Personally, I don't consider myself feminist, I disagree with many of their principles and methods if not with the final goal.
See, I find it good to make a distinction between being a 'feminist' (someone who believes women should have equal rights, opportunities, and treatment to their male counterparts), and being one of the thirty odd University based extreme 'Feminazis' who actually espouse stuff about female superiority, and the horde of 15 year oldTumblrinas who blow things up to ridiculous proportions because they're in a little bubble and have a poor understanding of most of the concepts they actually talk about (which is fine, we all start somewhere).
Nah, I don't consider myself feminist not because I think all feminists are feminazis that hate men and want to cut our dicks off (I know they aren't) but because I disagree with how they apply the marxist theory (And I use this as an academical term, not a buzzword) to their sociological analisis.
I don't disagree with the fact that sexism exist, or with a future of equallity both legal and real. But I disagree with the explanation they give for the origin of that inequality and the solutions they propose to fix it.
Of course, it could be there some feminist theories I could agree with, but of the more "general" feminist writers, both old and new and I have read, I haven't encounter one like that.
Polonius wrote: My wife once stopped into the GW store to pick up an order for me. She didn't feel harassed or anything, but she could feel the mood shift when she walked in. It was clear the employee wasn't used to female customers. (She's not exactly sensitive about that stuff either.)
OTOH, my local GW has a shopgirl running the store the last couple times I've gone to pick up a MTO.
I certainly hope that she wasn't oppressed by my masculine presence, despite my best efforts to be polite during the 90 seconds it took to complete the pickup.
I think that one depends on the store clientele and owner. I've seen both in action. An increased background male interest doesn't equate to any form of sexism either, whether it makes the woman in question uncomfortable or not.
Caveats all included, I've otherwise definitely seen some blokes pull some cringeworthy crap and scare girls out of game stores before. I suspect it happens in any male dominated social scene to an extent, be it playing wargames or snooker.
Ouze wrote: Wow. So, there was a sub-tangent that started in the UK, Polonius said "wait, are we saying sexism doesn't happen in society at large?", was asked for cites, provided them, and then they were all dismissed because they weren't specifically for the UK? Despite that not being what was asked for?
That is literally the lamest gak I think I've ever seen on this forum.
I just got him and someone else mixed up, the original comment was that its rife in the UK, to which I disagree, then Pol chimed in and i got them mixed up, its Ketara that made the asersion the sexism is rampant in the UK based on circumstantial evidence and I wanted him to prove it, I should pay more attention sorry.
OTOH, it goes both ways, with some women wearing low-cut tops to distract their opponent... Should a male opponent complain that he's being harassed by sight of ample decolletage before him?
Just throwing it out here and to bring it back on topic, this discussion we're having is another reason people don't like Sarkeesian. She is absolutely unwilling to have her ideas challenged or have any for of discussion outside of "I'm right, if you disagree you're basically harassing me."
This discussion has been surprisingly civil, if off topic. Them again I have Peregrine ignored so maybe I'm missing something.
JohnHwangDD wrote: OTOH, it goes both ways, with some women wearing low-cut tops to distract their opponent... Should a male opponent complain that he's being harassed by sight of ample decolletage before him?
Does that really happen?
The only skin I ever see at AdeptiCon is some dude’s ass crack.
JohnHwangDD wrote: OTOH, it goes both ways, with some women wearing low-cut tops to distract their opponent... Should a male opponent complain that he's being harassed by sight of ample decolletage before him?
Does that really happen?
The only skin I ever see at AdeptiCon is some dude’s ass crack.
JohnHwangDD wrote: OTOH, it goes both ways, with some women wearing low-cut tops to distract their opponent... Should a male opponent complain that he's being harassed by sight of ample decolletage before him?
Eh. Depends on the level of exposure. If she's literally not wearing a top, perhaps, in the same way that a man who had no underwear/trousers would be. Otherwise, showing top boob is no more harassment than wearing a pair of shorts.
JohnHwangDD wrote: OTOH, it goes both ways, with some women wearing low-cut tops to distract their opponent... Should a male opponent complain that he's being harassed by sight of ample decolletage before him?
This actually happened in a poker tournament. One female competitor was wearing a very low cut top and took the lead. In response one of the male competitors start making crying baby noises to trigger her body into a postpartum breastfeeding reflex to make her lactate and she lost her lead. It was weird.
JohnHwangDD wrote: OTOH, it goes both ways, with some women wearing low-cut tops to distract their opponent... Should a male opponent complain that he's being harassed by sight of ample decolletage before him?
This actually happened in a poker tournament. One female competitor was wearing a very low cut top and took the lead. In response one of the male competitors start making crying baby noises to trigger her body into a postpartum breastfeeding reflex to make her lactate and she lost her lead. It was weird.
I'm not interested in 'stories'. I'm interested in evidence. Anyone can make up a story. Especially narcissistic girls that make it seem like their 'problem' is thinly-veiled gloating about how pretty they think they are.
Yeahhhh.....That's sexism right there. The automatic belief/assumption/reaction, with no further information, that a woman has to be making up a story about people behaving in an unpleasant sexist ways towards them; in order to stroke their own egos. It couldn't be that these things happen. Nonono. They have to be lying. Those damn narcissistic women!
That's on top of the bizare idea that the way a girl would try and compliment herself would be to show you the dick pics she gets sent, or confide in you about the various stalkers, or sexual assault, or anything of that nature. I mean, what the feth man?
Your response reminds me of this video. It's clearly how you think the world works.
I don't doubt for one minute your answer is going to be something along the lines of 'I didn't say that they were ALL narcissistic girls' or something of that nature. But maybe just stop and step back a second. Your first initial instinctual reaction, when someone mentioned that virtually all the girls he knows (including his own girlfriend) go through varying levels of sexism and harassment, was to say 'Well, anything can make stuff up, especially narcissistic girls! I want evidence, not stories!'
I mean, seriously man. What does that say about you?
JohnHwangDD wrote: OTOH, it goes both ways, with some women wearing low-cut tops to distract their opponent... Should a male opponent complain that he's being harassed by sight of ample decolletage before him?
This actually happened in a poker tournament. One female competitor was wearing a very low cut top and took the lead. In response one of the male competitors start making crying baby noises to trigger her body into a postpartum breastfeeding reflex to make her lactate and she lost her lead. It was weird.
I had a buddy of mine - quite a good looking guy - wear very, um, tight shorts that left little to the imagination to a tournament at our FLGS store. Not that I'm complaining, mind - just saying that girls aren't the only ones who do it.
https://www.nsopw.gov/(X(1)S(lcnxya1pq1atwvcxw420muju))/en-US/Education/FactsStatistics?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1#reference (A study that estimates that 18% of American women have been raped at some point in their life)
[
Polonius wrote: My wife once stopped into the GW store to pick up an order for me. She didn't feel harassed or anything, but she could feel the mood shift when she walked in. It was clear the employee wasn't used to female customers. (She's not exactly sensitive about that stuff either.)
Oh Lord the Fething HORROR. People were quiet when a stranger walked in. Tell her to put on her Burqua and protect her from this evil.
I was just sharing a story man. But yes, people acting awkward and weird around you, because of your gender, is certainly a sign of inequality. (And yes, there are certainly places where the staff will act weird if a man walks in.)
As sure as the sky is blue and the grass is green, I can assure you- you aren't missing anything of value or substance. Just pretend someone spewed the most irrational identity politics and blamed the right wing for something every now and then, it's about the same.
I think if you read this thread, you'll see that you have relentlessly brought up identity politics, and partisan politics, and not too many other people have.
Polonius wrote: [
I was just sharing a story man. But yes, people acting awkward and weird around you, because of your gender, is certainly a sign of inequality. (And yes, there are certainly places where the staff will act weird if a man walks in.)
If people do not think Sarkesian is not going to cause trouble in the community then just look at this thread - and all this is before she has had chance to spew her poison.
NOTHING good can come from letting this spiteful, manipulating, lying and toxic person anywhere near the borders of the hobby, let alone inviting the monster into the heart of it. Better to revoke her invitation and risk the inevitable but far less damaging backlash than to have her and her horde of followers gain a foothold and start to push in.
I'm pretty sure Kronk's comments about gaming and sideboob are the best things to come out of this thread so far. Then again Peregrine showed up so that was pretty comical too.
I mean, seriously man. What does that say about you?
It says he is not willing to take some random fellas word for it on the internet, you can try to turn it into something else but that is the long and short of it, and given that you still have not supplied the requested proof that sexism is as common and rampant as you implied in the UK, then I can see why he wouldn’t take your word for it.
Red Weasel wrote: How did she ruin an industry? As far as I can tell the only thing that has changed is that there are more whining man babies than I thought.
What exactly do you fear will happen? More armor on the Sisters?
She gave people an excuse to stop having actual discussions. If you disagreed with her poorly researched and terrible videos, you were labeled a misogynist and, likely, banned from whatever community you made the mistake of dissenting in. It really turned gamers against each other as battle lines were drawn and people just started attacking each other over nothing. She literally turned the term "gamer" from a positive to a negative by accusing all the gamers of being mouth breathing perverts and harassers.
I have no problems with one sharing their opinions about whatever they have opinions about, but I think you should be prepared to defend them - especially when those opinions are about other people. They deserve a chance to face their accuser, but instead, after being accused, they were lynched and banished without recourse. That's just not right.
And yeah, changing the design and lore of the Sisters to appease a dogmatic cult with a repressed sense of morality most people don't share seems like a bad thing. It doesn't to you?
No. 'gamer' has been a semi derogatory term for players in certain sports/games for more than a decade, sports that literally have nothing to do with tabletop anything.
master of ordinance wrote: If people do not think Sarkesian is not going to cause trouble in the community then just look at this thread - and all this is before she has had chance to spew her poison.
NOTHING good can come from letting this spiteful, manipulating, lying and toxic person anywhere near the borders of the hobby, let alone inviting the monster into the heart of it. Better to revoke her invitation and risk the inevitable but far less damaging backlash than to have her and her horde of followers gain a foothold and start to push in.
Whoa there Pedro. Whoa.
She’s done nothing in this thread. Not a comment, not a single exalt.
Who’s causing the waves here? People with a complaint (justified or not, I don’t care) against her, saying stuff she’s not present to defend.
It ain’t her cause the problem. Not right here. Not right now.
I was just sharing a story man. But yes, people acting awkward and weird around you, because of your gender, is certainly a sign of inequality. (And yes, there are certainly places where the staff will act weird if a man walks in.)
Yes. But this is called being socially awkward, or having social anxiety.
I don't see how having a legitimate psychological problem that has nothing to do with harassment, sexism, or inequality has to do with those things at all.
It might 'just be a story' but look at what you're trying to imply by telling us 'a story'.
Since when does having social anxiety equate to being sexist? Or treating the opposite gender with inequality?
Social awkwardness can lead to 'feeling a weird' vibe, but it's far from not being treated as an equal.
I was just sharing a story man. But yes, people acting awkward and weird around you, because of your gender, is certainly a sign of inequality. (And yes, there are certainly places where the staff will act weird if a man walks in.)
Yes. But this is called being socially awkward, or having social anxiety.
I don't see how having a legitimate psychological problem that has nothing to do with harassment, sexism, or inequality has to do with those things at all.
It might 'just be a story' but look at what you're trying to imply by telling us 'a story'.
Since when does having social anxiety equate to being sexist? Or treating the opposite gender with inequality?
Social awkwardness can lead to 'feeling a weird' vibe, but it's far from not being treated as an equal.
Which is really the crux of why I dislike that politics is infecting the hobby, right or left I don’t care, where as before all that we would have seen is a socially awkward nerd trying badly to ... not be, now that exact same situation would be seen in a different light, calling a person with social anxiety a creepy stalker rather than ... awkward.
I was just sharing a story man. But yes, people acting awkward and weird around you, because of your gender, is certainly a sign of inequality. (And yes, there are certainly places where the staff will act weird if a man walks in.)
Yes. But this is called being socially awkward, or having social anxiety.
I don't see how having a legitimate psychological problem that has nothing to do with harassment, sexism, or inequality has to do with those things at all.
It might 'just be a story' but look at what you're trying to imply by telling us 'a story'.
Since when does having social anxiety equate to being sexist? Or treating the opposite gender with inequality?
Social awkwardness can lead to 'feeling a weird' vibe, but it's far from not being treated as an equal.
Be careful how you're drawing definitions. Not all unequal treatment is caused by social anxiety/awkwardness (and I think you know that, but were being melodramatic). Writing *all* mistreatment off as social anxiety is not only unfair to people with decently-managed anxiety, but downplays the actual mistreatment due to sexism when it does happen.
Then anxiety or not, and benign as it may be, that’s pretty sexist, because you’re adjusting your behaviour based on gender.
And helping you out is part of feminism. It’s not ‘burn all the mens’, but ‘bring about the end of toxic masculinity,
What do I mean by toxic masculinity? The concept that if you don’t do X, look like Y and behave like Z, you’re somehow not a ‘proper’ man.
And I’m speaking as a well built (if slightly tubby) 6’2” Horror with a thick head of hair and no problem growing a beard. I’ve never had to work on this. I simply am. Indeed, I’d go so far as to say that barring a short period of brainless racism when I moved from Scotland to England, I’ve never encountered actual, genuine discrimination. I can walk down the road, any time of day or night, and be left alone. I can happily square up to someone, and have them respect me for it - even though I’m really a tremendous wuss and wimp. Indeed, I’m a tall, fairly handsome, well built, heterosexual white bloke in my native country with a good career going. There’s nobody silently judging or trying to second guess me. I’ve never had to justify myself or fight against a prejudice.
I also have social anxiety, believe it or not. And I’m not about to Misery Measure, because we are who we are. Yours affects you in a different way than mine does me.
But if you feel anxious because you’re not some chiselled, brainless hunk you see on your telly getting all the girls - that’s toxic masculinity. And if that’s the case, you’re a victim, not a perpetrator or propagator.
Look at Male/female suicide rates in the Western World. Here’s a hint, Young Men as disproportionately more likely to kill themselves. That’s a genuine statistical truth. Go google it, you’ll find plenty.
Men are, societally, discouraged from speaking about their feelings, worries, woes and stress. It tends to be seen as non-masculine, a weakness. And it’s a fething outrage.
Now, here’s a confession for you. New Year, 2014, I was raped. By a woman. She kind of attached herself to me in the pub, and like a drunken fool, she came back to my hotel room. Not because I wanted to shag her, but because she had nowhere else to go. She came on to me, I rebuffed her. Sadly, the morning wood fairy paid me a visit, and I awoke to her riding the giggle stick without protection. Now, me? As much as I had the sense to go get myself checked out ASAP (all clear, thankfully), but thanks to Toxic Masculinity, I didn’t feel able to report it to the Police. Not because I was afraid they wouldn’t believe me - but because I feared a counter accusation. As mentioned, I’m 6’2”and fairly well built. She was no more than 5’2”. If there was a counter accusation? I’d risk losing everything.
That’s not right. And that’s something feminism also seeks to address.
And here’s a fun fact for you! Under English Law (at least at the time, it may have changed since, but I don’t think it has), she didn’t, legally speaking rape me. It’s instead defined as ‘sexual assault’....see what I mean about Toxic Masculinity? Because that leads into societal and largely indoctrinated sexism.
Formosa wrote:
It says he is not willing to take some random fellas word for it on the internet, you can try to turn it into something else but that is the long and short of it, and given that you still have not supplied the requested proof that sexism is as common and rampant as you implied in the UK, then I can see why he wouldn’t take your word for it.
You're literally shouting up for someone whose first response to hearing about sexual harassment was 'WELL WHAT ABOUT THOSE LYING VAIN CHICKS, EH?' And yet you're still claiming sexual discrimination and harassment isn't common.
Formosa. You are the evidence.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Do you act differently around women?...
Then anxiety or not, and benign as it may be, that’s pretty sexist, because you’re adjusting your behaviour based on gender.
And helping you out is part of feminism. It’s not ‘burn all the mens’, but ‘bring about the end of toxic masculinity,
What do I mean by toxic masculinity? The concept that if you don’t do X, look like Y and behave like Z, you’re somehow not a ‘proper’ man.
And I’m speaking as a well built (if slightly tubby) 6’2” Horror with a thick head of hair and no problem growing a beard. I’ve never had to work on this. I simply am. Indeed, I’d go so far as to say that barring a short period of brainless racism when I moved from Scotland to England, I’ve never encountered actual, genuine discrimination. I can walk down the road, any time of day or night, and be left alone. I can happily square up to someone, and have them respect me for it - even though I’m really a tremendous wuss and wimp. Indeed, I’m a tall, fairly handsome, well built, heterosexual white bloke in my native country with a good career going. There’s nobody silently judging or trying to second guess me. I’ve never had to justify myself or fight against a prejudice.
I also have social anxiety, believe it or not. And I’m not about to Misery Measure, because we are who we are. Yours affects you in a different way than mine does me.
But if you feel anxious because you’re not some chiselled, brainless hunk you see on your telly getting all the girls - that’s toxic masculinity. And if that’s the case, you’re a victim, not a perpetrator or propagator.
Look at Male/female suicide rates in the Western World. Here’s a hint, Young Men as disproportionately more likely to kill themselves. That’s a genuine statistical truth. Go google it, you’ll find plenty.
Men are, societally, discouraged from speaking about their feelings, worries, woes and stress. It tends to be seen as non-masculine, a weakness. And it’s a fething outrage.
Now, here’s a confession for you. New Year, 2014, I was raped. By a woman. She kind of attached herself to me in the pub, and like a drunken fool, she came back to my hotel room. Not because I wanted to shag her, but because she had nowhere else to go. She came on to me, I rebuffed her. Sadly, the morning wood fairy paid me a visit, and I awoke to her riding the giggle stick without protection. Now, me? As much as I had the sense to go get myself checked out ASAP (all clear, thankfully), but thanks to Toxic Masculinity, I didn’t feel able to report it to the Police. Not because I was afraid they wouldn’t believe me - but because I feared a counter accusation. As mentioned, I’m 6’2”and fairly well built. She was no more than 5’2”. If there was a counter accusation? I’d risk losing everything.
That’s not right. And that’s something feminism also seeks to address.
And here’s a fun fact for you! Under English Law (at least at the time, it may have changed since, but I don’t think it has), she didn’t, legally speaking rape me. It’s instead defined as ‘sexual assault’....see what I mean about Toxic Masculinity? Because that leads into societal and largely indoctrinated sexism.
No, that's YOUR interpretation of feminism. Anita Sarkeesian has a different opinion to you probably and so would Germaine Greer who would disagree with you both then Christina Hoff Sommers would wade in and tell you that you're ALL wrong. The problem is that feminism is not a defined set of principles and everone has different opinions on what it means. Thats why people have things like TERF feminists and radical feminists and pro and anti sex feminists.
I was just sharing a story man. But yes, people acting awkward and weird around you, because of your gender, is certainly a sign of inequality. (And yes, there are certainly places where the staff will act weird if a man walks in.)
Yes. But this is called being socially awkward, or having social anxiety.
I don't see how having a legitimate psychological problem that has nothing to do with harassment, sexism, or inequality has to do with those things at all.
It might 'just be a story' but look at what you're trying to imply by telling us 'a story'.
Since when does having social anxiety equate to being sexist? Or treating the opposite gender with inequality?
Social awkwardness can lead to 'feeling a weird' vibe, but it's far from not being treated as an equal.
I think there has been a shift in what is accepted as harassment and sexism, and in some instances that bar has been lowered to the point of making the terms almost meaningless.
What I mean is that feelings of harassment are sometimes taken as valid even if no "actual" harassment took place. Polonius' example is perfect in that his girlfriend felt "something" when she walked into the GW and from her perspective labeled it as one thing (sexism, inequality, whatever) based on her own hang ups and perceptions of the individuals in that store. Nothing harassing happened as indicated by Polonius expect everyone got quiet, but from the girlfriend's perspective she was being treated differently because of her gender. What is being ignored are other possible explanations for the treatment she received, and social awkwardness is a good potential explanation. But for the woman involved, the feeling in the store was impactful enough that she noticed it, commented on it, and now has a story of being singled out for her gender in a male space. Fair or not, true or not, her impression is enough truth on the matter.
Similar things have cropped up in the #MeToo movement. The big one being the Aziz Ansari incident, and more recently the reversal of claims against George Takei, where impressions and feelings were enough to publicly drag individuals through the mud without ever verifying the veracity of the claims, or simply resorting to the accusers' word as good enough. That is even a major element of #MeToo, which is to always believe the victim no matter what. Such one-sided credibility is problematic for me, because women aren't automatically bastions of ethical behavior simply because they have two X chromosomes. Women are humans, and humans are lying pieces of gak sometimes, especially if there is something to gain. So outright acceptance of any claim of harassment or assault is intellectually problematic, but if you don't nod and give lip service to such demands then you are seen as a backwards pig.
Another example is an otherwise nuanced examination of harassment and the varying levels of it, but it still falls into the same trap of automatically believing a woman because she is a woman.
Janci Patterson wrote:There are men (and women) who are predators, who have committed assault and other things that cannot be made up for by a mere apology. There are those who need to face consequences in their workplaces, who need to lose their jobs, who need to face legal consequences, who need to be ejected from organizations and institutions to keep others safe.
But there are also a lot of men who have absorbed, unintentionally, a culture of misogyny. A culture that not only accepts and encourages but celebrates toxic masculinity and the degradation of women. These men make mistakes, sometimes terrible ones. These mistakes have consequences, sometimes terrible ones.
But we cannot (and, I believe, should not) jail and fire every man who has ever victimized a woman by sexually harassing her. Because it’s nearly all of them. Because what we need is not punishment, but change. What we need is sorrow, and remorse, and acknowledgement, and repentance.
Guys, this is how it’s done. If a woman tells you you have wronged her, admit that you did it, and apologize. If a friend tells you you have wronged another person, admit that you did it, and apologize. Do this even if you think it’s being blown out of proportion. Do this even if you feel defensive. Do this especially when you feel defensive. Do this without qualification. Do it as gently and politely as possible. And above all, do it sincerely.
That blog is worth a read, and I agree with most of what she is saying, but the red bits are ridiculous because they are sexist towards men. One group isn't automatically right and their complaints aren't automatically worthy of validation just because they are/have been historically oppressed. It is too much of a swing in the other direction, ironically creating inequality as a result.
And as for men being brought up in a culture misogyny, that knife cuts both ways which makes this line of reasoning so infuriating for me. Women have just as much of a hand in enforcing social norms as men, which means the culture of misogyny is not simply a matter of men turning boys into monsters, but a concerted effort by society as a whole to produce men who act and behave in a certain way.
Shame there’s those trying to paint all feminists as cut from the same cloth....
TERF can particularly do one so far as I’m concerned. If you’re against bigotry and exclusionist nonsenses, you don’t get to cherry pick.
Now, some may try to paint my exception and repeated stand against the Far Right as some kind of hypocrisy there. Except it’s not. I stand up to them just I stand up to TERF and genuine man-hating ‘if ones bad, they’re all bad’ feminists for the same reasons. You can’t pick on example (however horrific) and claim it’s representative.
Formosa wrote:
It says he is not willing to take some random fellas word for it on the internet, you can try to turn it into something else but that is the long and short of it, and given that you still have not supplied the requested proof that sexism is as common and rampant as you implied in the UK, then I can see why he wouldn’t take your word for it.
You're literally shouting up for someone whose first response to hearing about sexual harassment was 'WELL WHAT ABOUT THOSE LYING VAIN CHICKS, EH?' And yet you're still claiming sexual discrimination and harassment isn't common.
Formosa. You are the evidence.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Do you act differently around women?...
Have an exalt. You know what's up.
Rodger, so you have no evidence for you claim of rampant sexism within the UK and given your responses so far I can happily disregard everything you have said on the subject.
But i am a fair man so I will give you another chance, prove what you are saying or stop spreading false information.
For clarity of others, sexism clearly happens in the UK, where me and katara disagree is that he is claiming that it’s everywhere and happens all the time, where as I state that it’s a rare occasion and not nearly as common as he is claiming.
Of course. I also act differently around my friends than strangers. I act differently with my parents. I act differently with my wife depending on if we are alone or if the children are in the room. Heck, I act differently around children than I do adults. I act differently on Dakka than I do on the other forums I frequent. I act differently because different situations require it. Because I don't curse in front of children, does that make me ageist? Because I hold the door open just a little bit earlier for handicapped people, does that make me ableist? You can't just single out one thing and act that it is the ONLY important thing that matters.
But if you feel anxious because you’re not some chiselled, brainless hunk you see on your telly getting all the girls - that’s toxic masculinity. And if that’s the case, you’re a victim, not a perpetrator or propagator.
Again, you are over simplifying something that is very complex. There are hundreds, if not millions, of pressures around you. The pressure to do well in school, the pressure to perform well at work, the pressure to perform well in bed, the pressure to sit through your children's plays and act like it wasn't cringy, the pressure to seem smart and capable in internet discussions, and so on.
You find out your best friend is cheating on his girlfriend. Do you rat on him because what he is doing is immoral and unloyal, do you tell him that you know and give him a chance to make it right, or do you keep it a secret because he's your best mate and mates stick together? There's pressure everywhere, and learning how to navigate those pressures (or succumb to them) is a part of growing up and becoming mature. Is there pressure to be manly? Sure, but you'll face far worse in your life.
My rationale? Until she asks a direct question, I’m not actually lying. Because she was my friend as well. Didn’t want to drop him in the gak, or be the one to break her heart.
In the end, friendship destroyed. Still feel I did the right thing in an impossible situation.
But i am a fair man so I will give you another chance, prove what you are saying or stop spreading false information.
Guv, I'm not going to try and prove the earth is round for you. If you want an education, there's enough institutes across the country, and the internet is right there if you fancy doing a little research on your own. Though given that you've yet to see the proof you're after despite staring right at it, I'm not sure what good it would do you. Pay me, and I might consider writing you a monograph, but otherwise, monotonously repeating a demand for one isn't going to get you anywhere. It's certainly not going to make anyone with half a clue think you have a point. I've already quite happily watched mine being made by your and AD's answers.
Off you pop and look it up for yourself. No. Infowars and 4chan are not acceptable sources, on account of being gobshites.
Lack of woman in top jobs has many many factors involved, of which sexism may be one, it’s dishonest to claim that it’s only because of sexism.
The ongoing concept that some jobs are for woman and men also is down to many many factors too, of which sexism can be one.
The gender pay gap also affects men, it is also explained by many many factors that again get ignored, I am sure you have done your research on the subject and are aware of the many studies that have shown other factors than sexism are involved, in a few rare occasions it’s down to sex.
Simply claiming that all of these are down to just sexism is wrong.
My rationale? Until she asks a direct question, I’m not actually lying. Because she was my friend as well. Didn’t want to drop him in the gak, or be the one to break her heart.
In the end, friendship destroyed. Still feel I did the right thing in an impossible situation.
But i am a fair man so I will give you another chance, prove what you are saying or stop spreading false information.
Guv, I'm not going to try and prove the earth is round for you. If you want an education, there's enough institutes across the country, and the internet is right there if you fancy doing a little research on your own. Though given that you've yet to see the proof you're after despite staring right at it, I'm not sure what good it would do you. Pay me, and I might consider writing you a monograph, but otherwise, repeating a demand for one isn't going to get you anywhere. It's certainly not going to make anyone with half a clue think you have a point.
More diversion tactics katara.... so you can’t prove your WRONG statement, you made an assertion that you cannot prove using anecdotal evidence and tried to pass it off as the truth for everyone else, can’t admit your wrong eh... that “toxic masculinity” kicking in is it
More diversion tactics katara.... so you can’t prove your WRONG statement, you made an assertion that you cannot prove using anecdotal evidence and tried to pass it off as the truth for everyone else, can’t admit your wrong eh... that “toxic masculinity” kicking in is it
To be fair, my wife in no way felt that the boys in the GW shop were sexist. She was mostly laughing at them as guys that clearly don't interact with a ton of women.
Sigh. That's not the point. Women are treated badly because they are women. Men are treated badly sometimes, but rarely because they are men.
I guess you've missed the recent feminist backlash against cis white males? Gamers are treated badly because they are men. That's the entire point of Sarkeesian's videos. The male gaze is bad because it is male. Virtual violence is bad because it feeds into masculine desires. Damsels in distress are bad because it is a male power fantasy of saving/winning a princess through heroic (masculine) deeds. The one thing that ties together everything she has ever said about the game industry is that men are bad, doing men things is bad, gamers are men, gamers are bad because they are men.
If she is an issue then express your rights and displeasure by not attending her portion of the meeting, and organize others in similar fashion. If this is an important enough issue, organize a boycott.
But i am a fair man so I will give you another chance, prove what you are saying or stop spreading false information.
Guv, I'm not going to try and prove the earth is round for you. If you want an education, there's enough institutes across the country, and the internet is right there if you fancy doing a little research on your own. Though given that you've yet to see the proof you're after despite staring right at it, I'm not sure what good it would do you. Pay me, and I might consider writing you a monograph, but otherwise, repeating a demand for one isn't going to get you anywhere. It's certainly not going to make anyone with half a clue think you have a point.
More diversion tactics katara.... so you can’t prove your WRONG statement, you made an assertion that you cannot prove using anecdotal evidence and tried to pass it off as the truth for everyone else, can’t admit your wrong eh... that “toxic masculinity” kicking in is it
Dude, there's been plenty of information shared here. You will simply critique anything that you're pointed out, and call it "flawed" or "biased" and then claim victory.
It's not our job to teach you.
And certainly not our job to persuade you when you are firmly committed to a viewpoint.
Thing with Sarkeesian for me is she is bringing unwanted politics into a hobby that doesn’t want it, to be clear that’s any politics at all, not just left wing, but right wing too, I can’t hate her for this as I don’t know her personally, I just find it very bad form and smacks of sensationalism to drive up her clicks.
Ignoring everything else for a minute, I am sure we can all agree that there is a time and place for political discourse, but our shared hobby is not one of them.
Thing with Sarkeesian for me is she is bringing unwanted politics into a hobby that doesn’t want it, to be clear that’s any politics at all, not just left wing, but right wing too, I can’t hate her for this as I don’t know her personally, I just find it very bad form and smacks of sensationalism to drive up her clicks.
Ignoring everything else for a minute, I am sure we can all agree that there is a time and place for political discourse, but our shared hobby is not one of them.
If the problem is within the hobby though, that's where you talk about it, right?
And this is a spectacularly easy conversation to avoid.
master of ordinance wrote: If people do not think Sarkesian is not going to cause trouble in the community then just look at this thread - and all this is before she has had chance to spew her poison.
NOTHING good can come from letting this spiteful, manipulating, lying and toxic person anywhere near the borders of the hobby, let alone inviting the monster into the heart of it. Better to revoke her invitation and risk the inevitable but far less damaging backlash than to have her and her horde of followers gain a foothold and start to push in.
Whoa there Pedro. Whoa.
She’s done nothing in this thread. Not a comment, not a single exalt.
Who’s causing the waves here? People with a complaint (justified or not, I don’t care) against her, saying stuff she’s not present to defend.
It ain’t her cause the problem. Not right here. Not right now.
Indeed. As noted I don't understand the problem. If she annoys you, don't go to the talk or even the event. Life is too short to worry about this gak.
But i am a fair man so I will give you another chance, prove what you are saying or stop spreading false information.
Guv, I'm not going to try and prove the earth is round for you. If you want an education, there's enough institutes across the country, and the internet is right there if you fancy doing a little research on your own. Though given that you've yet to see the proof you're after despite staring right at it, I'm not sure what good it would do you. Pay me, and I might consider writing you a monograph, but otherwise, repeating a demand for one isn't going to get you anywhere. It's certainly not going to make anyone with half a clue think you have a point.
More diversion tactics katara.... so you can’t prove your WRONG statement, you made an assertion that you cannot prove using anecdotal evidence and tried to pass it off as the truth for everyone else, can’t admit your wrong eh... that “toxic masculinity” kicking in is it
Dude, there's been plenty of information shared here. You will simply critique anything that you're pointed out, and call it "flawed" or "biased" and then claim victory.
It's not our job to teach you.
And certainly not our job to persuade you when you are firmly committed to a viewpoint.
I have asked him to prove his claim that sexism is rampant in the UK, all I have seen so far is articles based on American ideals and values and by extension, politics.
The other examples claim that they are solely because of sexism, ignoring so many other factors involved, I have given Ketara multiple chances to prove his point and been derided for asking for proof, had I started by saying that there is no sexism in the UK at all then he would be well within his rights to demand evidence to back my statements up and I would be forced to either prove it, or admit I was wrong.
And yes, it is your jobs to persuade me you are correct if you are making sweeping statements regarding a cause I have fought for, I freely admit I am one of those people that is in the “prove it” camp, call it a fault if you please
If she is an issue then express your rights and displeasure by not attending her portion of the meeting, and organize others in similar fashion. If this is an important enough issue, organize a boycott.
Organize a boycott? Sure, no problem. I'll just post a message on this forum... nope, got banned for being a misogynist. I'll contact some game journalists to... nope, Sarkeesian is giving a talk, and that's a good thing. I'll just go over to the GamerGate reddit group and... now I've been banned from 47 different subreddits because I posted in a hate group. Okay, I'll post about it on Twitter... my account got locked until I delete that tweet. Geez, what's left? Facebook? Darn, my posts aren't showing up on other people's timelines.
Thing with Sarkeesian for me is she is bringing unwanted politics into a hobby that doesn’t want it, to be clear that’s any politics at all, not just left wing, but right wing too, I can’t hate her for this as I don’t know her personally, I just find it very bad form and smacks of sensationalism to drive up her clicks.
Ignoring everything else for a minute, I am sure we can all agree that there is a time and place for political discourse, but our shared hobby is not one of them.
If the problem is within the hobby though, that's where you talk about it, right?
And this is a spectacularly easy conversation to avoid.
There are no victims here, just volunteers.
That’s the thing though right.
I see people claim it’s a problem, very loudly, but no one has ever actually proven it, so how can I reasonably believe it, should I just take their word for it or show some critical thinking and question it in the same manner I would question anything?
For what it's worth, I don't really know anything about his woman, and I've certainly never watched any of her videos. Like plenty of commenters that make a living off their viewpoint, she no doubt takes things to extremes, and probably says a lot of stuff that's of questionable value.
I will say that I've gamed for about 25 years. Magic, D&D, Warhammer, plenty of others. Somebody earlier in the thread commented that Magic went "full SJW" in a derogatory sense. I don't know much about Magic anymore, but I know when I see people playing FNM or in a prerelease, there are way more women and people of color than when I played in the 90s. I know that D&D has gone out of it's way to be inclusive, which seems to have paid off. Likewise Malifaux.
This suggests that there is inherent interest in the broader hobby among women. I've also spent enough time around gamers to know that there is no shortage of issues with women, ranging from harmless awkwardness to some nastier viewpoints.
So, I can connect these dots to make a pretty simple conclusion: gaming might have had, and still continue to have, some problems with women, but that with some work they can be attracted.
With Anita, what I've seen is a person raise a range of issues, some of them valid, some not, and be met with a torrent of animosity. So, that says to me that gaming isn't quite ready to make some pretty basic changes.
But i am a fair man so I will give you another chance, prove what you are saying or stop spreading false information.
Guv, I'm not going to try and prove the earth is round for you. If you want an education, there's enough institutes across the country, and the internet is right there if you fancy doing a little research on your own. Though given that you've yet to see the proof you're after despite staring right at it, I'm not sure what good it would do you. Pay me, and I might consider writing you a monograph, but otherwise, repeating a demand for one isn't going to get you anywhere. It's certainly not going to make anyone with half a clue think you have a point.
More diversion tactics katara.... so you can’t prove your WRONG statement, you made an assertion that you cannot prove using anecdotal evidence and tried to pass it off as the truth for everyone else, can’t admit your wrong eh... that “toxic masculinity” kicking in is it
Dude, there's been plenty of information shared here. You will simply critique anything that you're pointed out, and call it "flawed" or "biased" and then claim victory.
It's not our job to teach you.
And certainly not our job to persuade you when you are firmly committed to a viewpoint.
I have asked him to prove his claim that sexism is rampant in the UK, all I have seen so far is articles based on American ideals and values and by extension, politics.
The other examples claim that they are solely because of sexism, ignoring so many other factors involved, I have given Ketara multiple chances to prove his point and been derided for asking for proof, had I started by saying that there is no sexism in the UK at all then he would be well within his rights to demand evidence to back my statements up and I would be forced to either prove it, or admit I was wrong.
And yes, it is your jobs to persuade me you are correct if you are making sweeping statements regarding a cause I have fought for, I freely admit I am one of those people that is in the “prove it” camp, call it a fault if you please
But i am a fair man so I will give you another chance, prove what you are saying or stop spreading false information.
