Gaming and Social Justice (The #Gamergate Thread)

  • Thread starter tankuroded
  • 192 comments
  • 7,395 views

What is your stance on GamerGate?

  • I am with the pro-GamerGate crowd.

    Votes: 6 19.4%
  • I am with the anti-GamerGate crowd.

    Votes: 11 35.5%
  • I take no stance on this issue.

    Votes: 14 45.2%

  • Total voters
    31

TenEightyOne

I'm Slow, But I'm Wide!
Premium
20,678
TenEightyOne
TenEightyOne
So is everyone a car enthusiast too then?

The "motor enthusiast" being the person who self identifies himself as a motor enthusiast, to separate themselves from non-motor enthusiasts.

So the old lady driving her mercedes benz is a motor enthusiast now? As well as the young twelve year old driving his power wheels? I don't think so. The auto industry may have expanded to cater to almost everyone and anyone, but people who dedicate their passion to cars and motoring as opposed to the people use see it only as a means to get from point A to B are what separate a motoring enthusiast from everyone else. In the same way people who dedicate their lives and even careers to games and gaming as opposed to the old lady and twelve year old playing candy crush only as a time killer separate themselves as gamers.

What you're describing there is elitism; a self-appointed group of enthusiasts. A gamer is a gamer, it's no longer just a clique of stereotypes.

My daughter is a film-goer but she only likes Hollywood rom-coms, she's never sat through a four hour black and white art film in Norwegian. There's certainly a knowing elite in film and some of the greatest learning in the field can be found there but that doesn't make them the regulator of what normal, average, sensible people want from a widely accessible medium.
 

niky

Karma Chameleon
Moderator
23,800
Philippines
Philippines
So is everyone a car enthusiast too then?

The "motor enthusiast" being the person who self identifies himself as a motor enthusiast, to separate themselves from non-motor enthusiasts.

So the old lady driving her mercedes benz is a motor enthusiast now? As well as the young twelve year old driving his power wheels? I don't think so. The auto industry may have expanded to cater to almost everyone and anyone, but people who dedicate their passion to cars and motoring as opposed to the people use see it only as a means to get from point A to B are what separate a motoring enthusiast from everyone else. In the same way people who dedicate their lives and even careers to games and gaming as opposed to the old lady and twelve year old playing candy crush only as a time killer separate themselves as gamers.

Well, the people driving from point A to point B are actually using an app. They're not gaming. :lol:

Someone who's driving their car cross country on vacation, or along the coastline with the top down, or even those who have not driven a car (yet), but who collect magazines and go to the car shows to drool, yes, they can be considered motoring enthusiasts.

-

Yes, "gamers" do dedicate more time to games than "casual gamers", but it's not an exclusive tag, anymore, and very few can actually claim to being authorities on games. The field is just too big and too wide. You have the gamers who do shooters, the gamers who are into RPGs and those who play, to the exclusion of everything else, MMORPGs. If a person has a Level xxxx character from playing a single MMORPG twenty hours a week, is he/she a gamer or not?

Developers and companies can no longer prosper by only catering to the wants and whims of "true gamers" Casual gaming has opened up the field to the masses. The genie is out of the bottle, and the only difference between us and the non-gaming public is simply the number of hours we spend on our games every day.

Then there are "non-gamers" (people who don't self-identify as gamers) who spend more on new games than we do. And I'm not just talking about the micro-transaction sheep. All thanks to Nintendo, smartphones and hand-helds. At that point, it tends to become very muddled.



I've already discussed some of this before, and I've actually watched the video a number of times, but since it keeps coming up, but let's break it down.

1:43: Counter-examples as applied to males don't make examples as applied to females non-existent.

1:49: Prostitute abuse is still there. The context is the player does not actively engage in the abuse, but has the option to simply sit back and watch it. Again... you have the option to not act and it's not game over.

1:49: Sandbox: Yes, you can drag around male bodies. But not scantily clad male hooker bodies. As pointed out in the Sarkeesian video, female bodies are, indeed, glamorized in the promotional material.

1:53: Again: Do you need to watch a sex-trafficking floorshow in order to bust a sex-trafficking ring? Think back again to my child pornography comment. Good point there by the rebuttal that this is also in GTA yet not criticized... as it really is something to criticize there.

Again: the fact that you are rescuing these women does not change the fact that they're treated as background props and objects in the game narrative. You are not rescuing a woman you know or personally interact with or who has special significance for you. These scantily clad women are merely a game objective.

3:10: A score disincentive is simply a score disincentive. You are given a wanted level for mowing down cops and civilians in GTA. Who honestly believes that this is a disincentive for anyone? Granted, it's a reach to claim that the ability to do any of these things leads to anti-social or psychotic behavior in real life (something rightly pointed out by Michael Moore in "Bowling for Columbine" ), but these games allow you to express these behaviors with no real consequences.

3:30: Play-throughs: Idealized methods for finishing the game level. Nobody is going to purposely mess up a play-through.

I do agree, that you are not actively encouraged to perform these actions. Which makes the claim something of a reach. But again, points docking is not a disincentive. The inability to finish a story objective, for example, was no disincentive to finding out if you could blow up your brother in the hotel room in the first Deus Ex. Or finding out how many gory ways you could die in GTA. Or blow up. Or smashing a scientist's head into a pulp in Half-Life... or...

7:08: She isn't saying that you are going to kill a stripper in real life from doing this. That's a strawman argument. And yes, if you can fall to your death in a videogame, many people are going to try it just to see what happens.

7:39: Definitely, you aren't going to jump to your death after doing so in a video game. But cultural memes can be internalized. (I've mentioned White Man Envy here... but again... that's going away now that the global cultural paradigm is more inclusive... it's something that's difficult to understand for Westerners... being half-American, it's fascinating to see this in action, and how it's affected the survivability of entertainment produced outside the United States)

-

In the end... cherry-picked? Hell yes. Still there, however? Unfortunately.


To explain why, let me introduce Jonathan McIntosh. Here is his opinion on The Escapist having an article interview game devs about their opinion on GamerGate. And here is a real head scratcher, this is what he has to say about the player having control over the game character.

Now that, that is funny.

Those two tweets are just the tip of the iceberg as to the crazy things he says. So who is Jonathan you might ask? Well, here is his twitter description: "Transformative media maker. Pop culture critic. Producer and a writer on the Tropes vs Women in Video Games YouTube series." Yep. He is the one behind what Anita says in the Tropes vs Women videos, Anita is just the face to sell the product. He also sees sexism in EVERYTHING, so I'm not surprised at the obscurities in the Tropes vs Women series. Some of it is quite mundane compared to his usual postings on twitter. And if you are interested, there is some really interesting stuff that's been dug up on him and Anita here (language warning). It goes through a lot of how Anita seems more or less fine with all sorts of things she now condemns on twitter and in her video series, while Jon is consistently seeing sexism everywhere (except where he occasionally enjoys sexy women).

People can change their minds, actually.

Not to say that there is no vested interest in running the web series, mind you, nor that the series is not wired to get a rise from people. It's obvious it is.


Oh and another quick thing, take a listen to this (listen until 2:59 for the main point, but feel free to watch the rest as it has other good points too).

