Many women have courageously spoken out about how they experience alienation and harassment in gaming. Despite this fact, too many male gamers dismiss the issue as “no big deal” and insist that there isn’t really a problem. One of the luxuries of being a member of a privileged group is that the benefits afforded to us often remain invisible to us. Working towards solutions requires that male gamers become aware of the ways in which we unconsciously benefit from sexism. We can’t work to fix something unless we first understand its effects. With that in mind the following is a checklist of some of the concrete benefits that male gamers automatically receive simply for being men.
1. I can choose to remain completely oblivious, or indifferent to the harassment that many women face in gaming spaces. 2. I am never told that video games or the surrounding culture is not intended for me because I am male. 3. I can publicly post my username, gamertag or contact information online without having to fear being stalked or sexually harassed because of my gender. 4. I will never be asked to “prove my gaming cred” simply because of my gender. 5. If I enthusiastically express my fondness for video games no one will automatically assume I’m faking my interest just to “get attention” from other gamers. 6. I can look at practically any gaming website, show, or magazine and see the voices of people of my own gender widely represented. 7. When I go to a gaming event or convention, I can be relatively certain that I won’t be harassed, groped, propositioned or catcalled by total strangers. 8. I will never be asked or expected to speak for all other gamers who share my gender. 9. I can be sure that my gaming performance (good or bad) won’t be attributed to or reflect on my gender as a whole. 10. My gaming ability will never be called into question based on unrelated natural biological functions. 11. I can be relatively sure my thoughts about video games won’t be dismissed or attacked based solely on my tone of voice, even if I speak in an aggressive, obnoxious, crude or flippant manner. 12. I can openly say that my favorite games are casual, odd, non-violent, artistic, or cute without fear that my opinions will reinforce a stereotype that “men are not real gamers.” 13. When purchasing most major video games in a store, chances are I will not be asked if (or assumed to be) buying it for a wife, daughter or girlfriend. 14. The vast majority of game studios, past and present, have been led and populated primarily by people of my own gender and as such most of their products have been specifically designed to cater to my demographic. 15. I can walk into any gaming store and see images of my gender widely represented as powerful heroes, dastardly villains and non-playable characters alike. 16. I will almost always have the option to play a character of my gender, as most protagonists or heroes will be male by default. 17. I do not have to carefully navigate my engagement with online communities or gaming spaces in order to avoid or mitigate the possibility of being harassed because of my gender. 18. I probably never think about hiding my real-life gender online through my gamer-name, my avatar choice, or by muting voice-chat, out of fear of harassment resulting from my being male. 19. When I enter an online game, I can be relatively sure I won’t be attacked or harassed when and if my real-life gender is made public 20. If I am trash-talked or verbally berated while playing online, it will not be because I am male nor will my gender be invoked as an insult. 21. While playing online with people I don’t know I won’t be interrogated about the size and shape of my real-life body parts, nor will I be pressured to share intimate details about my sex life for the pleasure of other players. 22. Complete strangers generally do not send me unsolicited images of their genitalia or demand to see me naked on the basis of being a male gamer. 23. In multiplayer games I can be pretty sure that conversations between other players will not focus on speculation about my “attractiveness” or “sexual availability” in real-life. 24. If I choose to point out sexism in gaming, my observations will not be seen as self-serving, and will therefore be perceived as more credible and worthy of respect than those of my female counterparts, even if they are saying the exact same thing. 25. Because it was created by a straight white man, this checklist will likely be taken more seriously than if it had been written by virtually any female gamer.
These benefits should not be reserved for men.
This list is not meant to suggest that male gamers are always treated well. Sometimes we are bullied or subjected to online nastiness, but it is not based on or because of our gender.
In order to make change first we need to acknowledge the problem, and then we must take responsibility for it as a community, so we can actively work together, with people of all genders, to dismantle the parts of gaming culture that perpetuate these imbalances.
All people, of all genders, must be treated with respect and dignity.
Together, we can make gaming gaming. Together, we will make gaming better.
Honestly what did you expect? It's a video from leader of anti gg, it has the same "check your privilege" mantra (wtf does that even mean?) and speaks about wanting to promote discussion while disabling comments.
Because it was created by a straight white man, this checklist will likely be taken more seriously than if it had been written by virtually any female gamer.