Guv, I'm not going to try and prove the earth is round for you. If you want an education, there's enough institutes across the country, and the internet is right there if you fancy doing a little research on your own. Though given that you've yet to see the proof you're after despite staring right at it, I'm not sure what good it would do you. Pay me, and I might consider writing you a monograph, but otherwise, repeating a demand for one isn't going to get you anywhere. It's certainly not going to make anyone with half a clue think you have a point.
More diversion tactics katara.... so you can’t prove your WRONG statement, you made an assertion that you cannot prove using anecdotal evidence and tried to pass it off as the truth for everyone else, can’t admit your wrong eh... that “toxic masculinity” kicking in is it
Dude, there's been plenty of information shared here. You will simply critique anything that you're pointed out, and call it "flawed" or "biased" and then claim victory.
It's not our job to teach you.
And certainly not our job to persuade you when you are firmly committed to a viewpoint.
I have asked him to prove his claim that sexism is rampant in the UK, all I have seen so far is articles based on American ideals and values and by extension, politics.
The other examples claim that they are solely because of sexism, ignoring so many other factors involved, I have given Ketara multiple chances to prove his point and been derided for asking for proof, had I started by saying that there is no sexism in the UK at all then he would be well within his rights to demand evidence to back my statements up and I would be forced to either prove it, or admit I was wrong.
And yes, it is your jobs to persuade me you are correct if you are making sweeping statements regarding a cause I have fought for, I freely admit I am one of those people that is in the “prove it” camp, call it a fault if you please
What evidence would you accept?
Statistical analysis from a credibal source, so none of the newspaper/tabloids or their sites, if you could provide these I promise to read them with an open mind.
Polonius wrote: For what it's worth, I don't really know anything about his woman, and I've certainly never watched any of her videos. Like plenty of commenters that make a living off their viewpoint, she no doubt takes things to extremes, and probably says a lot of stuff that's of questionable value.
I will say that I've gamed for about 25 years. Magic, D&D, Warhammer, plenty of others. Somebody earlier in the thread commented that Magic went "full SJW" in a derogatory sense. I don't know much about Magic anymore, but I know when I see people playing FNM or in a prerelease, there are way more women and people of color than when I played in the 90s. I know that D&D has gone out of it's way to be inclusive, which seems to have paid off. Likewise Malifaux.
This suggests that there is inherent interest in the broader hobby among women. I've also spent enough time around gamers to know that there is no shortage of issues with women, ranging from harmless awkwardness to some nastier viewpoints.
So, I can connect these dots to make a pretty simple conclusion: gaming might have had, and still continue to have, some problems with women, but that with some work they can be attracted.
With Anita, what I've seen is a person raise a range of issues, some of them valid, some not, and be met with a torrent of animosity. So, that says to me that gaming isn't quite ready to make some pretty basic changes.
The problem is that Sarkeesian is somewhat heavy handed in her approach and doesn't fully understand what she's critiquing. She also has a ties to the media and a large and rabid social media fanbase.
Her approach does not bring communities together. It divides them, drives them to take extreme positions and ruins them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnnyHell wrote: Sexism *is* rife in the UK. Stop pretending it isn’t.
This thread is a cesspool.
It's mainly just Pol, Ketara and Formosa making it that way. We were all happy agreeing that Anita Sarkeesian is baffling and/or awful woman to have at Gencon.
If she is an issue then express your rights and displeasure by not attending her portion of the meeting, and organize others in similar fashion. If this is an important enough issue, organize a boycott.
Organize a boycott? Sure, no problem. I'll just post a message on this forum... nope, got banned for being a misogynist. I'll contact some game journalists to... nope, Sarkeesian is giving a talk, and that's a good thing. I'll just go over to the GamerGate reddit group and... now I've been banned from 47 different subreddits because I posted in a hate group. Okay, I'll post about it on Twitter... my account got locked until I delete that tweet. Geez, what's left? Facebook? Darn, my posts aren't showing up on other people's timelines.
If that happens, jeez you may be forced to get off the internet and play a game...
Thing with Sarkeesian for me is she is bringing unwanted politics into a hobby that doesn’t want it, to be clear that’s any politics at all, not just left wing, but right wing too, I can’t hate her for this as I don’t know her personally, I just find it very bad form and smacks of sensationalism to drive up her clicks.
Ignoring everything else for a minute, I am sure we can all agree that there is a time and place for political discourse, but our shared hobby is not one of them.
If the problem is within the hobby though, that's where you talk about it, right?
And this is a spectacularly easy conversation to avoid.
There are no victims here, just volunteers.
That’s the thing though right.
I see people claim it’s a problem, very loudly, but no one has ever actually proven it, so how can I reasonably believe it, should I just take their word for it or show some critical thinking and question it in the same manner I would question anything?
Reread the thread, but pretend you aren't you while you do it. Maybe ask your sister or your mother to read it and comment. Otherwise, you'll just maintain your blind spot.
Polonius wrote: To be fair, my wife in no way felt that the boys in the GW shop were sexist. She was mostly laughing at them as guys that clearly don't interact with a ton of women.
So why share the story in a discussion about sexism and harassment in gaming culture? Especially in response to a comment about how another person's wife was treated differently in online gaming? You weren't drawing a connection between the two experiences? Nice that she had a laugh at "dem virgins" though!
Polonius wrote: With Anita, what I've seen is a person raise a range of issues, some of them valid, some not, and be met with a torrent of animosity. So, that says to me that gaming isn't quite ready to make some pretty basic changes.
Or it could be that Anita is a known caustic presence based on her history engaging in these topics and the strategies she uses to make her arguments are often ham-fisted and generalize to the point of painting large swathes of a demographic in unflattering ways. Perhaps it isn't that gaming isn't ready to make "some pretty basic changes" but rather the changes needed aren't agreed upon by the community as a whole and that is directly a result of the manner in which the arguments for change are made in the first place?
If she is an issue then express your rights and displeasure by not attending her portion of the meeting, and organize others in similar fashion. If this is an important enough issue, organize a boycott.
Organize a boycott? Sure, no problem. I'll just post a message on this forum... nope, got banned for being a misogynist. I'll contact some game journalists to... nope, Sarkeesian is giving a talk, and that's a good thing. I'll just go over to the GamerGate reddit group and... now I've been banned from 47 different subreddits because I posted in a hate group. Okay, I'll post about it on Twitter... my account got locked until I delete that tweet. Geez, what's left? Facebook? Darn, my posts aren't showing up on other people's timelines.
The problem might be closer to you than you think.
It's mainly just Pol, Ketara and Formosa making it that way. We were all happy agreeing that Anita Sarkeesian is baffling and/or awful woman to have at Gencon.
I already did my opinion on that bit earlier.
Video games and tabletop games have crossover. If she has anything relevant to say, there's nothing wrong with inviting her. Don't like her, vote with your feet. Free market, etcetc. Perhaps there are other people more worthy, if you think so, write in and tell Gencon who you'd actually like to see. If enough people name a specific person, they'll probably make an attempt to get them to show up.
She's a minor (and rather poor) internet blogger. As far as I can tell (please correct me otherwise), her fame is entirely derived from the collective whiny outrage of a bunch of nerdy middle class white guys, because she gives them the tiniest taste of what women and people of colour have experienced the world over for the last three hundred years. And they simply can't stand it.* So they take to the internet in their multitudes to whinge and gnash their teeth and chew over and over endlessly the concept that a woman could dare to treat them that way. The fact we're still discussing this now and that people still give half a damn about her are proof enough of that.
Without that attention in the first place, nobody would give a damn. Heck, most people still don't. Except the aforementioned lads who are now raging that Gencon dared to invite her. Don't they know that the woman is toxic???. She'll destroy everything if they let her! etcetc. Meanwhile, the sun comes up and down, and people with real problems get on with addressing with them instead of obsessing over the guest list for a toy soldier convention.
*Note that I'm not saying sexism and discrimination against men are correct in any way shape or form. They're very emphatically not. It does amuse me though, just how uptight and worked up some people can get about the most minor hint of discrimination/sexism against them, but who otherwise pay no attention whatsoever to far more severe problems in that vein when it involves other people instead.
If she is an issue then express your rights and displeasure by not attending her portion of the meeting, and organize others in similar fashion. If this is an important enough issue, organize a boycott.
Organize a boycott? Sure, no problem. I'll just post a message on this forum... nope, got banned for being a misogynist. I'll contact some game journalists to... nope, Sarkeesian is giving a talk, and that's a good thing. I'll just go over to the GamerGate reddit group and... now I've been banned from 47 different subreddits because I posted in a hate group. Okay, I'll post about it on Twitter... my account got locked until I delete that tweet. Geez, what's left? Facebook? Darn, my posts aren't showing up on other people's timelines.
The problem might be closer to you than you think.
All of those things have happened to people who actually advocated against Anita Sarkeesian, though not to me personally. The only one not directly related is the Facebook one, since the poster was also a Trump supporter and it's just as likely that they were shadowbanned for that.
Things are probably a little better now that her stardom has cooled off, but there was a time when you literally could not criticize Sarkeesian in public without drastic repercussions.
Formosa wrote: Statistical analysis from a credibal source, so none of the newspaper/tabloids or their sites, if you could provide these I promise to read them with an open mind.
Cheers pol
Here's a study from the UN on sexual harrssment in the EU, broken down by nation. There are industry breakdowns on page 25, types of harassment on page 29, and a more in depth discussion of the UK starting on page 143. (all pages are pdf page number, not internal page number) It is older (most studies from 1989-1993). http://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/pdf/shworkpl.pdf
Here's a more recent paper from the London school of Economics, which to quote from the abstract: "Experiments have offered new findings on gender discrimination, and while they have identified a bias against hiring women in some labor market segments, the discrimination detected in field experiments is less pervasive than that implied by the regression approach." http://personal.lse.ac.uk/petrongo/Azmat_Petrongolo_April2014.pdf
they cite a study from 2006, which noted "Pairs of carefully-matched, written applications were made to advertised job vacancies in England to test for sexual discrimination in hiring. Two standard résumés were constructed for each occupation to control for all relevant supply-side variables, such as qualifications, experience and age. Consequently any differential response recorded can be attributed to demand-side discrimination. Statistically significant discrimination against men was found in the `female occupation' - secretary, and against women in the `male occupation' - engineer. Statistically significant, and unprecedented, discrimination against men was found in two `mixed occupations' - trainee chartered accountant and computer analyst programmer." https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/bejeap.2006.5.2/bejeap.2006.5.2.1416/bejeap.2006.5.2.1416.xml So things are at least more interesting in the UK for hiring, I'll say that.
Here's a paper that actually covers both the US and UK in terms of working women: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2367859 Of note, "In the U.S., for example, the poverty rate of women 65 years old and up is nearly double that of their male counterparts. Older women of color are especially disadvantaged. The situation in the U.K. is comparable."
I will note that the survey I submitted earlier was cited by the BBC.
Video games and tabletop games have crossover. If she has anything relevant to say, there's nothing wrong with inviting her. Don't like her, vote with your feet. Free market, etcetc. Perhaps there are other people more worthy, if you think so, write in and tell Gencon who you'd actually like to see. If enough people name a specific person, they'll probably make an attempt to get them to show up.
I can not impress upon you how much this absolutely does not work. It was tried, things got worse anyway.
She's a minor (and rather poor) internet blogger.
She was probably the most important person in the game industry for several years and her influence was felt everywhere. She spoke in front of the UN, was on the Colbert show, is on Twitter's Trust and Safety council, was covered by national newspapers and media.... Minor, she isn't, though I will give you poor.
Without that attention in the first place, nobody would give a damn.
She played the victim card so much that even events that people weren't caring enough to attend were blown out of proportion and delivered weeks of articles about how gamers threatened her life. Even if people ignored her, they didn't actually need to provably interact with her for her to claim that she felt unsafe and was a victim of harassment. Nobody actually bothered to check if these people were real or not.
Polonius wrote: My wife once stopped into the GW store to pick up an order for me. She didn't feel harassed or anything, but she could feel the mood shift when she walked in. It was clear the employee wasn't used to female customers. (She's not exactly sensitive about that stuff either.)
OTOH, my local GW has a shopgirl running the store the last couple times I've gone to pick up a MTO.
I certainly hope that she wasn't oppressed by my masculine presence, despite my best efforts to be polite during the 90 seconds it took to complete the pickup.
I think that one depends on the store clientele and owner. I've seen both in action. An increased background male interest doesn't equate to any form of sexism either, whether it makes the woman in question uncomfortable or not.
Caveats all included, I've otherwise definitely seen some blokes pull some cringeworthy crap and scare girls out of game stores before. I suspect it happens in any male dominated social scene to an extent, be it playing wargames or snooker.
Let's not generalize this as a male problem. This happens at any event that is generally dominated by one gender/age/race/etc. Try being the only white guy showing up for a basketball club, or when I was the only young man in a group of middle aged women at a local gardening club event.
Formosa wrote: Statistical analysis from a credibal source, so none of the newspaper/tabloids or their sites, if you could provide these I promise to read them with an open mind.
Cheers pol
Here's a study from the UN on sexual harrssment in the EU, broken down by nation. There are industry breakdowns on page 25, types of harassment on page 29, and a more in depth discussion of the UK starting on page 143. (all pages are pdf page number, not internal page number) It is older (most studies from 1989-1993). http://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/pdf/shworkpl.pdf
Here's a more recent paper from the London school of Economics, which to quote from the abstract: "Experiments have offered new findings on gender discrimination, and while they have identified a bias against hiring women in some labor market segments, the discrimination detected in field experiments is less pervasive than that implied by the regression approach." http://personal.lse.ac.uk/petrongo/Azmat_Petrongolo_April2014.pdf
they cite a study from 2006, which noted "Pairs of carefully-matched, written applications were made to advertised job vacancies in England to test for sexual discrimination in hiring. Two standard résumés were constructed for each occupation to control for all relevant supply-side variables, such as qualifications, experience and age. Consequently any differential response recorded can be attributed to demand-side discrimination. Statistically significant discrimination against men was found in the `female occupation' - secretary, and against women in the `male occupation' - engineer. Statistically significant, and unprecedented, discrimination against men was found in two `mixed occupations' - trainee chartered accountant and computer analyst programmer." https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/bejeap.2006.5.2/bejeap.2006.5.2.1416/bejeap.2006.5.2.1416.xml So things are at least more interesting in the UK for hiring, I'll say that.
Here's a paper that actually covers both the US and UK in terms of working women: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2367859 Of note, "In the U.S., for example, the poverty rate of women 65 years old and up is nearly double that of their male counterparts. Older women of color are especially disadvantaged. The situation in the U.K. is comparable."
I will note that the survey I submitted earlier was cited by the BBC.
I’ll get to reading this now mate, give me a bit before I reply
It's mainly just Pol, Ketara and Formosa making it that way. We were all happy agreeing that Anita Sarkeesian is baffling and/or awful woman to have at Gencon.
I already did my opinion on that bit earlier.
Video games and tabletop games have crossover. If she has anything relevant to say, there's nothing wrong with inviting her. Don't like her, vote with your feet. Free market, etcetc. Perhaps there are other people more worthy, if you think so, write in and tell Gencon who you'd actually like to see. If enough people name a specific person, they'll probably make an attempt to get them to show up.
She's a minor (and rather poor) internet blogger. As far as I can tell (please correct me otherwise), her fame is entirely derived from the collective whiny outrage of a bunch of nerdy middle class white guys, because she gives them the tiniest taste of what women and people of colour have experienced the world over for the last three hundred years. And they simply can't stand it.* So they take to the internet in their multitudes to whinge and gnash their teeth and chew over and over endlessly the concept that a woman could dare to treat them that way. The fact we're still discussing this now and that people still give half a damn about her are proof enough of that.
Without that attention in the first place, nobody would give a damn. Heck, most people still don't. Except the aforementioned lads who are now raging that Gencon dared to invite her. Don't they know that the woman is toxic???. She'll destroy everything if they let her! etcetc. Meanwhile, the sun comes up and down, and people with real problems get on with addressing with them instead of obsessing over the guest list for a toy soldier convention.
*Note that I'm not saying sexism and discrimination against men are correct in any way shape or form. They're very emphatically not. It does amuse me though, just how uptight and worked up some people can get about the most minor hint of discrimination/sexism against them, but who otherwise pay no attention whatsoever to far more severe problems in that vein when it involves other people instead.
But it doesn't matter if I don't pay attention, other people will. And unlike gaming tabletop games basically require other people.
For example (and I'm aware this is both hypothetical and possibly hyperbolic) if I decide to play a Malifaux pick up game and choose to run Seamus with his zombie showgirls its entirely possible that my opponent may have listened to Anita and decide that my choice of gang is misogynistic and refuse to play because she said so whereas currently no one gives a gak about Seamus and his undead hookers. I didn't really care about her views on video games even as I watched her influence spread throughout the western game devs since I mainly played single player Japanese games and generally shun online gaming in all forms. I don't really have that option for tabletop games.
I shouldn't have to start my games by handing my opponent a list of trigger warnings because I'm playing Daemons or Resurrectionists and have them check that my army is sufficiently racially and sexually diverse.
She was probably the most important person in the game industry for several years and her influence was felt everywhere. She spoke in front of the UN, was on the Colbert show, is on Twitter's Trust and Safety council, was covered by national newspapers and media.... Minor, she isn't, though I will give you poor.
Far enough on the minor front though; though at the same time, even being a relatively well known internet blogger is still a pretty small time position in terms of fame and influence. I mean, it's not exactly David Bowie, Jeb Bush, or Malala is it? You tend to find even the most famous of internet bloggers have their circle of devout followers and little influence/recognition beyond that. If you asked a high street full of people who Pewdiepie is, you'll get a handful of teenagers going 'isn't he that youtube dude?' for the most part. Likewise, beyond her merry band, I doubt anyone cares about Sarkeesian these days but the aforementioned gnashing of teeth crowd. I certainly haven't heard the name in years.
If she is an issue then express your rights and displeasure by not attending her portion of the meeting, and organize others in similar fashion. If this is an important enough issue, organize a boycott.
Organize a boycott? Sure, no problem. I'll just post a message on this forum... nope, got banned for being a misogynist. I'll contact some game journalists to... nope, Sarkeesian is giving a talk, and that's a good thing. I'll just go over to the GamerGate reddit group and... now I've been banned from 47 different subreddits because I posted in a hate group. Okay, I'll post about it on Twitter... my account got locked until I delete that tweet. Geez, what's left? Facebook? Darn, my posts aren't showing up on other people's timelines.
The problem might be closer to you than you think.
Thank you, I was wondering if he recognized the common factor with all those problems...
Let's not generalize this as a male problem. This happens at any event that is generally dominated by one gender/age/race/etc. Try being the only white guy showing up for a basketball club, or when I was the only young man in a group of middle aged women at a local gardening club event.
I don't disagree with you. Let me be more explicit. I think the 'cringeworthy crap' specifically is more of a male thing, but that tends to be more down to men trying to impress girls in head-deskingly naff ways. Tends to happen less the other way because society dictates that men do the approaching. I guess you might see more of it if young Leonardo Dicaprio showed up with his shirt off to a volleyball club, but that aspect otherwise tends to be quite onesided.
That being clarified, I agree that anyone will be generally treated a bit differently in the same context in reverse situations, as you've given perfect examples for.
Sim-Life wrote: The problem is that Sarkeesian is somewhat heavy handed in her approach and doesn't fully understand what she's critiquing. She also has a ties to the media and a large and rabid social media fanbase.
Her approach does not bring communities together. It divides them, drives them to take extreme positions and ruins them.
No one person can divide an community, unless fault lines were there before.
The real problem for many people, I think, is that people are actually talking about if there is misogyny in games, when they really, really don't want to.
DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Polonius wrote: To be fair, my wife in no way felt that the boys in the GW shop were sexist. She was mostly laughing at them as guys that clearly don't interact with a ton of women.
So why share the story in a discussion about sexism and harassment in gaming culture? Especially in response to a comment about how another person's wife was treated differently in online gaming? You weren't drawing a connection between the two experiences? Nice that she had a laugh at "dem virgins" though!
Sorry, I guess?
Or it could be that Anita is a known caustic presence based on her history engaging in these topics and the strategies she uses to make her arguments are often ham-fisted and generalize to the point of painting large swathes of a demographic in unflattering ways. Perhaps it isn't that gaming isn't ready to make "some pretty basic changes" but rather the changes needed aren't agreed upon by the community as a whole and that is directly a result of the manner in which the arguments for change are made in the first place?
Well, clearly enough people agree with her, at least broadly, that she had any influence at all. If she were a lone voice in the wilderness, nobody would care. the problem is that when she said that there is widespread misogyny in gaming, a lot of people nodded their head and went, "yeah, there is."
And I know that it's cute to say that all male feminists are some sort of beta/cuck/virgin, but it's not just tumbler clowns that think there's some sexism in gaming. So yes, I think some changes are necessary.
Ketara wrote: As far as I can tell (please correct me otherwise), her fame is entirely derived from the collective whiny outrage of a bunch of nerdy middle class white guys, because she gives them the tiniest taste of what women and people of colour have experienced the world over for the last three hundred years. And they simply can't stand it.* So they take to the internet in their multitudes to whinge and gnash their teeth and chew over and over endlessly the concept that a woman could dare to treat them that way. The fact we're still discussing this now and that people still give half a damn about her are proof enough of that.
There is a lot of that. But that's our culture, at least in the US. We live in a time where Christians (a majority of the nation), see themselves are more oppressed than any other religion. Where the only thing that many straight, white men took away from the last few decades is how to couch their complaints in the language of being oppressed.
Polonius wrote: My wife once stopped into the GW store to pick up an order for me. She didn't feel harassed or anything, but she could feel the mood shift when she walked in. It was clear the employee wasn't used to female customers. (She's not exactly sensitive about that stuff either.)
OTOH, my local GW has a shopgirl running the store the last couple times I've gone to pick up a MTO.
I certainly hope that she wasn't oppressed by my masculine presence, despite my best efforts to be polite during the 90 seconds it took to complete the pickup.
I think that one depends on the store clientele and owner. I've seen both in action. An increased background male interest doesn't equate to any form of sexism either, whether it makes the woman in question uncomfortable or not.
Caveats all included, I've otherwise definitely seen some blokes pull some cringeworthy crap and scare girls out of game stores before. I suspect it happens in any male dominated social scene to an extent, be it playing wargames or snooker.
Let's not generalize this as a male problem. This happens at any event that is generally dominated by one gender/age/race/etc. Try being the only white guy showing up for a basketball club, or when I was the only young man in a group of middle aged women at a local gardening club event.
Oddly, I have never had an issue being the only guy in a yoga class.
Sim-Life wrote: But it doesn't matter if I don't pay attention, other people will. And unlike gaming tabletop games basically require other people.
For example (and I'm aware this is both hypothetical and possibly hyperbolic) if I decide to play a Malifaux pick up game and choose to run Seamus with his zombie showgirls its entirely possible that my opponent may have listened to Anita and decide that my choice of gang is misogynistic and refuse to play because she said so whereas currently no one gives a gak about Seamus and his undead hookers. I didn't really care about her views on video games even as I watched her influence spread throughout the western game devs since I mainly played single player Japanese games and generally shun online gaming in all forms. I don't really have that option for tabletop games.
I shouldn't have to start my games by handing my opponent a list of trigger warnings because I'm playing Daemons or Resurrectionists and have them check that my army is sufficiently racially and sexually diverse.
I will give you credit, you have made one of the more astute points of the thread. Even if you undermined it slightly with an admittedly self aware brutal takedown of a strawman
The concern about a chilling effect in opponent availability is a legitimate concern, but let's realtalk here: do you think Anita's hardcore followers actually play any of these games? I suppose it's possible, but a wise man once said "if you're talking about it on the internet, you're not doing it."
And trigger warnings are one of those boogie men that crack me up. They make sense in a handful of contexts, particularly in an academic setting when a person has a disability. Life doesn't come with trigger warnings, and anybody that has a moral issue with army selection in a game, I think it's safe to let them walk. There are people I won't play with because I don't have fun with them, sometimes it's political, sometimes, it's personal, but I wouldn't blame a blogger for them being unbearable.
But it doesn't matter if I don't pay attention, other people will. And unlike gaming tabletop games basically require other people.
For example (and I'm aware this is both hypothetical and possibly hyperbolic) if I decide to play a Malifaux pick up game and choose to run Seamus with his zombie showgirls its entirely possible that my opponent may have listened to Anita and decide that my choice of gang is misogynistic and refuse to play because she said so whereas currently no one gives a gak about Seamus and his undead hookers. I didn't really care about her views on video games even as I watched her influence spread throughout the western game devs since I mainly played single player Japanese games and generally shun online gaming in all forms. I don't really have that option for tabletop games.
I shouldn't have to start my games by handing my opponent a list of trigger warnings because I'm playing Daemons or Resurrectionists and have them check that my army is sufficiently racially and sexually diverse.
The way to resolve such problems is to try and either negotiate with such people and come to an agreement over what you find acceptable, or just not play with them. Sucks but it's true, and is down to more widespread perceptions of things than what an internet celebrity thinks.
After all, ultimately we all have lines for what we find acceptable; be it a Slaanesh army full of giant dongs and tentacle monsters raping women, down to a more cringeworthy Prodos Space Crusade Army, down to something that looks more like Diaz Daemonettes and basic boob armour, down to realistic looking women. If people don't want to play Lord Dongus the Magnificent and his Tentacled Trio, someone can't really complain that it's all down to those damn internet feminists brainwashing people, it's their choice, you know?
Ultimately what makes your opponent uncomfortable makes them uncomfortable, and you should always try to respect that and work with them. Otherwise you end up being the equivalent of TFG who wears a black trenchcoat in summer and insists on running his Dark Eldar army full of 'counts as' slave women 'because it's thematic, man!'; before stomping off in a huff because the one girl in the store refuses to play against it as she finds it demeaning. It's not about asking for trigger warnings, it's about common courtesy.
We're all here playing toy soldiers to have fun, after all, and everyone wants to have a good time!
Then anxiety or not, and benign as it may be, that’s pretty sexist, because you’re adjusting your behaviour based on gender.
And helping you out is part of feminism. It’s not ‘burn all the mens’, but ‘bring about the end of toxic masculinity,
What do I mean by toxic masculinity? The concept that if you don’t do X, look like Y and behave like Z, you’re somehow not a ‘proper’ man.
And I’m speaking as a well built (if slightly tubby) 6’2” Horror with a thick head of hair and no problem growing a beard. I’ve never had to work on this. I simply am. Indeed, I’d go so far as to say that barring a short period of brainless racism when I moved from Scotland to England, I’ve never encountered actual, genuine discrimination. I can walk down the road, any time of day or night, and be left alone. I can happily square up to someone, and have them respect me for it - even though I’m really a tremendous wuss and wimp. Indeed, I’m a tall, fairly handsome, well built, heterosexual white bloke in my native country with a good career going. There’s nobody silently judging or trying to second guess me. I’ve never had to justify myself or fight against a prejudice.
I also have social anxiety, believe it or not. And I’m not about to Misery Measure, because we are who we are. Yours affects you in a different way than mine does me.
But if you feel anxious because you’re not some chiselled, brainless hunk you see on your telly getting all the girls - that’s toxic masculinity. And if that’s the case, you’re a victim, not a perpetrator or propagator.
Look at Male/female suicide rates in the Western World. Here’s a hint, Young Men as disproportionately more likely to kill themselves. That’s a genuine statistical truth. Go google it, you’ll find plenty.
Men are, societally, discouraged from speaking about their feelings, worries, woes and stress. It tends to be seen as non-masculine, a weakness. And it’s a fething outrage.
Now, here’s a confession for you. New Year, 2014, I was raped. By a woman. She kind of attached herself to me in the pub, and like a drunken fool, she came back to my hotel room. Not because I wanted to shag her, but because she had nowhere else to go. She came on to me, I rebuffed her. Sadly, the morning wood fairy paid me a visit, and I awoke to her riding the giggle stick without protection. Now, me? As much as I had the sense to go get myself checked out ASAP (all clear, thankfully), but thanks to Toxic Masculinity, I didn’t feel able to report it to the Police. Not because I was afraid they wouldn’t believe me - but because I feared a counter accusation. As mentioned, I’m 6’2”and fairly well built. She was no more than 5’2”. If there was a counter accusation? I’d risk losing everything.
That’s not right. And that’s something feminism also seeks to address.
On the other hand, NOT changing the way you act is also sometimes seen as sexist. If a man comes up and assaults another man, he can fight back. If a woman assaults a man he's a woman beater if he fights back.
As for feminism and rape, it's not really equal either. Here in the US there was a huge uptick in men being suspended and expelled from college because of kangaroo college courts being forced to do so due to Title 9 enforcement. This was applauded by feminists. However, now that men have started accusing women of rape (like in your story), suddenly these same feminist groups are rallying around the accused women.
Here's a study from the UN on sexual harrssment in the EU, broken down by nation. There are industry breakdowns on page 25, types of harassment on page 29, and a more in depth discussion of the UK starting on page 143. (all pages are pdf page number, not internal page number) It is older (most studies from 1989-1993). http://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/pdf/shworkpl.pdf
Still reading this one and I'll get to the other ones in good time, but this is a really good example of those meta studies I was condeming earlier. Basically, this is a paper which collects data from a few dozen different surveys that all asked different questions and arrived at different answers. On page 14, they point out that several studies had results with a much higher or lower incidence than the mean. They attribute this to several factors:
1) how many questions about sexual harassment were asked. They say that when only one question about sexual harassment was asked, the incidence rate is lower than when there are 10 more specific questions are asked. (This means that the people surveyed didn't consider it sexual harassment when it was called sexual harassment).
2) Most questions did not include a timeframe. Incidence rates were lower when asked in the past 3 years, 2 months, or whatever. (This means that sexual harassment is not necessarily an ongoing, omnipresent problem, but limited to specific situations and people)
3) Incidence rates were also lower when people only responded about incidents they, themselves, experienced, and higher when they were asked about other coworkers (meaning that two people could be referring to the same coworker, which would count as 3 counts because the original + two onlookers - also, asking people to speak for the experiences of others is about the least scientific thing you can do)
4) The incident rates were different between random and nonrandom samples. As they admit, this means that selection bias could be a problem, and people who have experienced sexual harassment were more likely to respond to the surveys than those that did not.
5 ) The country the studies took place in. In most countries, the incident rates fluctuated wildly between different studies in different sectors, while in the UK, the rate is consistently high. This may be because sexual harassment is more prevalent in the UK, but it is also likely that there are cultural aspects at work, where the UK has a more broad definition of what constitutes sexual harassment. It even goes into several examples of how the variance could appear, such as Austria and Germany including sexist behavior as sexual harassment and their studies asking about coworkers. Also mentions that the UK and Norwegian studies were self reporting (biased sample) and low reporting rate (less than 1% reporting for the Nowegian), which could contribute to the considerably higher rate of incidence.
It keeps going, but you get the point. There's no clear definition of sexual harassment. How you ask, when you ask, where you ask, and how many you ask can make the difference between a 15% incidence rate and a 90% incidence rate. However, knowing this and even pointing it out, this study is still going to group all these studies together and draw conclusions from them as if they studied the same things in the same way and arrived at equally valid data.
I'm not sure that you can definitively draw any conclusion from a meta analysis like that, except that we need a better way to identify, quantify, and measure sexual harassment in a more scientific and usable way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote: Thank you, I was wondering if he recognized the common factor with all those problems...
Yeah, the common factor was people speaking out against Anita Sarkeesian in environments where her followers held power over what messages could be heard. If you guys weren't there, you just don't know what it was like. I hope you never have to.
Really who did these studies? what was the control group? what is considered "sexual harassment" in the study? (seriously if calling "names" someone is considered harassment I have endured my entire life so far been harassed by men and women, who knew) who did the peer review?
Some of these studies are laughable, it is disheartening they got published...
Seriously am I reading someone whose political agenda (was not so difficult to google search her name and find out what her political agenda was, it was quite obvious from the study but wanted to make sure) revolves around proving women are harassed sampled 0,0001% (a bit less but maths) of the total population of Athens at 1988 and found 60% sexual harassment?
Ok sorry but I have to ruffle a few feathers,present day feminists, in my opinion, have nothing in common with the equal right activists of the old who did improve the place of women in the world and in my opinion they do not care or really advocate for the equality or betterment of women in society, what they care for is their belief system (agenda) to be applied, sure they might believe their ways will be for the best, but they never seem to care checking if the group they target for "improvement" agrees.
Ketara wrote: Ultimately what makes your opponent uncomfortable makes them uncomfortable, and you should always try to respect that and work with them. Otherwise you end up being the equivalent of TFG who wears a black trenchcoat in summer and insists on running his Dark Eldar army full of 'counts as' slave women 'because it's thematic, man!'; before stomping off in a huff because the one girl in the store refuses to play against it as she finds it demeaning. It's not about asking for trigger warnings, it's about common courtesy.
We're all here playing toy soldiers to have fun, after all, and everyone wants to have a good time!
What if part of my "fun" includes having slave witch in my Empire army, or a naked girl commanding my Giants in my Dogs of War army "because it's thematic, man"?
Polonius wrote: To be fair, my wife in no way felt that the boys in the GW shop were sexist. She was mostly laughing at them as guys that clearly don't interact with a ton of women.
So why share the story in a discussion about sexism and harassment in gaming culture? Especially in response to a comment about how another person's wife was treated differently in online gaming? You weren't drawing a connection between the two experiences? Nice that she had a laugh at "dem virgins" though!
Sorry, I guess?
I was trying to figure out your motivation for sharing that story, that is all. I wasn't clear if you were intentionally muddying the waters or not.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Or it could be that Anita is a known caustic presence based on her history engaging in these topics and the strategies she uses to make her arguments are often ham-fisted and generalize to the point of painting large swathes of a demographic in unflattering ways. Perhaps it isn't that gaming isn't ready to make "some pretty basic changes" but rather the changes needed aren't agreed upon by the community as a whole and that is directly a result of the manner in which the arguments for change are made in the first place?
Well, clearly enough people agree with her, at least broadly, that she had any influence at all. If she were a lone voice in the wilderness, nobody would care. the problem is that when she said that there is widespread misogyny in gaming, a lot of people nodded their head and went, "yeah, there is."
And I know that it's cute to say that all male feminists are some sort of beta/cuck/virgin, but it's not just tumbler clowns that think there's some sexism in gaming. So yes, I think some changes are necessary.
Not sure the relevancy of the second paragraph. Did I refer to male feminists as beta/cuck/virgins? The only virgin comment I made was in reference to your wife laughing at the GW folks who supposedly don't interact with women. That is some low hanging fruit and is about as fresh a joke as any of the stereotypical nerd tropes about "forever virgins" and that crap. Again, not sure why you brought up that GW anecdote since it adds nothing to discussion.
As for Anita, yes she had some points to make about misogyny in video gaming, and she could no doubt make some absolutely valid observations about table top gaming's misogynistic blind spots. However, she didn't handle her video game critiques very well, as evidenced by the many, many people who exposed her questionable research methodology and conclusions. Based on that isn't it fair to be skeptical that she will treat this form of gaming similarly? Add to that Anita's lack of credentials in this field (table top gaming) and you have a person who will potentially misrepresent table top gaming by focusing on elements that may not really need addressing (the equivalent to claiming Hitman encouraged killing strippers versus just allowing you to do) when legitimate issues may get lost in the noise.
Anita isn't a great representative for her message or cause, even if the message is needed and the cause valid.
Here's a study from the UN on sexual harrssment in the EU, broken down by nation. There are industry breakdowns on page 25, types of harassment on page 29, and a more in depth discussion of the UK starting on page 143. (all pages are pdf page number, not internal page number) It is older (most studies from 1989-1993). http://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/pdf/shworkpl.pdf
Still reading this one and I'll get to the other ones in good time, but this is a really good example of those meta studies I was condeming earlier. Basically, this is a paper which collects data from a few dozen different surveys that all asked different questions and arrived at different answers. On page 14, they point out that several studies had results with a much higher or lower incidence than the mean. They attribute this to several factors:
1) how many questions about sexual harassment were asked. They say that when only one question about sexual harassment was asked, the incidence rate is lower than when there are 10 more specific questions are asked. (This means that the people surveyed didn't consider it sexual harassment when it was called sexual harassment).
2) Most questions did not include a timeframe. Incidence rates were lower when asked in the past 3 years, 2 months, or whatever. (This means that sexual harassment is not necessarily an ongoing, omnipresent problem, but limited to specific situations and people)
3) Incidence rates were also lower when people only responded about incidents they, themselves, experienced, and higher when they were asked about other coworkers (meaning that two people could be referring to the same coworker, which would count as 3 counts because the original + two onlookers - also, asking people to speak for the experiences of others is about the least scientific thing you can do)
4) The incident rates were different between random and nonrandom samples. As they admit, this means that selection bias could be a problem, and people who have experienced sexual harassment were more likely to respond to the surveys than those that did not.
