I need feminism because...

meeeeh

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Yeah a wee bit dramatic alright. But then, when you feel isolated in the way she describes, IME it's easy to get all wound up about simple things.

Her point about being treated differently to a man in her position stands though, I think.

I don't know, my partner and I are not overly involved with local community (he is local) and we are both equally ignored. Considering he calls them the web feet brigade it might be for the best.

Edit: I am not dismissing her experience but I think there are so many different politics around the school gates, that it is very hard to generalize. What I find it interesting is how much at pain she is to point out that she doesn't miss any school events and takes holidays when they are on holidays. Men don't feel that kind of guilt in general. My partner might miss something from kids life but his reply would be that things had to be done. And I think there is a pressure that society puts on working mothers. Besides being good at work they have to be great mothers too. The thing is kids need only one parent to be there for them when needed and it can just as easily be their father.

Das Kitty

Well as someone who joined the parents association this past month and left the first meeting feeling like I wasn't wanted there due to my lack of daytime availability (in spite of plenty going on in the evenings), I don't think the letter writer is too far off the mark.

The look on the chair person's face when I declined one thing due to my working in the daytime.

I was ignored by the meeting chairperson, not invited to introduce myself, and yesterday they rearranged a meeting planned for today, giving an hour's notice because "that suited most members". I wasn't even asked.

Anyway, perhaps it's not all to do with my family's working arrangements. But there is definitely an element. My husband has been told by some of the same people that he's great for doing the school drop of and pick up. Somehow I don't think very many mothers are praised for doing the same thing!

ancapailldorcha

jaja321 wrote: »

Yeah, surely investing in family friendly work policies and childcare might be a better idea.

These'd constitute workers' rights and we can't be having too many of them unfortunately. They'll probably hope these women just forget about them.

iwantmydinner

Das Kitty wrote: »

Well as someone who joined the parents association this past month and left the first meeting feeling like I wasn't wanted there due to my lack of daytime availability (in spite of plenty going on in the evenings), I don't think the letter writer is too far off the mark.

The look on the chair person's face when I declined one thing due to my working in the daytime.

I was ignored by the meeting chairperson, not invited to introduce myself, and yesterday they rearranged a meeting planned for today, giving an hour's notice because "that suited most members". I wasn't even asked.

Anyway, perhaps it's not all to do with my family's working arrangements. But there is definitely an element. My husband has been told by some of the same people that he's great for doing the school drop of and pick up. Somehow I don't think very many mothers are praised for doing the same thing!

That's pretty grim, that attitude towards women who work outside the home. Bloody hell.

Morag

Because gamergate

allym

Morag wrote: »

Because gamergate

The more I read about this whole thing, the more of a feminist I become.

While I understand that being impartial is important in journalism, we all know that's not what this is about. It's just a convenient excuse for these sad, vile people.

Links234

Morag wrote: »

Because gamergate

https://twitter.com/TheSquink/status/522215273915371520

fits

I'm lost, what's this about?

Links234

fits wrote: »

I'm lost, what's this about?

Integrity in journalism, apparently.

Links234

Ok, serious answer.

1. Game developer Zoe Quinn makes a game
2. Ex-boyfriend claims she slept with a journalist from Kotaku for positive review of said game
2. Some people explode with rage over this, call it "GamerGate" and pretend it's actually something worth getting annoyed about

Morag

There have been some women speaking out both game creators and critiques about sexism and sexual objectification in games and in the gaming industry. No one is perfect, I don't agree with all the points these women have raised but as the indie games section of the industry is pretty small it turns out one of them had been in a sexual relationship with someone who wrote good reviews of stuff she worked on and certain parts of the internet went bananas, having found something to discredit her with.

Herself and two other women have had heaps of vile online abuse across several platforms and all have had death threat's which saw them have to leave their homes on police recommendation.

One of the women was due to give a talk at a University in the USA and had to cancel due to very specific threats to shoot her and others on campus.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58521856-78/video-sarkeesian-feminist-lecture.html.csp

Yes the links, relationship and bias which goes on between creatives and journalists does need looking at but, that does in no way validate the vile torrents of abuse these women have been target with.

Morag

Links234 wrote: »

Integrity in journalism, apparently.

LOL

Delirium

Links234 wrote: »

Ok, serious answer.