Now this one... this is good criticism. I'd like to note that the "pink palette swap", however... even if she does wear pink, and ear-rings... is actually a valid trope, and a very lazy way of defining female characters, and something very common back in the day. Nobody stereotypes green as a male color (blue sometimes, but not as pervasively as pink). The stereotype is so pervasive that women can't help but be shaped by it. Heels, ear-rings, the whole shebang. Whether you're comfortable with it or not, doesn't change the fact that it amounts to indoctrination by popular media.

It's only in recent years that female characters have been getting the same expressive range of palettes and looks that male characters have been getting. (Legend of Korra... excellent example) There's still more sexualization, for some (unless you count some Japanese games, where male characters are excessively-sexualized, too), but that's changing.

And also, there is something wrong about having a gender swap for the game character and not having that affect how you go through the game, if that game is an RPG. Actually... your gender and ethnicity should, in the real world, affect how other characters interact with you. It's not even a novel idea... writers (male, white, non-social justice warriors) have been punting it about in fiction for decades now, back to the times when games were very simple things, both visually and in terms of gameplay.

It's very lazily rendered in some games like (again) Fallout3, where you're given the option of sleeping with a female prostitute, whether you're a male or female. Pretty lazy game design... as it is more immersive if your choice of gender and/or ethnicity affects how other characters interact with you.

-----

Still, a very good video rebuttal, and one of the few I can agree with. Better than the one that keeps getting brought up. And, the ending basically wraps up the whole Sarkeesian issue - if she has a valid point, people will watch. If she runs out of them, people will stop watching.

There will always be those "Think about the Children" types who will point out each and every real or perceived flaw with anything. That's okay. If they have a point, it will resonate, and it can and will give people something to think about. If it's a reach, it's a reach. The problem with the Sarkeesian debates is that there's a lot of material there. Some of it may be relevant, some may not be. But the fact that it has people talking (at least where they're talking and not fighting) is a good thing, in and of itself.

-----

RE: Bayonetta 2: That's funny. I got the over-sexualized vibe from B1, but B2 feels a lot like it has a woman's touch, actually. I guess the fact that a woman worked on the design has a lot to do with it.
 
Last edited:
1,678
Canada
Canada
TheDrummingKING
I've already discussed some of this before, and I've actually watched the video a number of times, but since it keeps coming up, but let's break it down.

1:43: Counter-examples as applied to males don't make examples as applied to females non-existent.

1:49: Prostitute abuse is still there. The context is the player does not actively engage in the abuse, but has the option to simply sit back and watch it. Again... you have the option to not act and it's not game over.


These first two I don't know enough about to comment.

1:49: Sandbox: Yes, you can drag around male bodies. But not scantily clad male hooker bodies. As pointed out in the Sarkeesian video, female bodies are, indeed, glamorized in the promotional material.

Two things for this then:

1. Scantily clad male hookers (aren't they strippers? The women I mean)

Right so I haven't played Hitman, but I assume there are no half naked male strippers, and that makes sense to me. If I had to take a guess I'd say Hitman is a game with a primarily male target audience (which apparently is a horrible thing to do these days) so I can understand not including male strippers.

2. Females glamorized in the promotional material

Sorta ties in to point one, if this game is targeted towards males, is it really so horrible to have glamorized women in the promotional material? Sex sells after all.

I'm not trying to come off as saying it's okay to objectify women (or anybody for that matter), I just don't see what is so horrible about sexual things and acts. Call me crazy but being open about sexuality seems fine to me (it's not like this game is made for children).

1:53: Again: Do you need to watch a sex-trafficking floorshow in order to bust a sex-trafficking ring? Think back again to my child pornography comment. Good point there by the rebuttal that this is also in GTA yet not criticized... as it really is something to criticize there.

Do you need to see the sex trafficking show floor? No I suppose technically not, but I can get why they did in the context of WatchDogs. The game is all about hacking so it makes sense for the main character to try to get as close to what/who is he trying to find out information about, so having you walk the show floor to find out info, again, makes sense (to me). About your CP comment, two things again. The first is the obvious legal troubles if you were going to try to depict something like that. Secondly, it depends on the context just like with the sex trafficking ring as I hopefully already explained. And the GTA comment, I get that it's not exactly in the best of tastes but it's a bit of an industry in joke at this point that you can get a hooker and then kill her when you're done in GTA. Not the greatest of jokes for sure, but it's really not meant as something serious either.

Again: the fact that you are rescuing these women does not change the fact that they're treated as background props and objects in the game narrative. You are not rescuing a woman you know or personally interact with or who has special significance for you. These scantily clad women are merely a game objective.

Indeed they are background props, but is that something so worthy of getting upset about? Are games only allowed to have women if they take, in some way, and "active" roll in the game's narrative? Is women as background decoration a trope? Yup. Is it a trope exclusive to women? I'd say no. Not the greatest of examples, but off the top of my head it's the best I could come up with, think of all of the background soldiers in games like CoD and Battlefield and all other shooters that see allies that are of no real use or value (as in, they are incapable of killing any enemies and basically just shoot blanks and die). So you could consider that as men as background decoration, really.

Again, I'm not trying to discount that this trope exists, I'm just saying it goes both ways. And in all fairness, you're almost always going to have something that is just "background decoration" in a game, and sometimes it's going to be people.

3:10: A score disincentive is simply a score disincentive. You are given a wanted level for mowing down cops and civilians in GTA. Who honestly believes that this is a disincentive for anyone? Granted, it's a reach to claim that the ability to do any of these things leads to anti-social or psychotic behavior in real life (something rightly pointed out by Michael Moore in "Bowling for Columbine" ), but these games allow you to express these behaviors with no real consequences.

The wanted level vs less cash for innocent causalities in Hitman isn't really the same for two reasons though. In GTA the wanted level is almost actually an incentive to mow down cops and civilians just to see how long you can last against them (it's pretty fun). In Hitman the game actively lowers your score for doing things you aren't supposed to. Yeah some people might not care and just kill anything and everything anyway, but why is that so bad? And to be fair I think it makes sense to only have it as detracting from the score (as opposed to say, failing the mission) because it allows for more player freedom in how you play. You can choose to be the professional only taking out those you are instructed to, the loose cannon who kills all life, or anything in between. It's a Jack Thompson-esque claim to say the game will lead to psychotic behaviour in real life. Why should the game have any real consequences if the game's narrative doesn't call for it?

3:30: Play-throughs: Idealized methods for finishing the game level. Nobody is going to purposely mess up a play-through.

I do agree, that you are not actively encouraged to perform these actions. Which makes the claim something of a reach. But again, points docking is not a disincentive. The inability to finish a story objective, for example, was no disincentive to finding out if you could blow up your brother in the hotel room in the first Deus Ex. Or finding out how many gory ways you could die in GTA. Or blow up. Or smashing a scientist's head into a pulp in Half-Life... or...

See above for my opinion on the points disincentive. The second bit, I think what you're saying can be explained by saying that players are always going to try and find the limits of what they can and can't do in a game are. I feel that's a pretty fair thing to say.

7:08: She isn't saying that you are going to kill a stripper in real life from doing this. That's a strawman argument. And yes, if you can fall to your death in a videogame, many people are going to try it just to see what happens.