Machintosh (and lesser extent Sarkeesian) is a central spokesperson in the "anti-gg" front. Calling him a "leader" is more of a jab at the idea that gg has a "leader".
LuciusAR wrote: Oh goodie, a video where a woman who has a huge platform and the ear of large media outlets lectures everyday joes on how ‘privileged’ they are.
I must have watched a different video as there is no woman in it at any point.
LuciusAR wrote: Oh goodie, a video where a woman who has a huge platform and the ear of large media outlets lectures everyday joes on how ‘privileged’ they are.
This.
Where is the woman in the video? I didn't see any.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: Make that four people complaining about the video without having watched it now.
A group of feminists make a video, ignorant people rant about how much they hate it without even watching it or trying to understand what it's talking about.
LuciusAR wrote: Oh goodie, a video where a woman who has a huge platform and the ear of large media outlets lectures everyday joes on how ‘privileged’ they are.
I must have watched a different video as there is no woman in it at any point.
This video was written by a man. It's kind of funny because the last comment talks about exactly this.
A group of feminists make a video, ignorant people rant about how much they hate it without even watching it or trying to understand what it's talking about.
Would you kindly then explain what is the video trying to say because to me it doesn't make any sense.
Fore example:
1. I have never seen this ingame or in a forum. Even when I have met a woman online I have not seen any harassment directed at her. 8. lolwut? 11. If you tone of voice is this they will be: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvYyGTmcP80 12. Walking simulators are not real games. 20. "Dick" is not an insult, que? 22. WTF is this? The times I've seen somebody spray porn in the saferoom walls in is countless. 25. Nobody takes this seriously because you are a slow.
1. I have never seen this ingame or in a forum. Even when I have met a woman online I have not seen any harassment directed at her.
8. lolwut?
11. If you tone of voice is this they will be: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvYyGTmcP80 12. Walking simulators are not real games.
20. "Dick" is not an insult, que?
22. WTF is this? The times I've seen somebody spray porn in the saferoom walls in is countless.
25. Nobody takes this seriously because you are a slow.
1. Well you don't have to see. That is privilege point 1. If you want, you can be completely oblivious of the harassment faced by some people. It likely won't impact you and you may not even notice it.
8. It's a thing. It happens with most minority groups. If your a minority, it's only a matter of time before your asked to explain the your minority. You will basically be asked to speak for all members of your minority. This is a very common thing with female programers. You might not notice unless you asked people though.
11. You used a woman as an example there? The statement is about how men can use whatever tone they want and not be called out on using the wrong tone. Tone is a oddly big then when you talk about women issues. Like if you ever talk about it in a non positive way, people will call you out and say you should be nicer about it. You could have pages of pages of talk on the issue of tone alone
12. This is the stereotype reinforcement bit. When your part of a minority your aware of the stereotypes and don't want to be viewed as embodying them. Like how as a gamer you might not mention some things you do because they might confirm a negative bias people have about gamers.
20. Anyone recall the old "you throw like a girl" insult. There isn't a "You throw like a man" version. The dick thing, well you do have a point about that. Melissa pointed out to me how it's kind of sexist that dick is a negative.
22. This is TOGTFO. The old standard where if you a woman people want you to prove your a woman, often with nudity.
25. A slow? I don't know what that is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
illuknisaa wrote: You could copy and paste (like I did with the transscript) or use archive.
I am always surprised why people get so angry at criticism and the relish they have in attacking someone with a different view. If you hate this type of feminism so much, why give it such attention?
I also don't understand why there is such a general acceptance that interaction on the Internet must be vile. We usually don't allow such behavior in other public areas, why is online different?
AdeptSister wrote: I am always surprised why people get so angry at criticism and the relish they have in attacking someone with a different view. If you hate this type of feminism so much, why give it such attention?
I also don't understand why there is such a general acceptance that interaction on the Internet must be vile. We usually don't allow such behavior in other public areas, why is online different?
I think it's because people don't want to deal with the bile made by others or themselves so they say it's inherent and cant be rid of as a way to avoid trying. You know because clean up the internet would be hard and a little unpleasant in some places.
Kilkrazy wrote: Dick can be a negative, it can be a positive -- "big swinging dicks" -- it is also one of the nicknames for Richard.