1. Game developer Zoe Quinn makes a game
2. Ex-boyfriend claims she slept with a journalist from Kotaku for positive review of said game
2. Some people explode with rage over this, call it "GamerGate" and pretend it's actually something worth getting annoyed about

If it's about journalistic integrity, why aren't they targetting the journalist?

Not suggesting anyone deserves death threats etc. btw.

Links234

SW wrote: »

If it's about journalistic integrity, why aren't they targetting the journalist?

Not suggesting anyone deserves death threats etc. btw.

Exactly! ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Those people are saying it's about ethics and integrity, but it's all really just a sad excuse for misogyny and hatred of women. If they gave one ounce of a **** about that, the ire would indeed be targetted towards jourlists themselves, instead of threatening to kill women and shoot up schools.

Wibbs

Morag wrote: »

LOL

LOL Morag? I had tea fly out my nose and the ears were a close run thing. :pac:

SW wrote: »

If it's about journalistic integrity, why aren't they targetting the journalist?

Exactly SW, nail on the bloody head. Having read in passing of this particular case(Z Quinn), it seems pretty damned clear there was all sorts of shenanigans going on all the way down the line. Yep it looks very strongly like she was pulling all sorts of BS with the real sniff of casting couch going both ways. It all got a little bit incestuous and tangled.

However and it's a bloody big however, she was being enabled all over the place, she was in no way a singular agent. There were more men involved in this. OK let's just say for the sake of argument that she shagged her game into the world and shagged the publicity and support with it. A shagger needs a shaggee. In this case apparently several shaggees/men. If the men involved had any issue with the "morality" of the whole thing, they could have said at any time "eh...no, your game is crap and a bit of attention from you won't change my opinion". It seems they failed at that hurdle. If the reported facts are close to true it's the men involved who are the sad bastards and the ones responsible for what followed.

Yet the ire has been reserved just for her. Especially the heavy duty stuff, including saddo keyboard warrior nonsense and lunatic threats of harm. That's well out of order and daft with it.

My personal angle on if and when I smell BS, is to see it and call it and if there are two or more people involved I'm not excluding anyone, much less specifically targeting someone on the basis of their gender, or whatever else is on your agenda. That's not close to looking for any truth behind the BS and anyone who does that has a horse running in a very different race and a clear bias against who they're including and/or excluding.

Basically if say ten people are involved in something that appears dubious and you only target one of the ten because of gender/race/religion/etc? Then GTFO. You're extracting the urine if you think that the "something" is the real issue in your head.

Shakespeare's Sister

Links234 wrote: »

misogyny and hatred of women.

Totally feels like it's on the rise online, including in unisex spaces where both genders are supposed to be welcome. Like, I completely get criticism of radical feminism and obviously of misandry, but you can see clearly that sometimes the above are used as a stick to beat all women with, and some of the blatant misogyny isn't hidden at all.
In the west, there are still concerns for women - we have it infinitely better than women elsewhere in the world, and in some contexts we are at more of an advantage than men are, but women's rights is still a concern at times here, and whether people like it or not, that's a large part of what feminism is. It's dismaying that some want the whole lot of it obliterated.

I find it utterly scary really. It's so soul-destroying to read this hatred and application of the behaviour of some women to all women, and what's even worse... it feels pointless to bother trying flagging it anymore... :-/

Links234

I think this is why I'm hesitent to be part of any kind of gamer community or anything, I don't particularly want to open myself up to that kind of hostility, and it's probably a good part of the reason why I've been predominantly been playing singleplayer games (I do seriously enjoy good story-driven games), though lately I've been playing Payday 2 a lot which is multiplayer, whereas I've been put off from other games before.

But also it's probably why I've been happy to dive headfirst into anime fandom
It's kind of interesting that you've got this even nerdier, even more niche type of fandom, yet they've no real problems taking on board criticism of anime. I mean, you know there's this #educateanime thing going on now, there is criticism of fanservice and depiction of women, but you don't see people threatening to kill anyone because of it. Maybe it's because anime generally has a bigger female fanbase, often has much better depictions of women, and there's plenty of articles out there written from a feminist point of view about how Ghibli movies are far better for young girls than Disney, etc. Not to say there aren't problems, because hell yeah there are, but it's interesting how anime fans seem to have a much more mature approach to criticism? Maybe it's because they're all too used to people going "Anime? WTF is that? Is that that cartoon porn!?" and having to explain things

plus with anime fandom, you'll have guys who'll pull **** like this: http://i.imgur.com/gLcdzen.jpg or this: http://instagram.com/p/uCiqNPCXBY/

eviltwin

I'm old enough to remember the hoo-ha when it was revealed that Samus Aran from some game was actually a woman. There were guys I knew who wouldn't play that game anymore because of it. I thought things had progressed a little since then, obviously we still have a way to go

Shakespeare's Sister

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

Totally feels like it's on the rise online, including in unisex spaces where both genders are supposed to be welcome.