I think how he said didn't really do justice to what he meant. From what I gathered, up until 7:14 he was referring to exactly what Anita said in the clip prior, while after that he was referring to the "the more you think you aren't affected (effected?), the more you are affected" claim from the clip right after (because from what I gather, she's claiming that because you can beat the women in the game, if you think it's just harmless fun, that you're actually going to think that it's okay to behave like that in real life, so what Thunderf00t is saying is the same situation, but beating a woman being replaced by jumping from a building). If that's what you meant as what the strawman was then, oh, that didn't really come off as one to me. :P

7:39: Definitely, you aren't going to jump to your death after doing so in a video game. But cultural memes can be internalized. (I've mentioned White Man Envy here... but again... that's going away now that the global cultural paradigm is more inclusive... it's something that's difficult to understand for Westerners... being half-American, it's fascinating to see this in action, and how it's affected the survivability of entertainment produced outside the United States)

Cultural memes can be internalized sure, but if Anita is going to claim that because in some games you happen to be able to hit women that it is going to make you more likely to do so in real life, I'll bring up Jack Thompson again. Just because you go around killing people in video games doesn't mean you're more likely to do it in real life. I think the problem is that, yes, cultural memes can be internalized, but people can also distinguish reality from fantasy (something Anita and others don't seem to realize), and damn near everyone know that being violent in real life is a horrible act all around. I don't think anyone is going to learn "beating women is okay" from video games and media unless EVERYTHING they're brought up on is constantly about beating women, and no one in their life tells them "this isn't good behaviour", which I really don't think we have to worry about.

In the end... cherry-picked? Hell yes. Still there, however? Unfortunately.

But it kinda begs the question of, if the problem was really so prevalent, why cherry pick examples that people are going to be able to debunk so thoroughly? Surely it shouldn't be difficult to find legitimate examples (especially with $160k to spend on R&D).

Now that, that is funny.

He posts things that honestly look like satire constantly. It's kind of terrifying how disconnected he is from reality (god I hope you weren't being sarcastic just then or I'm going to sound stupid :lol:).

People can change their minds, actually.

They indeed can, but it's still quite the change.

Not to say that there is no vested interest in running the web series, mind you, nor that the series is not wired to get a rise from people. It's obvious it is.

I'm not as generous as you though, I wouldn't call it a vested interest, I'd call it an agenda.

Now this one... this is good criticism. I'd like to note that the "pink palette swap", however... even if she does wear pink, and ear-rings... is actually a valid trope, and a very lazy way of defining female characters, and something very common back in the day. Nobody stereotypes green as a male color (blue sometimes, but not as pervasively as pink). The stereotype is so pervasive that women can't help but be shaped by it. Heels, ear-rings, the whole shebang. Whether you're comfortable with it or not, doesn't change the fact that it amounts to indoctrination by popular media.

It's a valid trope, but one can't help but see her hypocrisy in condemning it while perpetuating it perfectly. If she was doing it ironically I would actually give her points for it, but since she has the same "gender signifiers" on in each video I can't do that. But yes, it's a very prevalent trope and getting rid of it would hardly be bad.

It's only in recent years that female characters have been getting the same expressive range of palettes and looks that male characters have been getting. (Legend of Korra... excellent example) There's still more sexualization, for some (unless you count some Japanese games, where male characters are excessively-sexualized, too), but that's changing.

I'm on the younger side (20) so I'll have to claim ignorance as to most of the games pre-ps2 :lol:. For all the sexualized Janes in games I've seen I'd say there is probably a pretty close to equal amount of plain and uninteresting Joes (super buff, raspy voice, no character depth). Maybe not 50/50, but probably pretty close. I welcome better characters of all colours and creeds though (assuming the game actually calls for it).

And also, there is something wrong about having a gender swap for the game character and not having that affect how you go through the game, if that game is an RPG. Actually... your gender and ethnicity should, in the real world, affect how other characters interact with you. It's not even a novel idea... writers (male, white, non-social justice warriors) have been punting it about in fiction for decades now, back to the times when games were very simple things, both visually and in terms of gameplay.

I get what you're saying but I also get what the video is saying, wouldn't you want to experience the game the same either way? Unless I suppose you wanted to play the game twice, once as either gender to get both experiences. The video brings up another point I agree with though, I don't think it's outlandish to assume that if Mass Effect changed the way the characters within the game interact with the player depending on what gender you choose, that Anita and others would be upset about that if it were the case.

It's very lazily rendered in some games like (again) Fallout3, where you're given the option of sleeping with a female prostitute, whether you're a male or female. Pretty lazy game design... as it is more immersive if your choice of gender and/or ethnicity affects how other characters interact with you.

For the Fallout 3 point that indeed seems like lazy game design, but for your other point. Isn't sort of what feminists and SJWs (claim to) want is for everyone to be treated the same regardless of gender/race/etc.? Don't get me wrong I understand your point, it would definitely be neat to see if done right.

Still, a very good video rebuttal, and one of the few I can agree with. Better than the one that keeps getting brought up. And, the ending basically wraps up the whole Sarkeesian issue - if she has a valid point, people will watch. If she runs out of them, people will stop watching.

The trouble is though, any and all valid criticism of Anita (or others) is shot down as trolling, harassment, or outright ignored in any sort of press (mainstream gaming and traditional media) making honest, reasoned discussion almost impossible to be seen by the larger public.

There will always be those "Think about the Children" types who will point out each and every real or perceived flaw with anything. That's okay. If they have a point, it will resonate, and it can and will give people something to think about. If it's a reach, it's a reach. The problem with the Sarkeesian debates is that there's a lot of material there. Some of it may be relevant, some may not be. But the fact that it has people talking (at least where they're talking and not fighting) is a good thing, in and of itself.

It would be okay if it weren't for the "think about the children" type actively smearing those who saying anything against their narritive, which is what is happening in gaming. If you don't follow the current status-quo then be prepared to be label a misogynist and other horrible things.

By the way, in saying that, I'm not saying Anita and others don't receive actual abuse, they do, but the abuse they get does not represent gamers as a whole as the gaming media so very much likes to say.

RE: Bayonetta 2: That's funny. I got the over-sexualized vibe from B1, but B2 feels a lot like it has a woman's touch, actually. I guess the fact that a woman worked on the design has a lot to do with it.

I think the link I posted about the character artist was actually about Bayonetta 1, I would guess it was the same person who worked on her for Bayonetta 2. Unfortunately even if the sexualization is toned down from the first game, it's not going to stop the feminists and SJWs from saying it's heinous to have Bayonette be sexualized at all.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd just like to say, it's VERY refreshing to be able to have calm, reasoned discussion on this topic with people on all sides as is is so very rare anywhere else. :cheers:
 

Encyclopedia

Salesman
Premium
4,035
Sweden
Gothenburg
Agremont
Indeed they are background props, but is that something so worthy of getting upset about? Are games only allowed to have women if they take, in some way, and "active" roll in the game's narrative? Is women as background decoration a trope? Yup. Is it a trope exclusive to women? I'd say no. Not the greatest of examples, but off the top of my head it's the best I could come up with, think of all of the background soldiers in games like CoD and Battlefield and all other shooters that see allies that are of no real use or value (as in, they are incapable of killing any enemies and basically just shoot blanks and die). So you could consider that as men as background decoration, really.

Again, I'm not trying to discount that this trope exists, I'm just saying it goes both ways. And in all fairness, you're almost always going to have something that is just "background decoration" in a game, and sometimes it's going to be people.