5 ) The country the studies took place in. In most countries, the incident rates fluctuated wildly between different studies in different sectors, while in the UK, the rate is consistently high. This may be because sexual harassment is more prevalent in the UK, but it is also likely that there are cultural aspects at work, where the UK has a more broad definition of what constitutes sexual harassment. It even goes into several examples of how the variance could appear, such as Austria and Germany including sexist behavior as sexual harassment and their studies asking about coworkers. Also mentions that the UK and Norwegian studies were self reporting (biased sample) and low reporting rate (less than 1% reporting for the Nowegian), which could contribute to the considerably higher rate of incidence.
It keeps going, but you get the point. There's no clear definition of sexual harassment. How you ask, when you ask, where you ask, and how many you ask can make the difference between a 15% incidence rate and a 90% incidence rate. However, knowing this and even pointing it out, this study is still going to group all these studies together and draw conclusions from them as if they studied the same things in the same way and arrived at equally valid data.
I'm not sure that you can definitively draw any conclusion from a meta analysis like that, except that we need a better way to identify, quantify, and measure sexual harassment in a more scientific and usable way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote: Thank you, I was wondering if he recognized the common factor with all those problems...
Yeah, the common factor was people speaking out against Anita Sarkeesian in environments where her followers held power over what messages could be heard. If you guys weren't there, you just don't know what it was like. I hope you never have to.
Damn... beat me to it...
Not really much more I can add that has already been said here, but I thank you pol for brining these to my attention, while it does show a trend sadly the data is not reliable enough for me, I’m going to dig further as I have much more to read so this is just a preliminary “I doubt the veracity of the data that has been collated”
For some of this stuff, I'm not sure how it's possible to gather data without self report. And keep in mind, self report is considered reliable enough for medication testing. And in many of those, they asked both women and men, and women reported far higher levels of harassment. Which means either women experience more harassment, are more sensitive to similar levels of harassment, or are engaging in some sort of organized disinformation campaign.
And again, a study is still evidence. Unless you can show that the study is flawed enough to have zero probative value, it still carries weight. Like I said earlier, if a study shows that 40% of women have experience harassment, and that's off by an order of magnitude, it's still 4%. Is that an acceptable amount of harassment?
The really interesting studies are the experimental employment studies, which do tend to show gender preference, but not always for male.
Ketara wrote: Ultimately what makes your opponent uncomfortable makes them uncomfortable, and you should always try to respect that and work with them. Otherwise you end up being the equivalent of TFG who wears a black trenchcoat in summer and insists on running his Dark Eldar army full of 'counts as' slave women 'because it's thematic, man!'; before stomping off in a huff because the one girl in the store refuses to play against it as she finds it demeaning. It's not about asking for trigger warnings, it's about common courtesy.
We're all here playing toy soldiers to have fun, after all, and everyone wants to have a good time!
What if part of my "fun" includes having slave witch in my Empire army, or a naked girl commanding my Giants in my Dogs of War army "because it's thematic, man"?
If your idea of fun makes your opponent uncomfortable, you either come to an accommodation or find a different opponent. That's more or less the point.
Ketara wrote: Ultimately what makes your opponent uncomfortable makes them uncomfortable, and you should always try to respect that and work with them. Otherwise you end up being the equivalent of TFG who wears a black trenchcoat in summer and insists on running his Dark Eldar army full of 'counts as' slave women 'because it's thematic, man!'; before stomping off in a huff because the one girl in the store refuses to play against it as she finds it demeaning. It's not about asking for trigger warnings, it's about common courtesy.
We're all here playing toy soldiers to have fun, after all, and everyone wants to have a good time!
What if part of my "fun" includes having slave witch in my Empire army, or a naked girl commanding my Giants in my Dogs of War army "because it's thematic, man"?
If your idea of fun makes your opponent uncomfortable, you either come to an accommodation or find a different opponent. That's more or less the point.
But the problem is that no one is making accomodations for Captain Cockula, Multiphallused Dildosmith of Slaansh.
Ketara wrote: Ultimately what makes your opponent uncomfortable makes them uncomfortable, and you should always try to respect that and work with them. Otherwise you end up being the equivalent of TFG who wears a black trenchcoat in summer and insists on running his Dark Eldar army full of 'counts as' slave women 'because it's thematic, man!'; before stomping off in a huff because the one girl in the store refuses to play against it as she finds it demeaning. It's not about asking for trigger warnings, it's about common courtesy.
We're all here playing toy soldiers to have fun, after all, and everyone wants to have a good time!
What if part of my "fun" includes having slave witch in my Empire army, or a naked girl commanding my Giants in my Dogs of War army "because it's thematic, man"?
If your idea of fun makes your opponent uncomfortable, you either come to an accommodation or find a different opponent. That's more or less the point.
I think I'd rather find someone who's not so sensitive as to be triggered by <1" miniatures.
Polonius wrote: For some of this stuff, I'm not sure how it's possible to gather data without self report. And keep in mind, self report is considered reliable enough for medication testing. And in many of those, they asked both women and men, and women reported far higher levels of harassment. Which means either women experience more harassment, are more sensitive to similar levels of harassment, or are engaging in some sort of organized disinformation campaign.
And again, a study is still evidence. Unless you can show that the study is flawed enough to have zero probative value, it still carries weight. Like I said earlier, if a study shows that 40% of women have experience harassment, and that's off by an order of magnitude, it's still 4%. Is that an acceptable amount of harassment?
The really interesting studies are the experimental employment studies, which do tend to show gender preference, but not always for male.
As I haven’t given my opinion on it yet, any amount is too much, the sticking point however was ketara claiming the problem is rampant without providing any proof whatsoever and when asked he avoided the subject with cheap diversion tactics.
With any subject of you make an assertion that x is y, then you need to prove that assertion within a reasonable standard, so the assertion here is that sexism is rampant within the UK, as in it’s literally everywhere in every walk of life with zero extenuating circumstances, an assertion that the studies you have provided so far have failed to prove, now, they do however show that it goes on, which was never in doubt.
Caveat: “so far” as some of you dakkaites are needlessly nit picky to the point of stupidity (not aimed at anyone specifically)!
I got to the end of this thread and shortly I will be out.
I will wait until someone writes about what actually happened after the event before I look for an update.
The problem I have with A. Sarkeesian speaking at this event is that I think it is in her financial interests to give her detractors something to rage about. Then her team can rage about them and they can play outrage Tennis together and reap the rewards of the click-bait economy.
I would have the same misgivings if ArchWarhammer was given a spotlight too. The incentive to 'Shock Jock' is just too great.
Some years ago I discovered A. Sarkeesian's videos, I was hoping her videos would be of the same quality as Lindsay Ellis'.... but they were not.
master of ordinance wrote: If people do not think Sarkesian is not going to cause trouble in the community then just look at this thread - and all this is before she has had chance to spew her poison.
NOTHING good can come from letting this spiteful, manipulating, lying and toxic person anywhere near the borders of the hobby, let alone inviting the monster into the heart of it. Better to revoke her invitation and risk the inevitable but far less damaging backlash than to have her and her horde of followers gain a foothold and start to push in.
Whoa there Pedro. Whoa.
She’s done nothing in this thread. Not a comment, not a single exalt.
Who’s causing the waves here? People with a complaint (justified or not, I don’t care) against her, saying stuff she’s not present to defend.
It ain’t her cause the problem. Not right here. Not right now.
Exactly my point: She has done nothing yet bar be mentioned and already the community is going through an epic upheaval, and the entire conversation has devolved into a gakfest of epic proportions.
Now imagine what will happen when she actually speaks? Actually intrudes? If just her threatened presence can damage what was an otherwise relatively stable community (just head to /tg/ if you dont believe me - even there we can have civilised conversations) then imagine what will happen when she actually intrudes? When her drooling throng charge into out lands? It is going to be horrifically ugly.
Do you remember her destruction of the gaming forums? Gamergate? Sarkesian is the HIV of nerd communities, and the last thing that the TTWG/TTRPG community needs is to catch it.
lord_blackfang wrote: My gaming group and gaming store acually has loads of women, including the main staff. They all detest her and other professional victims with a passion.
This does not fit my preconceived notions, clearly you must be a lying woman-hater
When you invite Ricky Gervais to host the Oscars, you don't expect for him to make a program out of thoughtful criticisms of acting and art. Instead you can be absolutely certain he is going to make crass (hilarious) jokes about the celebrities in the audience. That is what he does.
I see nothing different in this case.
Sarkeesian actively seeks systemic sexism in everything she observes. It's what makes her money. It's what she does.
I do not care for her or her message, though I value her right to speak it nonetheless and regret the vitriol that was directed towards her.
She will find something wrong with tabletop games. She will speak about it a Gencon. She will receive backlash from many of the enemies she has already made that crossover into TT as well as make a few more in the process, galvanizing her followers to bring the fight to a new battleground.
master of ordinance wrote: If people do not think Sarkesian is not going to cause trouble in the community then just look at this thread - and all this is before she has had chance to spew her poison.
NOTHING good can come from letting this spiteful, manipulating, lying and toxic person anywhere near the borders of the hobby, let alone inviting the monster into the heart of it. Better to revoke her invitation and risk the inevitable but far less damaging backlash than to have her and her horde of followers gain a foothold and start to push in.
Whoa there Pedro. Whoa.
She’s done nothing in this thread. Not a comment, not a single exalt.
Who’s causing the waves here? People with a complaint (justified or not, I don’t care) against her, saying stuff she’s not present to defend.
It ain’t her cause the problem. Not right here. Not right now.
Exactly my point: She has done nothing yet bar be mentioned and already the community is going through an epic upheaval, and the entire conversation has devolved into a shitfest of epic proportions.
Now imagine what will happen when she actually speaks? Actually intrudes? If just her threatened presence can damage what was an otherwise relatively stable community (just head to /tg/ if you dont believe me - even there we can have civilised conversations) then imagine what will happen when she actually intrudes? When her drooling throng charge into out lands? It is going to be horrifically ugly.
Do you remember her destruction of the gaming forums? Gamergate? Sarkesian is the HIV of nerd communities, and the last thing that the TTWG/TTRPG community needs is to catch it.
Holy hyperbole, Batman.
There is no "epic upheaval" or "shitfest of epic proportions."
If you think that of any of this, then never go back into the archives of the US Politics or you might have a heart attack. There's, what - 3-4 posters having a bit of a tizzy over a disagreement (not to downplay the seriousness of it, but still. It's an argument on a forum about toy soldiers). Again, it's an internet forum. Just thank the dice it's not another "Should miniatures be painted" thread. Now those tend to get out of control.
Like others in the thread have mentioned, Sarkesian has basically been a nobody since Gamergate died down. It was only this conversation being made that even brought her into this forum at all. Go check out the video game subforum. Zero mention of her, at all.
Of course, mentioning /tg/ - that explains a lot. I wouldn't be surprised if all the little trolls gathering in the internet's cesspit still hiss and spit at the mere mention of her name.
Sarkesian may see some things wrong in the community, sure. There may be a flash in the pan. But I doubt there will be any upheaval or shutting down of forum. Tabletop gamers just aren't as plugged in to the internet as video game players.
On the other hand, the board game community is diverse enough that they probably could have gotten someone less controversial who's just as active in promoting diversity and equality in tabletop gaming. Then again, if they had, would anyone of us have known about this event at Gencon?
Also, I found an interesting webarticle The Women and Men Who Lead Games, which takes a look at the numbers of women who run games at Gencon each year. An interesting read, especially the gender breakdown of the various activities available at Gencon.
Polonius wrote:For some of this stuff, I'm not sure how it's possible to gather data without self report. And keep in mind, self report is considered reliable enough for medication testing. And in many of those, they asked both women and men, and women reported far higher levels of harassment. Which means either women experience more harassment, are more sensitive to similar levels of harassment, or are engaging in some sort of organized disinformation campaign.
And again, a study is still evidence. Unless you can show that the study is flawed enough to have zero probative value, it still carries weight. Like I said earlier, if a study shows that 40% of women have experience harassment, and that's off by an order of magnitude, it's still 4%. Is that an acceptable amount of harassment?
The really interesting studies are the experimental employment studies, which do tend to show gender preference, but not always for male.
There are many questions here, were is the control group? were is the peer review? were is the academic definition of harassment? we must know what on earth is the study about, did she include the socially norm and unisex applied Mediterranean behaviour as harassment? well nobody living in this area would take her seriously if she did, but I can see how people unfamiliar with the culture could see it that way.
Can the behaviour be only attributed to the fact the person targeted was a woman, or it can be attributed to any other reason and the target of the "harassment" just happened to be a woman? most common the perpetrator is a rotten individual who is vile to humans in general, not to women in particular.
How targeted was this extremely small sample and how one filters the bias of self reporting?
Can the fact of no counter studies be attributed to any other reasons than acceptance of the validity of the study, for example deemed not important?
A good study shows many of the controls used to lead to the result, social studies need them more so because they are a subjective field of science and common grounds and understanding of the terminology is a must, harassment is a vague nebulous word that means nothing, what exactly was the study considering harassment? and how it is understood by the average person of the time.
Strombones wrote:
I do not care for her or her message, though I value her right to speak it nonetheless and regret the vitriol that was directed towards her.
I do not think anybody here advocated for deplatforming her, this is not what normal humans do, there is a big criticism for her behaviour from well documented public appearances she has made plus her own personal work, there is an even bigger criticism that she does not debate her point of view cutting off any discussion with anybody who objects her view point.
And biggest criticism of all is for Gencon's choice to get her as a guest of honour, she is unrelated to the genre of boardgames, cardgames, RPG and miniature games, she has no practical involvement with the industry and there are many notable female individuals in the industry and the wider fandom who are more suited to be a guest of honour.
Everybody has the right to express themselves and their ideas and opinions, but by expressing them publicly they must be ready to have their ideas and options studied, objected and be ready to stand for their ideas in a public debate, accusing an individual or a group of individuals (as odd as such an idea can be) and then refusing to provide the citations for your conclusions and address any well founded objections is at best disingenuous.
master of ordinance wrote: If people do not think Sarkesian is not going to cause trouble in the community then just look at this thread - and all this is before she has had chance to spew her poison. NOTHING good can come from letting this spiteful, manipulating, lying and toxic person anywhere near the borders of the hobby, let alone inviting the monster into the heart of it. Better to revoke her invitation and risk the inevitable but far less damaging backlash than to have her and her horde of followers gain a foothold and start to push in.
Whoa there Pedro. Whoa.
She’s done nothing in this thread. Not a comment, not a single exalt.
Who’s causing the waves here? People with a complaint (justified or not, I don’t care) against her, saying stuff she’s not present to defend.
It ain’t her cause the problem. Not right here. Not right now.
Exactly my point: She has done nothing yet bar be mentioned and already the community is going through an epic upheaval, and the entire conversation has devolved into a gakfest of epic proportions. Now imagine what will happen when she actually speaks? Actually intrudes? If just her threatened presence can damage what was an otherwise relatively stable community (just head to /tg/ if you dont believe me - even there we can have civilised conversations) then imagine what will happen when she actually intrudes? When her drooling throng charge into out lands? It is going to be horrifically ugly.
Do you remember her destruction of the gaming forums? Gamergate? Sarkesian is the HIV of nerd communities, and the last thing that the TTWG/TTRPG community needs is to catch it.
Honestly, I'm more concerned about a couple of people on here turning this into a major crapfest and making allegations like "HIV of nerd communities" and "spiteful, manipulating, lying and toxic person." It reminds me of the kind of guy who gets upset because that woman "Dressed so slutty and kept turning me on." You're blaming her because you can't calm your fething jets.
Dude. It's on you. You're the issue, not her, and your reactions just dig that hole deeper and deeper.
Polonius wrote:For some of this stuff, I'm not sure how it's possible to gather data without self report. And keep in mind, self report is considered reliable enough for medication testing. And in many of those, they asked both women and men, and women reported far higher levels of harassment. Which means either women experience more harassment, are more sensitive to similar levels of harassment, or are engaging in some sort of organized disinformation campaign.
And again, a study is still evidence. Unless you can show that the study is flawed enough to have zero probative value, it still carries weight. Like I said earlier, if a study shows that 40% of women have experience harassment, and that's off by an order of magnitude, it's still 4%. Is that an acceptable amount of harassment?
The really interesting studies are the experimental employment studies, which do tend to show gender preference, but not always for male.
There are many questions here, were is the control group? were is the peer review? were is the academic definition of harassment? we must know what on earth is the study about, did she include the socially norm and unisex applied Mediterranean behaviour as harassment? well nobody living in this area would take her seriously if she did, but I can see how people unfamiliar with the culture could see it that way.
Can the behaviour be only attributed to the fact the person targeted was a woman, or it can be attributed to any other reason and the target of the "harassment" just happened to be a woman? most common the perpetrator is a rotten individual who is vile to humans in general, not to women in particular.
How targeted was this extremely small sample and how one filters the bias of self reporting?
Can the fact of no counter studies be attributed to any other reasons than acceptance of the validity of the study, for example deemed not important?
A good study shows many of the controls used to lead to the result, social studies need them more so because they are a subjective field of science and common grounds and understanding of the terminology is a must, harassment is a vague nebulous word that means nothing, what exactly was the study considering harassment? and how it is understood by the average person of the time.
Strombones wrote:
I do not care for her or her message, though I value her right to speak it nonetheless and regret the vitriol that was directed towards her.
I do not think anybody here advocated for deplatforming her, this is not what normal humans do, there is a big criticism for her behaviour from well documented public appearances she has made plus her own personal work, there is an even bigger criticism that she does not debate her point of view cutting off any discussion with anybody who objects her view point.
And biggest criticism of all is for Gencon's choice to get her as a guest of honour, she is unrelated to the genre of boardgames, cardgames, RPG and miniature games, she has no practical involvement with the industry and there are many notable female individuals in the industry and the wider fandom who are more suited to be a guest of honour.
Everybody has the right to express themselves and their ideas and opinions, but by expressing them publicly they must be ready to have their ideas and options studied, objected and be ready to stand for their ideas in a public debate, accusing an individual or a group of individuals (as odd as such an idea can be) and then refusing to provide the citations for your conclusions and address any well founded objections is at best disingenuous.
I consider myself quite articulate... you are putting me to shame.
You have touched on one of my biggest issues with the so called “SJW” and “alt right” crowds (both are stereotypes these says it seems), they are two sides of the same coin and both make spurious claims that when challenged you are either a pussy special snowflake or a right wing nazi woman hater ... and other colourful terms, why are both parties so adverse to proving their statements, why are both crowds so contentious all the time, do they not realise they hurt their so called causes by being like they are?
It truelly boggles the mind that so many are incapable of critical thinking or self reflection.
Strombones wrote: When you invite Ricky Gervais to host the Oscars, you don't expect for him to make a program out of thoughtful criticisms of acting and art. Instead you can be absolutely certain he is going to make crass (hilarious) jokes about the celebrities in the audience. That is what he does.
I see nothing different in this case.
Sarkeesian actively seeks systemic sexism in everything she observes. It's what makes her money. It's what she does.
I do not care for her or her message, though I value her right to speak it nonetheless and regret the vitriol that was directed towards her.
She will find something wrong with tabletop games. She will speak about it a Gencon. She will receive backlash from many of the enemies she has already made that crossover into TT as well as make a few more in the process, galvanizing her followers to bring the fight to a new battleground.
I think that's the main issue I have, and many others might have. It doesn't need to be a fight. It's a discussion, and a topic of converse to fix the issue present. Her followers/psuedo-followers, and those that vehemently oppose them with vitrol, do not need to make the hobby and the community a battlefield, even though it's in their nature to be aggressive in how they confront and spread their message/propaganda against one another.
I do agree that the platform should not be taken away, but I also think it should have never been given to her.
master of ordinance wrote: If people do not think Sarkesian is not going to cause trouble in the community then just look at this thread - and all this is before she has had chance to spew her poison.
NOTHING good can come from letting this spiteful, manipulating, lying and toxic person anywhere near the borders of the hobby, let alone inviting the monster into the heart of it. Better to revoke her invitation and risk the inevitable but far less damaging backlash than to have her and her horde of followers gain a foothold and start to push in.
Whoa there Pedro. Whoa.
She’s done nothing in this thread. Not a comment, not a single exalt.
Who’s causing the waves here? People with a complaint (justified or not, I don’t care) against her, saying stuff she’s not present to defend.
It ain’t her cause the problem. Not right here. Not right now.
Exactly my point: She has done nothing yet bar be mentioned and already the community is going through an epic upheaval, and the entire conversation has devolved into a gakfest of epic proportions.
Now imagine what will happen when she actually speaks? Actually intrudes? If just her threatened presence can damage what was an otherwise relatively stable community (just head to /tg/ if you dont believe me - even there we can have civilised conversations) then imagine what will happen when she actually intrudes? When her drooling throng charge into out lands? It is going to be horrifically ugly.
Do you remember her destruction of the gaming forums? Gamergate? Sarkesian is the HIV of nerd communities, and the last thing that the TTWG/TTRPG community needs is to catch it.
Honestly, I'm more concerned about a couple of people on here turning this into a major crapfest and making allegations like "HIV of nerd communities" and "spiteful, manipulating, lying and toxic person." It reminds me of the kind of guy who gets upset because that woman "Dressed so slutty and kept turning me on." You're blaming her because you can't calm your fething jets.
Dude. It's on you. You're the issue, not her, and your reactions just dig that hole deeper and deeper.
Opinions may vary but she is on record as being quite a spiteful and manipulative individual, some would consider that toxic behaviour (hate that term) she is also on record as a liar I’ve been told, but I cannot confirm that personally, I will have to check it out for myself.
She was also on film literally abusing a member of an audience and hurled abuse at them, I believe it was
“And people like this piece of gak are out there making videos about me”
Regardless of who you are, that kind of behaviour should get you banned from whatever event she was attending, I will find the video for whomever in interested.
Like her or lump her, she is a very divisive person and there are plenty of other, more deserving woman out there that would be a better guest in my opinion.
Opinions may vary but she is on record as being quite a spiteful and manipulative individual, some would consider that toxic behaviour (hate that term) she is also on record as a liar I’ve been told, but I cannot confirm that personally, I will have to check it out for myself.
She was also on film literally abusing a member of an audience and hurled abuse at them, I believe it was
“And people like this piece of gak are out there making videos about me”
Regardless of who you are, that kind of behaviour should get you banned from whatever event she was attending, I will find the video for whomever in interested.
Like her or lump her, she is a very divisive person and there are plenty of other, more deserving woman out there that would be a better guest in my opinion.
I've seen that one, and she continued to go off, to cheers at the panel. It might have been Sargon or someone who was the object of her attentions. It was bad behavior and outside of code of conduct for someone on a panel addressing a crowd. She is also on record having chastised and bullied ANOTHER panel member at another event. Though I'm not well versed on that one, nor do I know the details as such. It was Boogie whatsit or some such who was a fan, friend, and supporter of her platform.
I also agree there could be others who have 'similar' view points and actually have constructive things to say about any sort of inequality in the community. If they wanted someone to talk about it that badly, they could have picked someone better (don't ask me to specify, woefully uneducated on it, being oblivious most of the time) to address the community. Someone who's done something in the community and been a part of it.
Asking for good faith debate when the first page of this thread is filled with one guy ringing the warning bell about poor male gamers being fooled by anyone 'with teats on' is pretty disingenuous.
We barely have to get two pages in before people are expressing panic about being falsely accused of harassment by hordes of ravening feminists, and questioning if systemic harassment of women is even really a thing.
Trigger warning, soy boy, it's like nervous male bingo in here.
On her particular behaviour mentioned above, harassing someone to the point that they react and 'look crazy' is hardly a new technique. Women encounter it literally every day in the workplace. The fact that it continues to work on 'neutral observers' is the only shocking part.
There is no "epic upheaval" or "shitfest of epic proportions."
If you think that of any of this, then never go back into the archives of the US Politics or you might have a heart attack. There's, what - 3-4 posters having a bit of a tizzy over a disagreement (not to downplay the seriousness of it, but still. It's an argument on a forum about toy soldiers). Again, it's an internet forum.
Yes, quite. Aside from a redtext to a edgelord there aren't even any in-thread warnings and at this point in the thread it's improved dramatically from where it started.
Carnikang wrote:I do agree that the platform should not be taken away, but I also think it should have never been given to her.
The funny thing about this, kind of, is that so far as I know, not even one person in this thread has disagreed with the sentiment. Even the people that like her think there are many, many other better picks.
On her particular behaviour mentioned above, harassing someone to the point that they react and 'look crazy' is hardly a new technique. Women encounter it literally every day in the workplace. The fact that it continues to work on 'neutral observers' is the only shocking part.
I sometimes wonder in horror what is the everyday life in US and Canada, if this is what women encounter literally every day? around here it would be considered extremely abnormal and at the very best extremely inappropriate.
I saw the video, I get it, lashing out hysterically against Sargon (who was just there?) and then denying him the microphone to reply back is an extremely effective, if not extremely disingenuous and inappropriate tactic to frame an opponent and have only your opinion be heard, but have such things be used in everyday life? this is a political confrontation tactic used to frame an opponent in a public confrontation, normal people do not use and cannot use such elaborate tactics when debating or are in open confrontation with each other, if nothing else they cannot deny their adversary to speak up.
Also, I found an interesting webarticle The Women and Men Who Lead Games, which takes a look at the numbers of women who run games at Gencon each year. An interesting read, especially the gender breakdown of the various activities available at Gencon.
I got a couple issues with this link. First it says she was a target for harrassment and disruption by Gamer Gate. The FBI investigated Gamer Gate and found only 0.6% of of people part of Gamer Gate sent her threatening messages. The second thing is that this article says the more and more women have gotten involved into gaming which is true. This is a welcome good change but it just seems this article seems to trying to say its because women fighters like Anita is the cause of women finding interests in gaming. Seems to be pushing a agenda but I could be wrong.
As far as I can tell women don't need feminist like Anita to inspire them that they can join the men in gaming. Tabletop, video game, comics, etc, have all evolved and became more open to people. There are game types for everyone. I have seen girls play the small cute characters, the sexy badass warriors wearing little clothing, and giant armored tank monsters. People are individuals and are capable of finding enjoyment of what interests them. They don't need political correctness to change things to there liking. Demanding that others change their games to what you want all because it doesn't share your views is nothing but selfishness and narcissistic. There are literally hundreds of different games out there for everyone whose interested.
I am baffled as to how people can defend and support people like Anita. How can you defend someone that wont go out of their bubble and defend their own arguments against critics or others that disagree but instead label them as sexist harassers. Yes she has received hateful threatening messages and that is not okay but what do you expect to happen when you call a group a bunch of sexist misogynist human beings and provide poorly said evidence for it.
I'm pretty sure systemic sexual harassment ended at least 40 years ago. It's not like you can just slap you secretary on the ass, or bend her over the desk like in the Mad Men days. Nowadays, you do that, you get fired and go to jail.
OTOH, in India, I understand that the multi-day gang rape and brutal murder of women is just a fact of life there, without the slightest consequences.
It's the literal difference between "I'm being repressed!" and the violence inherent in the system.
kestral wrote: If .6% of some thousands of people were sending me threatening messages, I'd be pretty pissed off.
If I was getting that many threatening messages I would look back on what I said or did to piss so many people off and see what I did wrong. I would also try to have a discussion with them on why they feel that way. Try to be a decent human being and try to understand their side.
On her particular behaviour mentioned above, harassing someone to the point that they react and 'look crazy' is hardly a new technique. Women encounter it literally every day in the workplace. The fact that it continues to work on 'neutral observers' is the only shocking part.
I sometimes wonder in horror what is the everyday life in US and Canada, if this is what women encounter literally every day? around here it would be considered extremely abnormal and at the very best extremely inappropriate.
I saw the video, I get it, lashing out hysterically against Sargon (who was just there?) and then denying him the microphone to reply back is an extremely effective, if not extremely disingenuous and inappropriate tactic to frame an opponent and have only your opinion be heard, but have such things be used in everyday life? this is a political confrontation tactic used to frame an opponent in a public confrontation, normal people do not use and cannot use such elaborate tactics when debating or are in open confrontation with each other, if nothing else they cannot deny their adversary to speak up.
This isn't the place for this particular thread so I won't respond after this.
Women reacting to repeated inappropriate behaviour in the workplace and then being called hysterical (oh look) or forced to endure conflict resolution programs with their abuser(s) is a daily occurrence and hardly limited to Canada and the US.
You are trying to frame the poor little men's rights activist as the victim so I'm confident in making some assumptions about your definition of harassment.
JohnHwangDD wrote: For reference, Dakka has 120,000 members. 0.6% of them would be 720. That's a lot of threats.
I agree that is but the point I was trying to make is that so many people make Gamer Gate this group that was only made to harass Anita and others when actually it was fighting against corruption in game journalism. Also if your going create content for the public to see then you better be ready for criticism. Their will be people that won't like you and your content no matter what.
kestral wrote: If .6% of some thousands of people were sending me threatening messages, I'd be pretty pissed off.
If I was getting that many threatening messages I would look back on what I said or did to piss so many people off and see what I did wrong. I would also try to have a discussion with them on why they feel that way. Try to be a decent human being and try to understand their side.
Really? Kudos to you then. Your attitude is perhaps unique. Personally, I'd assume that anyone making threats over the internet is either a Jerk, a coward, or most likely both. I certainly wouldn't be like "Hey, dude who threatened to rape/kill me or whatever, I'm sorry if I made you mad. I can see the problem lies with me. Can we talk about this? I'll try to to better." Though that would probably put an end to the issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm not that saintly, I suspect very, very few are.
kestral wrote: If .6% of some thousands of people were sending me threatening messages, I'd be pretty pissed off.
This is the main reason most people do not want to become a public figure, when you decide to become one and one chooses to be one, you must accept that you will be attacked for your ideas and opinions, 0.6% is surprisingly tame for the period been discussed if one considers the entrenchment and polarisation it existed, I can assume with no evidence that the bulk of the "opposing side" was compromised of average, not really political sided individuals who were lumped to that side because they opposed the accusations they faced as individuals because they were thrown in a generic group (ie "gamers").
One cannot be a public figure and be shielded from public opinion, it is a great example of wanting a cake and eating it, if I choose to open a youtube channel and devote it to lets say gameplay videos and battle reports, I choose to open myself to the public and I must accept that people will rip me apart for any and every single mistake I do, likewise and with more vigour is when one does the same for politics, you cannot expect to be a public political figure and not get backlash, you literally say to some people their worldview and moral value is at best wrong and at worse vile, they will react and you chose to be a public figure.
It is complicated and simple at the same time choices have consequences and responsible individuals bear the burden of their choices, irresponsible individuals complain about it.
JohnHwangDD wrote: For reference, Dakka has 120,000 members. 0.6% of them would be 720. That's a lot of threats.
According to GamerGate's home base, /r/KotakuInAction, they just celebrated 95,000 subscribers. A few months ago, I remember them celebrating 65,000 subscribers. A few years ago, it was 30,000. About the time Sarkeesian supposedly received this harassment, GamerGate was a few thousand people. Regardless, the point was that GamerGate could not be said to have harassed her as a community if a fraction of a fraction of a percent did it.
When I pissed off Penny Arcade in 2003, I got about 100-200 nasty emails a day for months, including death threats and some very inappropriate content (my favorite was a graphic comic of me getting impaled in my eyesocket by my very own, rather large and detailed penis). I'm not sure that there is really that big a difference between 100 nasty emails a day and a thousand - either way, you end up building filters or using a secondary email for personal use and just delete everything without actually reading it.
kestral wrote: If .6% of some thousands of people were sending me threatening messages, I'd be pretty pissed off.
If I was getting that many threatening messages I would look back on what I said or did to piss so many people off and see what I did wrong. I would also try to have a discussion with them on why they feel that way. Try to be a decent human being and try to understand their side.
Really? Kudos to you then. Your attitude is perhaps unique. Personally, I'd assume that anyone making threats over the internet is either a Jerk, a coward, or most likely both. I certainly wouldn't be like "Hey, dude who threatened to rape/kill me or whatever, I'm sorry if I made you mad. I can see the problem lies with me. Can we talk about this? I'll try to to better." Though that would probably put an end to the issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm not that saintly, I suspect very, very few are.
That's the issue. People refuse to talk it out and just assume anyone who disagrees with them is a nazi. If people were more open and discuss the problems together a lot more could be solved in today's world. Instead people live in their bubble and assume everyone else is the problem. I really hope my attitude isn't unique. I don't see anything being accomplished if we keep shutting people out. I want to believe most people are better then that.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I'm pretty sure systemic sexual harassment ended at least 40 years ago. It's not like you can just slap you secretary on the ass, or bend her over the desk like in the Mad Men days. Nowadays, you do that, you get fired and go to jail.
OTOH, in India, I understand that the multi-day gang rape and brutal murder of women is just a fact of life there, without the slightest consequences.
It's the literal difference between "I'm being repressed!" and the violence inherent in the system.
Sexual harassment still happens here. It's still a problem where my wife works, and people have gone to jail for things they've done. I just don't think it gets much press outside of smallfry like OC Weekly.
On a similar note, she used to participate on message boards for fanfiction and crochet and things like that, and she had to stop due to the dick pics and threats she received.
kestral wrote: If .6% of some thousands of people were sending me threatening messages, I'd be pretty pissed off.
If I was getting that many threatening messages I would look back on what I said or did to piss so many people off and see what I did wrong. I would also try to have a discussion with them on why they feel that way. Try to be a decent human being and try to understand their side.
Yeah, threat victims shouldn't be so provocative. that MLK should really have stepped back to rethink things .
No group is perfect, and every group will have donkey caves. We've been told not to judge other groups because of the actions of a few (Antifa, BLM). Yet way more that .6% of them were looting, vandalising, and assaulting.
Also, I'd like to know the definition of "harassment" the FBI used. Obviously death threats count. If they also counted the "you're stupid and you suck" messages, I'd say that's a low bar to set.
On her particular behaviour mentioned above, harassing someone to the point that they react and 'look crazy' is hardly a new technique. Women encounter it literally every day in the workplace. The fact that it continues to work on 'neutral observers' is the only shocking part.
I sometimes wonder in horror what is the everyday life in US and Canada, if this is what women encounter literally every day? around here it would be considered extremely abnormal and at the very best extremely inappropriate.
I saw the video, I get it, lashing out hysterically against Sargon (who was just there?) and then denying him the microphone to reply back is an extremely effective, if not extremely disingenuous and inappropriate tactic to frame an opponent and have only your opinion be heard, but have such things be used in everyday life? this is a political confrontation tactic used to frame an opponent in a public confrontation, normal people do not use and cannot use such elaborate tactics when debating or are in open confrontation with each other, if nothing else they cannot deny their adversary to speak up.
This isn't the place for this particular thread so I won't respond after this. Women reacting to repeated inappropriate behaviour in the workplace and then being called hysterical (oh look) or forced to endure conflict resolution programs with their abuser(s) is a daily occurrence and hardly limited to Canada and the US. You are trying to frame the poor little men's rights activist as the victim so I'm confident in making some assumptions about your definition of harassment.
I am deeply sorry but I truly and honestly do not understand what you say here, there might be some communication or cultural barrier in place, please feel free to explain me in PM if you so desire.
ITT, people fail to recognize the keyboard *systemic*, or they fail to understand what it means.
*Systemic* sexual harassment basically does not exist in the United States, and hasn't been for decades. Title IX alone is proof of that.
If anyone is going to disagree, then you need to step up with evidence where such harassment is broadly condoned.
Individual acts are not systemic, especially if their becoming public would result in consequences to the harasser. The very fact of those consequences is, again, evidence that systemic sexual harassment is no longer an issue
The solution only works if it's broadly enforced. It's not. You can google your own evidence though. I'm just here to poke fun at bigots. I know I'm not going to convince anyone over the internet--but I can certainly laugh at folks.
TheThievingMick wrote: The solution only works if it's broadly enforced. It's not. You can google your own evidence though. I'm just here to poke fun at bigots. I know I'm not going to convince anyone over the internet--but I can certainly laugh at folks.
That's not helpful or constructive in any manner in this thread.
kestral wrote: If .6% of some thousands of people were sending me threatening messages, I'd be pretty pissed off.
If I was getting that many threatening messages I would look back on what I said or did to piss so many people off and see what I did wrong. I would also try to have a discussion with them on why they feel that way. Try to be a decent human being and try to understand their side.
"I HOPE YOU GET KILLED AND RAPED"
"Oh poor soul, please, explain me wy you feel that way. How have I wrong you?"