'Welcome' is a word I'm not feeling in a lot of online spaces recently, and I'm just too tired of it all to even bother caring anymore. There are places online where my heart just sinks when I look at page after page of thinly veiled excuses to stick the knife in all women under the guise of concern for men.

There's so much hostility around that female contributors are almost certainly going to decline, nobody wants to go where they're thought so little of, if not treated with outright hostility and suspicion and on occasion, naked hatred.

Rosy Posy

Candie wrote: »

'Welcome' is a word I'm not feeling in a lot of online spaces recently, and I'm just too tired of it all to even bother caring anymore. There are places online where my heart just sinks when I look at page after page of thinly veiled excuses to stick the knife in all women under the guise of concern for men.

There's so much hostility around that female contributors are almost certainly going to decline, nobody wants to go where they're thought so little of, if not treated with outright hostility and suspicion and on occasion, naked hatred.

I feel the same. I see so many things online that I just sigh and pass by where as before I would have jumped in. I'm just too used to being shouted down and that's scary.

A really good read that is still relevant today is Susan Faludi's Backlash: the undeclared war against women. It covers a really broad range of topics but many of the points she makes can be applied to the internet. It's so dangerous to sit back and think that equality has been won and to classify feminists as shrieking shrews. I think that a lot of men are seriously threatened by the changing status quo and fear that they won't measure up on an equal playing field.

NI24

Rosy Posy wrote: »

I think that a lot of men are seriously threatened by the changing status quo and fear that they won't measure up on an equal playing field.

Oooooooh, this, this, and this x10. Some men will write off all women just because they don't have the upperhand in all facets of life (as men did in years gone by), but, usually, I have found this group of men to be specific to the internet. Or is it that men would never say these things aloud for fear of retribution? Guess we'll never know.

KomradeBishop

On GamerGate: Was reading up on that yesterday, and the whole thing kicked off over nothing as well, as the accusation that started it - Zoe Quinn sleeping with someone at Kotaku, for a favourable review - the person she slept with never wrote anything about her game, he wrote about a failed reality tv show she as in:
http://kotaku.com/in-recent-days-ive-been-asked-several-times-about-a-pos-1624707346

That Backlash book is interesting - I'm really suspicious as to what the motives would be behind these large backlashes against feminism/women in general, and why extremists are getting promoted on both sides, especially in the media.
'Cui bono' - who benefits? I'm sure many of the people involved are just bitter/deluded misogynists, but I find it hard to believe it's as simple as that, especially because there are some organizations with shady funding, promoting the manufacturing of dubious views/statistics to support each side, who definitely would not have misogyny as a motive - makes me cynical, doesn't smell right.

constance tench

Rosy Posy wrote: »

I feel the same. I see so many things online that I just sigh and pass by where as before I would have jumped in. I'm just too used to being shouted down and that's scary.

A really good read that is still relevant today is Susan Faludi's Backlash: the undeclared war against women. It covers a really broad range of topics but many of the points she makes can be applied to the internet. It's so dangerous to sit back and think that equality has been won and to classify feminists as shrieking shrews. I think that a lot of men are seriously threatened by the changing status quo and fear that they won't measure up on an equal playing field.

Are you sure that's the title of the book?

Delirium

constance tench wrote: »

Are you sure that's the title of the book?

According to her website the title is, Backlash: the undeclared war against American women

ancapailldorcha

I wish I'd not googled "Gamergate". Any serious gamer knows that games media is nowhere near trustworthy, even by journalistic "standards".

Rosy Posy

constance tench wrote: »

Are you sure that's the title of the book?

SW wrote: »

According to her website the title is, Backlash: the undeclared war against American women

This is the copy I have (my mam's!).

ancapailldorcha

Candie wrote: »

'Welcome' is a word I'm not feeling in a lot of online spaces recently, and I'm just too tired of it all to even bother caring anymore. There are places online where my heart just sinks when I look at page after page of thinly veiled excuses to stick the knife in all women under the guise of concern for men.