I think the problem lies in the lack of diversity for female characters. That female characters has sort of defaulted into this trope. And while there's male characters who are background props, they overall enjoy greater diversity. They can take any role. Male characters don't default in the same way.


This is something I've heard many feminist gamers argue and I very much agree.
 

Famine

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author
Administrator
73,656
United Kingdom
Rule 12
GTP_Famine
This whole thing has passed me by - not because I've missed it but because I've paid no attention to it on purpose (and I need to arse about with cables to watch Youtube videos). There's a distinct reek to every angle of it.

All I know is that as I'm typing this I'm also playing a three year old, best-selling, highly-rated, award-winning, multiplatform, fantasy game where I've designed my character as a female, she's not scantily clad and she's married to another woman. Of a different race.

That this game exists at all is testament to the fact that, at least in some parts of the industry, there's a lack of sexual bias. That it rated so well and sold so well says that there's an appetite for it amongst reviewers and gamers. The fact that no-one even remembers that you can play as either gender and/or be gay in it speaks loudly for just how much relevance character gender and sexuality has to most people


It's called "Skyrim".
 
1,678
Canada
Canada
TheDrummingKING
I think the problem lies in the lack of diversity for female characters. That female characters has sort of defaulted into this trope. And while there's male characters who are background props, they overall enjoy greater diversity. They can take any role. Male characters don't default in the same way.


This is something I've heard many feminist gamers argue and I very much agree.

I'll take your word it that women are defaulted to the trope too much, I haven't played nearly enough games to really say otherwise and I agree it's something that could change for the better.

Terror threat against feminist Anita Sarkeesian at USU

http://www.standard.net/Police/2014...dent-threatens-act-of-terror-if-feminist.html

Jeez...

Looking forward to people calling it a false flag etc...

No where in the email does the person making the threat say anything relating to GamerGate, so the part at the end of the article attributing this threat to GamerGate is indeed (an infuriating) false flag.

Looks more like your average mentally damaged person.

Exactly, looks to me far more like someone who is mentally unstable then "a mad gamer" or something.

This false flag stuff is really irritating. Take Brianna Wu, she received death threats on twitter a few days ago. Not once in them was GamerGate mentioned, but she immediately blamed the tweets on GamerGate (yes they could have come from someone who supports GamerGate, but as there is nothing directly linking it, saying they did indeed come from GG is dishonest). From this, Brianna Wu has been on MSNBC, HuffPostLive, and now CNN, every time saying GG was responsible for these threats and that we are all just misogynists. The funny thing, as I linked in my post on the last page, GG supporters were rallying on twitter to report the person that sent the threats, and were actively condemning the threats.

It's not really funny though. As someone who is smack in the middle of GG (as in constantly keeping up to date with the goings on), the core (and majority) of GG is a diverse group that is tired of being labelled straight white 20 year old men who live in their parents basement and hate women, and genuinely care about journalistic ethics. There are crazies on both sides that spew 🤬 at each other. In terms of general response you will get from each side is quite different though, the pro GG side is quite a bit more civil (and I'm NOT just saying that because I'm pro GG). If you try to be neutral to GG, prepare for sympathy from pro GG and vitriol from the anti GG side (take boogie2988 as an example).

I'll leave with you this (better wording I could ever do).

Edit: Oh and if anyone is doubting me when I say Brianna Wu is taking part in horrid behaviour, take a look at this (language warning).

This whole thing has passed me by - not because I've missed it but because I've paid no attention to it on purpose (and I need to arse about with cables to watch Youtube videos). There's a distinct reek to every angle of it.

All I know is that as I'm typing this I'm also playing a three year old, best-selling, highly-rated, award-winning, multiplatform, fantasy game where I've designed my character as a female, she's not scantily clad and she's married to another woman. Of a different race.

That this game exists at all is testament to the fact that, at least in some parts of the industry, there's a lack of sexual bias. That it rated so well and sold so well says that there's an appetite for it amongst reviewers and gamers. The fact that no-one even remembers that you can play as either gender and/or be gay in it speaks loudly for just how much relevance character gender and sexuality has to most people


It's called "Skyrim".

That's the thing. Gender and sexuality really isn't some huge deal to gamers (it's whether or not the game is good), it's the gender ideologues (probably not a popular term to use, but it's genuinely what they are) that make situations out of nothing. It's for their own gain so they can push their political agenda. It's that sort of behaviour gamers are upset by. Let the game stand on it's merits, not whether or not you can play as male/female/whatever else you want.

Edit 2: Another good article: http://www.exitevent.com/article/gamergates-detractors-arent-doing-themselves-any-favors-101014
 
Last edited:

niky

Karma Chameleon
Moderator
23,800
Philippines
Philippines
I'm not trying to come off as saying it's okay to objectify women (or anybody for that matter), I just don't see what is so horrible about sexual things and acts. Call me crazy but being open about sexuality seems fine to me (it's not like this game is made for children).

Not so much the sexualization but the objectification. An actively sexual female protagonist, such as Lara Croft or Bayonetta, comes off as less sexist than a background hooker.

I suppose that's why it's so hard for her to find examples nowadays. While there are still issues, we've moved on quite a bit from the Duke Nukem generation.


Do you need to see the sex trafficking show floor? No I suppose technically not, but I can get why they did in the context of WatchDogs. The game is all about hacking so it makes sense for the main character to try to get as close to what/who is he trying to find out information about, so having you walk the show floor to find out info, again, makes sense (to me). About your CP comment, two things again. The first is the obvious legal troubles if you were going to try to depict something like that. Secondly, it depends on the context just like with the sex trafficking ring as I hopefully already explained. And the GTA comment, I get that it's not exactly in the best of tastes but it's a bit of an industry in joke at this point that you can get a hooker and then kill her when you're done in GTA. Not the greatest of jokes for sure, but it's really not meant as something serious either.

Yes, it's understandable, in one sense, but the strip club trope is quite pervasive in both movies and "adult" games, which is why it doesn't trigger for most people. It's seen as normal.

As loathe as I am to echo Sarkeesian, you're meant to absorb the atmosphere. Watch the girls jiggle on the stage a little. The perfectly formed girls, mind. Eventually, the message is that it is wrong, but it's presented in a glamorized and idealized manner. In truth, a sex trafficking raid looks more like this:

_72308856_72308855.jpg


geylang-raid-06.jpg


There is the opportunity to present it through closed doors, with a little dignity given to the virtual "girls," or to make it seem even harsher than it is depicted. Instead, the experience is a bit more voyeuristic rather than unsettling.

But again, this is an old trope, common to many crime dramas, as they're targetted mostly at male adults, so it's not really limited to the gaming industry or this game.

Want an unsettling strip club depiction? "Closer" comes close.... it treats sex and sexual attraction with a brutal dehumanization that's designed to make you think. (Mind you, it is tittilating to watch Natalie Portman strip, but it's a cold, mean thing, and the entire movie is pretty unsettling.


Indeed they are background props, but is that something so worthy of getting upset about? Are games only allowed to have women if they take, in some way, and "active" roll in the game's narrative? Is women as background decoration a trope? Yup. Is it a trope exclusive to women? I'd say no. Not the greatest of examples, but off the top of my head it's the best I could come up with, think of all of the background soldiers in games like CoD and Battlefield and all other shooters that see allies that are of no real use or value (as in, they are incapable of killing any enemies and basically just shoot blanks and die). So you could consider that as men as background decoration, really.