Don't take this as a defense of Anita, but I just find too absurd the idea of reasoning with people that is sending you death threads. I think here you where just exagerating for the shake of making her look bad (Not something you need to do, she makes herself look bad enough) , nobody sane would react that way in that situation.
JohnHwangDD wrote: ITT, people fail to recognize the keyboard *systemic*, or they fail to understand what it means.
*Systemic* sexual harassment basically does not exist in the United States, and hasn't been for decades. Title IX alone is proof of that.
If anyone is going to disagree, then you need to step up with evidence where such harassment is broadly condoned.
Individual acts are not systemic, especially if their becoming public would result in consequences to the harasser. The very fact of those consequences is, again, evidence that systemic sexual harassment is no longer an issue
kestral wrote: If .6% of some thousands of people were sending me threatening messages, I'd be pretty pissed off.
Welcome to the Internet, where deaththreats are almost like saying "Hello!".
That's not excusing the behavior, but more pointing out that it is not unique to her in any way (she plays it up as though it's something out of the ordinary). People get death threats for giving bad review scores. For giving good review scores. For not liking something that you like. For liking something that you don't like. I mean "Kill ur self LOL" might as well have its own button on standard keyboards it gets used so often.
Here's a study from the UN on sexual harrssment in the EU, broken down by nation. There are industry breakdowns on page 25, types of harassment on page 29, and a more in depth discussion of the UK starting on page 143. (all pages are pdf page number, not internal page number) It is older (most studies from 1989-1993). http://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/pdf/shworkpl.pdf
didn't the UN put Saudi Arabia on the womens rights council, just saying
JohnHwangDD wrote: I'm pretty sure systemic sexual harassment ended at least 40 years ago. It's not like you can just slap you secretary on the ass, or bend her over the desk like in the Mad Men days. Nowadays, you do that, you get fired and go to jail.
OTOH, in India, I understand that the multi-day gang rape and brutal murder of women is just a fact of life there, without the slightest consequences.
It's the literal difference between "I'm being repressed!" and the violence inherent in the system.
Sexual harassment still happens here. It's still a problem where my wife works, and people have gone to jail for things they've done. I just don't think it gets much press outside of smallfry like OC Weekly.
On a similar note, she used to participate on message boards for fanfiction and crochet and things like that, and she had to stop due to the dick pics and threats she received.
kestral wrote: If .6% of some thousands of people were sending me threatening messages, I'd be pretty pissed off.
If I was getting that many threatening messages I would look back on what I said or did to piss so many people off and see what I did wrong. I would also try to have a discussion with them on why they feel that way. Try to be a decent human being and try to understand their side.
Yeah, threat victims shouldn't be so provocative. that MLK should really have stepped back to rethink things .
I honestly don't know how to respond to that. Don't know whole lot about MLK and did some research. Learned more about slavery in high school rather then MLK. My main point is that if your receiving a lot of hate as well as evidence that proves your argument wrong shouldn't you take step back and review the new information instead of dismissing it as harassment. In this day in age I believe people will receive some form of hate for what they believe in but the answer is to not to ignore everyone with opposing viewpoint and call them sexist, racist, nazi, etc. MLK believed in equality as well using nonviolence methods did he not? If he was here to day do you think he would agree with the the mentality of people who dismiss others arguments as all racist or sexist. There will be people in this world that won't like, argue or even despise you but I still think its important to understand why they hold such views whether if they were raised that way or hold a grudge. I honestly believe if people sat down and just talked out there disagreements we could solve a lot gak in this world. A black man convinced 200 KKK members to leave by just talking with them. https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes People have a lot more in common with each other then they realize if they just sat back and had a drink with each other. Hope I am not sounding like a hippie .
The only thing worse than Anita Sarkeesian speaking at GenCon is talking about her speaking at GenCon. She makes her living off the outrage generated by her posts. Every time she's ignored, the less probable it is one will need to hear from her in the future.
There have been a number of studies suggesting online harassment of women in gaming communities predominantly comes from other women. If it helps, try to remember that most of what she has to say is focused on a small minority of gamers, does not represent the whole, and almost certainly is not talking about you.
JohnHwangDD wrote: ITT, people fail to recognize the keyboard *systemic*, or they fail to understand what it means.
*Systemic* sexual harassment basically does not exist in the United States, and hasn't been for decades. Title IX alone is proof of that.
If anyone is going to disagree, then you need to step up with evidence where such harassment is broadly condoned.
Individual acts are not systemic, especially if their becoming public would result in consequences to the harasser. The very fact of those consequences is, again, evidence that systemic sexual harassment is no longer an issue
We weren't talking about systemic sexism. It makes your statement a non sequitur in a discussion of tabletop wargaming. That's just a qualifier you threw in for a quick gotcha you could pull when people sensibly ignored it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
techsoldaten wrote: The only thing worse than Anita Sarkeesian speaking at GenCon is talking about her speaking at GenCon. She makes her living off the outrage generated by her posts. Every time she's ignored, the less probable it is one will need to hear from her in the future.
There have been a number of studies suggesting online harassment of women in gaming communities predominantly comes from other women..
Do you have a link?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Kiggler , your first sentence said nothing about evidence. Even so, threats should not be treated the same way as reasoned arguments (and vice versa), and do not deserve any such response as soul searching. People do not threaten because they have a convincing argument or logical rebuttal.
Still reading through that first study that was linked. Thinking about abandoning it because I feel like the data variance is too large to draw any conclusions. Every other line is, we believe this to be true, but the various studies differ from 24% to 75% (actual numbers mentioned). This was also seen, but the studies varied from 18% to 66% - I mean these are big freaking differences here. I'm not sure how accurate any conclusions are, drawn from data that represents both a rare situation and a worrisome epidemic at the same time.
But I found the following interesting, at least, specifically talking about a particular Dutch study:
"The lowest rate of sexual harassment was found in workplaces with little inequality between the sexes. These workplaces were characterized by a relatively equal distribution of women and men throughout the hierarchical structure of the workplace and the sex ratio. On the other hand, women in workplaces with the most uneven balance of power between the sexes did not report the highest number of incidences of sexual harassment; the highest rate of reported harassment was found in those workplaces where the power differentials were still uneven, but to a lesser extent than the most unequal workplaces. In these workplaces women have gradually gained access to a few higher status jobs. The findings suggest that the growing participation of women in working life goes hand in hand with a temporary increase in incidents of sexual harassment."
Long story short, places with the most unequal number of men to women did not have the worst numbers for sexual harassment. I'd have to dig up the Dutch study directly to see by exactly how much. I'm not sure where they are getting the "temporary" part from, as there's no evidence that I can tell that changing the gender balance would produce any effect. Instead, it is far more likely that the workplaces that were "naturally" equal (or "naturally" very unequal) had these characteristics. Forcing a change in balance may or may not affect an increase or decrease in sexual harassment incidents, but that's not what they studied nor what they controlled for, so I don't think it is fair to draw that conclusion. It very well could be a correlation without causation.
Still, since video games and tabletop gaming are naturally very (extremely) unequal in gender balance, by this study's conclusion, there should be less sexual harassment overall than fandoms with a higher, but still unequal gender balance (such as Game of Thrones fandom, or Parrotheads). Something to look into, I guess.
techsoldaten wrote: The only thing worse than Anita Sarkeesian speaking at GenCon is talking about her speaking at GenCon. She makes her living off the outrage generated by her posts. Every time she's ignored, the less probable it is one will need to hear from her in the future.
There have been a number of studies suggesting online harassment of women in gaming communities predominantly comes from other women..
Do you have a link?
The ones I saw were journal articles and I would need to find them.
Overall, men are somewhat more likely than women to experience at least one of the elements of online harassment, 44% vs. 37%. In terms of specific experiences, men are more likely than women to encounter name-calling, embarrassment, and physical threats.
Something to understand is this study looks at all online harassment, not just in the gaming community. There's a correlation between the level of harassment and someone's profession - i.e. if you work in the tech sector, you are more likely to report harassment in response to this survey. Online gaming accounts for about 16% of the harassment discussed in the report, compared to 66% in social networks.
Oh boy, another study! Checked it out briefly and it was a self administered survey (the surveys are sent out randomly, but people chose whether to respond - some selection bias, but not bad. Almost 10,000 people were asked, 5,500 responded were sent he questionaire) of 2,849 (so, a statistically representative number, which is good, but about 50% response rate). So far, so good. About as good as you are going to get from a voluntary internet survey.
Unfortunately, in the introduction, it repeats some commonly held mistruths (Quinn being forced out of her home rather than taking a planned vacation) concerning GamerGate and links to an extremely one sided NPR article that literally interviewed only people in Sarkeesian's clique. Sarkeesian, Quinn, Adam Saltsman (created the anti-GG "GamerGate Scoreboard" website, once wrote a GamaSutra editorial just to insult me just because he didn't like my website - cue tiny violin), and Leigh Alexander (wrote the first "gamers are dead article"). Entirely one-sided. However, being just the introduction, that has no relevance to the findings of the data. It's just annoying.
I like that the questions are listed, along with the percentage of respondents who answered. Very good for drilling deep into the data. The questions seem relevant and generally not misleading, and the part where they selectively quote the write in answers seems at first glance to cover a wide variety of viewpoints and opinions. In short, other than that short bit in the intro, it looks like a pretty good study that I would consider a valid research attempt - at least by the standards I have come to know these studies by. Always take things with a grain of salt, but I would consider the data revealed in this study to be pretty good. I'll have to dig into the actual data next to see what the study actually says and whether their conclusions are reasonable based on it.
I never said threats are okay but wouldn't you be at least a little bit curious as to why people would want to crucify you or find out why someone would even say such a thing. I know I would. You don't necessarily have to confront the people doing it either with the internet and all. If your in the public view you can look up why people would say such hateful things. Yes threats should be treated seriously and even myself would be hesitant to meet someone publicly face to face to discuss why they did.
Did Anita receive threats? Yes
Why? She called gamers sexist misogynist and all video games promote violence and sexual harassment towards women.
What evidence or facts did she provide? Very little to none. Lies. Plays the victim. Contradicts herself. Stole content from others.
Is there evidence against her arguments? 100's of articles and youtube videos.
What does she think of her critics? She views all of them as harassers and part of the problem.
Does she debate with anyone about her arguments? No
Hmm I wonder why people dislike her. If you act and treat people like garbage then don't be surprised people treat you as such. Nobody deserves death threats and alike but people are quick to defend their hobbies and interest when they come under attack. Sometimes they go too far. A lot of it is a over reaction. That doesn't mean its right to do so. Unfortunately she used this to her own success and rode the victim wagon to fame for a couple years. I just want people to realize people receive hate for a reason. She dismissed anyone with a opposing views as a bigot yet she is a perfect definition of one.
i'm not going to speak for you, personally, but I doubt any normal person would respond as you describe. From her point of view, she got threats because what she said was true. That's the obvious conclusion. The threats reinforce her correctness, not call it into question. She knows exactly why people are sending her threats, or she thinks she does.
Honestly, in her shoes I'd draw the same conclusions.
"Gaming is full of bad people."
"I'll rape you to death for saying that!"
Oh boy, another study! Checked it out briefly and it was a self administered survey (the surveys are sent out randomly, but people chose whether to respond - some selection bias, but not bad. Almost 10,000 people were asked, 5,500 responded were sent he questionaire) of 2,849 (so, a statistically representative number, which is good, but about 50% response rate). So far, so good. About as good as you are going to get from a voluntary internet survey.
Unfortunately, in the introduction, it repeats some commonly held mistruths (Quinn being forced out of her home rather than taking a planned vacation) concerning GamerGate and links to an extremely one sided NPR article that literally interviewed only people in Sarkeesian's clique. Sarkeesian, Quinn, Adam Saltsman (created the anti-GG "GamerGate Scoreboard" website, once wrote a GamaSutra editorial just to insult me just because he didn't like my website - cue tiny violin), and Leigh Alexander (wrote the first "gamers are dead article"). Entirely one-sided. However, being just the introduction, that has no relevance to the findings of the data. It's just annoying.
I like that the questions are listed, along with the percentage of respondents who answered. Very good for drilling deep into the data. The questions seem relevant and generally not misleading, and the part where they selectively quote the write in answers seems at first glance to cover a wide variety of viewpoints and opinions. In short, other than that short bit in the intro, it looks like a pretty good study that I would consider a valid research attempt - at least by the standards I have come to know these studies by. Always take things with a grain of salt, but I would consider the data revealed in this study to be pretty good. I'll have to dig into the actual data next to see what the study actually says and whether their conclusions are reasonable based on it.
Well, I encourage you to ask yourself what this study means when it says 'harassment.'
Part of the reason I like this study is the examples of harassment tell a story that is a little different from the conclusions.
Bob - Do you really think she's so naive with respect to people on the Internet?
I'm more cynical than you, and I think all of the "threats" were actually "false flag" publicity. That's why the FBI didn't do anything - there was nothing to do.
That is, she's a demonstrated liar, so I naturally ascribe falsehood to anything and everything she does.
I don't know her well enough to say. However, from my own experiences seeing what people type on gaming boards, and knowing the harassment my wife has received on sites much less hostile to diversity, I instinctually disagree about the false flag nature of the complaints.
The only important distinction to draw in this context is whether or not there is hard evidence that women are consistently and deliberately stopped from engaging in tabletop games.
Of course that's a really complex problem to figure out, not least because you have to define which different causes are responsible.
Is it that women aren't as interested in such hobbies on average?
Are they socially discouraged not to be interested in them?
If the above is found true, who is enforcing the discouragement?
Can women be the primary judgers of other women's behaviour?
Or is it only men who are responsible?
Do women experience a large amount of sexist remarks and attitudes in the tabletop gaming world that puts them off?
If so, what are the examples and what can be done about them?
Is it reasonable to extend an assumption of sexist undertones to the presentation of female models and characters?
Or is there an argument (and I've heard some myself) for the difference in how men and women are visually impacted by the opposite?
With the result that female characters are more likely to possess exaggerated features associated with a feminine form?
Do male characters also have the same exaggeration?
Is it about who shows more skin?
Is there a social maladaptive background for many tabletop gamers resulting in a sexual frustration that manifests as highly sexualised female models?
(Now this question I've heard pretty much my entire time in the hobby from around the age of 5, personally I find it fascinating that you can fight prejudice with another prejudice, but I'll include it nonetheless).
Is any of this, if found true, a deliberate attempt by an invisible force of patriarchal suppression?
Is patriarchy real? (This one probably needs to get straightened out before all the others I think).
For me there needs to be a serious investigation of all these types of questions and more.
At the moment in the social sciences there is a huge bias towards an extremely left learning political stance, with a tendency to presume the conclusion long before any evidence.
On the other hand I'm also no fan of the extreme right either.
Both seem to be playing the same game of divide and conquer by group identity, to the detriment of the individual.
The patriarchy is real, but it's not an intentional conspiracy. It is a power structure and like all power structures the cultural tendancy is to preserve itself. It is not a concious decision of anyone in particular to create or sustain a patriarchy (I mean excluding some weirdo crackpots on the internet who think women should be property - there are equivalents who think all men are rapists or whatever so I think we can just disregard extremists like that and look at the middle ground). It is a result of unconcious bias and people with power taking rational decisions to maintain their power - usually not out of any dislike for women. Like in my work place it is about 80% women, but management is almost entirely male. I am not as competent at administration as some of my female colleagues, but I've been offered promotion before them on multiple occasions. If I take the promotion, which is good for me, I perpetuate the patriarchy but not because I hate women, because I have an advantage and it is rational for me to pursue it. This is also part of why systemic racism does not require much in the way of overt racism to happen - it happens because of unconcious bias and maintenance of power structures. You can be part of the patriarchy and not have a sexist bone in your body, but simply benefit from it.
Now, I think that the patriarchy is actually also kind of bad for men, particularly men that don't fit in well. Look at the higher suicide rates and incarceration rates for me, the higher number of homeless men and the higher numbers of men who are substance abusers and you can see that the pressure of the patriarchy to perform and achieve and maintain is too much for many of us.
If you wanted to give the patriarchy a less loaded name (I know some people get upset by the terminology, look at how people react to the phrase "toxic masculinity" as though it meant all masculinity and not just those parts of the masculine ideal that are harmful for men to pursue), I would be fine with that, but we have the term patriarchy and I'm not going to get too upset about it.
Also, if we had a matriarchy, I believe that it would be just the same as a patriarchy in terms of sustaining it's position and power.
Da Boss wrote: The patriarchy is real, but it's not an intentional conspiracy. It is a power structure and like all power structures the cultural tendancy is to preserve itself. It is not a concious decision of anyone in particular to create or sustain a patriarchy (I mean excluding some weirdo crackpots on the internet who think women should be property - there are equivalents who think all men are rapists or whatever so I think we can just disregard extremists like that and look at the middle ground). It is a result of unconcious bias and people with power taking rational decisions to maintain their power - usually not out of any dislike for women. Like in my work place it is about 80% women, but management is almost entirely male. I am not as competent at administration as some of my female colleagues, but I've been offered promotion before them on multiple occasions. If I take the promotion, which is good for me, I perpetuate the patriarchy but not because I hate women, because I have an advantage and it is rational for me to pursue it. This is also part of why systemic racism does not require much in the way of overt racism to happen - it happens because of unconcious bias and maintenance of power structures. You can be part of the patriarchy and not have a sexist bone in your body, but simply benefit from it.
Now, I think that the patriarchy is actually also kind of bad for men, particularly men that don't fit in well. Look at the higher suicide rates and incarceration rates for me, the higher number of homeless men and the higher numbers of men who are substance abusers and you can see that the pressure of the patriarchy to perform and achieve and maintain is too much for many of us.
If you wanted to give the patriarchy a less loaded name (I know some people get upset by the terminology, look at how people react to the phrase "toxic masculinity" as though it meant all masculinity and not just those parts of the masculine ideal that are harmful for men to pursue), I would be fine with that, but we have the term patriarchy and I'm not going to get too upset about it.
Also, if we had a matriarchy, I believe that it would be just the same as a patriarchy in terms of sustaining it's position and power.
There isn't any evidence in your post that a patriarchal system, of the nature espoused by individuals like Anita, exists though. I'm not saying it doesn't exist at all, I'm simply trying to garner more evidence (as part of a broader area of inspection i.e: the other questions I posed).
And I'm not upset by the term either, I more concerned by it's relevancy. For example you said you were chosen over female members of staff who you stated were more competent in administration than yourself. But that's a biased sample, because firstly: it's only your interpretation that you were chosen over more competent members of staff who are female. And secondly: did you enquire as to why you were chosen over them and if those who chose you gave you reasons that were prejudicial in nature? And thirdly: Who else is rating competence in that context?
Management is almost entirely male. That's another issue in assuming that these hierarchies operate only via power, it plays a part, but it's not the only part. And I'm going to open myself up to an enormous amount of flak here by stating the controversial point that men and women are very different (although we are more similar than different as well) and that these differences are not entirely socialised. For example your point about male suicide and incarceration goes well in hand with my point that it isn't a particularly relevant term, since every definition I've ever seen describes it as 'a social system in which males hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property.' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy.
Or "Patriarchy is the term used to describe the society in which we live today, characterised by current and historic unequal power relations between women and men whereby women are systematically disadvantaged and oppressed. " http://londonfeministnetwork.org.uk/home/patriarchy
The problem is that if it only systematically disadvantages women, how is it that those suicide and incarceration numbers for men are so high? Can that really be defined as 'primary power'? And I can't help but note that this is largely about leadership positions, or high status jobs. Who is it that do most of the least glamorous jobs, like being stuck on an oil rig for several months in harsh conditions, risking a fairly high rate of injury? They are nearly all men.
But going back to those differences, there tend to be a small number of extremely productive men who rise up competence hierarchies (not power hierarchies) because they obsessively dedicate hundreds of hours to the pursuit of that particular field. And that isn't necessarily a good life to lead, either, it's very hard work, stressful and lonely. And to bring in another controversial point, women do tend to make different choices in those hierarchies & while being no less competent, they often get to a certain age and decide they want to settle down with a family, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. But I also wouldn't mock the reverse of the woman going back to work and the man staying at home; nothing wrong with that either.
It's just not the choice that is often made.
And I'm not saying you cannot find examples of power plays, corruption and nepotism, you absolutely can. But I severely doubt them as being part of a commonplace system of prejudicial intent, otherwise the competent people would eventually be filtered out and the whole system would collapse. The fact that our society functions at all in the day to day, is evidence that...on the whole, most of this is about competence, not power. Although politicians certainly have a lot to answer for.
Our systems are certainly not perfect and there are always improvements that can be made, but they are much further from the dark worst that they could be.
Lets not forget that for a large portion of human history most human beings were treated very poorly and had little to no rights as individual living creatures. Without intending to dismiss gender-specific issues, such as a lack of safe birth control for women (which didn't come into play until as late as the 1960's).
As for unconscious biases, I'm not sure. It's hard to define them as they exist in a nebulous state & most of the research suggests adopting an individual level of behavioural change. For example one study suggested that people's amygdala (associated with fight or flight responses in the brain) was less active when viewing what they called 'out group' faces (in other words of a different skin colour) over taking more time to view the face (0.03 to 0.5 seconds). I'll try to find the study later if I can.
But it's difficult to spot and figure out what to do with unconscious bias, however I think that is a massive topic in itself.
The problems we have are deeper and more complicated than the feminist concept of patriarchy suggests. And when we point the finger at homogenised groups; nobody wins.
I have presented some limited evidence, you have disregarded it. You also disregard the evidence from larger studies as being explainable by individual choices, and to an extent that is true, but you exclude the cultural context the choices take place in.
And it is undeniable that men hold more power in the world than women, just because some men do badly out of it does not mean that a patriarchy does not exist, merely that said patriarchy can be bad for both men and women.
I also have clearly said that outside of a tiny minority of cases there is no intent to create a patriarchy. Men traditionally held more power in most societies (undeniably true). Power tends to sustain and propagate itself (it is the nature of power to do so). There is no patriarchy master plan. It is a consequence of history.
You want objective, hard, scientific standard evidence of something you would accept calling a patriarchy. I am afraid such evidence does not exist- culture is too complex and interlinked to be immune from argument and presented in a scientific way. We must use other critical thinking tools to evaluate the evidence available to us, which will never be as solid as the evidence in more objective fields. This is the challenge and nature of studying cultures and societies.
Our problems are indeed deep and complex, and patriarchy is only one aspect of them. I'm much more concerned with environmental destruction personally, but I can stop and acknowledge that I exist in a patriarchal system.
Give it a few years. The men who are in power right now (real power, not like your shift manager) have a very distinct identifier other than "being male". They are all 50/55+. Which means that they did their grind to power 20-30 years ago, and that field was waaaay too uphill for women. The effects of this we can see today, but you don't fix this by cutting women slack now.
Thankfully time is an unbiased cruel bitch and these "powerful" men will grow old, wither and die - ironically the same exact way as all the not powerful men and women. When this happens new people will come in power, and these people will have made their grind for power in our days. Do you think women will be under represented again at that time?
Yeah, I think they will be. Less under represented than in the past, particularly in the Western World, but in lots of other places women will continue to be oppressed.
I think we also focus a bit too much on the West, where women have the best chance at an equal life, and do not look at the rest of the world, where the patriarchy is glaringly obvious. Western Feminism is often guilty of ignoring the likes of Saudi Arabia, for example.
I would honestly be happier with a word that encompassed what I think you are talking about (ideas like "women and children first!" and so on). The word patriarchy I am using to refer to "existing cultural structures around gender" with I suppose a particular focus on male power. I think it gets really twisted when you look at the whole picture and realize that it is a bit more complex and patriarchy is likely too loaded on one side, but I still think overall it is the word we have and I do not know a better one.
Da Boss wrote: I would honestly be happier with a word that encompassed what I think you are talking about (ideas like "women and children first!" and so on). The word patriarchy I am using to refer to "existing cultural structures around gender" with I suppose a particular focus on male power. I think it gets really twisted when you look at the whole picture and realize that it is a bit more complex and patriarchy is likely too loaded on one side, but I still think overall it is the word we have and I do not know a better one.
There are many existing cultural structures around gender that favor women. Noted biases in education, criminal law, family law, a reverse wage gap for those under 35, social norms, and accessibility to emergency help.
Da Boss wrote: I have presented some limited evidence, you have disregarded it. You also disregard the evidence from larger studies as being explainable by individual choices, and to an extent that is true, but you exclude the cultural context the choices take place in.
I didn't disregard it, I asked questions challenging the assumptions you were making. That's not disregarding, especially given the difficulty in testing anecdotal evidence over a medium such as the internet, which is what you provided. I'd have to see these 'larger studies' that you didn't provide in order to answer the second part of this paragraph.
For example I certainly think it is true that women are judged on their looks to a much harsher degree than most men & that this can have an adverse effect on their health and well being, particularly as individuals operating in the world. But, to go back to the questions I formed in my original post (which are not even entirely my questions of course; I merely reiterated them) how much of that is the prejudicial judgement of men & how much is the prejudicial judgement of other women?
And it is undeniable that men hold more power in the world than women, just because some men do badly out of it does not mean that a patriarchy does not exist, merely that said patriarchy can be bad for both men and women.
It is deniable, or at least questionable, that the definition commonly used to define patriarchy (which I gave some examples and links to in my previous reply) states that all men benefit from that system of power. And I disagree that it is 'some men' since the vast majority of the more dangerous and physical jobs in society are carried out by men. Those are also paid quite well for their danger by the way, which partially accounts for other disparities, such as in pay.
I also have clearly said that outside of a tiny minority of cases there is no intent to create a patriarchy. Men traditionally held more power in most societies (undeniably true). Power tends to sustain and propagate itself (it is the nature of power to do so). There is no patriarchy master plan. It is a consequence of history.
This is the issue with oversimplifying every system and hierarchy into one of power. I agree that there were men who traditionally held more power in most societies, but they were a small minority of men & a lot of them also held a lot of responsibility. The revolutions throughout history against ruling classes demonstrates what happens when you don't take those responsibilities seriously and exploit the population. I need more information on the nature of power propagating and sustaining itself, particularly as an entity in it's own right as you have characterised it here. Although a good example might be found in the gulag camps of Soviet Russia under Lenin during the 1900s.
If it is a consequence of history, it is also a consequence of nature and becomes a much more involved question than one of simply arising out of the ether on an assumption of interpretive truth.
You want objective, hard, scientific standard evidence of something you would accept calling a patriarchy. I am afraid such evidence does not exist- culture is too complex and interlinked to be immune from argument and presented in a scientific way. We must use other critical thinking tools to evaluate the evidence available to us, which will never be as solid as the evidence in more objective fields. This is the challenge and nature of studying cultures and societies.
I'm afraid you can't really assume too much of what I want. Even as an epistemological argument, what you have presented doesn't hold up in a dialectical sense either, hence my questions to you. So I have to go off what you stated as evidence & that evidence was anecdotal & assumptive.
As for the nebulous area of evaluating cultures & societies. Well it's fair to say that truth might ultimately be subjective or phenomenological, but it's also fair to say that there are ontological truths within those subjectivities. You can't just move the goalposts away from empiricism (which is tied into the sensory experience of reality) and then support an idea which is used to push equality of outcome systems that directly affect that sensory reality.
Equity of opportunity I'm all for. It's a very foolish person who would try to argue otherwise. But equity of outcome is a dangerously unbalanced notion, that lends itself to an increasingly fractured 'infinity of categories' with never ending consequences of exclusion and prejudice.
I'm also well aware of the limitations of empiricism, see such works as Iain Mcgilchrist's The Master & His Emissary, the Divided brain and the making of the western world, on the nature of brain hemispheric differences (beyond the simplified and inaccurate pop-cultural ones) as a very brilliant critique of how and where modern society has developed.
Our problems are indeed deep and complex, and patriarchy is only one aspect of them. I'm much more concerned with environmental destruction personally, but I can stop and acknowledge that I exist in a patriarchal system.
Given what we have seen the evidence (not just in the empirical sense) does not suggest a settled view on the legitimacy of a patriarchy complaint. At least not in most western cultures.
And it's dangerous to assume a settled truth of that nature. So you can stop and acknowledge it, but you cannot assume anybody else has a reason to.
PS: Please note that this is not the same as me making the claim that women do not experience prejudice based on their gender.
First of all I would personally never take "I wish you were dead" and all that similar things you can hear in the Internet and real life as "death threats" a threat is well a threat and wishes, are wishes, I would question the humanity of an individual wishing somebody to die because they do not share the same worldview, but it is not an threat.
"I will hunt you down and kill you" is a threat, "I wish you die" is not.
Of course one needs to examine if it is an actual threat or the hyperbole of emotions of the moment, but as a baseline the first is a death threat.
Now I do not think we (the western world) live in "the Patriarchy" we live in a structured society that has evolved through millennia to have its present form and will continue evolving and changing its shape, there was a post a while ago listing a huge amount of questions to be considered before we get into a definite conclusion about something, it was quite long and deservedly so, there are many reasons for an individuals choice and frankly"I have been forced to do it by a nebulous social structure against my wishes" is the rarity, not the norm.
As it is men and women gravitate towards different things, if one area is dominated by one gender it is entirely understandable individuals from another gender entering this field experiencing awkwardness and to some extent "resistance" in the other gender "intrusion" to their territory (in brackets because its hyperbolic) I enjoy a few hobbies that are "for women" and frankly I have experienced more or less the same reactions people say women experience in the wargaming hobby, should I assume the women are misandrist because they assumed I came to shop for my mother/ grandmother/ significant other instead of myself? or be shocked I do such a hobby? that is ridiculous its an entirely reasonable assumption and reaction because such a hobby is dominated by a gender.
Wunzlez: What you seem to be doing is engaging in a common argumentative technique whereby you ask a lot of questions which are difficult and time consuming to answer but never out forward a position of your own. I have acknowledged that it is absolutely possible to critique my ideas, and nowhere have I for example excluded women criticising other women from being part of a patriarchy. You have also then relied on definitions to narrow what you want to argue about, which is fine, but I do not think this is a particularly intellectually honest way of going about it.
Another common tactic is asking for studies and evidence in such an argument, and not providing any of your own. I reject this as it is a ridiculous standard to hold people to for an internet debate and you are not yourself abiding by it.
I am not really interested in rebutting every single point you made, I have other things to do. I was simply explaining my POV on the patriarchy and what it is. I'm sorry if you find that unsatisfactory, I mean no particular disrespect but what you are demanding of me is not worth the time investment it would require.
Da Boss wrote: Yeah, I think they will be. Less under represented than in the past, particularly in the Western World, but in lots of other places women will continue to be oppressed.
I think we also focus a bit too much on the West, where women have the best chance at an equal life, and do not look at the rest of the world, where the patriarchy is glaringly obvious. Western Feminism is often guilty of ignoring the likes of Saudi Arabia, for example.
And we are going to solve this from this forum? Or from the GenCon stages?
If you want to look at the rest of the world, why do you choose to see men vs women and you don't see western world vs any other kind of world among people in general, not genders? Now that would be some inequality indeed.
Let's pretend this is the line of power/money/ you name it. A is the point of power of most people in the world that are not lucky bastards like you and me. People who live in Africa, Brazilian slums, middle east war-decimated countries etc. Then we go to point B. That's the mistreated and underprivileged women of the western world. Then on C we have ze men. You know which category of men. The one that needs to check their privilege and not speak so much etc etc etc. Example would be US and EU male citizens, predominantly white.
Then we have D. D is the people with real power. The kind of people who know that power doesn't come from what's between your legs but from what is in your wallet. This is how far away they are from all other points. For them, all points, A,B and C are practically the same. This is the inequality and the difference we should be shouting about. Instead you are consumed by that dot between B and C, as if it would make any difference in paying one's mortgage or managing the grocceries.
TV, movies, everything social is constructed to keep you angry and busy fighting over points B and C, while this makes you completely blind of point D and the vast horizon between your level and theirs. For the media, point A existing is harmful, so they don't get ANY representation. You will never see slums in the news, you will never hear of homeless people dying or kids starving to death. Because if you could look back at point A and realize how much power compared to A does your position of B or C give you, then you will also realize the completely different universe that people at point D live into. And then you would riot. So A is out of the picture. Equally, point D is also out of the spotlight. Media doesn't want you to know how far point D really is. They want you to know it exists, because then they can sell you the dream of maybe -if you try hard enough- you can also go there. Of course nothing screams trying hard enough more than buying this car or that gold credit card. But how far point D really is? This is a bad thing, never share it, just like they never share your actual odds of winning the lottery.
So instead of caring about the people at A or getting angry about the people at D, we consume ourselves and our time arguing between points B and C. The line above shows the futility of this endeavor.
Personally I come from Greece and live in the Netherlands. I see myself as directly impacted by the whole feminist movement. As a male, I had to attend mandatory military service after my studies. Meanwhile the female alumni went on to get hired by companies and get 2 more years of work experience compared to me. Then I moved to the Netherlands, where I lost multiple job positions because the companies wanted to be "equal opportunity employers". On paper this means they should not discriminate at all while hiring. In practice it means that they get government bonuses if they meet 50%-50% gender employment ratios. So in the engineering field, any woman engineer in the Netherlands will be an auto-hire on companies, strictly due to the fact that there are not enough women enrolling in engineering in universities. The irony here is that encouraging more women to join engineering -the very thing faminism is shouting about- would make it easier for me to get hired in the Netherlands. So on paper, feminism would be a benefit for me. In practice though, I got severely impacted by trying to force practices of "equality" without having the background set for it in advance.
I will back the whole "More women in STEM" movement once there is an equal movement for "More women in sewage cleaning" and "More women in mining". Until then, I will see it as a try to cherry pick benefits without assuming any of the forced responsibilities.
Da Boss wrote: Wunzlez: What you seem to be doing is engaging in a common argumentative technique whereby you ask a lot of questions which are difficult and time consuming to answer but never out forward a position of your own. I have acknowledged that it is absolutely possible to critique my ideas, and nowhere have I for example excluded women criticising other women from being part of a patriarchy. You have also then relied on definitions to narrow what you want to argue about, which is fine, but I do not think this is a particularly intellectually honest way of going about it.
Another common tactic is asking for studies and evidence in such an argument, and not providing any of your own. I reject this as it is a ridiculous standard to hold people to for an internet debate and you are not yourself abiding by it.
I am not really interested in rebutting every single point you made, I have other things to do. I was simply explaining my POV on the patriarchy and what it is. I'm sorry if you find that unsatisfactory, I mean no particular disrespect but what you are demanding of me is not worth the time investment it would require.
That's fair enough. The fact that those questions are difficult and time consuming to answer is exactly the point and the boiling down of societal ills to easy definitions (not necessarily from yourself but certainly from those such as Anita) is a poor and easy answer at best and not an answer at all at worst.
I don't think it was done in intellectual dishonesty though. And I only asked for studies since you mentioned that I ignored a larger body of studies. I'd be happy to provide some for what I've stated once I get back from work (although I work till the early hours of the following morning on Tuesdays) so you might have to bear with me on that. I certainly don't hold the value judgement that it is a 'ridiculous standard' to hold someone to.
But if that is indeed the end of our discussion, then so be it.
I have to point out that, the burden of proof is to the "accuser" not the "defendant".
If a study finds out something, it has the burden to provide the evidence that lead to the conclusion including the proof it was not biased or manipulated.
For me the one making a statement needs to be ready to provide the information and prove the information when challenged.
topaxygouroun i wrote: Give it a few years. The men who are in power right now (real power, not like your shift manager) have a very distinct identifier other than "being male". They are all 50/55+. Which means that they did their grind to power 20-30 years ago, and that field was waaaay too uphill for women. The effects of this we can see today, but you don't fix this by cutting women slack now.
Thankfully time is an unbiased cruel bitch and these "powerful" men will grow old, wither and die - ironically the same exact way as all the not powerful men and women. When this happens new people will come in power, and these people will have made their grind for power in our days. Do you think women will be under represented again at that time?
I think this is something most people ignores. I read a study that, in Spain, something like 70-80% of our judges are all male, and most of them are old, but the same proportion (70-80%) of new graduates in judiciary are all female, so the study pointed out that probably in 20-40 years, the gender distribution of our judges would totally inverse, and become a female-dominated field.
As much as we want to think everything is fine, 20-30 years ago women weren't threated equally to men. And as Topax said, most of those corporation big names are all old, because they reached those positions decades ago. You can't expect for women to BLAM, become instantly big corporation names in 5-10 years because "we are fine now". it takes time.
PsychoticStorm wrote: I have to point out that, the burden of proof is to the "accuser" not the "defendant".
If a study finds out something, it has the burden to provide the evidence that lead to the conclusion including the proof it was not biased or manipulated.