There's so much hostility around that female contributors are almost certainly going to decline, nobody wants to go where they're thought so little of, if not treated with outright hostility and suspicion and on occasion, naked hatred.

I've noticed that a lot of the Men's Rights stuff seems more concerned with attacking feminism that actually helping men which makes little sense to me.

That carry on with Anita Sarkeesian and similar nonsense almost makes me ashamed to be a gamer. What should have been a catalyst for change and diversity ended up as a tirade of misogyny.

IvyTheTerrible

I can't find a link in English to this story, but there was a politician in France who got convicted a couple of years ago for sexual harassment of someone working in his office.

He actually got the law changed (because supposedly the legislation was "too vague"), so now the harassment has to be more serious to result in prosecution, and even worse, his conviction has been overturned. And it's likely that other convictions under the old law will also be overturned as a result.

iwantmydinner

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I've noticed that a lot of the Men's Rights stuff seems more concerned with attacking feminism that actually helping men which makes little sense to me.

+1

Rosy Posy

Rosy Posy wrote: »

I feel the same. I see so many things online that I just sigh and pass by where as before I would have jumped in. I'm just too used to being shouted down and that's scary.

It's certainly the case that threads (in various online locations) about feminism wind up being dominated by posters aggressively asserting that women don't need it at all, and those who say they do are extremists actively involved in founding the First Feminist Reich. No middle ground. Extreme nutjobs are simply referred to as 'The Feminists', and the rape apologist founder of AVFM is lauded as a figurehead for mens rights.

The sad thing about being shouted down (or just refusing to engage and leave yourself open to the kind of evisceration I've seen happen to some posters), is that the die-hards wind up talking around in circles and normalising these attitudes to each other. And you see more and more joining in, even people you may had some regard for. It's insidious.

jaja321

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I've noticed that a lot of the Men's Rights stuff seems more concerned with attacking feminism that actually helping men which makes little sense to me.

Couldn't agree more. The lack of concern over gay men's rights highlights this I think.

ancapailldorcha

Candie wrote: »

It's certainly the case that threads (in various online locations) about feminism wind up being dominated by posters aggressively asserting that women don't need it at all, and those who say they do are extremists actively involved in founding the First Feminist Reich. No middle ground. Extreme nutjobs are simply referred to as 'The Feminists', and the rape apologist founder of AVFM is lauded as a figurehead for mens rights..

I think that this is a key flaw of approaching these problems from only one angle. Say we talk about fathers' rights. This creates the implication that women have it rosy when it comes to childcare. I'm not expert but I think I can safely assert that they don't. Same principle with the objectification of women in advertising and so on. Men are as well though to nowhere near the same degree. I peruse this and other TLL threads from time to time to try and build a more comprehensive understanding of gender issues from both sides of the fence.

KomradeBishop

Candie wrote: »

It's certainly the case that threads (in various online locations) about feminism wind up being dominated by posters aggressively asserting that women don't need it at all, and those who say they do are extremists actively involved in founding the First Feminist Reich. No middle ground. Extreme nutjobs are simply referred to as 'The Feminists', and the rape apologist founder of AVFM is lauded as a figurehead for mens rights.

The sad thing about being shouted down (or just refusing to engage and leave yourself open to the kind of evisceration I've seen happen to some posters), is that the die-hards wind up talking around in circles and normalising these attitudes to each other. And you see more and more joining in, even people you may had some regard for. It's insidious.

One criticism I'm finding it hard to counter though, is the one suggesting that feminists don't speak out against the extremists - I've been trying to find a good example to counter that generalization (since, with generalizations, you only need one exception, no matter how small, to disprove it), but it's actually hard to find such a good example.

I know it's easy to say that feminists shouldn't be required to do that, but there still need to be good examples of it happening, because it's a credible narrative for pouring doubt on feminism.

KomradeBishop

KomradeBishop wrote: »

One criticism I'm finding it hard to counter though, is the one suggesting that feminists don't speak out against the extremists - I've been trying to find a good example to counter that generalization (since, with generalizations, you only need one exception, no matter how small, to disprove it), but it's actually hard to find such a good example.

I know it's easy to say that feminists shouldn't be required to do that, but there still need to be good examples of it happening, because it's a credible narrative for pouring doubt on feminism.

