotlight on what she perceives to be misogyny in the industry is both telling and hypocritical.
I am a male gamer who has been playing games for over two decades and even I feel estranged by a majority of the "AAA games" the industry is pumping out these days. My solution is simple: I don't buy them. That said, I admire those that are taking it even further and trying to start an intelligent conversation about how the gaming medium can mature. To try and stop that discussion and, by extension, stunt the growth of such an expressive medium is absurd to me.
Actually, she is dealing with it by speaking out for change.
People don't (at least, in a free society, shouldn't) get to ban what they don't like, but they can show the damage that certain attitudes cause. The responsible adults among us, including the members of the gaming community, will hopefully see the problem and join in the demand for change. If nothing else, capitalism will step in to help. If there is a market for enjoyable games that don't make the player feel sick to his stomach for the attitudes they portray, someone will step into the void and make games for that market.
However, I'd like to believe that as a society we're enlightened enough to realize when treating people a certain way is simply wrong.
Really? No sympathy? She expressed concern with a current aspect of society and has had her life turned upside down for her trouble. Everyone talks about how this isn't surprising, then makes the jump to it being okay. Stoning for adultery isn't "surprising" in some parts of the world; that doesn't make it okay.
I'm sure that's the case, but after spending a part of the weekend watching streams of EVO 2012 (world fighting game championships - probably one of the genres to be covered by the kickstarter project in question), I would say that the M:F ratio was probably more than 100:1.
For the record, I label myself male, and so do all of my female friends who play games. We all refuse to use our voices during gameplay. It's not limited to gaming, either. We've all got male-sounding handles for a number of platforms/forums/etc.
Why? Not worth the shitstorm. I'll never really understand, I guess. Just can't empathize with the overwhelming need to harass, belittle, and attack people online just because of a single identifier. I'm glad I can't. I bet it feels really empty.
Do you have a source for this number that accounts for women who have labelled themselves 'M' in order to avoid harassment? It's common among my friends to do so, which goes back to Anita's original point on misogyny having effects in games.
I haven't seen a study which addresses how many women do this, nor a clear breakdown on how many of them do it because they've experienced harassment or are just worried about it because of second-hand stories.
There is nothing wrong with calling out misogyny in media. Intense and reasonable criticism is part of every healthy society. You might have a point if she wanted to ban or censor games – but she does not.
Gamers and game developers don’t have a right to not be criticized.
Furthermore, games are a huge business and everyone is playing them. They are not some obscure thing that can be ignored. They are pretty central in our society, just ignoring them is not an option.
Like racist media before it, misogynist games will have to face the criticism.
If you mean take her serious or change their behaviour, then no, they don't have to. They don't even have to listen to her, for the same reason I don't listen to priests who tell me I go to hell for being a sinner.
If you mean they have to accept that she has the right to speak her mind, then yes, but so does does who disagree with her.
It is either freedom of speech or no freedom of speech.
There is nothing wrong with calling out misogyny in media.
There is also nothing wrong with people making fun of other people when they feel like it. It happens every day.
You might have a point if she wanted to ban or censor games – but she does not.
What was his point though? He said "I find the more extreme reactions and death threats disappointing and sad, but do not feel a lot of sympathy for such a person." Would you feel sympathy for someone who has studied poisonous snakes but then got hurt because they dove into a pile of them?
Gamers and game developers don’t have a right to not be criticized.
Neither does this woman.
Furthermore, games are a huge business and everyone is playing them. They are not some obscure thing that can be ignored. They are pretty central in our society, just ignoring them is not an option. Like racist media before it, misogynist games will have to face the criticism.
So what? You can't get away from Football, Baseball or Hockey either (well, maybe Hockey :) ... Plenty of women are into sports and don't have a big problem with the fact that all the players are men. They also don't have a problem with all of the misogynistic men who follow sports.
The problem that will never be solved is that someone will always get offended at something and I'd rather see people thicken up in order to deal with that instead of crying foul.
> There is also nothing wrong with people making fun of other people when they feel like it. It happens every day.
