General Feminism and the Industry thread

[Second Coming of Madman]

Since the Quinn Kudzu strain has refused to die by immolation, I decided to make a general thread for discussion of the underlying issues involving women and gaming. You see, this is a problem endemic to geek culture as a whole.

Try to adhere to this set of guidelines. 
 

• Threats of any sort, by any party, are not to be tolerated.
• Please be civil.
• Madman reserves the right to add you to his shit list at any moment.
• Cheese-wasters will be shot on sight. In addition, any mention of the words "culture war" warrants use of up to .357 ammunition.

[Witchyjoshy]

The topic creator has already violated his first two rules by stating the last two rules.  That's a record time in hypocrisy.

Also, we now have a third topic about this debate.  Amazing.

[Cloud3514]

I'm tentatively on board with this thread so long as everyone agrees to not talk about a certain issue that spawned it after this post.

[Ultimate Paragon]

I think this is something that ought to be talked about.

[Eiki-mun]

Also, we now have a third topic about this debate.  Amazing.

The only real thoughts I have on this anymore. Dear god, when are you guys just going to stop and realize that you're not getting anywhere, and won't get anywhere? It's like watching a whole tribe of monkeys throw feces at each other, and they think they'll fix things by changing the place where they do it.

You're not going to come to an agreement, and you're just going to get more and more angry with every post. Stop it. Walk away, and don't bring up the issue again and again and again and again and again.

[Second Coming of Madman]

The topic creator has already violated his first two rules by stating the last two rules.  That's a record time in hypocrisy.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xECUrlnXCqk" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xECUrlnXCqk</a>

Also, we now have a third topic about this debate.  Amazing.

The kudzu is not to be discussed here. Apparently, there are no underlying issues to the kudzu in Magus's view. 

[Dakota Bob]

The topic creator has already violated his first two rules by stating the last two rules.  That's a record time in hypocrisy.

Also, we now have a third topic about this debate.  Amazing.

I dunno, judging by the post by OP I thought this thread was about the wider debate about Feminism and Gaming, and not just you-know-what, I'm sure you'd agree (as would pretty much everyone on this board) that there are problems that need addressing.

[Eiki-mun]

I dunno, judging by the post by OP I thought this thread was about the wider debate about Feminism and Gaming, and not just you-know-what, I'm sure you'd agree (as would pretty much everyone on this board) that there are problems that need addressing.

The problem is, after you-know-what, it's going to be months if not years before any such issues can be addressed without a massive amount of emotional charge on both sides.

[niam2023]

Well, to get this thread off on a better note than just blabbering about The Quinn, I noticed a few things in some Game Journalism Articles.

Namely, there's some railing in them against games wherein you play as the chosen one, or the person just generally selected to do something.

The articles also vomited up the same violence in vidya games thing, something conservatives have traditionally railed against.

Another thing that was brought up was this idea that games should make you solve your problems nonviolently because "it teaches an important lesson" and that apparently we should not want to immediately attack enemies. Maybe tied into the above violence in video games thing.

I am not exactly experienced in feminism, but the authors of these articles tried to sell these things off as "classical feminist thought", or something to that nature.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

When I look at three different targets of online rapey-threat outrage and try and take the least charitable view of the targets involved it still makes the people doing the rape threats look worse by comparison.

The least charitable view of what Rebecca Watson did is that she was whinging about first world problems, and then we have threats to rape and murder. The least charitable view of Sarkeesian is that she deliberately misconstrued video games to make them look bad, and then we have rape and murder threats. The least charitable view of Quinn is that she shagged some guys to advance her career, and then we have rape and murder threats.

I'm sorry but rape and murder threats are by far the shittier behavior every time! You don't have to be a "Sewecyal Jestice Wah Wah Wah" or whatever the poor, oppressed gamerbros threatened by Male Shepard being able to sleep with dudes or whatever are threatened by this week to be pissed off at that sort of shitty behavior. Threatening to rape and murder people because you don't like what someone says is stupid, infantile and pathetic-full stop.

[Sigmaleph]

When I look at three different targets of online rapey-threat outrage and try and take the least charitable view of the targets involved it still makes the people doing the rape threats look worse by comparison.

The least charitable view of what Rebecca Watson did is that she was whinging about first world problems, and then we have threats to rape and murder. The least charitable view of Sarkeesian is that she deliberately misconstrued video games to make them look bad, and then we have rape and murder threats. The least charitable view of Quinn is that she shagged some guys to advance her career, and then we have rape and murder threats.

I'm sorry but rape and murder threats are by far the shittier behavior every time! You don't have to be a "Sewecyal Jestice Wah Wah Wah" or whatever the poor, oppressed gamerbros threatened by Male Shepard being able to sleep with dudes or whatever are threatened by this week to be pissed off at that sort of shitty behavior. Threatening to rape and murder people because you don't like what someone says is stupid, infantile and pathetic-full stop.

Sure, agreed. Sending rape and death threats makes you scum. I don't think that's a controversial point.

But, and correct me if I'm wrong, it sounds like you're implying that there are two sides, one of which has sent death threats and so loses the debate by default. That doesn't work, because as it turns out both sides have pieces of shit who do horrible things. You don't get to judge a group's argument by the moral character of its worst members.

[I am lizard]

Well, to get this thread off on a better note than just blabbering about The Quinn, I noticed a few things in some Game Journalism Articles.

Namely, there's some railing in them against games wherein you play as the chosen one, or the person just generally selected to do something.

The articles also vomited up the same violence in vidya games thing, something conservatives have traditionally railed against.