Yet if I asked why MRAs don't speak against AVFM's rape apologist and misogynistic stances, they would ask me why they should defend themselves against someone elses attitudes, since they're not responsible for other people's hate speech and rape apologists have nothing to do with them.

I don't need to counter anything that I'm not a part of either, and I won't be made feel as though I have to form an opinion on attitudes that have nothing to do with me, and provide an audible counter for them. I'm not a mouthpiece for moderate feminists any more than the extremists are a mouthpiece for me.

I'll just continue my life, not hating anyone and getting along with men just fine in the comfortable belief that we're all equal and all want the best for each other for the most part.

ancapailldorcha

Candie wrote: »

Yet if I asked why MRAs don't speak against AVFM's rape apologist and misogynistic stances, they would ask me why they should defend themselves against someone elses attitudes, since they're not responsible for other people's hate speech and rape apologists have nothing to do with them.

I don't need to counter anything that I'm not a part of either, and I won't be made feel as though I have to form an opinion on attitudes that have nothing to do with me, and provide an audible counter for them. I'm not a mouthpiece for moderate feminists any more than the extremists are a mouthpiece for me.

I'll just continue my life, not hating anyone and getting along with men just fine in the comfortable belief that we're all equal and all want the best for each other for the most part.

The thing is that people like Una Mullaly and Jessica Valenti are given voices by popular newspapers. AVFM, on the other hand is a website most people don't know even exists so it's not quite a fair comparison.

Unfortunately, people tend to subconsciously assume that sole individuals represent whole groups. I knew one girl who held quite a few anti-male beliefs as her father had repeatedly and severely injured her mother on several occasions.

KomradeBishop

Candie wrote: »

Yet if I asked why MRAs don't speak against AVFM's rape apologist and misogynistic stances, they would ask me why they should defend themselves against someone elses attitudes, since they're not responsible for other people's hate speech and rape apologists have nothing to do with them.

I don't need to counter anything that I'm not a part of either, and I won't be made feel as though I have to form an opinion on attitudes that have nothing to do with me, and provide an audible counter for them. I'm not a mouthpiece for moderate feminists any more than the extremists are a mouthpiece for me.

I'll just continue my life, not hating anyone and getting along with men just fine in the comfortable belief that we're all equal and all want the best for each other for the most part.

I don't know enough about the mens rights movement, to know if they are self-critical or not really (same with feminist movement) - that would be the same accusation/generalization, but put the other way around.

Even though people aren't obliged to counter something they are not a part of, the problem is, is that it's a useful narrative for pouring doubt on feminism - which makes it hard to ignore.

Carlos Orange

KomradeBishop wrote: »

(since, with generalizations, you only need one exception, no matter how small, to disprove it)

I don't think that is true. Generalisations by their nature don't apply 100%. Saying it is cold in December isn't disproven by one warm day.

constance tench

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I've noticed that a lot of the Men's Rights stuff seems more concerned with attacking feminism that actually helping men which makes little sense to me.

It might have something to do with the denial by some feminists [over the years] that males can be victims of serious domestic assault.

Statistics need to be presented in an unbiased fashion, feminists who intentionally [or unintentionally] skew facts need to be called on it by other feminists without fear of retribution...this, I believe will set the movement back on track and return some of its credibility.

Another problem I see for the movement is that it has become so diluted
that there is not longer a clear definition of what feminism is:

1 Liberal
2 Anarchist
3 Socialist and Marxist
4 Radical
5 Cultural
6 Separatist and lesbian
7 Black and womanist
8 Chicana
9 Asian American
10 Native American
11 Multiracial
12 Postcolonial
13 Third-world
14 Standpoint
15 Libertarian
16 Post-structural
17 Postmodern
18 French
19 Environmental
20 Transfeminism

Could we have North-side/South-side feminism also?

KomradeBishop

psinno wrote: »

I don't think that is true. Generalisations by their nature don't apply 100%. Saying it is cold in December isn't disproven by one warm day.

I guess it depends on the type of generalization - for a sweeping generalization which tries to apply a principle to all of a group, it's true (that would be disproven) - but for a generalization which just tries to apply to the majority, it does not disprove the generalization, but it does remove the credibility of the generalization, and increases the burden of proof needed to back it.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The thing is that people like Una Mullaly and Jessica Valenti are given voices by popular newspapers. AVFM, on the other hand is a website most people don't know even exists so it's not quite a fair comparison.