Again, I'm not trying to discount that this trope exists, I'm just saying it goes both ways. And in all fairness, you're almost always going to have something that is just "background decoration" in a game, and sometimes it's going to be people.

While this is true, men are very rarely presented as sexualized background imagery. Too unsettling for male gamers. :D But yes, presenting people as background "objects" is a thing, and a problem. NPCs in shooters, well, they're often given personalities, at least, or the semblance of personalities, now that we have enough processing power to do it. You're meant to build up some empathy for them before they kick the bucket. Enemy NPCs... not... as in all war games, depersonalization* is an important part of the narrative... which is why many games avoid using Arabic terrorists as enemies. It's a politically sensitive issue, and trivializing that issue into a game inflames emotions on both sides of the conflict.

*Except in Japan... where every enemy has to have some sort of sob backstory. :lol:


The wanted level vs less cash for innocent causalities in Hitman isn't really the same for two reasons though. In GTA the wanted level is almost actually an incentive to mow down cops and civilians just to see how long you can last against them (it's pretty fun). In Hitman the game actively lowers your score for doing things you aren't supposed to. Yeah some people might not care and just kill anything and everything anyway, but why is that so bad? And to be fair I think it makes sense to only have it as detracting from the score (as opposed to say, failing the mission) because it allows for more player freedom in how you play. You can choose to be the professional only taking out those you are instructed to, the loose cannon who kills all life, or anything in between. It's a Jack Thompson-esque claim to say the game will lead to psychotic behaviour in real life. Why should the game have any real consequences if the game's narrative doesn't call for it?

That's a tough one. Obviously, people will do things in a game they wouldn't in real life, and there's evidence that anyone who would do so is already mentally unstable in the first place. (Again, citing Bowling for Columbine) In the end, however, it does have a desensitizing effect.

And lower scores are a poor disincentive. A good disincentive is having any actions leave a lasting effect on the game. Such as allowing a certain NPC to die having an effect on the starting parameters of a mission later down the line. A score disincentive means pretty much nothing. There's a difference between auto-failing a mission because a civilian dies and auto-failing one for actively killing one.

And in the end, it reduces such casualties to a non-game changing statistic.


See above for my opinion on the points disincentive. The second bit, I think what you're saying can be explained by saying that players are always going to try and find the limits of what they can and can't do in a game are. I feel that's a pretty fair thing to say.

True enough.

I think how he said didn't really do justice to what he meant. From what I gathered, up until 7:14 he was referring to exactly what Anita said in the clip prior, while after that he was referring to the "the more you think you aren't affected (effected?), the more you are affected" claim from the clip right after (because from what I gather, she's claiming that because you can beat the women in the game, if you think it's just harmless fun, that you're actually going to think that it's okay to behave like that in real life, so what Thunderf00t is saying is the same situation, but beating a woman being replaced by jumping from a building). If that's what you meant as what the strawman was then, oh, that didn't really come off as one to me. :P

Nobody really believes it, but the desensitizing effect is cumulative, and it's a matter of what a person will accept. Personally, I believe it's more of attitudes towards women rather than extreme examples of behaviour that matters. But then, this could be more of a reinforcement of an attitude that's already there (ergo: Do fratboys call girls "bitches" and "hos" because of rappers, or do they simply listen to rappers that reinforce that attitude?) The jury's still out on that one.

Cultural memes can be internalized sure, but if Anita is going to claim that because in some games you happen to be able to hit women that it is going to make you more likely to do so in real life, I'll bring up Jack Thompson again. Just because you go around killing people in video games doesn't mean you're more likely to do it in real life. I think the problem is that, yes, cultural memes can be internalized, but people can also distinguish reality from fantasy (something Anita and others don't seem to realize), and damn near everyone know that being violent in real life is a horrible act all around. I don't think anyone is going to learn "beating women is okay" from video games and media unless EVERYTHING they're brought up on is constantly about beating women, and no one in their life tells them "this isn't good behaviour", which I really don't think we have to worry about.

True.

But it kinda begs the question of, if the problem was really so prevalent, why cherry pick examples that people are going to be able to debunk so thoroughly? Surely it shouldn't be difficult to find legitimate examples (especially with $160k to spend on R&D).

I'd debate that all of the points can be debunked thoroughly. Where there's smoke... but yes, that examples aren't more widespread points to Anita being, oh, about two decades too late to the argument. :lol:

He posts things that honestly look like satire constantly. It's kind of terrifying how disconnected he is from reality (god I hope you weren't being sarcastic just then or I'm going to sound stupid :lol:).

I'm not. Arguing that the player is some sort of manipulative puppeteer controlling the fate of the character is a non-argument. The player is a manipulative puppeteer controlling the fate of the character in about ninety percent of the games out there, unless it's first person. And even then, since I'm not a white, bearded scientist, I don't feel like I'm Gordon Freeman. It's only in RPGs with customizable characters wherein the player has an investment in the character.

And even then, as I play female characters sometimes, the disconnect is still there.


They indeed can, but it's still quite the change.

Who knows? Maybe they've converted to Scientology. :P



I'm not as generous as you though, I wouldn't call it a vested interest, I'd call it an agenda.


All media outlets have "agendas"... but the primary interest of any media outlet is self-propagation, to reach the widest audience possible. Mainstream media? Bunch of trolls. Picking up scandals and such and presenting everything as a dire, end of the world issue.


It's a valid trope, but one can't help but see her hypocrisy in condemning it while perpetuating it perfectly. If she was doing it ironically I would actually give her points for it, but since she has the same "gender signifiers" on in each video I can't do that. But yes, it's a very prevalent trope and getting rid of it would hardly be bad.

It's a tricky thing. I can certainly comment on how our infatuation with meat is imperiling our global food supply, as beef is very expensive to make, but I still eat beef (rarely, though). I think identifying overused gender signifiers is fine, even if you use them yourself. It's an important point in avoiding lazy game design (again, though... decades too late to the discussion, as many modern games are already incorporating female-friendly character design).


I'm on the younger side (20) so I'll have to claim ignorance as to most of the games pre-ps2 :lol:. For all the sexualized Janes in games I've seen I'd say there is probably a pretty close to equal amount of plain and uninteresting Joes (super buff, raspy voice, no character depth). Maybe not 50/50, but probably pretty close. I welcome better characters of all colours and creeds though (assuming the game actually calls for it).

Buff men are not a female sexual object. It's been said, but still worth pointing out. If you want men as sexual objects, I again point you to Japan... where anything goes. The prettyboys that make us (assumingly) heterosexual males more than a little bit uncomfortable are prime eye-candy for the ladies.

In a scenario like that, I don't think anyone can object to objectification if it's done both ways!


I get what you're saying but I also get what the video is saying, wouldn't you want to experience the game the same either way? Unless I suppose you wanted to play the game twice, once as either gender to get both experiences. The video brings up another point I agree with though, I don't think it's outlandish to assume that if Mass Effect changed the way the characters within the game interact with the player depending on what gender you choose, that Anita and others would be upset about that if it were the case.


Might be. Might not. Hard to say. But having gender-sensitive (and yes, throw it in! racially sensitive) gameplay would please most if it were done as a form of social commentary.