For me the one making a statement needs to be ready to provide the information and prove the information when challenged.
That’s been my stance since the start but apparently it’s unreasonable, only pol has actually attempted to back up his stance and I respect him because of it.
Video games and tabletop games have crossover. If she has anything relevant to say, there's nothing wrong with inviting her. Don't like her, vote with your feet. Free market, etcetc. Perhaps there are other people more worthy, if you think so, write in and tell Gencon who you'd actually like to see. If enough people name a specific person, they'll probably make an attempt to get them to show up.
I can not impress upon you how much this absolutely does not work. It was tried, things got worse anyway.
She's a minor (and rather poor) internet blogger.
She was probably the most important person in the game industry for several years and her influence was felt everywhere. She spoke in front of the UN, was on the Colbert show, is on Twitter's Trust and Safety council, was covered by national newspapers and media.... Minor, she isn't, though I will give you poor.
Without that attention in the first place, nobody would give a damn.
She played the victim card so much that even events that people weren't caring enough to attend were blown out of proportion and delivered weeks of articles about how gamers threatened her life. Even if people ignored her, they didn't actually need to provably interact with her for her to claim that she felt unsafe and was a victim of harassment. Nobody actually bothered to check if these people were real or not.
Video games and tabletop games have crossover. If she has anything relevant to say, there's nothing wrong with inviting her. Don't like her, vote with your feet. Free market, etcetc. Perhaps there are other people more worthy, if you think so, write in and tell Gencon who you'd actually like to see. If enough people name a specific person, they'll probably make an attempt to get them to show up.
I can not impress upon you how much this absolutely does not work. It was tried, things got worse anyway.
She's a minor (and rather poor) internet blogger.
She was probably the most important person in the game industry for several years and her influence was felt everywhere. She spoke in front of the UN, was on the Colbert show, is on Twitter's Trust and Safety council, was covered by national newspapers and media.... Minor, she isn't, though I will give you poor.
Without that attention in the first place, nobody would give a damn.
She played the victim card so much that even events that people weren't caring enough to attend were blown out of proportion and delivered weeks of articles about how gamers threatened her life. Even if people ignored her, they didn't actually need to provably interact with her for her to claim that she felt unsafe and was a victim of harassment. Nobody actually bothered to check if these people were real or not.
Then don't go. Talk about first world problems.
That only solves the personal satisfaction part, and then only partly. First of all, why should I be denied my enjoyment because the event invites ambiguous guests to say the least? Sounds a lot like victim blaming more than a first world problem to me. Secondly, even if we don't go we are allowed to have a problem with potentially harmful people being in the spotlight for our hobbies. If Sarkeesian is on stage acting as a tabletop gaming representative/ person of influence while in truth she is not, then this labels all tabletop gaming as potentially serving some form of social agenda. And what does that make me, the tabletop gaming enthusiast look like?
You're no victim in this scenario.you're whining about someoe you don't like being invited to a toy convention. Are you serious? If you can't handle someone who disagrees with you, your life is going to be very hard.
Edit: she's just one of three. Don't like it don't listen it's not hard.
Just take a break and go see Weissman instead.
She made a point, got the conversation going, video gaming and society in general needed to think a little more on the gender topics.
Personal opinion only, she seems to be more a spotlight seeker than a champion for change especially when some of the facts she presented in her videos seemed rather cursory to me.
They seemed to get more sensationalized as the videos progressed, again, what do you do for an encore?
She had her time and if I were to go to Gencon I would just not go to see her or hear anything she had to present: she has covered that rather well so-far.
There are lots of shiny things there in need of support.
I prefer approaching inequality issues with trying to keep all things equal in daily matters.
I don't need some You-tube star to lecture me.
I have found her manner rather irritating (uncomfortable truths? I dunno...) so I would be doing her a service not being in her proximity.
My thoughts.
Talizvar wrote: She made a point, got the conversation going, video gaming and society in general needed to think a little more on the gender topics.
Personal opinion only, she seems to be more a spotlight seeker than a champion for change especially when some of the facts she presented in her videos seemed rather cursory to me.
They seemed to get more sensationalized as the videos progressed, again, what do you do for an encore?
She had her time and if I were to go to Gencon I would just not go to see her or hear anything she had to present: she has covered that rather well so-far.
There are lots of shiny things there in need of support.
I prefer approaching inequality issues with trying to keep all things equal in daily matters.
I don't need some You-tube star to lecture me.
I have found her manner rather irritating (uncomfortable truths? I dunno...) so I would be doing her a service not being in her proximity.
My thoughts.
Exactly. If you're not a fan just look at the cool shiny stuff when it's her turn.
So after having a quick look at all this I think we may well be seeing Anita trying to make the jump into a new genre and probably can expect a video series based on all the systematic sexism in miniature gaming in the not too distant future. ("I've been playing rpg's and wargames my whole life!" (Anita Sarkeesian, Women in wargaming 2019))
Call me a cynic but her channel at the mo is pulling in around 2000 views an episode from a 224k sub base. I doubt sponsors or advertising could support her and her staff and with this much of a decline in relevance I don't see her behind the scenes work being anywhere near as lucrative as it once was. I think her donations and cash flow in general are down and she needs a new cow to milk.
All in all I can't see her appearance at Gencon as being anything but the start of a Gak show. Unfortunatley her previous opponents alone will bring enough of a circus to drown out any reasonable voices and the witch hunt will probably start in earnest.
I think our best hope in all this is the companies that run our hobby. As long as they don't immediatley panic and start attacking there customer base when the drama starts then things will probably blow over and we'll be able to approach any substantive issues raised with cooler less partisan heads.... Look for the "Wargamers are dead!" articles coming soon to a BoL's near you!
Frazzled wrote: You're no victim in this scenario.you're whining about someoe you don't like being invited to a toy convention. Are you serious?
Dude. Toy convention? Don't denigrate other people's passion for the things that bring them happiness, community, and purpose. You don't have to share that passion, but you don't have to be an donkey-cave about it either.
I believed in her original intentions about women in gaming. I thought it was going help produce better developed female characters and stories. She raised a lot of money and took along time to produce content. Unfortunately she did a horrible job. Even now I understand some of the points she tried to make. This was something that could of benefited gaming as a whole if it was well crafted but instead made us take a step backwards and pitted people against each other.
I can understand the rise for concern about the GenCon appearance. Let her speak. See what she has to say or don't. People are wiser to her shenanigans. She has made herself look more of a fool as of late. I think too many of us are over reacting about this. We don't want to repeat our past mistakes.
Kiggler wrote: I think too many of us are over reacting about this. We don't want to repeat our past mistakes.
In all honesty, I don't think she'll be able to do much damage. At least with miniature gaming, the majority of players seem to be older and married, so their concern about female representation would largely be based around inclusiveness for their children, not for potential mate material. And I think it is really easy to say, "this product is not intended for children" (like KDM) than to say "this product is not intended for overly sensitive people" (like KDM).
That being said, I think the fact that GenCon decided to invite her - especially after she became wholly irrelevant - means that the cancer has spread enough that this industry is about to be in for a fight.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Well these types of threads certainly show the real faces of certain posters. Hard to imagine it stayed open for this long.
It also makes you wonder about some of the accounts used to post on it, like if they were alt-/new accounts made long ago that people break out to talk about something they might not otherwise want linked to their other postings.
Da Boss wrote: -snip-
If you wanted to give the patriarchy a less loaded name (I know some people get upset by the terminology, look at how people react to the phrase "toxic masculinity" as though it meant all masculinity and not just those parts of the masculine ideal that are harmful for men to pursue), I would be fine with that, but we have the term patriarchy and I'm not going to get too upset about it.
Also, if we had a matriarchy, I believe that it would be just the same as a patriarchy in terms of sustaining it's position and power.
The bolded part is why a lot of folk who agree with the fundamental assertion of patriarchy theory(ie, that a power hierarchy exists which systemically disadvantages and historically systemically persecuted women) take issue with the basic concept of gendering the idea and the criticism of it - in my experience, it's a rare feminist outside of actual academics that will acknowledge it's true. People react badly to phrases like "toxic masculinity" because they don't encounter those phrases in academic papers with the added context you specify, they encounter them when deployed by angry pop-feminist op-ed writers who either neglect to define the term or themselves misunderstand it, willfully or otherwise. They encounter it in the same way people often encounter "privilege" and "mansplaining" - as rhetorical tools used to silence dissenting views, or provoke a reaction which can then be used as evidence of the user's claims. They encounter it and the idea of patriarchy theory generally in the context of people who in fact do believe the patriarchy is a uniquely violent and oppressive construct because of its ostensible maleness and if they are willing to acknowledge other power hierarchies do or can exist at all(and fewer people I discuss the issue with are every year, instead suborning ever more general criticisms of society and all its nested power hierarchies into the singular gendered construct of patriarchy theory, and so men become in their minds the source of all its ills - racism, homophobia, ableism, all become masculine things that would not and even could not exist without the patriarchy), they do so only with the caveat that patriarchy is the worst in an absolute rather than temporal and relative sense(ie, not the worst right now, the worst, period, in all history and forevermore into the future).
Try debating feminism with non-academics(or, if you value your sanity, do not do that) even from a position of fundamental agreement on a regular basis and it will not be long at all until you begin encountering people who genuinely believe that women would run things better, that merely by switching from a male dominated power hierarchy to a female dominated one(or merely a population-share-equal one) the world would be a better place overnight; the end of war, more caring governments, less rapacious corporations.
Which is why people who do in fact value equality and the idea of a better society in which the broadly agreed core demands of feminism are realised get annoyed by the way so much of the critical language surrounding feminism is explicitly gendered - you can't use words and phrases that already have meaning to people in your academic work with different meanings and then wash your hands when people misunderstand the latter(or cynically exploit the relationship between the two).
Disciple of Fate wrote: Well these types of threads certainly show the real faces of certain posters. Hard to imagine it stayed open for this long.
It also makes you wonder about some of the accounts used to post on it, like if they were alt-/new accounts made long ago that people break out to talk about something they might not otherwise want linked to their other postings.
Make me wonder why you're actually joining in on the thread other than to cast aspersions at those involved? There's been some back and forth but for the most part its stayed fairly civil. Especially as it seems to be on a fairly devisive topic.
If you have a point to make in all this maybe you should share rather than just muttering darkly about the character of the people taking part.
Frazzled wrote: You're no victim in this scenario.you're whining about someoe you don't like being invited to a toy convention. Are you serious?
Dude. Toy convention? Don't denigrate other people's passion for the things that bring them happiness, community, and purpose. You don't have to share that passion, but you don't have to be an donkey-cave about it either.
what are you talking about? I am on a forum about toy soldiers. It's likely I have miniatures older than you are, maybe even your parents. It's a passion I am not making fun of.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Well these types of threads certainly show the real faces of certain posters. Hard to imagine it stayed open for this long.
It also makes you wonder about some of the accounts used to post on it, like if they were alt-/new accounts made long ago that people break out to talk about something they might not otherwise want linked to their other postings.
Make me wonder why your actually joining in on the thread other than to caste aspersions at those involved? There's been some back and forth but for the most part its stayed fairly civil. Especially as it seems to be on a fairly devisive topic.
If you have a point to make in all this maybe you should share rather than just muttering darkly about the character of the people taking part.
Fairly civil? Perhaps to express disbelief at people throwing around terms like "HIV" and "cancer" about a woman who they don't agree with, even if Sarkeesian is a (depending on where you stand) liar/in it for the money? Perhaps in the men engaging in whataboutism and the oppression olympics to declare sexism over?
I'm not a fan of her myself, because I think she addresses the topic in a divisive and weak manner. But I do think the community has certain issues, as its nothing but a smaller reflection of society overall so it makes sense the issues are reflected and addressing them in anyway is always going to catch flak. Do I think she is the best person to address them? No. Do I think trying to polarize the debate for financial gain regardless of the side it happens on is beneficial? No. Do I think the response about this is in any way proportional to the issue? Hell no.
As Frazzled said, its about Sarkeesian speaking at an event you don't even have to attend.
Da Boss wrote: Yeah, I think they will be. Less under represented than in the past, particularly in the Western World, but in lots of other places women will continue to be oppressed.
I think we also focus a bit too much on the West, where women have the best chance at an equal life, and do not look at the rest of the world, where the patriarchy is glaringly obvious. Western Feminism is often guilty of ignoring the likes of Saudi Arabia, for example.
And we are going to solve this from this forum? Or from the GenCon stages?
If you want to look at the rest of the world, why do you choose to see men vs women and you don't see western world vs any other kind of world among people in general, not genders? Now that would be some inequality indeed.
Let's pretend this is the line of power/money/ you name it. A is the point of power of most people in the world that are not lucky bastards like you and me. People who live in Africa, Brazilian slums, middle east war-decimated countries etc. Then we go to point B. That's the mistreated and underprivileged women of the western world. Then on C we have ze men. You know which category of men. The one that needs to check their privilege and not speak so much etc etc etc. Example would be US and EU male citizens, predominantly white.
Then we have D. D is the people with real power. The kind of people who know that power doesn't come from what's between your legs but from what is in your wallet. This is how far away they are from all other points. For them, all points, A,B and C are practically the same. This is the inequality and the difference we should be shouting about. Instead you are consumed by that dot between B and C, as if it would make any difference in paying one's mortgage or managing the grocceries.
TV, movies, everything social is constructed to keep you angry and busy fighting over points B and C, while this makes you completely blind of point D and the vast horizon between your level and theirs. For the media, point A existing is harmful, so they don't get ANY representation. You will never see slums in the news, you will never hear of homeless people dying or kids starving to death. Because if you could look back at point A and realize how much power compared to A does your position of B or C give you, then you will also realize the completely different universe that people at point D live into. And then you would riot. So A is out of the picture. Equally, point D is also out of the spotlight. Media doesn't want you to know how far point D really is. They want you to know it exists, because then they can sell you the dream of maybe -if you try hard enough- you can also go there. Of course nothing screams trying hard enough more than buying this car or that gold credit card. But how far point D really is? This is a bad thing, never share it, just like they never share your actual odds of winning the lottery.
So instead of caring about the people at A or getting angry about the people at D, we consume ourselves and our time arguing between points B and C. The line above shows the futility of this endeavor.
Personally I come from Greece and live in the Netherlands. I see myself as directly impacted by the whole feminist movement. As a male, I had to attend mandatory military service after my studies. Meanwhile the female alumni went on to get hired by companies and get 2 more years of work experience compared to me. Then I moved to the Netherlands, where I lost multiple job positions because the companies wanted to be "equal opportunity employers". On paper this means they should not discriminate at all while hiring. In practice it means that they get government bonuses if they meet 50%-50% gender employment ratios. So in the engineering field, any woman engineer in the Netherlands will be an auto-hire on companies, strictly due to the fact that there are not enough women enrolling in engineering in universities. The irony here is that encouraging more women to join engineering -the very thing faminism is shouting about- would make it easier for me to get hired in the Netherlands. So on paper, feminism would be a benefit for me. In practice though, I got severely impacted by trying to force practices of "equality" without having the background set for it in advance.
I will back the whole "More women in STEM" movement once there is an equal movement for "More women in sewage cleaning" and "More women in mining". Until then, I will see it as a try to cherry pick benefits without assuming any of the forced responsibilities.
It's really racist and sexist to take notice of the harms of concentrated capital and futility of social justice movements. I am certain marginalized groups would rather have a bigger piece of 1% of the GDP of the country where they live than a less equitable portion of a 10 - 20% share. The fact that the top 1% control 95% - 99% of the capital in the most advanced Democracies is insignificant compared to the pronouns we use to refer to one another.
Further, your points about employment practices in the Netherlands make you sound like a white supremacist. Of course governments have an interest in expanding equitable employment options in engineering and not in sanitation. There is need for cishet white male engineers to contribute productively to a society once they have been replaced by female versions of themselves.
Da Boss wrote: Yeah, I think they will be. Less under represented than in the past, particularly in the Western World, but in lots of other places women will continue to be oppressed.
I think we also focus a bit too much on the West, where women have the best chance at an equal life, and do not look at the rest of the world, where the patriarchy is glaringly obvious. Western Feminism is often guilty of ignoring the likes of Saudi Arabia, for example.
And we are going to solve this from this forum? Or from the GenCon stages?
If you want to look at the rest of the world, why do you choose to see men vs women and you don't see western world vs any other kind of world among people in general, not genders? Now that would be some inequality indeed.
Let's pretend this is the line of power/money/ you name it. A is the point of power of most people in the world that are not lucky bastards like you and me. People who live in Africa, Brazilian slums, middle east war-decimated countries etc. Then we go to point B. That's the mistreated and underprivileged women of the western world. Then on C we have ze men. You know which category of men. The one that needs to check their privilege and not speak so much etc etc etc. Example would be US and EU male citizens, predominantly white.
Then we have D. D is the people with real power. The kind of people who know that power doesn't come from what's between your legs but from what is in your wallet. This is how far away they are from all other points. For them, all points, A,B and C are practically the same. This is the inequality and the difference we should be shouting about. Instead you are consumed by that dot between B and C, as if it would make any difference in paying one's mortgage or managing the grocceries.
TV, movies, everything social is constructed to keep you angry and busy fighting over points B and C, while this makes you completely blind of point D and the vast horizon between your level and theirs. For the media, point A existing is harmful, so they don't get ANY representation. You will never see slums in the news, you will never hear of homeless people dying or kids starving to death. Because if you could look back at point A and realize how much power compared to A does your position of B or C give you, then you will also realize the completely different universe that people at point D live into. And then you would riot. So A is out of the picture. Equally, point D is also out of the spotlight. Media doesn't want you to know how far point D really is. They want you to know it exists, because then they can sell you the dream of maybe -if you try hard enough- you can also go there. Of course nothing screams trying hard enough more than buying this car or that gold credit card. But how far point D really is? This is a bad thing, never share it, just like they never share your actual odds of winning the lottery.
So instead of caring about the people at A or getting angry about the people at D, we consume ourselves and our time arguing between points B and C. The line above shows the futility of this endeavor.
Personally I come from Greece and live in the Netherlands. I see myself as directly impacted by the whole feminist movement. As a male, I had to attend mandatory military service after my studies. Meanwhile the female alumni went on to get hired by companies and get 2 more years of work experience compared to me. Then I moved to the Netherlands, where I lost multiple job positions because the companies wanted to be "equal opportunity employers". On paper this means they should not discriminate at all while hiring. In practice it means that they get government bonuses if they meet 50%-50% gender employment ratios. So in the engineering field, any woman engineer in the Netherlands will be an auto-hire on companies, strictly due to the fact that there are not enough women enrolling in engineering in universities. The irony here is that encouraging more women to join engineering -the very thing faminism is shouting about- would make it easier for me to get hired in the Netherlands. So on paper, feminism would be a benefit for me. In practice though, I got severely impacted by trying to force practices of "equality" without having the background set for it in advance.
I will back the whole "More women in STEM" movement once there is an equal movement for "More women in sewage cleaning" and "More women in mining". Until then, I will see it as a try to cherry pick benefits without assuming any of the forced responsibilities.
It's really racist and sexist to take notice of the harms of concentrated capital and futility of social justice movements. I am certain marginalized groups would rather have a bigger piece of 1% of the GDP of the country where they live than a less equitable portion of a 10 - 20% share. The fact that the top 1% control 95% - 99% of the capital in the most advanced Democracies is insignificant compared to the pronouns we use to refer to one another.
Further, your points about employment practices in the Netherlands make you sound like a white supremacist. Of course governments have an interest in expanding equitable employment options in engineering and not in sanitation. There is need for cishet white male engineers to contribute productively to a society once they have been replaced by female versions of themselves.
It makes me sad that I can't tell if you're joking.
Da Boss wrote: Yeah, I think they will be. Less under represented than in the past, particularly in the Western World, but in lots of other places women will continue to be oppressed.
I think we also focus a bit too much on the West, where women have the best chance at an equal life, and do not look at the rest of the world, where the patriarchy is glaringly obvious. Western Feminism is often guilty of ignoring the likes of Saudi Arabia, for example.
And we are going to solve this from this forum? Or from the GenCon stages?
If you want to look at the rest of the world, why do you choose to see men vs women and you don't see western world vs any other kind of world among people in general, not genders? Now that would be some inequality indeed.
Let's pretend this is the line of power/money/ you name it. A is the point of power of most people in the world that are not lucky bastards like you and me. People who live in Africa, Brazilian slums, middle east war-decimated countries etc. Then we go to point B. That's the mistreated and underprivileged women of the western world. Then on C we have ze men. You know which category of men. The one that needs to check their privilege and not speak so much etc etc etc. Example would be US and EU male citizens, predominantly white.
Then we have D. D is the people with real power. The kind of people who know that power doesn't come from what's between your legs but from what is in your wallet. This is how far away they are from all other points. For them, all points, A,B and C are practically the same. This is the inequality and the difference we should be shouting about. Instead you are consumed by that dot between B and C, as if it would make any difference in paying one's mortgage or managing the grocceries.
TV, movies, everything social is constructed to keep you angry and busy fighting over points B and C, while this makes you completely blind of point D and the vast horizon between your level and theirs. For the media, point A existing is harmful, so they don't get ANY representation. You will never see slums in the news, you will never hear of homeless people dying or kids starving to death. Because if you could look back at point A and realize how much power compared to A does your position of B or C give you, then you will also realize the completely different universe that people at point D live into. And then you would riot. So A is out of the picture. Equally, point D is also out of the spotlight. Media doesn't want you to know how far point D really is. They want you to know it exists, because then they can sell you the dream of maybe -if you try hard enough- you can also go there. Of course nothing screams trying hard enough more than buying this car or that gold credit card. But how far point D really is? This is a bad thing, never share it, just like they never share your actual odds of winning the lottery.
So instead of caring about the people at A or getting angry about the people at D, we consume ourselves and our time arguing between points B and C. The line above shows the futility of this endeavor.
Personally I come from Greece and live in the Netherlands. I see myself as directly impacted by the whole feminist movement. As a male, I had to attend mandatory military service after my studies. Meanwhile the female alumni went on to get hired by companies and get 2 more years of work experience compared to me. Then I moved to the Netherlands, where I lost multiple job positions because the companies wanted to be "equal opportunity employers". On paper this means they should not discriminate at all while hiring. In practice it means that they get government bonuses if they meet 50%-50% gender employment ratios. So in the engineering field, any woman engineer in the Netherlands will be an auto-hire on companies, strictly due to the fact that there are not enough women enrolling in engineering in universities. The irony here is that encouraging more women to join engineering -the very thing faminism is shouting about- would make it easier for me to get hired in the Netherlands. So on paper, feminism would be a benefit for me. In practice though, I got severely impacted by trying to force practices of "equality" without having the background set for it in advance.
I will back the whole "More women in STEM" movement once there is an equal movement for "More women in sewage cleaning" and "More women in mining". Until then, I will see it as a try to cherry pick benefits without assuming any of the forced responsibilities.
It's really racist and sexist to take notice of the harms of concentrated capital and futility of social justice movements. I am certain marginalized groups would rather have a bigger piece of 1% of the GDP of the country where they live than a less equitable portion of a 10 - 20% share. The fact that the top 1% control 95% - 99% of the capital in the most advanced Democracies is insignificant compared to the pronouns we use to refer to one another.
Further, your points about employment practices in the Netherlands make you sound like a white supremacist. Of course governments have an interest in expanding equitable employment options in engineering and not in sanitation. There is need for cishet white male engineers to contribute productively to a society once they have been replaced by female versions of themselves.
How you got white supremacist from that boggles my mind.....
Da Boss wrote: Yeah, I think they will be. Less under represented than in the past, particularly in the Western World, but in lots of other places women will continue to be oppressed.
I think we also focus a bit too much on the West, where women have the best chance at an equal life, and do not look at the rest of the world, where the patriarchy is glaringly obvious. Western Feminism is often guilty of ignoring the likes of Saudi Arabia, for example.
And we are going to solve this from this forum? Or from the GenCon stages?
If you want to look at the rest of the world, why do you choose to see men vs women and you don't see western world vs any other kind of world among people in general, not genders? Now that would be some inequality indeed.
Let's pretend this is the line of power/money/ you name it. A is the point of power of most people in the world that are not lucky bastards like you and me. People who live in Africa, Brazilian slums, middle east war-decimated countries etc. Then we go to point B. That's the mistreated and underprivileged women of the western world. Then on C we have ze men. You know which category of men. The one that needs to check their privilege and not speak so much etc etc etc. Example would be US and EU male citizens, predominantly white.
Then we have D. D is the people with real power. The kind of people who know that power doesn't come from what's between your legs but from what is in your wallet. This is how far away they are from all other points. For them, all points, A,B and C are practically the same. This is the inequality and the difference we should be shouting about. Instead you are consumed by that dot between B and C, as if it would make any difference in paying one's mortgage or managing the grocceries.
TV, movies, everything social is constructed to keep you angry and busy fighting over points B and C, while this makes you completely blind of point D and the vast horizon between your level and theirs. For the media, point A existing is harmful, so they don't get ANY representation. You will never see slums in the news, you will never hear of homeless people dying or kids starving to death. Because if you could look back at point A and realize how much power compared to A does your position of B or C give you, then you will also realize the completely different universe that people at point D live into. And then you would riot. So A is out of the picture. Equally, point D is also out of the spotlight. Media doesn't want you to know how far point D really is. They want you to know it exists, because then they can sell you the dream of maybe -if you try hard enough- you can also go there. Of course nothing screams trying hard enough more than buying this car or that gold credit card. But how far point D really is? This is a bad thing, never share it, just like they never share your actual odds of winning the lottery.
So instead of caring about the people at A or getting angry about the people at D, we consume ourselves and our time arguing between points B and C. The line above shows the futility of this endeavor.
Personally I come from Greece and live in the Netherlands. I see myself as directly impacted by the whole feminist movement. As a male, I had to attend mandatory military service after my studies. Meanwhile the female alumni went on to get hired by companies and get 2 more years of work experience compared to me. Then I moved to the Netherlands, where I lost multiple job positions because the companies wanted to be "equal opportunity employers". On paper this means they should not discriminate at all while hiring. In practice it means that they get government bonuses if they meet 50%-50% gender employment ratios. So in the engineering field, any woman engineer in the Netherlands will be an auto-hire on companies, strictly due to the fact that there are not enough women enrolling in engineering in universities. The irony here is that encouraging more women to join engineering -the very thing faminism is shouting about- would make it easier for me to get hired in the Netherlands. So on paper, feminism would be a benefit for me. In practice though, I got severely impacted by trying to force practices of "equality" without having the background set for it in advance.
I will back the whole "More women in STEM" movement once there is an equal movement for "More women in sewage cleaning" and "More women in mining". Until then, I will see it as a try to cherry pick benefits without assuming any of the forced responsibilities.
It's really racist and sexist to take notice of the harms of concentrated capital and futility of social justice movements. I am certain marginalized groups would rather have a bigger piece of 1% of the GDP of the country where they live than a less equitable portion of a 10 - 20% share. The fact that the top 1% control 95% - 99% of the capital in the most advanced Democracies is insignificant compared to the pronouns we use to refer to one another.
Further, your points about employment practices in the Netherlands make you sound like a white supremacist. Of course governments have an interest in expanding equitable employment options in engineering and not in sanitation. There is need for cishet white male engineers to contribute productively to a society once they have been replaced by female versions of themselves.
It makes me sad that I can't tell if you're joking.
I don’t think he is, I think we have a prime example here of someone seeing what they want to see and not what is actually there
Disciple of Fate wrote: Well these types of threads certainly show the real faces of certain posters. Hard to imagine it stayed open for this long.
It could be a good thing. After all, the only way these things get noticed is by putting them out in the open. Take the notion that feminism is about replacing Patriarchy with Matriarchy. That's, well, I don't quite know what to say about that except it's a kind of fundamental misunderstanding. But at least we know who thinks that, and what else they think. Likewise it'll be good to find out what Ms. Sarkeesian has to say about the tabletop gaming hobby.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Well these types of threads certainly show the real faces of certain posters. Hard to imagine it stayed open for this long.
It could be a good thing. After all, the only way these things get noticed is by putting them out in the open. Take the notion that feminism is about replacing Patriarchy with Matriarchy. That's, well, I don't quite know what to say about that except it's a kind of fundamental misunderstanding. But at least we know who thinks that, and what else they think. Likewise it'll be good to find out what Ms. Sarkeesian has to say about the tabletop gaming hobby.
It certainly is.
As for Sarkeesian. I doubt she will have many new/relevant things to say for those who have reflected on certain parts of the hobby community. In my opinion she holds little authority on the subject overall, mostly keeping to the surface issues/low hanging fruit. She wasn't the first on this subject and won't be the last, but she certainly acquired the most fame/infamy. It certainly will turn the spotlight on it and drags us all down into the sewer with the inevitable backlash.
Frazzled wrote: what are you talking about? I am on a forum about toy soldiers. It's likely I have miniatures older than you are, maybe even your parents. It's a passion I am not making fun of.
First of all, GenCon is not a toy convention. It is a game convention, and not limited to miniature games (or even games without a physical product, like LARPing). It's an extremely reductionist description to call it a toy convention. I have no problems with toys or toy enthusiasts (big LEGO fan here), but I think gaming is a much more complex beast that deserves to stand as its own thing.
Second, miniatures are somewhat removed from toys. There's very little, if any, imaginative play. Instead, they are very structured in design (they are model kits, assembly required) that are used in structured play (games). I would still consider calling them game pieces to be slightly reductionist, but at least a little more accurate.
Also, the definition of toy is usually something intended for children or trifling, but there's nothing childish or trifling about, for instance, Kingdom Death Monster. Like video games, I think the miniature gaming community has spent a lot of time and effort attempting to leave behind the stigma of it being a childish activity, and to again reduce miniature games to something childish undercuts the adult passion and accomplishment of the genre. A lot of people make full time jobs out of miniature gaming, and some of their accomplishments are culturally significant.
Frazzled wrote: what are you talking about? I am on a forum about toy soldiers. It's likely I have miniatures older than you are, maybe even your parents. It's a passion I am not making fun of.
First of all, GenCon is not a toy convention. It is a game convention, and not limited to miniature games (or even games without a physical product, like LARPing). It's an extremely reductionist description to call it a toy convention. I have no problems with toys or toy enthusiasts (big LEGO fan here), but I think gaming is a much more complex beast that deserves to stand as its own thing.
Second, miniatures are somewhat removed from toys. There's very little, if any, imaginative play. Instead, they are very structured in design (they are model kits, assembly required) that are used in structured play (games). I would still consider calling them game pieces to be slightly reductionist, but at least a little more accurate.
Also, the definition of toy is usually something intended for children or trifling, but there's nothing childish or trifling about, for instance, Kingdom Death Monster. Like video games, I think the miniature gaming community has spent a lot of time and effort attempting to leave behind the stigma of it being a childish activity, and to again reduce miniature games to something childish undercuts the adult passion and accomplishment of the genre. A lot of people make full time jobs out of miniature gaming, and some of their accomplishments are culturally significant.
I don't think anyone is arguing that your toys aren't important to you.
Da Boss wrote: Also, if we had a matriarchy, I believe that it would be just the same as a patriarchy in terms of sustaining it's position and power.
It'd actually be far worse. Ask women who've worked in shops that consist *entirely* of women (no men at all) how much they enjoyed the experience. Is it sweetness and light? No. My understanding is that it's gossip and passive-aggressive gak that does not stop. Until a man appears. Then gak gets back to normal.
Nurglitch wrote: I don't think anyone is arguing that your toys aren't important to you.
But toys aren't important to me. Games are.
Does the distinction make any difference to the core of Frazzled's argument?
Nothing wrong with calling them toys. My miniatures are my toys. My hopped up M&Ps and Beretta are toys. My neighbor's chopper is a toy. It's not bourbon. Now that's serious business.
It's a convention about toys. She is just one speaker at said convention. You are not obligated to go or attend her talk.
Calmeth thineself.
Frazzled wrote: what are you talking about? I am on a forum about toy soldiers.
First of all, GenCon is not a toy convention.
Also, the definition of toy is usually something intended for children or trifling, but there's nothing childish or trifling about, for instance, Kingdom Death Monster.
Sure, it isn't...
There are lots of toys for adults. McFarlane makes bank on it. I strongly suggest that you google "adult toys" when you get into the office.
I really, really wish I hadn't started reading this thread.
I think really this thread needs to be moved to OT. It's digging up some really ugly dirt from the bottom of the pit and exposing a lot of emotional vulnerability, something I would rather not have to see in this section of the forum.
Pacific wrote: I really, really wish I hadn't started reading this thread.
I think really this thread needs to be moved to OT. It's digging up some really ugly dirt from the bottom of the pit and exposing a lot of emotional vulnerability, something I would rather not have to see in this section of the forum.
Frazzled wrote: I guess I should ask, what's the downside for this person appearing?
I would guess the fairly logical answer to that would be:
1. Wasting a seat on someone who is, basically, a paid internet troll when you could actually get someone useful and insightful (it's like whenever Ann Coulter gets an appearance, lots of buzz, little substance).
2. Helping a troll get a bigger megaphone to troll more people.
Frazzled wrote: I guess I should ask, what's the downside for this person appearing?
It makes people think about topics that are hard and complex, which requires effort and can lead down paths of thought that aren't pleasant, and they don't want to go to an event where that's a feature.
Sure, there's a small (albeit vocal) contingent out there who have more fanatical negative beliefs about who she is or what she's done and a small contingent who highly support her, but that's the nuts of it.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Well these types of threads certainly show the real faces of certain posters. Hard to imagine it stayed open for this long.
It could be a good thing. After all, the only way these things get noticed is by putting them out in the open. Take the notion that feminism is about replacing Patriarchy with Matriarchy. That's, well, I don't quite know what to say about that except it's a kind of fundamental misunderstanding. But at least we know who thinks that, and what else they think. Likewise it'll be good to find out what Ms. Sarkeesian has to say about the tabletop gaming hobby.
But prior it wouldn't have ever come up because it wasn't relevant to anything. No one would know and we'd all just assume that we all had no problem with each others politics. Now you're implying that it somehow makes a difference like maybe now you won't engage with someone about what variation of Leman Russ is the coolest because he has different views on feminism than you. Real world politics have no place in a fictional world and only serves to drive wedges between people who previously got along because there was never a need to talk about this.
And this is what Anita and her ilk brings to tabletop games. She pits people against each other by shoe horning real world politics into places where it doesn't belong.
Frazzled wrote: what are you talking about? I am on a forum about toy soldiers.
First of all, GenCon is not a toy convention.
Also, the definition of toy is usually something intended for children or trifling, but there's nothing childish or trifling about, for instance, Kingdom Death Monster.
Sure, it isn't...
There are lots of toys for adults. McFarlane makes bank on it. I strongly suggest that you google "adult toys" when you get into the office.
No, you should definitely NOT Google "adult toys" at work.
I feel like real-world politics has every place in a fictional world, and that one of the purposes of politics is to figure out with whom you stand in solidarity.
A large part of my design for Titanomachina, for example, was driven by my feminist political affiliation, and I appreciate comments I get noting that I left out sexist tropes, both positive and negative. I figure there's enough weird sexism in the industry that an alternative is a positive thing for everyone.
Now it does make a difference about how I engage with people. When the opinions they express are sufficiently unappealing to me in one area, then I don't see why I'd want to bother with more of the same in another. I don't want to engage with flat-earthers, homeopaths, creationists, and so on regarding the topic of the sexist Leman Russ because they've already informed me that they're not worth my time.
Nurglitch wrote: I feel like real-world politics has every place in a fictional world, and that one of the purposes of politics is to figure out with whom you stand in solidarity.
A large part of my design for Titanomachina, for example, was driven by my feminist political affiliation, and I appreciate comments I get noting that I left out sexist tropes, both positive and negative. I figure there's enough weird sexism in the industry that an alternative is a positive thing for everyone.
Now it does make a difference about how I engage with people. When the opinions they express are sufficiently unappealing to me in one area, then I don't see why I'd want to bother with more of the same in another. I don't want to engage with flat-earthers, homeopaths, creationists, and so on regarding the topic of the sexist Leman Russ because they've already informed me that they're not worth my time.
This is such a closed minded, awful way of thinking it boggles my mind. So I suppose a mechanic's opinion on your car is invalid because he believes in God?
Disciple of Fate wrote: Well these types of threads certainly show the real faces of certain posters. Hard to imagine it stayed open for this long.
It could be a good thing. After all, the only way these things get noticed is by putting them out in the open. Take the notion that feminism is about replacing Patriarchy with Matriarchy. That's, well, I don't quite know what to say about that except it's a kind of fundamental misunderstanding. But at least we know who thinks that, and what else they think. Likewise it'll be good to find out what Ms. Sarkeesian has to say about the tabletop gaming hobby.