Unfortunately, people tend to subconsciously assume that sole individuals represent whole groups. I knew one girl who held quite a few anti-male beliefs as her father had repeatedly and severely injured her mother on several occasions.

The point is that whoever those people are (I'm not familiar with either), they don't speak for me so I refuse to be obligated to denounce them (and where would I do that that would be sufficiently public to silence those arguments?) any more than any man should feel obliged to conspicuously denounce an extremist woman-hating MRA who doesn't speak for him. I refuse to be made defensive by something alien to me.

If people subconsciously assume one nutjob speaks for an entire broad church and that anyone who isn't published in opposition to that nutjob is a tacit supporter, then they have pretty narrow minds.

With that, this thread is in danger of unintentionally becoming another round-and-round, and it's not what it's for. I'm not going to do here what I refuse to engage in elsewhere and justify myself in opposition to someone elses actions or words.

KomradeBishop

If the criticism of feminists is restricted to newspapers, then the criticism is better placed with the newspapers, not with feminists - why are the newspapers selecting for extremists/controversy? It sells...

ancapailldorcha

Candie wrote: »

The point is that whoever those people are (I'm not familiar with either), they don't speak for me so I refuse to be obligated to denounce them (and where would I do that that would be sufficiently public to silence those arguments?) any more than any man should feel obliged to conspicuously denounce an extremist woman-hating MRA who doesn't speak for him. I refuse to be made defensive by something alien to me.

Fair point. I'm just trying to say that this is why a lot of people feel that feminism is anti-men. Of course, the people I mentioned don't speak for all feminists but I think that fact has been lost somewhere.

Candie wrote: »

If people subconsciously assume one nutjob speaks for an entire broad church and that anyone who isn't published in opposition to that nutjob is a tacit supporter, then they have pretty narrow minds.

That's a significant part of the population, unfortunately.

Candie wrote: »

With that, this thread is in danger of unintentionally becoming another round-and-round, and it's not what it's for. I'm not going to do here what I refuse to engage in elsewhere and justify myself in opposition to someone elses actions or words.

Fair enough. It's worth discussing but this isn't the thread for it.

eviltwin

Because I'm listening to 4fm at the moment talking about Ched Evens and the dj and a lot of the callers seem to think drunk women can't be raped :mad:

constance tench

eviltwin wrote: »

Because I'm listening to 4fm at the moment talking about Ched Evens and the dj and a lot of the callers seem to think drunk women can't be raped :mad:

Can consent? or can't be raped?

If it's the latter I share your anger.

eviltwin

constance tench wrote: »

Can consent? or can't be raped?

If it's the latter I share your anger.

Saying that its a woman responsibility to take care of herself so she shouldn't get drunk.

eviltwin

Candie wrote: »

The point is that whoever those people are (I'm not familiar with either), they don't speak for me so I refuse to be obligated to denounce them (and where would I do that that would be sufficiently public to silence those arguments?) any more than any man should feel obliged to conspicuously denounce an extremist woman-hating MRA who doesn't speak for him. I refuse to be made defensive by something alien to me.

If people subconsciously assume one nutjob speaks for an entire broad church and that anyone who isn't published in opposition to that nutjob is a tacit supporter, then they have pretty narrow minds.

With that, this thread is in danger of unintentionally becoming another round-and-round, and it's not what it's for. I'm not going to do here what I refuse to engage in elsewhere and justify myself in opposition to someone elses actions or words.

To quote Lewis Law "the comments on any article about feminism justify feminism"

You only have to read the replies to any debate on feminism to know its still needed.

Links234

Rosy Posy wrote: »

I think that a lot of men are seriously threatened by the changing status quo and fear that they won't measure up on an equal playing field.

In response to gamergate, there's the fear that the evil feminist boogeywomen are coming to take their games away. Anita Sarkeesian is nothing more than Jack Thompson 2.0 to their eyes, and while Thompson wanted all violent games banned (if you don't know who he is, he's the disbarred attorney who famously filed loads of lawsuits against game developers, including the makers of GTA) they fear Sarkeesian with her fairly shallow criticism is gunning for everything she deems as sexist in games including poor innocent old Super Mario.

Stop right there you might think, isn't Anita Sarkeesian just pointing out sexism and saying "hey, gaming industry, you can do better than this"? That's not the same as banning anything!