Another thing that was brought up was this idea that games should make you solve your problems nonviolently because "it teaches an important lesson" and that apparently we should not want to immediately attack enemies. Maybe tied into the above violence in video games thing.

I am not exactly experienced in feminism, but the authors of these articles tried to sell these things off as "classical feminist thought", or something to that nature.

Well, to be fair, violence in vidya games can subtract from the gameplay at a certain point (Bioshock infinite) or just glorify murica (Call of battle honor), and the Chosen one thing has been done to fucking death.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

When I look at three different targets of online rapey-threat outrage and try and take the least charitable view of the targets involved it still makes the people doing the rape threats look worse by comparison.

The least charitable view of what Rebecca Watson did is that she was whinging about first world problems, and then we have threats to rape and murder. The least charitable view of Sarkeesian is that she deliberately misconstrued video games to make them look bad, and then we have rape and murder threats. The least charitable view of Quinn is that she shagged some guys to advance her career, and then we have rape and murder threats.

I'm sorry but rape and murder threats are by far the shittier behavior every time! You don't have to be a "Sewecyal Jestice Wah Wah Wah" or whatever the poor, oppressed gamerbros threatened by Male Shepard being able to sleep with dudes or whatever are threatened by this week to be pissed off at that sort of shitty behavior. Threatening to rape and murder people because you don't like what someone says is stupid, infantile and pathetic-full stop.

Sure, agreed. Sending rape and death threats makes you scum. I don't think that's a controversial point.

But, and correct me if I'm wrong, it sounds like you're implying that there are two sides, one of which has sent death threats and so loses the debate by default. That doesn't work, because as it turns out both sides have pieces of shit who do horrible things. You don't get to judge a group's argument by the moral character of its worst members.

Yeah. You can say both sides are shitty and use that as a reason to stand on the sidelines. You can also judge the actors on their motives as well as their actions and the motivation behind the Gamergate was to attack a woman for being slutty. That's shitty from the get go, I absolutely get to be critical of them doing that. I also get to be more critical when individual actors move beyond hatred and proceed to stalking and intimidation. The same goes for the Slymepit, its very existance is predicated on hating feminists and progressives in atheism and skepticism, it's vile from the start regardless of what its members do later. Ditto the groups of people on 4chan who decided to "go blackhat" on Quinn.

Sure, you can absolutely be a dickwad to members of the above groups and merely being members doesn't excuse bad behavior from them but one "side" in this debate still has its origins and impetus in bullying and discrimination. That doesn't mean that they lose their rights as human beings but it absolutely gives me the right to say they are worse than their critics. Some of their critics are stupid people sure, but disgust at a whole movement forged to bully and intimidate is innately more noble than the movement in question!

[Ultimate Paragon]

When I look at three different targets of online rapey-threat outrage and try and take the least charitable view of the targets involved it still makes the people doing the rape threats look worse by comparison.

The least charitable view of what Rebecca Watson did is that she was whinging about first world problems, and then we have threats to rape and murder. The least charitable view of Sarkeesian is that she deliberately misconstrued video games to make them look bad, and then we have rape and murder threats. The least charitable view of Quinn is that she shagged some guys to advance her career, and then we have rape and murder threats.

I'm sorry but rape and murder threats are by far the shittier behavior every time! You don't have to be a "Sewecyal Jestice Wah Wah Wah" or whatever the poor, oppressed gamerbros threatened by Male Shepard being able to sleep with dudes or whatever are threatened by this week to be pissed off at that sort of shitty behavior. Threatening to rape and murder people because you don't like what someone says is stupid, infantile and pathetic-full stop.

Sure, agreed. Sending rape and death threats makes you scum. I don't think that's a controversial point.

But, and correct me if I'm wrong, it sounds like you're implying that there are two sides, one of which has sent death threats and so loses the debate by default. That doesn't work, because as it turns out both sides have pieces of shit who do horrible things. You don't get to judge a group's argument by the moral character of its worst members.

Yeah. You can say both sides are shitty and use that as a reason to stand on the sidelines. You can also judge the actors on their motives as well as their actions and the motivation behind the Gamergate was to attack a woman for being slutty. That's shitty from the get go, I absolutely get to be critical of them doing that. I also get to be more critical when individual actors move beyond hatred and proceed to stalking and intimidation. The same goes for the Slymepit, its very existance is predicated on hating feminists and progressives in atheism and skepticism, it's vile from the start regardless of what its members do later. Ditto the groups of people on 4chan who decided to "go blackhat" on Quinn.

Sure, you can absolutely be a dickwad to members of the above groups and merely being members doesn't excuse bad behavior from them but one "side" in this debate still has its origins and impetus in bullying and discrimination. That doesn't mean that they lose their rights as human beings but it absolutely gives me the right to say they are worse than their critics. Some of their critics are stupid people sure, but disgust at a whole movement forged to bully and intimidate is innately more noble than the movement in question!

The stuff about Zoe Quinn wasn't simply slut-shaming, no matter how much certain individuals want that to be true.  Sure, there were some misogynists who were irrationally angry about her sex life, but that was nothing more than assholes being assholes.  The main problem is that it was a breach of journalistic integrity.

Oh, and Madman specifically said that "the kudzu" wasn't allowed here.

But from what I've read about Slymepit, I have to agree with you there.

[Eiki-mun]

The problem is, after you-know-what, it's going to be months if not years before any such issues can be addressed without a massive amount of emotional charge on both sides.

I love how this thread is just post after post of me being proven right.