This incident went way beyond humor and ribbing, although I guess you find death threats and stalking hilarious.
> Neither does this woman.
There is a big difference for having some criticism about someone's points of view and engaging in a harassment campaign. That you equate the two is troubling.
> Plenty of women are into sports and don't have a big problem with the fact that all the players are men. They also don't have a problem with all of the misogynistic men who follow sports.
Women in sports is a huge issue and still is. There are also quite a lot of people who are troubled by the misogyny that permeates professional sports. Saying that these people don't exist just because you aren't paying attention is ridiculous.
> The problem that will never be solved is that someone will always get offended at something and I'd rather see people thicken up in order to deal with that instead of crying foul.
The best way to guarantee sexism is never addressed is to not talk about it. The Kickstarter project was about an examination of an issue, not a world-wide solution. That you make it about that is an attempt to move the goal posts.
This incident went way beyond humor and ribbing...
Actually, yes...death threats and stalking can be hilarious. It's completely subjective.
There is a big difference for having some criticism about someone's points of view and engaging in a harassment campaign. That you equate the two is troubling.
Once again...what one person calls harassment, another calls humor. Do you think the Internet should be patrolled by humor police?
Women in sports is a huge issue and still is. There are also quite a lot of people who are troubled by the misogyny that permeates professional sports.
Maybe it's an issue for you. Not for me or anyone else that I know. Honestly, I can't remember the last time I heard someone complained about that.
Furthermore, look in any direction...you can find people who are troubled by all sorts of things. Should everybody care about every single thing that a given group of people are troubled by? Should those troubled people be sheltered from humor if it offends them? Do you really, really want someone to police the internet or would you prefer freedom?
The best way to guarantee sexism is never addressed is to not talk about it. The Kickstarter project was about an examination of an issue, not a world-wide solution. That you make it about that is an attempt to move the goal posts.
I don't care about some Kickstarter project. I'm here to say that I like freedom of expression and I don't like it when people start saying there's some sort of big problem because someone else said some words that they got offended by. Boohoo! Death threats make me chuckle.
Ahem, who is talking about policing the internet? Making YouTube videos or blog posts about something you are critical of is not policing. It’s normal and healthy and if anything should be encouraged.
It is, in fact, what freedom of expression is all about. If you receive tons of awful threats and harassment you should be able to loudly talk about that and even describe it as a big problem. Because it is.
Misogyny in sports is also a problem that has to be called out. Why do you assume that it isn’t?
Sports are at least a bit more progressive in this respect that video games, though.
Also, the thing is that some of society’s behavior warrant change. That was and is the case with racism. That was and is the case with misogyny. Changing things means calling them out and protesting against them. Even if you might be able to ignore some of it instead if you really wanted to.
Your assumption is that misogyny in video games is as valid a viewpoint as being against that. That’s your judgement to make but don’t wonder when people say you are wrong.
I was convinced to become an atheist by people calling out other people. I was convinced to become a feminist by people calling out other people.
I know it’s an anecdote. I know from communication research that changes in opinion don’t really happen all that often in the real world, especially not in response to the media. But in the end I can say that I was personally changed by people calling out things.
I think it’s a valuable thing to do. The world would be a very sad place if it were impossible to change people with argument.
Why is this suddenly a big deal now? These "punch random annoying celebrity X" flash games have been around since the 90s. I don't see Justin Bieber desperately trying to drum up more media attention even though a dozen people have made the same game out of his face. But of course, it is a horrible crime to do it to a "feminist", that's totally different right?
Also, it is sad and ironic that losttrap (the guy who made the game) has gotten just as much abuse from the feminists as Anita got in the first place. They thought it was terrible when it happened to Anita, but are perfectly happy to do the same thing themselves. It is especially bad to see how much of their abuse has focused on his sexuality.
What do you mean it's a "big deal"? Is it a "big deal" because people are talking about it? Are you not cool with that?
Someone is doing a cultural study and is getting attacked for it. Some of us think that's worthy of our attention.