But surprisingly, trying to effect positive change to how the gaming industry depicts women IS the same as banning things to some people. I had a very telling comment from a friend on facebook, who said that yes, it IS one and the same. That saying there is sexism in gaming is the same as wanting to ban it Jack Thompson style, because both are trying to change gaming. So from the perspective that any change at all is going to be negative, you've got people worked up into a frenzy about how their favourite hobby and their passion is going to be taken away from them.

This of course isn't the case, because over the years there's been a huge change in the demographic of people who play games, with reportedly about half of gamers are women nowadays. So it's understandable that women who are playing games might want to say hey, we're part of the audience too, maybe some games should reflect that?

But the problem is, some male gamers think that catering to anyone other than them is a slight or an attack. Don't think that's the case? A couple of years back, someone complained to Bioware for ignoring it's main demographic: the straight male gamer. Let the enormity of that idea sink in for a second.

They’re so used to being catered to that they see the lack of catering as an imbalance. They don’t see anything wrong with having things set up to suit them, what’s everyone’s fuss all about? That’s the way it should be, any everyone else should be used to not getting what they want.

That right there is the attitude and viewpoint that's at play here, "things should be tailored exactly to fit what *I* like and **** everyone else!" This narcissistic idea that if they are not the sole audience for something, then gaming is being destoyed! That's why they're afraid things are being taken from them, because to them unless it suits their tastes it's as bad as everything being banned. And they view anyone who isn't them as outsiders, "fake geek girls" and such, interlopers trying to wreck gaming instead of actually being part of the gamer demographic. To them it's not the audience calling for change from within, it's the outsiders, the evil feminists coming in and attacking.

Just take a look at this, there was someone who worked for Bioware who submitted a glowing review a while back, EA says well he didn't do anything wrong. Big woop. Zoe Quinn allegedly slept with a journalist for a positive review that never even existed in the first place, oh no! We'll reign down fire and brimstone on you, grrr arrg! What's the difference? The former is one of the guys, so no harm done, but Zoe Quinn is an evil interloper feminist here to destroy!

Yeah, don't forget, #gamergate is about journalistic ethics and integrity. :rolleyes:

constance tench

eviltwin wrote: »

To quote Lewis Law "the comments on any article about feminism justify feminism"

You only have to read the replies to any debate on feminism to know its still needed.

Is that such a good law though?

One could take a radical position on anything and justify it purely through reactionary comments...

Lemming

eviltwin wrote: »

To quote Lewis Law "the comments on any article about feminism justify feminism"

You only have to read the replies to any debate on feminism to know its still needed.

That's a strawman argument. What was the context, content, and thrust of any given article? Those points will* dictate how any given article is received regardless of topic.

To be frank, the internet has given village idiots everywhere the power of audience, willing or not. That means some awfully misandrous sh*te gets written at times. That means some awfully misogynistic sh*te gets written at times. And in between, the trolls get bored and want to play ... Trying to boil it (whatever it is) down to "this is why <insert-ism here> is needed" is a somewhat opportunistic and dishonest argument to make.

At the end of the day, if you attack someone, don't be surprised if they turn around and lay you on the proverbial floor for being an asshat. That goes both ways as both genders have shown themselves perfectly capable of being absolutely sexist f*ckwits.

* I say "will" but we all know there's idiots everywhere who are professional "insultees" and will jump up and down at the drop of a hat out of either dogmatic belief or for kicks.

Lyaiera

To those of you saying, "Well if you write a ridiculous article, you're going to get a ridiculous response." Note that the axiom specifies reading the comments on "any" feminist article. Which I find holds to be true.

Also, for examples of well known feminists calling out the people on the fringes... Paris Lees article is one good example. http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/paris-lees-terf-war-twitter-radical-feminists-088

Paris Lees wrote:

Unless you’re a ****ing loser, you probably haven’t been following the ongoing “war” between a few transgender activists and some so-called radical feminists. They’ve done their best to suck me into their collective madness recently, but I’m not playing ball. Let me fill you in. First up we have TERFs, short for “trans-exclusionary radical feminists”. Basically, they’re full-on internet weirdos hell-bent on telling trans women that we’re not "real" women. They want to stop us using female loos, going to ****ty music festivals and, erm, accessing healthcare. I know, right? Throw a few obsessive trans folk into the mix, and a handful of privileged white feminists with nothing better to talk about and, well, you’ve got yourself the perfect pointless ****storm.