But prior it wouldn't have ever come up because it wasn't relevant to anything. No one would know and we'd all just assume that we all had no problem with each others politics. Now you're implying that it somehow makes a difference like maybe now you won't engage with someone about what variation of Leman Russ is the coolest because he has different views on feminism than you. Real world politics have no place in a fictional world and only serves to drive wedges between people who previously got along because there was never a need to talk about this.
And this is what Anita and her ilk brings to tabletop games. She pits people against each other by shoe horning real world politics into places where it doesn't belong.
She represents only one side of shoehorning though.
As for relevance. You're right that there is no need for this to come up in the discussions of a fictional universe. But it does have relevance in explaining where someone's views of the fictional world comes from, that is what makes the difference. Underlying motivations about why someone is arguing from a certain point of view become clear. Its not like women in 40K background hasn't come up for discussion on Dakka, its not all about tanks. Whether you think it does or not, those political views tend to bleed partly into the background discussion, and its good to see where the opinion comes from to see if its worth engaging. How many women in 40K threads haven't flamed out because neither side could keep it politically neutral?
Frazzled wrote: I guess I should ask, what's the downside for this person appearing?
I wouldn't call it a downside, but there's a good chance Sarkeesian is going to address the thorny issue of six sided dice. It's come up in some of her other addresses to gaming conventions, the ubiquitous racism emerging from a standard gameplay device employed by so many tabletop games.
IIRC, the last time she brought up this topic, her argument was the standard six-sided die is a collection of facings that include a number of tiny black pips surrounded by fields of white. The lower the value of a roll, the more marginalized each pip becomes. And a roll of 1, the most isolated value possible, occurs approximately 16% of the time. It's associated with the worst possible outcome, sending a message that a singular, isolated, dark member of the community of dice facings should be avoided at all costs.
She had a problem with reversing the colors as well. The designers working for the Big Dice industry always opt for maximum contrast, and there are no generally-available dice that are more inclusive of other colors - white is always there. You have to have such dice specially manufactured and face ostracism / social isolation for trying to use them in games. Not to mention charges from opponents that you are selecting dice to gain an unfair advantage.
Fighting systemic racism in dice selection matters. I'm hoping she talks more about the idea, which I support, of replacing six-sided dice with 20-sided dice to maximize the diversity of possible outcomes and equity amongst players. I would personally boycott any tabletop game that does not adopt a d20 dice system in recognition of support for marginalized persons and eliminating systemic racism / sexism in the broader tabletop gaming community.
Da Boss wrote: Also, if we had a matriarchy, I believe that it would be just the same as a patriarchy in terms of sustaining it's position and power.
It'd actually be far worse. Ask women who've worked in shops that consist *entirely* of women (no men at all) how much they enjoyed the experience. Is it sweetness and light? No. My understanding is that it's gossip and passive-aggressive gak that does not stop. Until a man appears. Then gak gets back to normal.
Just to relate to this - my wife used to work in a creche for pre school age children and the entirety of the staff from the boss, managers, staff were female, from the ages of 20ish to mid 40's.
And the a mount of bitching, snippy comments, strops, prettiness was off the chart. My wife worked there for 8 years, and the amount of mud flung from everyone made me wonder if anyone there actually spoke to one another. Funnily enough, due to me earning enough to allow her to be a stay at home mum, she doesn't want to go back into childcare. Wonder why.
She wants to go to a job where its male and female workers, as she herself told me "girls would never act like that in front of boys".
Nurglitch wrote: I feel like real-world politics has every place in a fictional world, and that one of the purposes of politics is to figure out with whom you stand in solidarity.
A large part of my design for Titanomachina, for example, was driven by my feminist political affiliation, and I appreciate comments I get noting that I left out sexist tropes, both positive and negative. I figure there's enough weird sexism in the industry that an alternative is a positive thing for everyone.
Now it does make a difference about how I engage with people. When the opinions they express are sufficiently unappealing to me in one area, then I don't see why I'd want to bother with more of the same in another. I don't want to engage with flat-earthers, homeopaths, creationists, and so on regarding the topic of the sexist Leman Russ because they've already informed me that they're not worth my time.
This is such a closed minded, awful way of thinking it boggles my mind. So I suppose a mechanic's opinion on your car is invalid because he believes in God?
No, because God doesn't have anything to do with cars. Now if the well-educated and informed mechanic feels like telling me racist jokes when he's supposed to be telling me about what he did to my vehicle you're quite correct in assuming that I'll disregard his opinion and take my business elsewhere.
I'm not a fan of her myself, because I think she addresses the topic in a divisive and weak manner. But I do think the community has certain issues, as its nothing but a smaller reflection of society overall so it makes sense the issues are reflected and addressing them in anyway is always going to catch flak. Do I think she is the best person to address them? No. Do I think trying to polarize the debate for financial gain regardless of the side it happens on is beneficial? No. Do I think the response about this is in any way proportional to the issue? Hell no.
As Frazzled said, its about Sarkeesian speaking at an event you don't even have to attend.
Well there's been no death threats and for the internet I think that counts as a win! But for me this thread has been an interesting read usually things go down hill a lot harder and faster! That may be because while most people share differing views on what Anita bring to the table they seem to for the most part agree she's about as much use in gaming circles as a nipple on a breastplate!
And yeah there's been a lot of stupidity and hyperbole and of course the usual accusations thrown back and forth but at least this thread got to a place where people pulled some evidence out to backup what they were saying and while no conclusions are ever gonna be reached in an arena like this there was some back and forth and some good points were made. I think its been an interesting one so far.
On the proportionality of it. Its a thread online, one that people can choose to or not engage with. Unless people are making threats or organising a disruption to the event I don't see how it could go to far.
Nurglitch wrote: I feel like real-world politics has every place in a fictional world, and that one of the purposes of politics is to figure out with whom you stand in solidarity.
A large part of my design for Titanomachina, for example, was driven by my feminist political affiliation, and I appreciate comments I get noting that I left out sexist tropes, both positive and negative. I figure there's enough weird sexism in the industry that an alternative is a positive thing for everyone.
Now it does make a difference about how I engage with people. When the opinions they express are sufficiently unappealing to me in one area, then I don't see why I'd want to bother with more of the same in another. I don't want to engage with flat-earthers, homeopaths, creationists, and so on regarding the topic of the sexist Leman Russ because they've already informed me that they're not worth my time.
This is such a closed minded, awful way of thinking it boggles my mind. So I suppose a mechanic's opinion on your car is invalid because he believes in God?
No, because God doesn't have anything to do with cars. Now if the well-educated and informed mechanic feels like telling me racist jokes when he's supposed to be telling me about what he did to my vehicle you're quite correct in assuming that I'll disregard his opinion and take my business elsewhere.
But he's still knowledgeable on a subject that doesn't involve his politics and even if he was a massive racist he would still be correct about your car regardless (unless you're black and he's lying to you). If I told you that I'm pro-<thing you dislike> that doesn't effect my opinion on Space Marines because the two topics are unrelated. You're willing to dismiss me as a person entirely because you disagree with a few of my political views which, to bring it back round to the topic, is why people dislike that Anita is speaking at Gencon. She doesn't invite discussion because she notoriously doesn't engage in any. To her and a lot of her followers, this is a zero sum game. Either you fall in line or you're to be black listed as a racist/misogynist/transphobe etc.
Sure, and if you paid attention you'd notice that you could look up why you're being racist, sexist, misogynist, and transphobic. It's engaging with some pretty fundamental stuff, and it's rather like the sunglasses in They Live where you don't want to put them on, and once they're on it's not something you can unsee.
I'm not a fan of her myself, because I think she addresses the topic in a divisive and weak manner. But I do think the community has certain issues, as its nothing but a smaller reflection of society overall so it makes sense the issues are reflected and addressing them in anyway is always going to catch flak. Do I think she is the best person to address them? No. Do I think trying to polarize the debate for financial gain regardless of the side it happens on is beneficial? No. Do I think the response about this is in any way proportional to the issue? Hell no.
As Frazzled said, its about Sarkeesian speaking at an event you don't even have to attend.
Well there's been no death threats and for the internet I think that counts as a win! But for me this thread has been an interesting read usually things go down hill a lot harder and faster! That may be because while most people share differing views on what Anita bring to the table they seem to for the most part agree she's about as much use in gaming circles as a nipple on a breastplate!
And yeah there's been a lot of stupidity and hyperbole and of course the usual accusations thrown back and forth but at least this thread got to a place where people pulled some evidence out to backup what they were saying and while no conclusions are ever gonna be reached in an arena like this there was some back and forth and some good points were made. I think its been an interesting one so far.
On the proportionality of it. Its a thread online, one that people can choose to or not engage with. Unless people are making threats or organising a disruption to the event I don't see how it could go to far.
Its the internet, you can bet there have been death threats by now. And no death threats on Dakka sets the bar extremely low considering we have active moderation against that.
As for how useful she is, its a bit of a bad metric, she might not be knowledgeable, but an outside perspective isn't always bad. Who they invite to speak at the convention is not in my hands,but if they only invited the most knowledgeable people you would end up with a very short list I assume. Just because a person isn't very knowledgeable doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to speak out. While that might be a problem regarding the convention which I admit, people have wanted Sarkeesian not to speak out at all regardless of platform, hence the vitriol and death threats.
And while a lot of detractors of Sarkeesian might have a point about profiteering or what not, there is an undeniable undercurrent of pure hate just because of what she says. It stops being objective and becomes an emotional argument, not on the subject at large but about her as a person. And while some might feel she is a terrible spokesperson for women in gaming, she is undeniably effective in breaching the subject as demonstrated here because of how emotional people get.
People have said she is cancer and HIV, you don't think saying those things because of personal feelings is crossing a line? Must be different personal experiences regarding said horrible diseases.
JohnHwangDD wrote: There are lots of toys for adults. McFarlane makes bank on it. I strongly suggest that you google "adult toys" when you get into the office.
Nurglitch wrote: I feel like real-world politics has every place in a fictional world, and that one of the purposes of politics is to figure out with whom you stand in solidarity.
A large part of my design for Titanomachina, for example, was driven by my feminist political affiliation, and I appreciate comments I get noting that I left out sexist tropes, both positive and negative. I figure there's enough weird sexism in the industry that an alternative is a positive thing for everyone.
Now it does make a difference about how I engage with people. When the opinions they express are sufficiently unappealing to me in one area, then I don't see why I'd want to bother with more of the same in another. I don't want to engage with flat-earthers, homeopaths, creationists, and so on regarding the topic of the sexist Leman Russ because they've already informed me that they're not worth my time.
This is such a closed minded, awful way of thinking it boggles my mind. So I suppose a mechanic's opinion on your car is invalid because he believes in God?
No, because God doesn't have anything to do with cars. Now if the well-educated and informed mechanic feels like telling me racist jokes when he's supposed to be telling me about what he did to my vehicle you're quite correct in assuming that I'll disregard his opinion and take my business elsewhere.
But he's still knowledgeable on a subject that doesn't involve his politics and even if he was a massive racist he would still be correct about your car regardless (unless you're black and he's lying to you). If I told you that I'm pro-<thing you dislike> that doesn't effect my opinion on Space Marines because the two topics are unrelated. You're willing to dismiss me as a person entirely because you disagree with a few of my political views which, to bring it back round to the topic, is why people dislike that Anita is speaking at Gencon. She doesn't invite discussion because she notoriously doesn't engage in any. To her and a lot of her followers, this is a zero sum game. Either you fall in line or you're to be black listed as a racist/misogynist/transphobe etc.
The mechanic is a false equivalance. We can assume through study the mechanic is an authority on cars. You on the other hand are no more an authority on 40k than any of the guys on this forum. So say if someone turned out to be a misogynist in real life, wouldn't you start second guessing that person when he starts arguing that female imperial guard are not realistic. Whether we like it or not, 40k touches on the subject of women frequently enough and political views bleed through.
Nurglitch wrote: I feel like real-world politics has every place in a fictional world, and that one of the purposes of politics is to figure out with whom you stand in solidarity.
A large part of my design for Titanomachina, for example, was driven by my feminist political affiliation, and I appreciate comments I get noting that I left out sexist tropes, both positive and negative. I figure there's enough weird sexism in the industry that an alternative is a positive thing for everyone.
Now it does make a difference about how I engage with people. When the opinions they express are sufficiently unappealing to me in one area, then I don't see why I'd want to bother with more of the same in another. I don't want to engage with flat-earthers, homeopaths, creationists, and so on regarding the topic of the sexist Leman Russ because they've already informed me that they're not worth my time.
This is such a closed minded, awful way of thinking it boggles my mind. So I suppose a mechanic's opinion on your car is invalid because he believes in God?
No, because God doesn't have anything to do with cars. Now if the well-educated and informed mechanic feels like telling me racist jokes when he's supposed to be telling me about what he did to my vehicle you're quite correct in assuming that I'll disregard his opinion and take my business elsewhere.
But he's still knowledgeable on a subject that doesn't involve his politics and even if he was a massive racist he would still be correct about your car regardless (unless you're black and he's lying to you). If I told you that I'm pro-<thing you dislike> that doesn't effect my opinion on Space Marines because the two topics are unrelated. You're willing to dismiss me as a person entirely because you disagree with a few of my political views which, to bring it back round to the topic, is why people dislike that Anita is speaking at Gencon. She doesn't invite discussion because she notoriously doesn't engage in any. To her and a lot of her followers, this is a zero sum game. Either you fall in line or you're to be black listed as a racist/misogynist/transphobe etc.
The mechanic is a false equivalance. We can assume through study the mechanic is an authority on cars. You on the other hand are no more an authority on 40k than any of the guys on this forum. So say if someone turned out to be a misogynist in real life, wouldn't you start second guessing that person when he starts arguing that female imperial guard are not realistic. Whether we like it or not, 40k touches on the subject of women frequently enough and political views bleed through.
Fair enough it is. But my point was that people are knowledgeable about more than one subject and many are unrelated to other things. I know a lot about photography but that's unrelated to my knowledge of Warhammer. 40k has a defined world. You can't argue that female guardsmen are unrealistic because we have loads of fluff and evidence for it. You CAN argue that female space marines are unrealistic because it's baked into the fluff and hasn't been mentioned before. Wether or not it's politically correct is a seperate issue.
Sure, but photography is not really something acknowledged in 40K. And really, people have argued against female guardsmen in the 40K background because "women aren't biologically suitable to combat" and "women are needed to breed more guardsmen, not to die in combat that would be unrealistic in the Imperium" etc. We have had these discussions multiple times on Dakka. Sometimes they try to dress it up in a fluffy dress, but not always.
The SM issues is also more complicated due to the fluff, but not all arguments about women in 40K go for the Female SM immediately.
Nurglitch wrote: I don't think anyone is arguing that your toys aren't important to you.
I come from a video game background. About 15-20 years ago (so, about two moral panics ago), there was this guy called Jack Thompson who was very much worried that violent video games were corrupting the minds of children. At that time, video games were seen as toys for children, and it was incredibly hard to defend them against accusations such as his. After all, why would you create something for kids that has dismemberment in it? As a result, the ESRB was created to rate games, so that games could definitely state that hey buddy, this game is not intended for children.
The ESRB was not a net win for video games. Like the movie ratings board, they are secretive and have no accountability for the ratings they assign. It's very expensive to get a rating, keeping smaller indies from being able to get their games on store shelves or consoles. Consoles won't put anything without a rating on their systems, nor will they put anything rated Adults-Only. This has created a chilling effect where companies preemptively censor their games before release, either out of fear that the ESRB will give them a higher rating or because the ESRB has said they would. In some cases, games like Oblivion and Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas had content that the ESRB later decided to rerate, and it cost millions to the developers to recall all the copies and print up new ones. Worse yet, the ESRB was susceptible to Sarkeesian's message of sexism and started rating things they deemed as sexist in a harsher light.
The appearance that a hobby is a toy, or meant for children, is dangerous to the hobby, not my self esteem. I don't care if you think I'm childish, but the miniature gaming industry is so small, with margins that aren't particularly large, that in most cases, an extra step of bureaucracy in time and cost would be devastating to everything that wasn't FFG or Games Workshop. A ratings system for miniature games would require each and every new release to be reviewed and rated, at some cost, meaning that we'd ultimately get fewer, more expensive miniatures less often. Plus, fear of getting high ratings will cause miniature companies to second guess their own design sensibilities. Is this model too violent? Is this pose too sexual? And they'd err on the side of safety and produce lower quality goods that were compromised versions of their true vision. Moreover, places with different standards than the US may have difficulty bringing their products over due to these standards being a requirement for release (see also, certain video games which have been banned from sale in Australia for drug use, or Japanese games banned from the UK for perceived sexist content).
It is important, I think, to remember that these aren't products for young kids. They require adult supervision. They require hobby blades and clippers, glue and magnets, and the models themselves are not tested against child safety standards (nothing GW produces passes the puncture test). If we start acting like these things are meant for children, then these things will start being held to the standards we have for children's products. I'm talking physically, but it also applies to things like the model design, game art, novel contents, and so on.
I know what the point of the original comment was. It was an attempt to poke fun at the fact that we are being way to serious about something that is ultimately trivial in the grand scheme of things. Maybe it is, but there is a difference between trivial and childish, and I happen to like my miniature games with sharp edges. The best defense against someone trying to censor your hobby is to say, this is a hobby for serious people who take all aspects of it seriously. If the wrong person interacts with it the wrong way, it is not due to negligence on the industry's part, but a personal choice that they made against common sense.
Sqorgar wrote: Worse yet, the ESRB was susceptible to Sarkeesian's message of sexism and started rating things they deemed as sexist in a harsher light.
On this point. It is hard to argue that Sarkeesian would have gotten this done on her own merit if it wasn't for the absolute gakton of vitriol thrown her way. This is more of a self inflicted injury by part of the community than a demonstration of her influence.
Disciple of Fate wrote: On this point. It is hard to argue that Sarkeesian would have gotten this done on her own merit if it wasn't for the absolute gakton of vitriol thrown her way. This is more of a self inflicted injury by part of the community than a demonstration of her influence.
Allegedly. I have still not seen any evidence that the harassment she received was more threatening, damaging, or sexist than what every public internet personality receives. She built a platform by saying her harassers were sexist, not on having harassers in general.
Disciple of Fate wrote: On this point. It is hard to argue that Sarkeesian would have gotten this done on her own merit if it wasn't for the absolute gakton of vitriol thrown her way. This is more of a self inflicted injury by part of the community than a demonstration of her influence.
Allegedly. I have still not seen any evidence that the harassment she received was more threatening, damaging, or sexist than what every public internet personality receives. She built a platform by saying her harassers were sexist, not on having harassers in general.
Nothing alleged about it. The harassment she received, regardless of any disputed amount is what helped push her into the general spotlight. But because some idiots couldn't keep it in their keyboards they gave her the power to do this. And rape threats are pretty sexists, your regular male internet personality doesn't receive the same amount of rape threats based on studies into male/female online harassment. And even if it wasn't sexist, the harassment in general still gave her the spotlight. It is self inflicted.
Nurglitch wrote: I don't think anyone is arguing that your toys aren't important to you.
I come from a video game background. About 15-20 years ago (so, about two moral panics ago), there was this guy called Jack Thompson who was very much worried that violent video games were corrupting the minds of children. At that time, video games were seen as toys for children, and it was incredibly hard to defend them against accusations such as his. After all, why would you create something for kids that has dismemberment in it? As a result, the ESRB was created to rate games, so that games could definitely state that hey buddy, this game is not intended for children.
The ESRB was not a net win for video games. Like the movie ratings board, they are secretive and have no accountability for the ratings they assign. It's very expensive to get a rating, keeping smaller indies from being able to get their games on store shelves or consoles. Consoles won't put anything without a rating on their systems, nor will they put anything rated Adults-Only. This has created a chilling effect where companies preemptively censor their games before release, either out of fear that the ESRB will give them a higher rating or because the ESRB has said they would. In some cases, games like Oblivion and Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas had content that the ESRB later decided to rerate, and it cost millions to the developers to recall all the copies and print up new ones. Worse yet, the ESRB was susceptible to Sarkeesian's message of sexism and started rating things they deemed as sexist in a harsher light.
The appearance that a hobby is a toy, or meant for children, is dangerous to the hobby, not my self esteem. I don't care if you think I'm childish, but the miniature gaming industry is so small, with margins that aren't particularly large, that in most cases, an extra step of bureaucracy in time and cost would be devastating to everything that wasn't FFG or Games Workshop. A ratings system for miniature games would require each and every new release to be reviewed and rated, at some cost, meaning that we'd ultimately get fewer, more expensive miniatures less often. Plus, fear of getting high ratings will cause miniature companies to second guess their own design sensibilities. Is this model too violent? Is this pose too sexual? And they'd err on the side of safety and produce lower quality goods that were compromised versions of their true vision. Moreover, places with different standards than the US may have difficulty bringing their products over due to these standards being a requirement for release (see also, certain video games which have been banned from sale in Australia for drug use, or Japanese games banned from the UK for perceived sexist content).
It is important, I think, to remember that these aren't products for young kids. They require adult supervision. They require hobby blades and clippers, glue and magnets, and the models themselves are not tested against child safety standards (nothing GW produces passes the puncture test). If we start acting like these things are meant for children, then these things will start being held to the standards we have for children's products. I'm talking physically, but it also applies to things like the model design, game art, novel contents, and so on.
I know what the point of the original comment was. It was an attempt to poke fun at the fact that we are being way to serious about something that is ultimately trivial in the grand scheme of things. Maybe it is, but there is a difference between trivial and childish, and I happen to like my miniature games with sharp edges. The best defense against someone trying to censor your hobby is to say, this is a hobby for serious people who take all aspects of it seriously. If the wrong person interacts with it the wrong way, it is not due to negligence on the industry's part, but a personal choice that they made against common sense.
Thank you for a well thought out and fair response and I agree, I too take my hobby seriously and am against anything I see as a detriment to it, while that of course is subjective, it is still something that should be talked about, for a very long time I saw GW as bad for ITS OWN HOBBY, and critiqued then because of it, Sarkeesian is no different and doesn’t get a pass just because she is a woman, in the same manner that I push back against people trying to force politics into My hobby, politics and political speakers have no place within something that is supposed to be a form of escapism.
If these people keep pushing their agenda and are not stopped, we will have lost yet another way to escape from the crap hole that is real life and that would have some serious ramifications.
Frazzled wrote: I guess I should ask, what's the downside for this person appearing?
I wouldn't call it a downside, but there's a good chance Sarkeesian is going to address the thorny issue of six sided dice. It's come up in some of her other addresses to gaming conventions, the ubiquitous racism emerging from a standard gameplay device employed by so many tabletop games.
IIRC, the last time she brought up this topic, her argument was the standard six-sided die is a collection of facings that include a number of tiny black pips surrounded by fields of white. The lower the value of a roll, the more marginalized each pip becomes. And a roll of 1, the most isolated value possible, occurs approximately 16% of the time. It's associated with the worst possible outcome, sending a message that a singular, isolated, dark member of the community of dice facings should be avoided at all costs.
She had a problem with reversing the colors as well. The designers working for the Big Dice industry always opt for maximum contrast, and there are no generally-available dice that are more inclusive of other colors - white is always there. You have to have such dice specially manufactured and face ostracism / social isolation for trying to use them in games. Not to mention charges from opponents that you are selecting dice to gain an unfair advantage.
Fighting systemic racism in dice selection matters. I'm hoping she talks more about the idea, which I support, of replacing six-sided dice with 20-sided dice to maximize the diversity of possible outcomes and equity amongst players. I would personally boycott any tabletop game that does not adopt a d20 dice system in recognition of support for marginalized persons and eliminating systemic racism / sexism in the broader tabletop gaming community.
Is this true? It's almost like the movement has exceeded sarcasm. I really can't tell.
Disciple of Fate wrote: And rape threats are pretty sexists, your regular male internet personality doesn't receive the same amount of rape threats based on studies into male/female online harassment.
I've received rape threats. More than a few people threatened to bend me over a barrel or to skull feth me. It happens. Also had a number of people threaten to cut my dick off. That's kind of sexist, I guess, though I don't see it that way.
See, the thing you have to understand is that the people who send you death threats are trying to piss you off or scare you. They are going to target you using the weapon that is the most effective. And if you have shown that you are particularly susceptible to a certain type of threat, you can bet your ass that the number of those types of threats will increase by a lot. If you are sensitive about race issues, you are going to get racist emails because it will hit your weak spot for maximum damage. Sarkeesian showed, repeatedly and publicly, that rape threats affected her the most. Those were the ones she retweeted and complained about. It isn't because these people are racist or sexist or that they mean what they are threatening. It is because they have low self esteem, feel very weak and insignificant, and the more you hurt, the more powerful it makes them feel.
The secret to reducing the amount of harassment you get is to shut the feth up. Don't show people that it affects you. Don't respond to it at all. Keep doing what you were already doing without commenting on it. Sarkeesian did the exact opposite of this and basically invited additional harassment. Repeatedly. Over and over again. The amount of harassment she got could've been stopped within a week if she didn't immediately start talking about how much harassment she got, how sexist it was, and how deeply it was troubling her.
So, no, I don't think she received more harassment than anyone else, or more actually sexist harassment. And I haven't seen any evidence that it was either. In fact, based on the harassing tweets that she pointed out, I'd argue that many of them were simply disagreeing with her, which she interpreted as harassment. I think she got the same amount of harassment as every semi-public figure gets, but handled it really poorly, and increased the severity of it as a result.
Disciple of Fate wrote: And rape threats are pretty sexists, your regular male internet personality doesn't receive the same amount of rape threats based on studies into male/female online harassment.
I've received rape threats. More than a few people threatened to bend me over a barrel or to skull feth me. It happens. Also had a number of people threaten to cut my dick off. That's kind of sexist, I guess, though I don't see it that way.
See, the thing you have to understand is that the people who send you death threats are trying to piss you off or scare you. They are going to target you using the weapon that is the most effective. And if you have shown that you are particularly susceptible to a certain type of threat, you can bet your ass that the number of those types of threats will increase by a lot. If you are sensitive about race issues, you are going to get racist emails because it will hit your weak spot for maximum damage. Sarkeesian showed, repeatedly and publicly, that rape threats affected her the most. Those were the ones she retweeted and complained about. It isn't because these people are racist or sexist or that they mean what they are threatening. It is because they have low self esteem, feel very weak and insignificant, and the more you hurt, the more powerful it makes them feel.
The sequel to reducing the amount of harassment you get is to shut the feth up. Don't show people that it affects you. Don't respond to it at all. Keep doing what you were already doing without commenting on it. Sarkeesian did the exact opposite of this and basically invited additional harassment. Repeatedly. Over and over again. The amount of harassment she got could've been stopped within a week if she didn't immediately start talking about how much harassment she got, how sexist it was, and how deeply it was troubling her.
So, no, I don't think she received more harassment than anyone else, or more actually sexist harassment. And I haven't seen any evidence that it was either. In fact, based on the harassing tweets that she pointed out, I'd argue that many of them were simply disagreeing with her, which she interpreted as harassment.
You don't think I understand why people send death threats? I have received death threats IRL, not just the internet. And everyone responds to those differently and you have no clue what each and every person's motivation for sending threats is, it can make a real fething difference between a person making an offhanded threat or one accompanied by personal information. I can't honestly believe you're moving on to how a person should respond and that its her fault that people kept going after her and downplaying death threats. Good for you for keeping a cool head and all, but the fault lies with the people who do this. They created her, without these people she would be raking in a few thousands views on YT like all the others.
As for rape threats, twice as many women receive rape threats online than men. Just because men also receive rape threats because it became the cool lingo for edgy kids does not mean its on the same level as women.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I can't honestly believe you're moving on to how a person should respond and that its her fault that people kept going after her and downplaying death threats. Good for you for keeping a cool head and all, but the fault lies with the people who do this.
I didn't keep a cool head. This is knowledge earned the hard way.
There's this really good book called The Gift of Fear. It's actually a book they give out at women's support centers. Basically, it was written by a guy who runs a business that provides help for celebrities who are threatened. The author developed a series of rules for determining the validity of threats that I think, if I'm remembering correctly, is used by the FBI now or something. I recommend the book for a whole bunch of reasons, but there's one part of the book that always stuck with me.
People who are threatening, aren't doing. People who want to hurt you won't tell you first. Generally speaking, threats can escalate into violence over time in a very repeatable and demonstrable way, but the vast, vast majority of threats are nonsense, and obviously so. This book was written before the internet was really a thing and was mostly talking about letters - something that takes time and money to write and send. Over the internet, it is easier than ever to send an empty threat. Generally speaking, the ones to be worried about are the ones seeking to develop a personal relationship with you.
Obviously, in public situations, like at talks and what not, people can act out through a mob mentality. Hostile mobs have certainly done stuff like throw rocks, set trashcans on fire, block exits, break windows, throw jars of piss, and whatnot. For public appearances in the presence of hostile crowds (something that has really only recently been a problem), I would ask for a security presence, sure. But I don't think Jordan Peterson, who I assure you is getting plenty of threats, is all to worried about his well being.
As for rape threats, twice as many women receive rape threats online than men.
That's because it is more effective on women. Men receive threats to their genitals because that is more effective on men. It has nothing to do with sexism. At all.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I can't honestly believe you're moving on to how a person should respond and that its her fault that people kept going after her and downplaying death threats. Good for you for keeping a cool head and all, but the fault lies with the people who do this.
I didn't keep a cool head. This is knowledge earned the hard way.
There's this really good book called The Gift of Fear. It's actually a book they give out at women's support centers. Basically, it was written by a guy who runs a business that provides help for celebrities who are threatened. The author developed a series of rules for determining the validity of threats that I think, if I'm remembering correctly, is used by the FBI now or something. I recommend the book for a whole bunch of reasons, but there's one part of the book that always stuck with me.
People who are threatening, aren't doing. People who want to hurt you won't tell you first. Generally speaking, threats can escalate into violence over time in a very repeatable and demonstrable way, but the vast, vast majority of threats are nonsense, and obviously so. This book was written before the internet was really a thing and was mostly talking about letters - something that takes time and money to write and send. Over the internet, it is easier than ever to send an empty threat. Generally speaking, the ones to be worried about are the ones seeking to develop a personal relationship with you.
Obviously, in public situations, like at talks and what not, people can act out through a mob mentality. Hostile mobs have certainly done stuff like throw rocks, set trashcans on fire, block exits, break windows, throw jars of piss, and whatnot. For public appearances in the presence of hostile crowds (something that has really only recently been a problem), I would ask for a security presence, sure. But I don't think Jordan Peterson, who I assure you is getting plenty of threats, is all to worried about his well being.
See, the sentiment of "People who are threatening, aren't doing." sounds really nice and all but it only takes one crazy person to follow through. Even if most threats are nonsense and that is something that can be agreed upon, it still doesn't have to be easy for the recipient to be logical or rational in their approach. The issue with the internet is that doxing and placing personal information for any crazy person to see also became a thing. The reach and intensity change.
But this is going into the rationality of death threats,not the fact that the rationality doesn't matter, it gave her a larger platform regardless of the reasoning of the senders.
As for rape threats, twice as many women receive rape threats online than men.
That's because it is more effective on women. Men receive threats to their genitals because that is more effective on men. It has nothing to do with sexism. At all.
Its more effective because they are women but it isn't sexist is a direct contradiction.
Formosa wrote: in the same manner that I push back against people trying to force politics into My hobby, politics and political speakers have no place within something that is supposed to be a form of escapism.
This is more of an aside than anything serious but the narative of 40K in particular was founded on the politics of 80's Britain. Many of these creative people have things they want to say and express them through various means. Rick Priestley channeled the humour and politics of 2000AD into his futuristic wargame. You might want to escape politics in your hobby time but much of that hobby material is intricately linked with the politics of the day.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Its more effective because they are women but it isn't sexist is a direct contradiction.
Um, no it isn't. Not everything that includes gender is sexist. That's like saying giving hysterectomies to only women is sexist. The people choosing the threat are doing so because it is most effective, not because they have opinions on the qualities or abilities of that person as a member of the lesser sex.
Formosa wrote: in the same manner that I push back against people trying to force politics into My hobby, politics and political speakers have no place within something that is supposed to be a form of escapism.
This is more of an aside than anything serious but the narative of 40K in particular was founded on the politics of 80's Britain. Many of these creative people have things they want to say and express them through various means. Rick Priestley channeled the humour and politics of 2000AD into his futuristic wargame. You might want to escape politics in your hobby time but much of that hobby material is intricately linked with the politics of the day.
A parody OF THE DAY, not today, and 40k has some small elements of that left true, but these days it’s not and that disconnect is a good thing, just because Is WAS influenced 30 years ago by some political influence, doesn’t mean it should be now, but that’s the fluff, a whole different subject, politics has no place whatsoever within the gaming community and should be left at the door, if people must talk about it, it should be in an appropriate setting.
Formosa wrote: in the same manner that I push back against people trying to force politics into My hobby, politics and political speakers have no place within something that is supposed to be a form of escapism.
This is more of an aside than anything serious but the narative of 40K in particular was founded on the politics of 80's Britain. Many of these creative people have things they want to say and express them through various means. Rick Priestley channeled the humour and politics of 2000AD into his futuristic wargame. You might want to escape politics in your hobby time but much of that hobby material is intricately linked with the politics of the day.
There's a good YouTube channel called Professor Geek. In one of his videos, he makes a point out of the difference between telling people what to think and recontextualizing the values and beliefs within the fiction as a way to give those themes relevance to both the real world and fictional one.
In other words, saying "You should believe this and if you disagree with me, you are a bad person" is annoying. If you created, for example, an episode of Roseanne where her initial beliefs that a muslim neighbor is a terrorist are challenged through a series of events and she ultimately comes to the rescue of the character later, that contextualizes the beliefs in such a way as to allow conflict, resolution, and character growth in a satisfying and fulfilling way.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Its more effective because they are women but it isn't sexist is a direct contradiction.
Um, no it isn't. Not everything that includes gender is sexist. That's like saying giving hysterectomies to only women is sexist. The people choosing the threat are doing so because it is most effective, not because they have opinions on the qualities or abilities of that person as a member of the lesser sex.
I'm sorry, but you can't be serious. Using rape threats specifically against women because you know that it terrifies them is sexist. It trivializes sexual assault women face. The CDC once estimated that 1 in 5 women had faced attempted or actual rape compared to 1 in 71 men. It is an issue faced overwhelmingly by women.
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf
This thread is still going?!? Good read though, never seen people so animated by someone who literally has no influence on me or gaming in general unless they let her.
Formosa wrote: A parody OF THE DAY, not today, and 40k has some small elements of that left true, but these days it’s not and that disconnect is a good thing, just because Is WAS influenced 30 years ago by some political influence, doesn’t mean it should be now, but that’s the fluff, a whole different subject, politics has no place whatsoever within the gaming community and should be left at the door, if people must talk about it, it should be in an appropriate setting.
I will disagree. Many modern games are finding ways to inject modern political discussions into their gaming narative. I only used 40K as an example as it is one of the most prominent examples to cite.
And whether the creators of these fantasy realms intend it or not, many of the choices for their games are driven by current politics. You don't have to discuss the cross section of politics and gaming if you choose not to, but I don't think I'll be taking your advice that they have no place together. I think anything which involves creating a narrative, telling a story or representing people in any medium is only naturally going to have real world parallels that are worth discussion. Whether its books, films, music or shuffling people shaped toys around a table.
Frazzled wrote: You're no victim in this scenario.you're whining about someoe you don't like being invited to a toy convention. Are you serious?
Dude. Toy convention? Don't denigrate other people's passion for the things that bring them happiness, community, and purpose. You don't have to share that passion, but you don't have to be an donkey-cave about it either.
Wait a minute, for the first 10 odd pages of this thread, you had a guy generalizing the tabletop gaming community as smelly, disgusting incels who would do anything for a "a pair of teats" who would "potentially give them a peepee touch", and that was pretty much OK, but one dude refers to tabletop games as toys and you pop your monocle and call for your fainting couch?
Formosa wrote: A parody OF THE DAY, not today, and 40k has some small elements of that left true, but these days it’s not and that disconnect is a good thing, just because Is WAS influenced 30 years ago by some political influence, doesn’t mean it should be now, but that’s the fluff, a whole different subject, politics has no place whatsoever within the gaming community and should be left at the door, if people must talk about it, it should be in an appropriate setting.
I will disagree. Many modern games are finding ways to inject modern political discussions into their gaming narative. I only used 40K as an example as it is one of the most prominent examples to cite.
And whether the creators of these fantasy realms intend it or not, many of the choices for their games are driven by current politics. You don't have to discuss the cross section of politics and gaming if you choose not to, but I don't think I'll be taking your advice that they have no place together. I think anything which involves creating a narrative, telling a story or representing people in any medium is only naturally going to have real world parallels that are worth discussion. Whether its books, films, music or shuffling people shaped toys around a table.