For the Fallout 3 point that indeed seems like lazy game design, but for your other point. Isn't sort of what feminists and SJWs (claim to) want is for everyone to be treated the same regardless of gender/race/etc.? Don't get me wrong I understand your point, it would definitely be neat to see if done right.


Nah. It's disappointing. Immersive fiction should be believable. And it's not believable if the dialogue and interactions don't reflect your gender. You could wear a ghoul mask everywhere and your speech interactions (except with ghouls) don't change at all.

It would be interesting, for example, to pick a young black male character, and have Lawful characters be more suspicious of you... pick a female character and your intimidation skills (at lower character levels) will be much lower... etcetera)... A cookie cutter depiction of gender and race is so jarring that you might as well not have it at all. (I recall many of the AD&D based RPGs I've played had different dialogue choices based on both race and alignment... though not gender.)

*The Miss Pacman thing, though, that's funny. And that was one of the best arcade games of all time.


The trouble is though, any and all valid criticism of Anita (or others) is shot down as trolling, harassment, or outright ignored in any sort of press (mainstream gaming and traditional media) making honest, reasoned discussion almost impossible to be seen by the larger public.

The problem is the actual narrative has been co-opted by the trolls. However valid the message or parts of it are, the origins of GamerGate make it suspect. It would, perhaps, be easier to hold the dialogue under a different tag, but this is the one that has stuck.

It would be okay if it weren't for the "think about the children" type actively smearing those who saying anything against their narritive, which is what is happening in gaming. If you don't follow the current status-quo then be prepared to be label a misogynist and other horrible things.

By the way, in saying that, I'm not saying Anita and others don't receive actual abuse, they do, but the abuse they get does not represent gamers as a whole as the gaming media so very much likes to say.

Unfortunately, extremism does go both ways. The problem is that as long as the trolls keep giving them ammunition, they're going to try to lump everyone together under the same label. Which, again, is a good incentive to abandon the GamerGate tag.

I think the link I posted about the character artist was actually about Bayonetta 1, I would guess it was the same person who worked on her for Bayonetta 2. Unfortunately even if the sexualization is toned down from the first game, it's not going to stop the feminists and SJWs from saying it's heinous to have Bayonette be sexualized at all.

Oh, undoubtedly. But having it be a strong, sexualized character rather than a passive one makes it a less easy target (witness Pamela Anderson and Barb Wire, Tank Girl, Lara Croft, etcetera).

Unfortunately, with some of the more hardcore feminists, even a non-sexualized female character, as long as they're passive, is unacceptable. But then again, the more ridiculous the argument, the less chance of them holding an audience's attention. :lol:

In cases like that, it's always better to ignore or engage in mild dialogue. This is where the high profile nature of GamerGate works against it. You can always find someone willing to take the extremist response against these people under the banner of GamerGate... which is why the anti-GG movement selectively censors. It simply makes their position look stronger.

And that, in turn, makes it even harder for any academic to side with GamerGate.


I'd just like to say, it's VERY refreshing to be able to have calm, reasoned discussion on this topic with people on all sides as is is so very rare anywhere else. :cheers:

Welcome to GTPlanet. :lol:

I actually understand the GG side of things, it's just that, as I've said, actively labeling the opposition with words like Feminazists and SJWs does not encourage rational debate or signal to the other side that you're willing to do so. (though I understand the frustration when people get stuck with the "Mysoginist" tag off the bat!)

Instead, by tackling each item one by one, accepting those that are valid and rejecting those that aren't, a dialogue is achieved. Sadly, rational dialogue doesn't create page-hits and sell advertising. Rants do. Which is why hardly any of the major articles, either pro- or anti-, are free of the rantitude that surrounds this debate.
 
1,678
Canada
Canada
TheDrummingKING
I actually understand the GG side of things, it's just that, as I've said, actively labeling the opposition with words like Feminazists and SJWs does not encourage rational debate or signal to the other side that you're willing to do so. (though I understand the frustration when people get stuck with the "Mysoginist" tag off the bat!)

I will reply to the rest of your post (later today, bit lazy right now) but I want to reply to this while it's fresh in my head.

Feminazis/feminazists: I haven't actually seen anyone use this term, though I'm sure there have been some people who have (and they should probably be ignored).

SJWs: The thing with this term is a lot of the more anti-GG side would actually call themselves Social Justice Warriors, so I guess that it is considered a negative term is just kind of ironic.

And just quickly about this comment: "However valid the message or parts of it are, the origins of GamerGate make it suspect. It would, perhaps, be easier to hold the dialogue under a different tag, but this is the one that has stuck."

I was there (sounds so silly) when GamerGate first originated. The whole thing started when a video talking about Eron's blogpost was put up by "MundaneMatt". At first the response was more or less what you would expect, trolls calling Zoe a slut and what not, but mixed with people actually talking about the nepotism in the industry that was brought up. It wasn't until Zoe Quinn filed a false DMCA to get the video taken down that people really took notice (4chan really was where most people started talking and researching into it. I know 4chan isn't exactly know for civil discussion but honestly compared to what it normally is, the amount of :censored:Posting compared to actual discussion taking place was pretty crazy. Everyone was being surprisingly well reasoned, with most of the "slut" talk being called out and condemned. I know it's the popular opinion to just say that GG started because the internet was mad at a woman for sleeping with people, but that really isn't what happened).

At first the whole thing was referred to as "The Quinnspiracy", but then Adam Baldwin tweeted out (with #GamerGate) InternetAristocrat's video on the subject. As nice as it would be to think that using a different hashtag would make dialogue easier, there is no appeasing to those who are willing to create slanderous article/blogpost after slanderous article/blogpost with inaccurate coverage of the situation (in my post about there is a good article discussion just that).
 

Encyclopedia

Salesman
Premium
4,035
Sweden
Gothenburg
Agremont
The fact that no-one even remembers that you can play as either gender and/or be gay in it speaks loudly for just how much relevance character gender and sexuality has to most people

It's called "Skyrim".

I wish someone could tell certain publishers/marketing that. Because there a still many of them who equate female protagonist with less sales.

I'm sure they have their data though...

I don't think that the overwhelming amount of male protagonists in video games is solely because of artistic choice.
 
Last edited:
1,678
Canada
Canada
TheDrummingKING
An interesting thought I just had (relating to a tweet I saw).

GamerGate: "#GamerGate is about corruption in the gaming media."
Gaming Media: "GamerGate is about misogyny and harrasment."

Be honest with yourself, who has more motivation to lie here?

And GamerGate isn't making unfounded claims by the way. 1 2 3

Niky: I will be replying to your post I swear. :P
 

TenEightyOne

I'm Slow, But I'm Wide!
Premium
20,678
TenEightyOne
TenEightyOne
An interesting thought I just had (relating to a tweet I saw).

GamerGate: "#GamerGate is about corruption in the gaming media."
Gaming Media: "GamerGate is about misogyny and harrasment."

Be honest with yourself, who has more motivation to lie here?

And GamerGate isn't making unfounded claims by the way. 1 2 3

Niky: I will be replying to your post I swear. :P


GamerGate isn't about corruption in the gaming media, if it was then people would have been making sexual remarks (and death threats) to the devs of all the games over the years that have had unaccountably high scores from "market leading" reviewers. I imagine this forum probably has some posts complaining about the bias of XYZ towards ABC games year-on-year.