You've written 11% of the comments of this thread (13 comments out of 117), and they are mostly angry/poisonous. If you don't agree that this has importance, why don't you move somewhere else? You'd do a favor to this thread and trust me, yourself.
Yes, in this context a "big deal" refers to media coverage of a non-event. Are you not cool with that?
There is no cultural study involved here, someone is making a series of videos where she reads tvtropes pages. You are correct, she was attacked for it, but that's not what this article is about. This is about the "game" that was made of hitting her, which was not in response to her making videos, but rather a response to her (quite successful) attempts to portray everyone critical of her as a lunatic. The "if I am going to get accused of being crazy, I am going to act like" approach. Not a very effective approach I don't think, but characterizing it as an attack on her for doing a study is inaccurate.
None of my comments are angry or poisonous, one is frustrated with the strawman repeating troll. While you are counting and categorizing my comments in this thread, perhaps you noticed how many are responses to people directly asking me questions? If you want me to post less, why did you also directly ask me questions? Do you not want me to answer them?
I'm not sure why you are so upset that I don't share your opinion on something, so much so that you would like me to just go away so you aren't inconvenienced by my presence. But your arrogance and condescension is very impressive, I am pleased to know that you have my best interests at heart and know what is best for me. I will be sure to refrain from sharing my opinion in the future before consulting you on its correctness.
There is no cultural study involved here, someone is making a series of videos where she reads tvtropes pages.
That's what I meant. You clearly don't care about this study (yes, it's a cultural study) or about its author.
Beats me how someone who doesn't care about something can be so invested on it, and I usually don't try to give advice to strangers, thing is, I'm tired of seeing people like you hijacking debates about misogyny, by completely missing the point from the top of a pedestal of "I'm beyond all this" yet injecting negativity in the discussion with a disproportionate amount of energy.
Maybe I'm projecting a way too big and way too ugly pattern on you, which might be unfair. But then, tough luck man. You're all over this thread (17 comments, you must be going for the record) basically pounding the same key.
If you want me to post less, why did you also directly ask me questions?
You might find it liberating to not reply to every reply, even if they contain critiques and/or question marks.
>Beats me how someone who doesn't care about something can be so invested on it
Why do you think that because I don't find her as valuable as you do, that I have no interest in the reaction to the kickstarter, and the reaction to the "game" this article was about?
>Maybe I'm projecting a way too big and way too ugly pattern on you
It is interesting that you are aware of it, yet continue to do it. And again, hypocritically trying to shame me into silence because you don't like my opinion, while also being "all over this thread" saying the same thing. Oh no! Contrary opinions! Save me!
>You might find it liberating to not reply to every reply, even if they contain critiques and/or question marks.
I don't find conversation to be stressful or otherwise detrimental to my well being. It is actually quite a common phenomenon, and really nothing to be concerned about.
I didn't say it was a non-issue because it is commonplace. I simply pointed out that it is commonplace, and a non-issue. If it were not a non-issue, then there would be a shitstorm for the hundreds of other such games. Given that all the others are completely ignored, that by definition means it is a non-issue.
The target of the abusive game is making every effort to drum up more media attention and thus more money using this game. I have a hard time believing that she is asking people not to abuse him out of kindness, when the obvious ulterior motive ($$$) is present, given that she has demonstrated she is very willing to be deceptive to try to cash in.
I find it interesting that a feminist would rather invest her time studying social phenomenons involving videogames and legos in detriment of issues such as women being forced to marry their rapists or even killed because of them. Additionally, I'm not sure why she needs backing for this project. She clearly has a high quality camera and the means to produce high quality video footage, as presented in the kickstarter page.
Don't hold her up to a standard that even you can't live up to. I don't agree with a lot of her bullshit but she's onto something that needs to be talked about and discussed. Rather than asking "why doens't she do X instead of Y, Y is so much more important". Why don't YOU do X or Y? If we stand for internet freedom why aren't we all protesting or campaigning or working on an alliance instead of browing HN all day?