Hey that’s fine if you disagree, I’m not trying to convince you to come over to my way of thinking, just stating how I see the issue, if you want modern politics in your fluff, cool, it’s a subjective thing, I’d rather not have it in 40k fluff, if I do want it, as you say, there are other games with suitable fluff, which is also fine, I won’t try to change your fluff to suit my political tastes, all I ask is that you have the same respect and don’t try to change my fluff to suit yours, whatever that May be.
On the subject of leaving your politics at the door, no, flat no, you leave it at the door or you leave full stop, one of, if not THE best thing about this hobby is how inclusive it is, I have traveled the world extensively and continue to do so and this game has made me friendships in many counties, with so many varied people and creeds, why? Because we instantly have something in common, you start talking about religions, politics or race... suddenly lines are drawn, people pick sides and what would have otherwise been a good encounter turns sour, so I will not shift on this particular subject, politics has no place within the community, if it needs to be talked about, choose and appropriate time and place.
I'm not a fan of her myself, because I think she addresses the topic in a divisive and weak manner. But I do think the community has certain issues, as its nothing but a smaller reflection of society overall so it makes sense the issues are reflected and addressing them in anyway is always going to catch flak. Do I think she is the best person to address them? No. Do I think trying to polarize the debate for financial gain regardless of the side it happens on is beneficial? No. Do I think the response about this is in any way proportional to the issue? Hell no.
As Frazzled said, its about Sarkeesian speaking at an event you don't even have to attend.
Well there's been no death threats and for the internet I think that counts as a win! But for me this thread has been an interesting read usually things go down hill a lot harder and faster! That may be because while most people share differing views on what Anita bring to the table they seem to for the most part agree she's about as much use in gaming circles as a nipple on a breastplate!
And yeah there's been a lot of stupidity and hyperbole and of course the usual accusations thrown back and forth but at least this thread got to a place where people pulled some evidence out to backup what they were saying and while no conclusions are ever gonna be reached in an arena like this there was some back and forth and some good points were made. I think its been an interesting one so far.
On the proportionality of it. Its a thread online, one that people can choose to or not engage with. Unless people are making threats or organising a disruption to the event I don't see how it could go to far.
Dammit, we settled this! If a breastplate has abs, nipples are fine. Otherwise, they're cheesy at best.
Wait a minute, for the first 10 odd pages of this thread, you had a guy generalizing the tabletop gaming community as smelly, disgusting incels who would do anything for a "a pair of teats" who would "potentially give them a peepee touch", and that was pretty much OK, but one dude refers to tabletop games as toys and you pop your monocle and call for your fainting couch?
what the actual hell, man.
I explained why I consider referring to the hobby as childish is potentially dangerous to its future in a previous post. At some length and consideration. As for the peepee comment, I kind of expected a mod to take care of it, honestly. I didn't think anybody actually agreed with him on the incel thing and that he was being purposefully over the top, while I suspect that many people here are okay with referring to this hobby as childish.
Wait a minute, for the first 10 odd pages of this thread, you had a guy generalizing the tabletop gaming community as smelly, disgusting incels who would do anything for a "a pair of teats" who would "potentially give them a peepee touch", and that was pretty much OK, but one dude refers to tabletop games as toys and you pop your monocle and call for your fainting couch?
what the actual hell, man.
I explained why I consider referring to the hobby as childish is potentially dangerous to its future in a previous post. At some length and consideration. As for the peepee comment, I kind of expected a mod to take care of it, honestly. I didn't think anybody actually agreed with him on the incel thing and that he was being purposefully over the top, while I suspect that many people here are okay with referring to this hobby as childish.
Frazzled wrote: I guess I should ask, what's the downside for this person appearing?
She is taking up a space that a much more "qualified" woman could be taking. She is sitting on a panel about a subject that she is not considered an "industry expert" where there are many more women who actually are industry experts who could provide valuable insight on gaming. In the past she has displayed toxic behavior and her main contribution seems to be social and not industry at all.
Sqorgar wrote:The appearance that a hobby is a toy, or meant for children, is dangerous to the hobby, not my self esteem. I don't care if you think I'm childish, but the miniature gaming industry is so small, with margins that aren't particularly large, that in most cases, an extra step of bureaucracy in time and cost would be devastating to everything that wasn't FFG or Games Workshop. A ratings system for miniature games would require each and every new release to be reviewed and rated, at some cost, meaning that we'd ultimately get fewer, more expensive miniatures less often. Plus, fear of getting high ratings will cause miniature companies to second guess their own design sensibilities. Is this model too violent? Is this pose too sexual? And they'd err on the side of safety and produce lower quality goods that were compromised versions of their true vision. Moreover, places with different standards than the US may have difficulty bringing their products over due to these standards being a requirement for release (see also, certain video games which have been banned from sale in Australia for drug use, or Japanese games banned from the UK for perceived sexist content).
It is important, I think, to remember that these aren't products for young kids. They require adult supervision. They require hobby blades and clippers, glue and magnets, and the models themselves are not tested against child safety standards (nothing GW produces passes the puncture test). If we start acting like these things are meant for children, then these things will start being held to the standards we have for children's products. I'm talking physically, but it also applies to things like the model design, game art, novel contents, and so on.
I know what the point of the original comment was. It was an attempt to poke fun at the fact that we are being way to serious about something that is ultimately trivial in the grand scheme of things. Maybe it is, but there is a difference between trivial and childish, and I happen to like my miniature games with sharp edges. The best defense against someone trying to censor your hobby is to say, this is a hobby for serious people who take all aspects of it seriously. If the wrong person interacts with it the wrong way, it is not due to negligence on the industry's part, but a personal choice that they made against common sense.
Nice gatekeeping there but I don't know where you got that lofty definition from. This hobby is not only for serious people who qualify to your standards. Because if that were true then I wouldn't have gotten into it at such a young age. It's just toys, like video games (again something I got to play early in my life before I was a teenager, the only real gatekeeping happening was my parents saying I was playing too much). Ask around and a good chunk of us got into this via boardgames before the age of 10 even if a GW box says 12+ (or whatever it has to legally say today) many of us were below that age and managed to have fun with scalpels/clipper/glues/brushes/paints without major injuries while assembling metal miniatures (and not even being 10 years old).
Sure I didn't buy highly fragile and expensive resin miniatures at that age but the hobby in general tries to get kids as early as possible. That was one of the aims of GW in the late 90s early 00s (churn through young teenagers until they find other interests, read about it in their old yearly financial statement) and what partly got them into quite a dominating position in the industry. This increase in customer base is also what later made all these smaller companies that compete with GW possible. When GW started focusing on their main games, other smaller games had a chance to prosper and I can't remember any of those games pushing anybody away for not being serious enough about it like you describe it. If they did that they would have died right there. Being inclusive (even in a rather restricted way) is what grew miniature gaming into what it is today (the "little brother" to board gaming) and being exclusionary and saying "this is a hobby for serious people who take all aspects of it seriously" is the way to an early grave (and that's from me, someone who was pissed about what AOS did to Warhammer Fantasy and still doesn't love the new setting too much).
And this "best defence" statement is absolute rubbish. That way you don't end up with a uncensored hobby but with a hobby that's dying because nobody new finds a way of entering the hobby. How avant-garde, daring, violent, or extreme a product is depends more on the scale it is sold and not on your vague fears. If a video game company wants to sell millions of units they'll make an as lukewarm, generic, and non-offensive game as possible, the same goes for miniature games, books, movies, music and literally everything else in the world (like fashion: from generic "off the rack" to unique "custom tailored"). The more millions of dollars they spend on making something the more they aim at the lowest common denominator and if you have a small group that works on some passion project of theirs they can have the freedom to not need to appeal to a big market and thus they can make something more wild (and care less if some part is too violent or whatever).
All the rating boards are just defence mechanisms to make it simple for million dollar companies to access a big audience. If you are expecting daring works as the default from huge companies in a billion dollar industry then your perception of how markets works is rather skewed. You are conflating the realities of companies that got bigger audiences and thus got more conservative because they want to stay profitable with your idealised version of creators and their creation. If you want more diversity in the creative expression of creators then find ways of increasing the audience because that makes it possible for smaller, odd, and "unfitting" projects to be viable without being too risky. If you just recede into this siege mentality then you are just starving yourself and—a few steps further—also the creators who otherwise might create something daring that you and only a few others might like. But it could be an audience that's big enough to sustain this odd little project and make it grow until a few years later it needs to become more conservative to stay profitable like the rest of the established industry (and you again get to whine about them "second guess their own design sensibilities"). It's the natural cycle of companies looking for economic stability and growth that leads to more conservative designs, not me not taking my toys as serious as you think I should.
Within miniatures, for example, KD sells on its boutique appeal (and got a bit bigger with their KS) while GW doesn't. Even simpler, even more board-game like games sell to an even wider audience while (limited edition) resin miniatures sells to a tiny but dedicated audience. How innovative/risky/unique the products they are willing to make are, is more of a function of their economic situation and has nothing to do with how serious we—the consumers—are taking them, their products, or our hobby.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I'm sorry, but you can't be serious. Using rape threats specifically against women because you know that it terrifies them is sexist.
Let's rephrase that: Using the most effective threats against a specific target, of which certain tactics are more effective than others. The fact that they are women and the most effective tactic is threat of rape is immaterial. If they were hamsters and the most effective threat was destroying their hamster wheel, it wouldn't make the person making the threat hamsterist.
It trivializes sexual assault women face.
We're talking about people sending threats over the internet. I don't think they care.
That study kind of bothers me. For one, they don't publish the exact questions asked, nor the responses of the participants, but report a summary that is potentially conflating a bunch of different things together. For instance, it is not clear that the participants were instructed to separate drunk/conconscious rape from forced rape, meaning it is possible that they are counting the same event as two different counts of rape. This data has restricted access subject to approval by the human research board. Understandable, but a bit frustrating. They've could've included the specifics in an anonymous fashion, as other surveys on sexual violence have.
I also have a problem with the amount of weighted estimates. Generally speaking, they have access to a statistically significant amount of data. They don't need to estimate. But you have weighted estimates based on weighted estimates, which produces values that are pretty much made up. They go into some detail about the weighting formulas used for some things (but not others), and I'm not sure that the formulas really work out in a meaningful way. Raw data would've been better and more accurate, but they seem to go out of their way to avoid providing it. It's frustrating. But you are correct to say they "estimated that 1 in 5 women" - the actual statistic is probably less than that, and less still if you were to remove some of the things they are lumping into that estimate that may be inflating it.
Over 50% of the respondents are over the age of 45, and if you look at the incident rates for the last 12 months, it is at 0.5%. Without further details, I can only assume that this means that the study is at least partially representing the rape statistics for different generations. For instance, it is possible that the statistics were considerably worse in 1980 and are much better now, but the survey conflates 50-60 years of rape data into one statistic. That's like saying how safe Central Park is by averaging the pre-clean up years in with the current. It tells you that things were unsafe at some nebulous point, but does not provide any commentary on how safe you would if you walked through Central Park right now.
I read somewhere else that something like 45% of all sexual assault occur to people before they turn 18, and overwhelmingly involve members of their own family. Familial molestation is a serious and terrifying problem, to be sure, but I'd consider it a very different category (and different problem) than forced penetration by a peer or superior. I just don't know how useful a sexual violence report is that doesn't consider child molestation among its findings. That's not a knock at the report, per se, but I find it a particularly strange omission for a report that includes "begging you over and over until they wear you down" as sexual coercion.
I'm not discounting the report, but I find it frustrating. But that's neither here nor there. I just like reading studies. There's no doubt that sexual assault is a serious and ongoing problem with the human race that disproportionately affects women. It is absolutely worth studying, understanding, and seeking to prevent were possible, so long we do so in a demonstrably responsible and effective way. Banning video game characters with sexy clothes, for example, is neither responsible nor effective.
I just don't think the issue of rape is specifically a sexism issue. Like a lot of things that involve gender, it is something that may disproportionately affect one gender, but it is not due to a worldview that involves the premise that women are inferior. You can be completely pro-equality and still a rapist (as some male feminist allies have proven in the past year or so), and I think it is important not to attribute sexism where inappropriate. It could end up causing more harm as people end up tilting at windmills while the actual problem is woefully untouched.
I am glad to see the thread turning back to reasonable(ish) discussion, not sure were all the comments on the last few pages came from, mechanics, racist jokes, whatever....
Two main comments I have to add to the discussion.
Women are not a monolithic block of herd mentality, they are individuals, so please stop referring to what women want, are scared of ectr, I am sure you can recognise and treat them as individuals and not a monolithic group.
Personally I prefer inclusive mindset, unfortunately those that advocate a mantra of stopping what you do because it does not align with what I want are exclusive ideologues not inclusive, if you do not like what you see, create your own thing make it a success and there we go we have more stuff that people like and more people happy, an inclusive outcome, if on the other hand someone advocates that things people like need to change to conform their worldview they are excluding the group that was already happy with what they had and morphs what they had and liked to something they do not, this is exclusionary approach.
Don't like what you see? make yourself the things you like if you do it well and your vision is popular enouph it will be successful, if not, maybe your vision is not popular for some reason, never hijack popular things that have no resemblance to your vision to turn them into your vision.
And a minor side comment
If people seriously debate the place of men and women in 40ks Imperioum, then they clearly do not understand the post apocalyptic dystopia the Imperioum of man is, there are no men and no women in the imperioum ony imperial citizens and they life a soulless existence as cogs in the giant machine.
Of course there are female guardsmen Imperioum does not care about your gender only about body-count and both genders can die for the god emperor.
Just to clarify, the main argument of the thread is not why she is there, or why she will talk, or what she will talk about, it is that she is a guest of honour and people do not see why she is a guest of honour or why any of the many female employees of the industry are not selected.
A side note since it has been discussed, the computer game industry always had female game designers, some quite influential, it is sad their work is discounted to push the narrative that the game industry was always male dominated and only now we have female game designers.
Mario wrote: Nice gatekeeping there but I don't know where you got that lofty definition from. This hobby is not only for serious people who qualify to your standards. Because if that were true then I wouldn't have gotten into it at such a young age. It's just toys, like video games (again something I got to play early in my life before I was a teenager, the only real gatekeeping happening was my parents saying I was playing too much). Ask around and a good chunk of us got into this via boardgames before the age of 10 even if a GW box says 12+ (or whatever it has to legally say today) many of us were below that age and managed to have fun with scalpels/clipper/glues/brushes/paints without major injuries while assembling metal miniatures (and not even being 10 years old).
Yes, and I'm sure that when you were 10, that was fine. But can you say the same thing about how we treat 10 year olds today? I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say we have hundreds of new regulations and laws concerning what is acceptable for children than we did 20 or 30 years ago. When I was a kid, I could walk to the park by myself. I read a story last year about a women who was arrested for allowing her daughter to that.
What I'm saying is that we treat this as an adult hobby in which children are welcomed, at their own judgment. That is to say, a child who can not handle the content in Warhammer 40k should not play Warhammer 40k, and one that can handle it should. That's different than saying that all miniature games must be designed to meet the needs of all children and the ones that don't must go through an expensive process to get a label saying so. The ESRB has limitations to how video games of certain ratings can sell their product - where they can be placed on store shelves, who their television commercials can be shown to, and what other games they can be advertised with (you can't, for example, advertise an AO game on the same website as non-AO games, so most visual novel publishers are forced to have two different online stores for their adult games and non-adult games).
I'd rather see miniature games treated like books. No ratings. No restrictions. It's up to the booksellers, publishers, and customers, and not some intermediary organization - and that requires an assumption of a basic level of maturity, like books have. Not every book is appropriate for every customer, but there's a certain understanding that they won't be.
It's not about being exclusive. You can still be inclusive without pandering.
Formosa wrote: How you got white supremacist from that boggles my mind.....
Because of escalation.
I've said it before, but they've robbed the words "racist" and "sexist" of any power they had. Once that's done the only thing they can do is escalate, so what was once someone screeching "racist", it's now "white supremacist" or, if they're particularly deluded, "nazi". You can't be sexist any more, because you're not a "misogynist".
Words have power, and the more these moral busybodies inject themselves into things they know nothing about and attempt to change them to their liking, the more they dilute the words of the very things they claim to be fighting against.
What is the pot at for the bets that she turns her appearance at Gen-Con into her own Private narrative and turns it itno a shitshow? 55 to 25? What are the odds at?
Grot 6 wrote: What is the pot at for the bets that she turns her appearance at Gen-Con into her own Private narrative and turns it itno a shitshow? 55 to 25? What are the odds at?
Honestly, I don't think anybody has been buying her snake oil for a while, and the last couple times she made the news, it was because she was being a jerk to others. A lot of her biggest and most influential supporters have turned out to be hypocrites, liars, and rapists themselves, and without them acting as her megaphone, I doubt anybody will care. If Anita Sarkeesians cries harassment in an empty room, does she make a sound?
Personally, I'm more concerned with what her appearance means for GenCon that they would consider her an industry guest of honor. Does this mean they think the industry needs to change, or that it already has? Worse yet, she may find a new set of megaphones that aren't quite as disgraced as their video game counterparts (yet).
Disciple of Fate wrote: I'm sorry, but you can't be serious. Using rape threats specifically against women because you know that it terrifies them is sexist.
Let's rephrase that: Using the most effective threats against a specific target, of which certain tactics are more effective than others. The fact that they are women and the most effective tactic is threat of rape is immaterial. If they were hamsters and the most effective threat was destroying their hamster wheel, it wouldn't make the person making the threat hamsterist.
The issue with this stance is that it assumes these people who willingly send death/rape threats approach it from a rational perspective. Is rape any less scary for men? Why not just send death threats equally? Am I to assume these people have researched the most effective way to be threatening or just follow the logic of "if its a woman, I'll threathen to rape her"? Is it that hard to believe that a number of these comments come from a sexist place?
And honestly, you would have a hard time arguing that rape threats don't come from an ingrained sexist mindset regarding the treatment of women's bodies as objects. The reason why women fear rape has a reason, whether people care where the reason comes from or not when using it is on them. If you use the N word to scare black people you have to face the underlying attachment that comes with the use.
We're talking about people sending threats over the internet. I don't think they care.
And that is exactly the issue, whethet they care or not, it can still be seen as a sexist expression. People in the gaming community trivially using the word rape is how the rape culture in gaming got started. Is a lot of it serious or just influencable kids? Probably more towards the latter, but it still shows a lack of understanding and compassion to 50% of the potential gaming population. Which is why to the general public it was so easy to paint the whole community as sexist.
That study kind of bothers me. For one, they don't publish the exact questions asked, nor the responses of the participants, but report a summary that is potentially conflating a bunch of different things together. For instance, it is not clear that the participants were instructed to separate drunk/conconscious rape from forced rape, meaning it is possible that they are counting the same event as two different counts of rape. This data has restricted access subject to approval by the human research board. Understandable, but a bit frustrating. They've could've included the specifics in an anonymous fashion, as other surveys on sexual violence have.
I also have a problem with the amount of weighted estimates. Generally speaking, they have access to a statistically significant amount of data. They don't need to estimate. But you have weighted estimates based on weighted estimates, which produces values that are pretty much made up. They go into some detail about the weighting formulas used for some things (but not others), and I'm not sure that the formulas really work out in a meaningful way. Raw data would've been better and more accurate, but they seem to go out of their way to avoid providing it. It's frustrating. But you are correct to say they "estimated that 1 in 5 women" - the actual statistic is probably less than that, and less still if you were to remove some of the things they are lumping into that estimate that may be inflating it.
Over 50% of the respondents are over the age of 45, and if you look at the incident rates for the last 12 months, it is at 0.5%. Without further details, I can only assume that this means that the study is at least partially representing the rape statistics for different generations. For instance, it is possible that the statistics were considerably worse in 1980 and are much better now, but the survey conflates 50-60 years of rape data into one statistic. That's like saying how safe Central Park is by averaging the pre-clean up years in with the current. It tells you that things were unsafe at some nebulous point, but does not provide any commentary on how safe you would if you walked through Central Park right now.
I read somewhere else that something like 45% of all sexual assault occur to people before they turn 18, and overwhelmingly involve members of their own family. Familial molestation is a serious and terrifying problem, to be sure, but I'd consider it a very different category (and different problem) than forced penetration by a peer or superior. I just don't know how useful a sexual violence report is that doesn't consider child molestation among its findings. That's not a knock at the report, per se, but I find it a particularly strange omission for a report that includes "begging you over and over until they wear you down" as sexual coercion.
I'm not discounting the report, but I find it frustrating. But that's neither here nor there. I just like reading studies. There's no doubt that sexual assault is a serious and ongoing problem with the human race that disproportionately affects women. It is absolutely worth studying, understanding, and seeking to prevent were possible, so long we do so in a demonstrably responsible and effective way. Banning video game characters with sexy clothes, for example, is neither responsible nor effective.
I just don't think the issue of rape is specifically a sexism issue. Like a lot of things that involve gender, it is something that may disproportionately affect one gender, but it is not due to a worldview that involves the premise that women are inferior. You can be completely pro-equality and still a rapist (as some male feminist allies have proven in the past year or so), and I think it is important not to attribute sexism where inappropriate. It could end up causing more harm as people end up tilting at windmills while the actual problem is woefully untouched.
There are other statistics, which I can't access on my phone right now. But it does show that rape is predominantly faced by women. Its hard to argue that this is not due to sexism in some way. You can't be a feminist and a rapist. If a man can rape women he is not a feminist. I think arguing on the basis of a few anacdotal stories of male feminists doing that is not the hill to die on.
The ownership over womens bodies and objectification through rape is inherently sexist. I think you would find it hard to argue that rape is not some expression of female inferiority. Its like saying the MeToo movement isn't due to sexism. If something is so widespread, its hard to argue it is not in a sense an ingrained worldview that it is acceptable to treat women in such a manner by a decent chunck of society. Just look at Brock Turner's dad if you want anacdotal, describing his son's rape trial as destroying his future for a few minutes of fun.
Wait a minute, for the first 10 odd pages of this thread, you had a guy generalizing the tabletop gaming community as smelly, disgusting incels who would do anything for a "a pair of teats" who would "potentially give them a peepee touch", and that was pretty much OK, but one dude refers to tabletop games as toys and you pop your monocle and call for your fainting couch?
what the actual hell, man.
I explained why I consider referring to the hobby as childish is potentially dangerous to its future in a previous post. At some length and consideration. As for the peepee comment, I kind of expected a mod to take care of it, honestly. I didn't think anybody actually agreed with him on the incel thing and that he was being purposefully over the top, while I suspect that many people here are okay with referring to this hobby as childish.
OK, that's a fair rationale.
It isn't though. He is arguing that his hobby shouldn't be treated childishly while at the same time arguing that politics should be kept out of his hobby. Arguing that such a large part of adult life shouldn't be in a particular hobby is the opposite of asking that hobby to not be regarded as childish. If games are to be perceived as more than childish then they must be willing to tackle adult themes, and not just by throwing in genitals and dismemberment. Thinking that gore and sex makes you mature is a childish perspective in itself. What is the less childish game, Doom or Heavy Rain?
It's like the people asking for video games to be treated as art while decrying the inclusion of politics in games. Art is political.
More mature creations are needed to transform a perception of a type of media from being for children to for adults. That doesn't mean more violence and more sex, FATAL did nothing to make RPG gaming seem more mature. It means tackling more complex ideas. It means not shying away from politics because you are "just making games". It means tackling hard issues. Think of how effective a video game could be at depicting the horrors of the Holocaust. Why hasn't it been made? We've made plenty of games set in World War 2, after all. Because of the idea that games should not tackle those political issues. Which is bs, games absolutely should be free to tackle those issues like any other form of media.
TL;DR If you want your gaming hobby to be taken seriously, then do not ask for it to be kept safe from politics. Engaging with politics is a huge part of maturing and denying it that opportunity will do more to ensure it is regarded as childish than pretty much anything else.
Wait a minute, for the first 10 odd pages of this thread, you had a guy generalizing the tabletop gaming community as smelly, disgusting incels who would do anything for a "a pair of teats" who would "potentially give them a peepee touch", and that was pretty much OK, but one dude refers to tabletop games as toys and you pop your monocle and call for your fainting couch?
what the actual hell, man.
I explained why I consider referring to the hobby as childish is potentially dangerous to its future in a previous post. At some length and consideration. As for the peepee comment, I kind of expected a mod to take care of it, honestly. I didn't think anybody actually agreed with him on the incel thing and that he was being purposefully over the top, while I suspect that many people here are okay with referring to this hobby as childish.
OK, that's a fair rationale.
It isn't though. He is arguing that his hobby shouldn't be treated childishly while at the same time arguing that politics should be kept out of his hobby. Arguing that such a large part of adult life shouldn't be in a particular hobby is the opposite of asking that hobby to not be regarded as childish.
It's like the people asking for video games to be treated as art while decrying the inclusion of politics in games. Art is political.
It’s completely fair, being able to disassociate your political ideals for a few hours while playing a game is a good thing and teaches a good life lesson on appropriate behaviour in appropriate places, something you all claim to support, can’t have it both ways.
If you are completely unable to leave your political ideals away from the gaming table... I think you (general “you”) have bigger issues that this game.
More mature creations are needed to transform a perception of a type of media from being for children to for adults. That doesn't mean more violence and more sex, FATAL did nothing to make RPG gaming seem more mature. It means tackling more complex ideas. It means not shying away from politics because you are "just making games". It means tackling hard issues.
The setting of a game about giant space men fighting green football hooligans might not be the best place to have a discourse about Chinese foreign policy.
More mature creations are needed to transform a perception of a type of media from being for children to for adults. That doesn't mean more violence and more sex, FATAL did nothing to make RPG gaming seem more mature. It means tackling more complex ideas. It means not shying away from politics because you are "just making games". It means tackling hard issues.
The setting of a game about giant space men fighting green football hooligans might not be the best place to have a discourse about Chinese foreign policy.
There is a time and place, wargames aren't it.
Disagree. That's exactly like saying the setting of a game about men running around in spandex shooting lasers out of their eyes or cutting people up with claws is not the setting to discuss the Holocaust or segregation.
Also, the setting of 40k is already political. It's criticism of theocracy, rigid bureaucracy etc. are all political.
More mature creations are needed to transform a perception of a type of media from being for children to for adults. That doesn't mean more violence and more sex, FATAL did nothing to make RPG gaming seem more mature. It means tackling more complex ideas. It means not shying away from politics because you are "just making games". It means tackling hard issues.
The setting of a game about giant space men fighting green football hooligans might not be the best place to have a discourse about Chinese foreign policy.
There is a time and place, wargames aren't it.
Disagree. That's exactly like saying the setting of a game about men running around in spandex shooting lasers out of their eyes or cutting people up with claws is not the setting to discuss the Holocaust or segregation.
Also, the setting of 40k is already political. It's criticism of theocracy, rigid bureaucracy etc. are all political.
I mean look at battletech or flames of war. Both are their own war games, but real world politics both inspires and plays a heavy role in it (to the extent Dakka has had discussions on what level of fascination with making a German army is still healthy, of course it is for the overwhelming majority). Sure maybe certain war games don't lend themselves to all topics, but you would be hard pressed to argue that Wargame: Red Dragon can't be a place to have a discourse about Chinese foreign policy.
More mature creations are needed to transform a perception of a type of media from being for children to for adults. That doesn't mean more violence and more sex, FATAL did nothing to make RPG gaming seem more mature. It means tackling more complex ideas. It means not shying away from politics because you are "just making games". It means tackling hard issues.
The setting of a game about giant space men fighting green football hooligans might not be the best place to have a discourse about Chinese foreign policy.
There is a time and place, wargames aren't it.
Disagree. That's exactly like saying the setting of a game about men running around in spandex shooting lasers out of their eyes or cutting people up with claws is not the setting to discuss the Holocaust or segregation.
Also, the setting of 40k is already political. It's criticism of theocracy, rigid bureaucracy etc. are all political.
And there lyes the problem, the fluff was written with small nods to politics of 30 years ago and has been played down since, the fluff of current 30/40k has its own politics within the setting, and that’s a fine discussion to have, then people try throwing their own current political ideals in and trying to change it to suit their aims/goals/motives whatever, that’s not ok.
Then there is the issue that some of you are incapable of understanding that there is and should be a disconnect between PLAYING the game and having your political ideals, right or left I could not care less, the LCG, GW etc. Are not appropriate venues to discuss your politics, if people want to discuss these things while playing a game they have so many other more appropriate places to do it, here is quite appropriate... obviously in the correct forums of course.
Then there is the issue that some of you are incapable of understanding that there is and should be a disconnect between PLAYING the game and having your political ideals, right or left I could not care less, the LCG, GW etc. Are not appropriate venues to discuss your politics, if people want to discuss these things while playing a game they have so many other more appropriate places to do it, here is quite appropriate... obviously in the correct forums of course.
Why shouldn't politics be discussed whilst playing a game? If a game has political themes (and most will), why shouldn't they be discussed?
Playing a game of Wermacht vs Red Army seems a fine time to discuss the political manoeuvres that resulted in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Don't see any reason not to, unless the person you're playing with doesn't want to in which case they can say so. Imposing some arbitrary rule that politics should not be in games or that the political content of games shouldn't be discussed is about as childish as it gets as it seems to rely on the assumption that players cannot engage with such themes in a responsible way.
Then there is the issue that some of you are incapable of understanding that there is and should be a disconnect between PLAYING the game and having your political ideals, right or left I could not care less, the LCG, GW etc. Are not appropriate venues to discuss your politics, if people want to discuss these things while playing a game they have so many other more appropriate places to do it, here is quite appropriate... obviously in the correct forums of course.
Why shouldn't politics be discussed whilst playing a game? If a game has political themes (and most will), why shouldn't they be discussed?
Playing a game of Wermacht vs Red Army seems a fine time to discuss the political manoeuvres that resulted in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Don't see any reason not to, unless the person you're playing with doesn't want to in which case they can say so. Imposing some arbitrary rule that politics should not be in games or that the political content of games shouldn't be discussed is about as childish as it gets as it seems to rely on the assumption that players cannot engage with such themes in a responsible way.
Historical politics is not the same thing as modern social politics and you know it.
Then there is the issue that some of you are incapable of understanding that there is and should be a disconnect between PLAYING the game and having your political ideals, right or left I could not care less, the LCG, GW etc. Are not appropriate venues to discuss your politics, if people want to discuss these things while playing a game they have so many other more appropriate places to do it, here is quite appropriate... obviously in the correct forums of course.
Why shouldn't politics be discussed whilst playing a game? If a game has political themes (and most will), why shouldn't they be discussed?
Playing a game of Wermacht vs Red Army seems a fine time to discuss the political manoeuvres that resulted in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Don't see any reason not to, unless the person you're playing with doesn't want to in which case they can say so. Imposing some arbitrary rule that politics should not be in games or that the political content of games shouldn't be discussed is about as childish as it gets as it seems to rely on the assumption that players cannot engage with such themes in a responsible way.
Discussing HISTORY during a HISTORICAL game is not the same as discussing sexism/racism etc. During a FICTIONAL fantasy game, you seem like a smart person so I know you know this, stop trying to muddy the waters.
Back on topic, there is a good reason people say avoid certain subjects in social situations, it’s to lower the chance of conflict, you may be getting along fine with your opponent and then mention that causes an issue, suddenly you are argument over the pros and cons of gender politics or some such, where as if you had kept it out of the game ... it’s kind of obvious.
Sqorgar wrote: Yes, and I'm sure that when you were 10, that was fine. But can you say the same thing about how we treat 10 year olds today? I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say we have hundreds of new regulations and laws concerning what is acceptable for children than we did 20 or 30 years ago. When I was a kid, I could walk to the park by myself. I read a story last year about a women who was arrested for allowing her daughter to that.
Wow, things sound out of control in the States. Here in Germany 6 year olds still walk home by themselves from school.
Although my daughters friend did cause a ruckus on the train last month. She is 8 and was catching the train home alone, she has natural platum blonde hair and shiny blue eyes, then a very dark african man sat next to her and proceded to listen to some music on his headphones.... well the police were notified and my daugfhters friend had to wait with them at the train station until her mother collected her.
Then there is the issue that some of you are incapable of understanding that there is and should be a disconnect between PLAYING the game and having your political ideals, right or left I could not care less, the LCG, GW etc. Are not appropriate venues to discuss your politics, if people want to discuss these things while playing a game they have so many other more appropriate places to do it, here is quite appropriate... obviously in the correct forums of course.
Why shouldn't politics be discussed whilst playing a game? If a game has political themes (and most will), why shouldn't they be discussed?
Playing a game of Wermacht vs Red Army seems a fine time to discuss the political manoeuvres that resulted in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Don't see any reason not to, unless the person you're playing with doesn't want to in which case they can say so. Imposing some arbitrary rule that politics should not be in games or that the political content of games shouldn't be discussed is about as childish as it gets as it seems to rely on the assumption that players cannot engage with such themes in a responsible way.
For several reasons.
Most importantly why does your opponent care to discuss such matters with you? if they do, does the game make any real difference? or they would discuss it anyway and the game just happened to be there? at what point does the mechanical nature of the game enable the political discussion? was the game designed for political discussion to happen?
For example 40k's political background hardly comes in the actual gameplay that is far removed from the background, so why would a player want to discuss 40k politics while playing? or WW2 politics when playing a WW2 game for that matter? gameplay is not attached to the politics, Twilight Struggle on the other hand? more possibilities.
Computer Games and RPG have more agency to convey political messages and if they are well made, political discussion because they can give give a narrative for example papers please! unfortunately many modern games that have political messages are so entrenched in their world view discounting any other perspective than they do not enable political discussion far from it they undermine the world view they try to show as the best because they turn it into a joke.
You should be ashamed to publish this garbage. The study was heckled heavily for askin incredibly vague questions and fiddling numbers to support their narrative. Meanwhile,
This study, made by no one else than the Bureau of Justice Statistics, spearheaded by two women (so you can hardly yell misogynist bias) points out that the peak of sexual assaults. reached in 1995, was 5 in a 1000 and that currently it sits at roughly 0.25%.
That's too many? Yes, let's be honest, this shouldn't happen in truth, but it's not "an issue faced overwhelmingly by women" and certainly not in a degree too above the rate of men also suffer sexual assault.
Sqorgar wrote: Yes, and I'm sure that when you were 10, that was fine. But can you say the same thing about how we treat 10 year olds today? I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say we have hundreds of new regulations and laws concerning what is acceptable for children than we did 20 or 30 years ago. When I was a kid, I could walk to the park by myself. I read a story last year about a women who was arrested for allowing her daughter to that.
Wow, things sound out of control in the States. Here in Germany 6 year olds still walk home by themselves from school.
Although my daughters friend did cause a ruckus on the train last month. She is 8 and was catching the train home alone, she has natural platum blonde hair and shiny blue eyes, then a very dark african man sat next to her and proceded to listen to some music on his headphones.... well the police were notified and my daugfhters friend had to wait with them at the train station until her mother collected her.
No one was arrested though.
You need to remember that the media loves nothing more than scaremongering and the US is basically a nation controlled by the media. If the media were to be believed everyone you don't know and ESPECIALLY those you do know could be a potentially child murdering rapist nazi transphobe.
You should be ashamed to publish this garbage. The study was heckled heavily for askin incredibly vague questions and fiddling numbers to support their narrative. Meanwhile,
This study, made by no one else than the Bureau of Justice Statistics, spearheaded by two women (so you can hardly yell misogynist bias) points out that the peak of sexual assaults. reached in 1995, was 5 in a 1000 and that currently it sits at roughly 0.25%.
That's too many? Yes, let's be honest, this shouldn't happen in truth, but it's not "an issue faced overwhelmingly by women" and certainly not in a degree too above the rate of men also suffer sexual assault.
You should be ashamed to make statements about garbage when you don't know what you're talking about. The 1 in 5 estimate is over a lifetime in cooperation with the CDC. The 5 in a 1000 you post is what is known in a single year. What happens when you extrapolate that 5 in 1000 number over 10 or 20 or 30 years and take into account reporting statistics not representing the actual amount? The total number of victims overall is much more likely to be in the realm of the CDC study (I mean even 1 in 10 is huge) then just 0.25% of the total female population
But keep crafting that strawman narrative I guess Saying only 1 in 400 women face sexual assault isn't the hill you want to die on man...
So no one is allowed to die on a hill that does not fit your narrative?
At any rate, this thread has devolved heavily. The title speaks of a particular person being invited on a tabletop gaming convention. How does the topic correlate in any way with swashbuckling surveys on sexual assaults to see which is more relevant?