A lot of that bias is genuine; industries are nepotistic and self-fuelling. Gaming is no different. This guy always takes the other guy for dinner "on the company" when they meet up, that's perfectly normal hospitality. They get on well build up a genuine friendship. That's how friendships in businesses (and life) can start. There's bias in their dealings from then on but it isn't sinister.... until you find out they've had sex with each other?
 
1,678
Canada
Canada
TheDrummingKING
GamerGate isn't about corruption in the gaming media

What is it about then?

if it was then people would have been making sexual remarks (and death threats) to the devs of all the games over the years that have had unaccountably high scores from "market leading" reviewers. I imagine this forum probably has some posts complaining about the bias of XYZ towards ABC games year-on-year.

So because prior to GamerGate nobody really talked about the shady practices going on in the industry that means GG isn't about corruption in games media? Am I understanding that correctly?

A lot of that bias is genuine; industries are nepotistic and self-fuelling. Gaming is no different. This guy always takes the other guy for dinner "on the company" when they meet up, that's perfectly normal hospitality. They get on well build up a genuine friendship. That's how friendships in businesses (and life) can start. There's bias in their dealings from then on but it isn't sinister.... until you find out they've had sex with each other?

No one really knew how bad it was until Eron's blogpost. Again, the more active people in GG weren't upset because she had sex, it's because there was no disclosure of relationships. I see a lot of people thinking that it's mostly Quinn that GG was upset with, but it wasn't. GG was upset with her, Nathan Grayson, Maya Kramer, Jenn Frank, Leigh Alexander, and others (those where just the names I could think of off the top of my head). When the gaming media (poorly) addressed the situation, they tried to make it out as if only Quinn was targeted so I can understand why people think it was so much about her when it simply wasn't.



On another note, (some of) the women of GamerGate and NotYourShield:

(Language warning)[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
 

TenEightyOne

I'm Slow, But I'm Wide!
Premium
20,678
TenEightyOne
TenEightyOne
What is it about then?
(Language warning)

I tried watching the video but the opening credits were a minute long... and when I finally got to some voices the music was mixed too loud for me to hear them.

GamerGate is a paradoxical expression of faux surprise by the self-appointed "community" at finding that media industries aren't scrupulously open, honest or fair.

This may have been a seething pustule but there's an uncomfortable tone given the fact that the primary subject of GamerGaters' ire are females who have been involved in relationships with other people in the industry. The sexual part of the story has been a focal point and gave rise to revolting sexual trolling and death threats against those females.

If it's about corruption in the media industry I'd ask why it's taken so long to come to a head and why I haven't read of a single death-threat or abuse campaign against any male devs or publishers? They're a huge proportion of the industry.
 

Famine

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author
Administrator
73,656
United Kingdom
Rule 12
GTP_Famine
To paraphrase Frasier Crane, men don't use sex to get what they want - because sex IS what they want. Besides, I'm not surprised that people in the same industry are having sex with each other - those are the circles they move in, so those are the people they meet.


It's not that no-one has brought up standards and practices in the entertainment review industry before - Amiga Power were talking about it in 1992 - more that it's normal practice.

As some of you know, I review cars occasionally. The normal procedure for reviewing a car is that the car company sends you a top of the range car, filled to the brim with fuel, for a week. That's quite a distracting "gift" and there are folk in this industry who may write for newspapers and not really give a crap about cars who'd give a good review on that alone.

And then there's launches. I have approximately the same influence as a painted whelk, yet a car manufacturer will think nothing of flying me - on a private, chartered jet - to the south of Spain and giving me a top of the range car, filled to the brim with fuel, for two days. While I'm there, they'll put me up in a five star hotel and many of the route waypoints will be quaint, countryside stop-offs that would cost an arm and a leg to grab brunch at. Again, that's something of a gift, and again there are folk in the industry who will give a good review on that alone.

Why? Because quid pro quo - they'll get invited back. Give an honestly crap review of something and you don't - I had a run-in recently with a manufacturer because they thought our site posted a terrible review of one of their cars (I checked - we didn't) and the PR was very rude to me as a result. I know of other writers and sites who've been black-listed by manufacturers after a poor review - and if you can't review a car you can't do your job. But then if you only give good reviews because of the back-scratching you aren't doing your job.

The review industry runs this way. Content manufacturers do their best to ingratiate - ever seen Gran Turismo press kits? I've got five of them - and reviewers land in a position of doing their job and facing a situation of being prevented from doing their job or not doing their job properly. With all the cries of corruption, you'd be surprised by just how huge the proportion is of people who do their job properly.


Luckily, Amiga Power also gave us a way to detect the people who don't, in a piece called "Whatever Happened To... Game Reviews?". You can find the full text elsewhere, but the upshot is that there was a minimum score a reviewer (and, by extension, their outlets) could give a game without falling out of favour with the publisher - and this score became the de facto industry average as a result. It's 73%, and any review where the product is given 73%, or 3.5 stars (3, if they don't give half marks), or 7.5/10 (7, if they don't give half marks) should be read very closely indeed.
 
1,678
Canada
Canada
TheDrummingKING
I tried watching the video but the opening credits were a minute long... and when I finally got to some voices the music was mixed too loud for me to hear them.

Shame, the video was pretty good (I was able to hear just fine, but yeah the music was a tad loud still).

GamerGate is a paradoxical expression of faux surprise by the self-appointed "community" at finding that media industries aren't scrupulously open, honest or fair.

There has indeed been suspicions prior, but no real evidence of what was going on (expect for the dorito and mountain dew thing a while back).

This may have been a seething pustule but there's an uncomfortable tone given the fact that the primary subject of GamerGaters' ire are females who have been involved in relationships with other people in the industry.

Again, it's not just women that have been "targeted" despite the popular belief that it is (I don't have any specific examples right now so I don't blame you for taking that with a grain of salt).

The sexual part of the story has been a focal point and gave rise to revolting sexual trolling and death threats against those females.

It's just that, trolling (well not the death threats, but those are being actively condemned by GG supporters). I linked to a picture about this early but this type I'll type it out.

I don't get it, it's abhorrent to say muslims are horrible people because of the actions of some extremists, but it's perfectly fine to say all GamerGate supporters are horrible people because of the actions of some trolls and crazy people. It's just, what?

If it's about corruption in the media industry I'd ask why it's taken so long to come to a head and why I haven't read of a single death-threat or abuse campaign against any male devs or publishers? They're a huge proportion of the industry.

Why it's taken so long to come to a head? Probably because there wasn't solid evidence until now (I would have loved if this didn't take so long to become an issue, because it's so prevalent an issue now that it's going to be even harder to fix).

I'll tell you why you haven't heard of a single death-thread or abuse campaign against male devs/publishers. Because they are men. This isn't an issue specific to gaming media either, hardly anywhere in media do you see stories about men, in any field, receiving death threats or abuse because that's not what generates clicks. People don't care if men are threatened, but if it's a woman then people care. I know it's not exactly savory to bring this up, but it is the sad truth; men are disposable/unimportant, but women need all the protection from the big bad world they can get (apparently).

@Famine The problem is indeed not confined to gaming, but gaming seems to be the first area to actually be trying to do something about it (and gamers are being slammed as horrible people for doing so).
 

TenEightyOne

I'm Slow, But I'm Wide!
Premium
20,678
TenEightyOne
TenEightyOne
There has indeed been suspicions prior, but no real evidence of what was going on (expect for the dorito and mountain dew thing a while back).