I call for a mod to put this thread back on topic. Please open another one if you want to discuss gender wars.
topaxygouroun i wrote: So no one is allowed to die on a hill that does not fit your narrative?
No, he shouldn't die on a hill that is build from badly reading his statistics, unless you agree with his reading of it?
Its drifted from rape threats to this. But it still isn't about gender wars. Let me just ask a question related to the community. Does your local community use the term raped to mean winning or winning overwhelmingly? A lot of women are pretty uncomfortable with that, my partner plays 40K but refuses to participate in the local community because she is that uncomfortable with the local atmosphere. Isn't that an issue faced by the community in your opinion for example?
topaxygouroun i wrote: So no one is allowed to die on a hill that does not fit your narrative?
No, he shouldn't die on a hill that is build from badly reading his statistics, unless you agree with his reading of it?
Its drifted from rape threats to this. But it still isn't about gender wars. Let me just ask a question related to the community. Does your local community use the term raped to mean winning or winning overwhelmingly? A lot of women are pretty uncomfortable with that, my partner plays 40K but refuses to participate in the local community because she is that uncomfortable with the local atmosphere. Isn't that an issue faced by the community in your opinion for example?
No that’s an issue of personal accountability and challenging said person or persons and holding them accountable, it is in no way representative of the community at large as some are claiming, use some moral courage and integrity to make sure that these things don’t happen.
Trying to blame a whole community for a minority of offenders is apparently what being “preogrssive” is all about, and yet, as we have seen in this very thread, that does not happen and people are more than happy to attempt to write off a whole community based on thier own political bias even if it contradicts the tenets of the politics they claim to support.
In my community it is very casualy to honor your defeated enemy with "you just ate a dick", mostly if you managed a particularly lucky roll that turned the game around. It is also customary for the defeated person to initiate with "I ate a dick" - it symbolizes that he understood his strategic mistakes and that he will strive to improve upon them.
Nobody finds it insulting. We don't have any women in our group, and I suspect that if we did the custom would stay strong. Nobody suggests actual intercourse - the term is simply floating above the battlefield and stays strictly within its 6'x4' boundaries.
And I very much like it. I have eaten my fair share of dicks and I have become a better player because of this.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Its more effective because they are women but it isn't sexist is a direct contradiction.
Um, no it isn't. Not everything that includes gender is sexist. That's like saying giving hysterectomies to only women is sexist. The people choosing the threat are doing so because it is most effective, not because they have opinions on the qualities or abilities of that person as a member of the lesser sex.
I'm sorry, but you can't be serious. Using rape threats specifically against women because you know that it terrifies them is sexist. It trivializes sexual assault women face. The CDC once estimated that 1 in 5 women had faced attempted or actual rape compared to 1 in 71 men. It is an issue faced overwhelmingly by women.
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf
Considering murder victims are by a big majority male, would it be sexist to make death threats to men then? As it would trivialize the the bodily harm men face?
topaxygouroun i wrote: So no one is allowed to die on a hill that does not fit your narrative?
No, he shouldn't die on a hill that is build from badly reading his statistics, unless you agree with his reading of it?
Its drifted from rape threats to this. But it still isn't about gender wars. Let me just ask a question related to the community. Does your local community use the term raped to mean winning or winning overwhelmingly? A lot of women are pretty uncomfortable with that, my partner plays 40K but refuses to participate in the local community because she is that uncomfortable with the local atmosphere. Isn't that an issue faced by the community in your opinion for example?
No that’s an issue of personal accountability and challenging said person or persons and holding them accountable, it is in no way representative of the community at large as some are claiming, use some moral courage and integrity to make sure that these things don’t happen.
Trying to blame a whole community for a minority of offenders is apparently what being “preogrssive” is all about, and yet, as we have seen in this very thread, that does not happen and people are more than happy to attempt to write off a whole community based on thier own political bias even if it contradicts the tenets of the politics they claim to support.
Hence me saying local community. And adressing it has been tried, resulting in the closing of ranks and replies of "don't be so sensitive" or "he's just joking, get over it". Of course its not the entire community, but there is a subcurrent that has serious issues and that the community as a whole is embarresed to adress.
Writing off the whole community is a gakky thing to do and that is what Sarkeesian does because she is too general so it becomes polarizing in many people's view. But the subcurrent that actually feels attacked goes after people like Sarkeesian and they give us all a bad name. If the community stamps down on the hate train then arguments like hers get no traction. But even in this thread, its clear that people who had no intent of even attending are getting very emotional and defensive, which is exactly how we ended up here with her being invited in the first place.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Its more effective because they are women but it isn't sexist is a direct contradiction.
Um, no it isn't. Not everything that includes gender is sexist. That's like saying giving hysterectomies to only women is sexist. The people choosing the threat are doing so because it is most effective, not because they have opinions on the qualities or abilities of that person as a member of the lesser sex.
I'm sorry, but you can't be serious. Using rape threats specifically against women because you know that it terrifies them is sexist. It trivializes sexual assault women face. The CDC once estimated that 1 in 5 women had faced attempted or actual rape compared to 1 in 71 men. It is an issue faced overwhelmingly by women.
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf
Considering murder victims are by a big majority male, would it be sexist to make death threats to men then? As it would trivialize the the bodily harm men face?
Context matters, most perpetrators are also men. But when another random from tumblr get pulled out saying in the future all men must be in camps or dead that is definitely sexist. And yes, it certainly does trivialize bodily harm to men trying to be edgy sending death threats. There are no winners in either.
topaxygouroun i wrote: So no one is allowed to die on a hill that does not fit your narrative?
At any rate, this thread has devolved heavily. The title speaks of a particular person being invited on a tabletop gaming convention. How does the topic correlate in any way with swashbuckling surveys on sexual assaults to see which is more relevant?
I call for a mod to put this thread back on topic. Please open another one if you want to discuss gender wars.
This thread just kind of proved some peoples points. You can't bring social politics into anything without it resulting in a massive gakshow these days and this is what inviting a woman who makes her living by turning communities into gak flinging monkeys angry about things unrelated to the games they're playing.
topaxygouroun i wrote: In my community it is very casualy to honor your defeated enemy with "you just ate a dick", mostly if you managed a particularly lucky roll that turned the game around. It is also customary for the defeated person to initiate with "I ate a dick" - it symbolizes that he understood his strategic mistakes and that he will strive to improve upon them.
Nobody finds it insulting. We don't have any women in our group, and I suspect that if we did the custom would stay strong. Nobody suggests actual intercourse - the term is simply floating above the battlefield and stays strictly within its 6'x4' boundaries.
And I very much like it. I have eaten my fair share of dicks and I have become a better player because of this.
You do realize that to a part of the community this can be offensive and feel like a unfriendly enviroment right? You just ate a dick can be construed as just a derogatory as saying gay about random stuff. Its a boys club mentality from having all men. How many younger people play there for example? Its hard to imagine if you played at a GW that you could just state that without a comment. The place where you do it matters a lot. But this can be one of those things turning others off to the community, in most cases it doesn't mean the community is bad, but reflect on how it looks from the outside looking in. That is exactly how Sarkeesian got big, from the outside looking in, to the general public, it seemed like she was right. In essence it becomes self defeating.
topaxygouroun i wrote: In my community it is very casualy to honor your defeated enemy with "you just ate a dick", mostly if you managed a particularly lucky roll that turned the game around. It is also customary for the defeated person to initiate with "I ate a dick" - it symbolizes that he understood his strategic mistakes and that he will strive to improve upon them.
Nobody finds it insulting. We don't have any women in our group, and I suspect that if we did the custom would stay strong. Nobody suggests actual intercourse - the term is simply floating above the battlefield and stays strictly within its 6'x4' boundaries.
And I very much like it. I have eaten my fair share of dicks and I have become a better player because of this.
You do realize that to a part of the community this can be offensive and feel like a unfriendly enviroment right? You just ate a dick can be construed as just a derogatory as saying gay about random stuff. Its a boys club mentality from having all men. How many younger people play there for example? Its hard to imagine if you played at a GW that you could just state that without a comment. The place where you do it matters a lot. But this can be one of those things turning others off to the community, in most cases it doesn't mean the community is bad, but reflect on how it looks from the outside looking in. That is exactly how Sarkeesian got big, from the outside looking in, to the general public, it seemed like she was right. In essence it becomes self defeating.
I am pretty aware, yes. This is how this community was built, years after years. There are young people joining and they get subjected to the same ceremony as everyone else. The fact that they choose to come back time and again to play some more states that they do not mind the terminology. It's an open community. Nobody is forced to be there and there are a lot of other gaming groups within a stone's throw. Yet ours is the most populated by a ton. But we will not be changing it by force in order to potentially attract more people. This is who we are. People can elect to join or leave. Most of the people elect to join. There is a reason for this: Nobody bestows the dick blessing on another person in a derogatory manner. Nobody intends to insult. "Eating the dick" is a rite of passage, it is being passed around in a very comical manner and the youngster who "eats the dick" and acknowledges it earns respect from the older folks, who will be happy to sit around the table for two hours after the game and explain to the youngblood his mistakes and how to improve.
In short, people in my community understand the old "stick and stones" moto.
Oh and somewhere there's a video of our MVP shouting "YOU ALL ATE DICKS" while accepting the bronze medal in the ETC back in 7th edition WHFB days.
Most populated sure, but do the other groups have women? And again, nobody might mean anything insulting by it, but outsiders and new people don't know the history. Certain local communities can be perceived or actually be pretty unfriendly for certain groups. We don't need Sarkeesian to tell any of us that. But to women (or I guess gay men when it comes to this example?) genuinly interested in the hobby it can definitely be detrimental. And Sarkeesian paints a tarfet on her back that works on certain parts of the community. Sure, it might not be nice what she does, but there will always be people like her who depending on your opinion might just be trying to make a quick buck. But the elements of our community who got all angry and irrationally emotional to the points of harrasment are the ones that did the actual damage, without them we would all be Sarkeesian who? Just type in what she does in YT and see how many unknown people come out of the woodworks.
Edit: Besides does anyone know yet what the topic is going to be she speaks on?
Disciple of Fate wrote: Most populated sure, but do the other groups have women? And again, nobody might mean anything insulting by it, but outsiders and new people don't know the history. Certain local communities can be perceived or actually be pretty unfriendly for certain groups. We don't need Sarkeesian to tell any of us that. But to women (or I guess gay men when it comes to this example?) genuinly interested in the hobby it can definitely be detrimental. And Sarkeesian paints a tarfet on her back that works on certain parts of the community. Sure, it might not be nice what she does, but there will always be people like her who depending on your opinion might just be trying to make a quick buck. But the elements of our community who got all angry and irrationally emotional to the points of harrasment are the ones that did the actual damage, without them we we all be Sarkeesian who?
Edit: Besides does anyone know yet what the topic is going to be she speaks on?
If you spend 1 hour in my community during game nights you will understand exactly what I am talking about. It's actually heartwarming, even if it sounds ridiculous right now.
Plus, - and I know this is going to fan the flame- in my 16 years of involvement in the wargaming hobby I have only ever actually witnessed one woman play the game - she played for the Bulgarian team in the ETC some years back. It could be that the very purpose of Sarkeeshian's presence will be to encourage more women in gaming. However, I do not think that women don't join our community because of the dick ritual. I think they do not join because they don't care about wargaming. And we will definitely not change our ways in order to potentially attract women in our group. This is because we want to spend our gaming nights the way we want, not the way Sarkeeshian wants us to. Otherwise it would not be fun for us any more.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Most populated sure, but do the other groups have women? And again, nobody might mean anything insulting by it, but outsiders and new people don't know the history. Certain local communities can be perceived or actually be pretty unfriendly for certain groups. We don't need Sarkeesian to tell any of us that. But to women (or I guess gay men when it comes to this example?) genuinly interested in the hobby it can definitely be detrimental. And Sarkeesian paints a tarfet on her back that works on certain parts of the community. Sure, it might not be nice what she does, but there will always be people like her who depending on your opinion might just be trying to make a quick buck. But the elements of our community who got all angry and irrationally emotional to the points of harrasment are the ones that did the actual damage, without them we we all be Sarkeesian who?
Edit: Besides does anyone know yet what the topic is going to be she speaks on?
If you spend 1 hour in my community during game nights you will understand exactly what I am talking about. It's actually heartwarming, even if it sounds ridiculous right now.
Plus, - and I know this is going to fan the flame- in my 16 years of involvement in the wargaming hobby I have only ever actually witnessed one woman play the game - she played for the Bulgarian team in the ETC some years back. It could be that the very purpose of Sarkeeshian's presence will be to encourage more women in gaming. However, I do not think that women don't join our community because of the dick ritual. I think they do not join because they don't care about wargaming. And we will definitely not change our ways in order to potentially attract women in our group. This is because we want to spend our gaming nights the way we want, not the way Sarkeeshian wants us to. Otherwise it would not be fun for us any more.
Yeah I understand that the community itself can be nice and all of them have quirks. Just saying that its one of those things that might be hard to explain to an outsider.
I think the women in gaming right now might be a bit of a chicken or the egg question. I'm not going to guess on Sarkeesian's motivations, they might be genuine or cynical and everything in between, without knowing her beyond the public facade. But the 'dick ritual' might be partly responsible for not having any women, and while you might want to preserve what makes your group fun, a woman on the outside might only see/feel the excluding nature of it. But it is exactly this discinnect between out and in that creates such emotional tension. People have opposite views they both feel are right.
As I think most of us are men, this thread might benefit from some female posters, but I doubt they will show up.
My wife finds it dispiriting because some dude always wants to tell her what to do or how to play her stuff. Even when she was at a party trying out a model race car track some dude kept insisting she give him the controls so he could "show her how to do it" (He did not do this to any of the other people there) and was really put out and sulky when she told him where to go.
Da Boss wrote: My wife finds it dispiriting because some dude always wants to tell her what to do or how to play her stuff. Even when she was at a party trying out a model race car track some dude kept insisting she give him the controls so he could "show her how to do it" (He did not do this to any of the other people there) and was really put out and sulky when she told him where to go.
This. 100% this. This is really what is killing the "women in X field". Smartasses who assume too much. I once had a seller bypass my wife and ask me what kind of bicycle "does she really want" because she was thorough and picky with her questions and did not cut him any slack on his marketing bullgak.
Edit: She is now the official negotiator of our household.
I guess going back on topic is an elusive dream? I would be far more interested in hearing who you would suggest is more suitable to be there, for example lets say the face of HABBA she is an old industry veteran and a positive role model for any woman who would like to join the industry professionally and have a career in it.
Anyway since the discussion has devolved context matter words are void without context, personally the most direct and unapologetic "rape slur" in my face has been done by a friend in totally dominating me in a boardgame, does the fact she was female matter? no it does not (other than proving anybody can do this behaviour), should I feel insulted? no, it was in the context of the game been played, nobody felt insulted and nobody should feel insulted.
I really suggest you need to start treating individuals as individuals and not as nebulous groups that work under a hive mind.
I have no strong opinion about who should be the keynote speaker at Gencon, it's more the fact that AS still draws such a strong response that fascinates me. Gencon hardly needs a keynote speaker in my opinion.
Why not? a guest of honour is an important individual put in spotlight and their speech bears impact on the industry and market, directly or indirectly.
Anyway I would be glad to hear about prominent industry figures I many not know.
And therefore I'm not blaming the entire community. But there is an undercurrent of unpleasent individuals in almost every community, not just gaming, because people are people. Instead of gnashing your teeth about the community strawman, maybe reflect on the behaviour of people who unapologetically use "rape slurs" before going "its just a joke bro", whether male or female and if those really are the kinds of people you enjoy having in the overall community. We're not all bad eggs, sadly when issues like this come up the bad eggs are the most vocal, vitriolic and visible ones.
Let Sarkeesian speak, be civil about it and this whole thing can blow over. Or we can start getting defensive and see where the sympathy wave for her ends up taking the community. Simple really.
More mature creations are needed to transform a perception of a type of media from being for children to for adults. That doesn't mean more violence and more sex, FATAL did nothing to make RPG gaming seem more mature. It means tackling more complex ideas. It means not shying away from politics because you are "just making games". It means tackling hard issues.
The setting of a game about giant space men fighting green football hooligans might not be the best place to have a discourse about Chinese foreign policy.
There is a time and place, wargames aren't it.
You can't say "wargames" aren't just like you can't say "videogames" aren't appropiate to tackle sensible issues.
They can do it! But, of course, the fact that videogames, boardgames or wargames that talk about political and sensible isues exist doesn't mean theres not others that are just here for fun. You can have games like Detroid: Become Human alongside games like Heroes of the Storm or God of War 4.
Thats the beauty of it, each product catters to an audience. I, as said early, can absolutely understand the mantra of "no politics". That doesn't mean I can't appreciate and I don't see te value of videogames, books, comics, board games, wargames, etc... talking about politics. When I want a deep experience, I go for one of those games, when I don't, because I wan just some hours of pure fun forgetting the outside world, then I go to the other products that aren't political in any shape or form.
Why shouldn't politics be discussed whilst playing a game? If a game has political themes (and most will), why shouldn't they be discussed?
If both people want to talk politics, absolutely NOTHING ir wrong with that. If both parties are interested, talk about religion, politics, sportsball, online gambling, your kids, your pets, or even cooking. *
If the one person isn't interested and says so, maybe leave them alone and move to another topic.
Not accusing you, ATCM specifically, of boring the feth out of someone at the table. Just a reminder in general for people to be polite.
*DON'T fething bring up the designated hitter rule. Having 2 sets of rules in MLB is a fething joke... Burn it all down!
More mature creations are needed to transform a perception of a type of media from being for children to for adults. That doesn't mean more violence and more sex, FATAL did nothing to make RPG gaming seem more mature. It means tackling more complex ideas. It means not shying away from politics because you are "just making games". It means tackling hard issues.
The setting of a game about giant space men fighting green football hooligans might not be the best place to have a discourse about Chinese foreign policy.
There is a time and place, wargames aren't it.
You can't say "wargames" aren't just like you can't say "videogames" aren't appropiate to tackle sensible issues.
They can do it! But, of course, the fact that videogames, boardgames or wargames that talk about political and sensible isues exist doesn't mean theres not others that are just here for fun. You can have games like Detroid: Become Humand alongside games like Heroes of the Storm of God of War 4.
Thats the beauty of it, each product catters to an audience. I, as said early, can absolutely understand the mantra of "no politics". That doesn't mean I can't appreciate and I don't see te value of videogames, books, comics, board games, wargames, etc... talking about politics. When I want a deep experience, I go for one of those games, when I don't, because I wan just some hours of pure fun forgetting the outside world, then I go to the other products that aren't political in any shape or form.
Exactly.
Though I would say that God of War 4 isn't just there for fun. It's an examination of fatherhood, which is a political subject. Of course you can just play it for the combat but that is not the same as it not having any political commentary.
For example 40k's political background hardly comes in the actual gameplay that is far removed from the background, so why would a player want to discuss 40k politics while playing?
Considering the shallowness of 40K's actual mechanics, you can't exactly just talk about the mechanics of it over a multi-hour game. Seems weird to me to not talk about the setting since the setting is, judging by many peoples own words on the subject, what makes people play 40K over other games.
I don't think God of War has a political commentary, unless you threat political as... everything that happens in real life.
I agree that is a deep game about fatherhood, living with your past, redemption, etc... but I wouldn't say thats political, just a narrative device that enters in some serious issues people can relate with. In the other hand Detrod: Become Human clearly enters in issues that are political in his nature and are still present in our political landscape today.
But at this point I think we are just arguing semantics about what we understand as "political".
More mature creations are needed to transform a perception of a type of media from being for children to for adults. That doesn't mean more violence and more sex, FATAL did nothing to make RPG gaming seem more mature. It means tackling more complex ideas. It means not shying away from politics because you are "just making games". It means tackling hard issues.
The setting of a game about giant space men fighting green football hooligans might not be the best place to have a discourse about Chinese foreign policy.
There is a time and place, wargames aren't it.
You can't say "wargames" aren't just like you can't say "videogames" aren't appropiate to tackle sensible issues.
They can do it! But, of course, the fact that videogames, boardgames or wargames that talk about political and sensible isues exist doesn't mean theres not others that are just here for fun. You can have games like Detroid: Become Humand alongside games like Heroes of the Storm of God of War 4.
Thats the beauty of it, each product catters to an audience. I, as said early, can absolutely understand the mantra of "no politics". That doesn't mean I can't appreciate and I don't see te value of videogames, books, comics, board games, wargames, etc... talking about politics. When I want a deep experience, I go for one of those games, when I don't, because I wan just some hours of pure fun forgetting the outside world, then I go to the other products that aren't political in any shape or form.
Exactly.
Though I would say that God of War 4 isn't just there for fun. It's an examination of fatherhood, which is a political subject. Of course you can just play it for the combat but that is not the same as it not having any political commentary.
Except Detroit and GoW4 aren't community games. They're single player games telling a story and by extension online games are generally faceless and you can just leave a game and find a new one in a matter of seconds.
If you're 2 hours into a 40k and decide to leave the table because your oppnent decided to tell you he's pro-life you've wasted and evening and there's now someone in your comminity you can't play with so you've lowered the pool of players for both of you. Not to mention word will inevitably spread and people who weren't even involved might take offencr and refuse to play him.
And thats why multiplayer games try to avoid all kind of politics, because they want to cater to the biggest audience possible.
And why I use the triunvirate of prohibitions. That does not mean we are just scared of political conversations.
When I go to a tournament to my FLGS, normally a couple of us, with the store owner, go to eat together to a nearby bar, and we talk about all kind of stuff around the table, but in the proper FLGS and the tournament, people comes to game, and people that we aren't as friend with can come to, and avoiding confrontation about that kind of personal issues is basic to grow a strong community.
But we weren't talking about single player vs multiplayer, but about the "Videogames/wargames shouldn't be political in any shape or form". And with that I disagree. I believe theres room for everything, and I agree with Mallus in the fact that if you want a medium to be seen as something serious IT needs to be, at least some part of it, political, divisive, vanguardist, etc...
So, I was listening to a podcast about the OTHER key speaker at Gencon. Unlike Anita, at least he is part of the gaming scene. From what I remember about him, he owns a computer dice rolling program.
However, he is also a little full of himself and has a bit of controversy. Although he has supported all-female gaming communities he has also threatened to ban someone looking for a male-only gaming group.
Sim-Life wrote: If you're 2 hours into a 40k and decide to leave the table because your oppnent decided to tell you he's pro-life you've wasted and evening and there's now someone in your comminity you can't play with so you've lowered the pool of players for both of you. Not to mention word will inevitably spread and people who weren't even involved might take offencr and refuse to play him.
The only waste of time in that situation would be the two hours I spent before realizing that my opponent is an awful person I do not want to associate with. I would rather know that up front so I can avoid spending my time on someone like that. And I don't care one bit if their awful beliefs becoming public knowledge makes it difficult for them to find willing opponents. Their removal from the community is a thing to be celebrated.
Sim-Life wrote: If you're 2 hours into a 40k and decide to leave the table because your oppnent decided to tell you he's pro-life you've wasted and evening and there's now someone in your comminity you can't play with so you've lowered the pool of players for both of you. Not to mention word will inevitably spread and people who weren't even involved might take offencr and refuse to play him.
The only waste of time in that situation would be the two hours I spent before realizing that my opponent is an awful person I do not want to associate with. I would rather know that up front so I can avoid spending my time on someone like that. And I don't care one bit if their awful beliefs becoming public knowledge makes it difficult for them to find willing opponents. Their removal from the community is a thing to be celebrated.
Everyone who disagrees with me is alt-right/nazi/morally-bankrupt/incel/whatever the latest insult used to dehumanize and dismiss complex and nuanced issues.
You can't even have disagreements and remain polite and civil in broader society where we're supposed to be actively exercising those skills - yet there are people who want to inject divisive politics into games?
A Town Called Malus wrote: It isn't though. He is arguing that his hobby shouldn't be treated childishly while at the same time arguing that politics should be kept out of his hobby. Arguing that such a large part of adult life shouldn't be in a particular hobby is the opposite of asking that hobby to not be regarded as childish.
But that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing against control. I think that that the control should be squarely in the hands of the creators, without anybody sitting over their shoulder telling them what is right and wrong. I have my preferences (I prefer my politics to be recontextualized into fictional form than simply being called a nazi by a ranting mouthpiece), but never once have I argued that people shouldn't be allowed to do that if that is what they want to do. I simply want that to be the creator's choice, not the choice of a "cultural critic", governing body, or political movement.
To put it into political perspective, I'm completely okay with someone writing a book in which the Nazis are good guys. While the premise may be immoral, it could lead to an interesting work that challenges perceptions and shows comparisons to the politics of today, and how we are making the same mistakes without necessarily being pro-evil. What I'm not okay with is someone else telling someone they CAN'T write a book where the Nazis are good guys because some guy ran over a protestor at a rally, and we need to regulate what messages we can and can not tell.
If games are to be perceived as more than childish then they must be willing to tackle adult themes, and not just by throwing in genitals and dismemberment. Thinking that gore and sex makes you mature is a childish perspective in itself. What is the less childish game, Doom or Heavy Rain?
I think you are misunderstanding. I'm not arguing that the games themselves should tackle mature content. That's up to the creators. I'm arguing that we should treat all games as if they COULD, such that cultural critics, governing bodies, and political movements can't use children as their shield to impose their limited world views on the creators or the customers.
More mature creations are needed to transform a perception of a type of media from being for children to for adults. That doesn't mean more violence and more sex, FATAL did nothing to make RPG gaming seem more mature. It means tackling more complex ideas. It means not shying away from politics because you are "just making games". It means tackling hard issues. Think of how effective a video game could be at depicting the horrors of the Holocaust. Why hasn't it been made? We've made plenty of games set in World War 2, after all. Because of the idea that games should not tackle those political issues. Which is bs, games absolutely should be free to tackle those issues like any other form of media.
I honestly am not sure who you are arguing with. I'm fine with politics being part of my entertainment. Satire and parody are the height of human achievement, and it'd be hard to argue that The Wire isn't the best tv show that has ever been made. But there is a difference between using your entertainment as a soapbox and using your entertainment as a way to tell stories that happen to have a message.
And even then, I'm fine with soapboxes (heck, I even find Ayn Rand occasionally readable), as long as that is the creators choice. It is then my choice to not read/watch it then. And that's the end up of it. Two adults, making our own decisions. What I don't want is somebody telling the creator that they can't create something in the way they want to create it because of bs reasons just because they feel an incessant need to tell everyone how to live their life.
Sarkeesian's criticism of video games was about this very control. It wasn't "hey, isn't it weird that this seems to happen a lot". It was "hey, this happens a lot and it is immoral and wrong and creators need to be held responsible for their loathsome practices". If her criticism stopped at "I'd like to see more of this type of content", great! But instead, it was almost exclusively, "There needs to be less of this type of content", which I don't agree with.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cuda1179 wrote: So, I was listening to a podcast about the OTHER key speaker at Gencon. Unlike Anita, at least he is part of the gaming scene. From what I remember about him, he owns a computer dice rolling program.
However, he is also a little full of himself and has a bit of controversy. Although he has supported all-female gaming communities he has also threatened to ban someone looking for a male-only gaming group.
Would that be Nolan T Jones? I didn't recognize his name, and his achievement of a virtual dice rolling thing seemed awful slight for an industry "change maker", but I did notice that his moderator is the founder and director of an organization called "I Need Diverse Games". Moreover, the moderator for Jordan Weisman has a special project for the industry to adopt a professional code of conduct and uniform anti-harassment policies and procedures (warning bells). There's definitely some agenda pushing at GenCon this year. It's coming you guys.
Sqorgar wrote: Moreover, the moderator for Jordan Weisman has a special project for the industry to adopt a professional code of conduct and uniform anti-harassment policies and procedures (warning bells). There's definitely some agenda pushing at GenCon this year. It's coming you guys.
I just want to look at anime tiddies and paint toy soldiers :<
Cryptek of Awesome wrote: Everyone who disagrees with me is alt-right/nazi/morally-bankrupt/incel/whatever the latest insult used to dehumanize and dismiss complex and nuanced issues.
Yes, that is 100% what I said, no strawman at all.
You can't even have disagreements and remain polite and civil in broader society where we're supposed to be actively exercising those skills - yet there are people who want to inject divisive politics into games?
The politics are already there. Not knowing a person is awful doesn't make them any less awful.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sqorgar wrote: [I think that that the control should be squarely in the hands of the creators, without anybody sitting over their shoulder telling them what is right and wrong.
The control is already in the hands of the creators. Nobody is forcing them to listen to any critics, they have full control over their creations. If they listen to someone else's opinion about what is write and wrong it's only because they have voluntarily decided to hear that opinion and be persuaded by it. And there is no plausible scenario where this changes in the US. Your speculation about forced regulation of content is paranoia, nothing more.
But instead, it was almost exclusively, "There needs to be less of this type of content", which I don't agree with.
Too bad, because part of freedom of speech/expression is being able to say "I don't like this, stop doing it". You can't simultaneously insist that creators have control over their content and demand that a content creator stop saying something that you object to. Sarkeesian is free to say "this sucks, stop doing it" and everyone else is free to listen to her or ignore her as they choose.
Moreover, the moderator for Jordan Weisman has a special project for the industry to adopt a professional code of conduct and uniform anti-harassment policies and procedures (warning bells). There's definitely some agenda pushing at GenCon this year. It's coming you guys.
Yes, because when I see "the industry should adopt a code of conduct and formal anti-harassment policies" what I immediately think of is "agenda pushing" and not "doing exactly what every major corporation's HR department does".
Moreover, the moderator for Jordan Weisman has a special project for the industry to adopt a professional code of conduct and uniform anti-harassment policies and procedures (warning bells). There's definitely some agenda pushing at GenCon this year. It's coming you guys.
Yes, because when I see "the industry should adopt a code of conduct and formal anti-harassment policies" what I immediately think of is "agenda pushing" and not "doing exactly what every major corporation's HR department does".
Not just every company that is large enough to have a HR person, but pretty much every major convention. Hell, some conventions have faced guests canceling because they *didn’t* have such policies - the SLCC had a huge issue with that only about a month or so ago.
The control is already in the hands of the creators. Nobody is forcing them to listen to any critics, they have full control over their creations. If they listen to someone else's opinion about what is write and wrong it's only because they have voluntarily decided to hear that opinion and be persuaded by it. And there is no plausible scenario where this changes in the US. Your speculation about forced regulation of content is paranoia, nothing more.
I assume you aren't familiar with the legal term "chilling effect"? Simply put, it is something which discourages people from fully exercising their legal right to the freedom of expression. For instance, if there was a regulating body which could slap a label on your product that made it so that stores would not carry your product - your right is not strictly being limited, but it effectively is because of the consequences of using it are so dire.
For instance, a code of conduct, if done improperly, could have a chilling effect on people expressing their opinions on things because they could get kicked out of the con for speech that is entirely legal, reasonable, and appropriate, but the code of conduct was written in such a way that any speech that could be claimed to be offensive (even when reasonably not, nor intended to be) is against the rules. For instance, male panelists could be terrified of sharing any potentially disagreeable opinions on the chance that a woman labels their opinions as harassment.
There's the spirit of the law and the letter of the law, and while the letter of the law may not be broken, the spirit certainly is. And nobody wants to walk around with a broken spirit.
Too bad, because part of freedom of speech/expression is being able to say "I don't like this, stop doing it".
Well, actually, "stop doing it" is an imperative command, and that is not covered under the freedom of expression. That's more of an issue of compelled speech, like "salute the flag" or "tell me your iphone password". Now, "you should stop doing it" or "it sure would be nice if you stopped doing it" or even "down with this sort of thing", that's different. But that's neither here nor there. I just thought that if you were going to bring up constitutional law, you should know that compelled speech is a free speech issue but from the opposite direction.
You can't simultaneously insist that creators have control over their content and demand that a content creator stop saying something that you object to. Sarkeesian is free to say "this sucks, stop doing it" and everyone else is free to listen to her or ignore her as they choose.
I'm fine with her saying whatever she wants, but I draw the line at creating codes of conduct, testifying for the censorship of the internet in front of the UN, or being a part of the Twitter Trust and Safety council that actually censors other people's tweets. As long as it is just speech, that's fine, but Sarkeesian went way past speech and is an active enemy of it.
Yes, because when I see "the industry should adopt a code of conduct and formal anti-harassment policies" what I immediately think of is "agenda pushing" and not "doing exactly what every major corporation's HR department does".
I guess you haven't been paying attention to what has been going on with CoCs in the open source community.
Sqorgar wrote: I assume you aren't familiar with the legal term "chilling effect"? Simply put, it is something which discourages people from fully exercising their legal right to the freedom of expression. For instance, if there was a regulating body which could slap a label on your product that made it so that stores would not carry your product - your right is not strictly being limited, but it effectively is because of the consequences of using it are so dire.
You're misusing the term "chilling effect". It refers specifically to the threat of legal action suppressing speech, even if that legal action would not eventually win in court. For example, sending a cease and desist notice to someone who is legally exercising their right to free speech, knowing that they don't have enough money to spend on fighting you in court, would be a chilling effect case. Even though the target is legally justified in what they are doing they are prevented from speaking. Merely being criticized by other people is not at all the same.
For instance, a code of conduct, if done improperly, could have a chilling effect on people expressing their opinions on things because they could get kicked out of the con for speech that is entirely legal, reasonable, and appropriate, but the code of conduct was written in such a way that any speech that could be claimed to be offensive (even when reasonably not, nor intended to be) is against the rules. For instance, male panelists could be terrified of sharing any potentially disagreeable opinions on the chance that a woman labels their opinions as harassment.
Oddly this is not a problem for the many businesses, virtually every business large enough to have an HR department, with codes of conduct and harassment policies. Perhaps these things are not so scary after all?
Well, actually, "stop doing it" is an imperative command, and that is not covered under the freedom of expression. That's more of an issue of compelled speech, like "salute the flag" or "tell me your iphone password". Now, "you should stop doing it" or "it sure would be nice if you stopped doing it" or even "down with this sort of thing", that's different. But that's neither here nor there. I just thought that if you were going to bring up constitutional law, you should know that compelled speech is a free speech issue but from the opposite direction.
This is a nonsense argument. "Stop doing that" is protected speech. And you're nitpicking the details of a paraphrased quote, which is even more absurd.
I'm fine with her saying whatever she wants, but I draw the line at creating codes of conduct, testifying for the censorship of the internet in front of the UN, or being a part of the Twitter Trust and Safety council that actually censors other people's tweets. As long as it is just speech, that's fine, but Sarkeesian went way past speech and is an active enemy of it.
Codes of conduct, Twitter doing what they want with their private property, etc, are not free speech cases. A private organization can set whatever policies they want, and you don't have a right to have them give you a platform to speak from or an audience to listen to you.
Peregrine wrote: You're misusing the term "chilling effect". It refers specifically to the threat of legal action suppressing speech, even if that legal action would not eventually win in court.
Someone found Wikipedia! Did you bother to check any other sources? Wikipedia even mischaracterizes the very source they are quoting (oh, Wikipedia). I think you'll find that the term applies to any undue influence or threat of sanction, especially in the context of regulatory bodies.
Merely being criticized by other people is not at all the same.
I'm not talking about pure criticism. I'm talking about code of conducts, trust and safety councils, ratings systems, regulations, and so on.
Oddly this is not a problem for the many businesses, virtually every business large enough to have an HR department, with codes of conduct and harassment policies. Perhaps these things are not so scary after all?
I really urge you to go see how CoCs are weaponized within the open source community. It's terrifying.
Codes of conduct, Twitter doing what they want with their private property, etc, are not free speech cases. A private organization can set whatever policies they want, and you don't have a right to have them give you a platform to speak from or an audience to listen to you.
This is a talking point I see often and it is easily disproven.
Here's one example, "Guttenberg Taxpayers and Rentpayers Association v. Galaxy Towers Condominium Association". Basically, an association that owned a bunch of condos in New Jersey had a policy against distributing flyers, yet distributed their own flyers for political candidates (who would win, because they owned something like 25% of the homes in the district). They were sued and the courts decided that by distributing their own flyers, this resulted in the “dedication of this property from private to political and thus public use”. The judge found that the refusal to allow flyers violated the state constitution because “a level playing field requires equal access to this condominium because it has become in essence a political ‘company town,’ in which political access controlled by the Association is the only ‘game in town.’” Can you see how this precedent might be relevant to Facebook and Twitter and other social media websites that are selectively allowing some political speech but not others?
In Marsh vs Alabama, the Supreme Court decided '"company town" was the same as a public street for First Amendment purposes, finding that "the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it."'.
Long story short, private business that are for open public use are more beholden to the first amendment. Moreover, if a business takes government money or uses government resources, they are not considered a private business for the purposes of regulating speech.