I'm afraid that seems silly and naive. I've worked in media (darling) and I can tell you that anybody who could be bothered could find plenty of evidence of back-scratching, deal-making and fixing every where. That's the same as any kind of industry.

men are disposable/unimportant, but women need all the protection from the big bad world they can get (apparently)

Why are there so few women at the top in the media industry?
 
1,678
Canada
Canada
TheDrummingKING
I'm afraid that seems silly and naive. I've worked in media (darling) and I can tell you that anybody who could be bothered could find plenty of evidence of back-scratching, deal-making and fixing every where. That's the same as any kind of industry.

Yeah I get it, it's been going on for a long time. How you're saying what you're saying makes it kind of come off as "it's been happening so long so it only being brought up now isn't really valid". I'm not trying to strawman you here, that's just what it seems like you're saying. It's a good thing it's being talked about now rather than not being talked about at all.

Why are there so few women at the top in the media industry?

I can answer (sort of) for gaming industry (as far as game develpers/companies are concerned), but not so much for things like, hollywood and other media. Gaming, until recently, was a predominantly male area, but that's changing now and more women are coming in to the industry (and that's good, why wouldn't it be?).

I can't honestly believe that there is any real "push back" to this within the industry though, I mean why would there be? For me, I think that the reason games were such a "boys club" was because of the social stigma against "nerd culture" when the industry first started taking off. Gaming was a place for social outcasts and outliers, but it's beginning to be seen for what it actually is, a respectable industry (and as such more and more people have begun to get into it men and women alike). Yeah gaming is still pretty male dominated, but I can't get behind the idea that anyone is genuinely and actively trying to push women out of gaming or prevent them from getting to the top (except maybe a few crazies, but I again raise the point of judging an entire group by the actions a few clearly unstable people).

Oh and I responded to all of what you said, I would appreciate if you could do the same for me (I don't mean to sound rude, I just feel I made valid points worth addressing).
 
1,678
Canada
Canada
TheDrummingKING
Double post I know, but this really isn't related to my last post and I think it deserves it's own.

MundaneMatt just released a video (couple hours old) of a very emotional and genuine rant that I think a lot of people can sympathize with. Language warning for this one for sure, but it's worth the watch. Matt captures how it feels for gamers who have been having to deal with being slandered against (among other things) for nearly two months.


This video struck a chord with me, I just thanked Matt for the video. "@mundanematt I just finished watching your #StopGamerGate2014 video and I have to say thank you. Thank you for showing how it feels to have been constantly slandered against and being told we are literally the worst people for nearly two months now for daring to stand up for something. #GamerGate detractors really need to realize we are people too and we have emotions just like everyone else. Thank you Matt, honestly."
 
Last edited:
1,433
Northern Ireland
Northern Ireland
Thank you for showing how it feels to have been constantly slandered against and being told we are literally the worst people for nearly two months now for daring to stand up for something.

You mean just like the people who have been trying to stand up for women in game design and industry? Of which some of those people have been conveniently singled out, targeted and abused under this silly hastag?

I'm sorry but that's the most ironic thing to have been said in this thread so far.....................
 
1,678
Canada
Canada
TheDrummingKING
You mean just like the people who have been trying to stand up for women in game design and industry? Of which some of those people have been conveniently singled out, targeted and abused under this silly hastag?

I'm sorry but that's the most ironic thing to have been said in this thread so far.....................

And again I bring up: Yes there are crazies using the hashtag to harrass, but they are not the majority and do not represent GamerGate as a whole (just like the extremists don't represent the majority of muslims).

It's hard to battle propaganda, it's often infuriating. One of the most annoying parts of this is GG being accused of trying to get women out of the industry (again, because of a few crazies) despite the majority of GG very much standing up for women in gaming.
 

SlipZtrEm

GTP Admin
Staff Emeritus
27,384
Canada
Toronto
NewAesthetic
SlipZtrEm
1,678
Canada
Canada
TheDrummingKING
The popular thing at the moment is to blame everything bad that is even remotely connected to gaming on GamerGate. It's a deflection tactic to try and hide what GamerGate is actually about (and it's working on the majority of the public). It's disheartening and hard to fight against (just imagine trying to fight against anyone in a position of authority, whose word is going to be taken at face value? Randoms on the internet, or big name websites?).
 
1,433
Northern Ireland
Northern Ireland
And again I bring up: Yes there are crazies using the hashtag to harrass, but they are not the majority and do not represent GamerGate as a whole (just like the extremists don't represent the majority of muslims).

It's hard to battle propaganda, it's often infuriating. One of the most annoying parts of this is GG being accused of trying to get women out of the industry (again, because of a few crazies) despite the majority of GG very much standing up for women in gaming.

Yes you do keep saying that the majority of people really do care about ethics in journalism, and yet - as has been brought up multiple times in this thread - cozy relationships between journalists and publishers/developers has existed for yonks. It has been known about for yonks. And yet this whole thing was started because of something a woman did. Most of the hate and "fighting" - abusive or not - has been directed towards women. That necessarily must have been done by a majority, not a minority, otherwise you wouldn't have a blooming hashtag in the first place.
 
1,678
Canada
Canada
TheDrummingKING
Yes you do keep saying that the majority of people really do care about ethics in journalism, and yet - as has been brought up multiple times in this thread - cozy relationships between journalists and publishers/developers has existed for yonks. It has been known about for yonks. And yet this whole thing was started because of something a woman did. Most of the hate and "fighting" - abusive or not - has been directed towards women. That necessarily must have been done by a majority, not a minority, otherwise you wouldn't have a blooming hashtag in the first place.

It doesn't really matter if relationships between journos and publishers/devs have been know for "yonks" if the issues being raised are valid, does it?

What really kicked this off was the mass censorship that took place when anyone would try to talk about the situation Eron's blogpost brought up (23,000 comments were deleted from reddit in a thread about a TotalBiscuit video relating to the subject, as one example). If that hadn't happened the whole GG situation probably wouldn't have taken off the way it did. The people throwing out hate towards the women are probably aware that harassing women is what gets the reaction, not harassing men (there could be a lot more harassment being sent to men that we don't know about because of this very reason. I'm not condoning the harassment, btw).
 

MXH

Filthy casual
Premium
3,010
Sweden
Gangsterstaden
What is it about then?
So because prior to GamerGate nobody really talked about the shady practices going on in the industry that means GG isn't about corruption in games media? Am I understanding that correctly?
#GamerGate (which did descend from the hashtag #TheQuinnspiracy) tries to convey people that it is about ''corruption'' in gaming media and journalistic ethics (which in itself is a good cause), yet have so far no legs to stand on outside of the fact that Quinn slept with people associated with and working in games media - supposedly to recieve favourable press for her free game; Depression Quest. She never did get favourable press.

If it genuinely was about corruption, it would have moved away from that a long time ago and would've made an effort to include and expose larger gaming media outlets and developers/publishers instead. Now, there are some concerning relationships to write about, but it keeps coming back to slutshaming Zoe, harrassing Sarkeesian, ''SJW'' nonsense and some other despicable stuff.

I'd persoanlly love to see more transparency in the gaming media overall, however, #GG is doing a pisspoor job promoting it and honestly, doing more harm than good. Avoid it like plague.