A bunch of white guys telling me how Privileged I am, because I am a white male. Yes I completely privileged tell that to my friends living in Israel who are white males who are currently being bombed and killed.
Tell that to hundreds of thousands of white people who are in the middle of a war.
This video was created by Mctonish who famously also has this made this video.
I like being told I am sexist misgyonist when all I have asked is someone to be truthful with me. (Warning not part of gamergate)
I dislike McIntosh for his idiotic statements he has made.
Heres his views on Pikmin
That is enough for me to ask why would you even listen to this guy if we know he is going to insult people?
Please know he and Antia are actually a couple. A match made in heaven.
Idiotic ideals and someone calling themselves a feminist yet they are homophobic, racist, sexist, and have little to no professional academia, other social degrees.
There is a reason I don't listen to Antia, mostly because of all her faulty evidence, but once I found out about who actually writes for the show, and his stupid ideologies, then I stopped even listening.
illuknisaa wrote: Even when I have met a woman online I have not seen any harassment directed at her.
I have definitely seen plenty, and my wife has been on the receiving end, too. It seems to really depend on what kind of game you're playing - in my wholly anecdotal experience, the more "bro" a game is, like CoD or BF4, the more it happens over a game with a more significant female playerbase (WoW).
illuknisaa wrote: Even when I have met a woman online I have not seen any harassment directed at her.
I have definitely seen plenty, and my wife has been on the receiving end, too. It seems to really depend on what kind of game you're playing - in my wholly anecdotal experience, the more "bro" a game is, like CoD or BF4, the more it happens over a game with a more significant female playerbase (WoW).
As have I, but I don't think it is as bad as everyone makes it out to be. That is video game talk, we have gamer talk and those who are outsiders to the culture will find it polarizing.
Gamers called each other bad names sometimes as a compliment. I have been called a whiny little And the guy meant it as a compliment.
illuknisaa wrote: Even when I have met a woman online I have not seen any harassment directed at her.
I have definitely seen plenty, and my wife has been on the receiving end, too. It seems to really depend on what kind of game you're playing - in my wholly anecdotal experience, the more "bro" a game is, like CoD or BF4, the more it happens over a game with a more significant female playerbase (WoW).
As have I, but I don't think it is as bad as everyone makes it out to be. That is video game talk, we have gamer talk and those who are outsiders to the culture will find it polarizing.
Gamers called each other bad names sometimes as a compliment. I have been called a whiny little And the guy meant it as a compliment.
Gamers don't call each other bad names. Gamers play games. It's jerks who insult each other.
illuknisaa wrote: Even when I have met a woman online I have not seen any harassment directed at her.
I have definitely seen plenty, and my wife has been on the receiving end, too. It seems to really depend on what kind of game you're playing - in my wholly anecdotal experience, the more "bro" a game is, like CoD or BF4, the more it happens over a game with a more significant female playerbase (WoW).
As have I, but I don't think it is as bad as everyone makes it out to be. That is video game talk, we have gamer talk and those who are outsiders to the culture will find it polarizing.
Gamers called each other bad names sometimes as a compliment. I have been called a whiny little And the guy meant it as a compliment.
Gamers don't call each other bad names. Gamers play games. It's jerks who insult each other.
It was like there is always one guy in every game.
Most gamers I know don't talk.
The majority don't. The minority do. and it is actually kind of sad. We now have people who immediately mute everyone, instead of talking with people.
Except I have made some lifelong friends online. I met one of my best friends in diablo 2, and he was actually really close to me, and we still play games together all the time.
We always talk and we insult each other because we are playing d3, and everytime someone gets a better item we yell at each other.
So I'm supposed to apologize for being born a while male who plays video games. feth that.
And you know what? I'm not going to take responsibility for how some anonymous [MOD EDIT - Language! - Alpharius] on some random multiplayer lobby is acting like a [MOD EDIT - Language! - Alpharius]. I wonder what these whiney children do in real life when someone is mean to them, get a lobby of similarly treated people and demand that everyone be nice? Well, gak, I had no idea that's how it worked.
There are guys I call some of the worst gak I can think of that I would gladly DIE for, instantly, no hesitation. But apparently, that sort of camaraderie doesn't extend to women because it's 'mean'. How about this, grow a god damn spine and fire some rancid bs back at them, or ignore them, but really? You have to start some sort of movement because we hurt your feelings? Are you serious?
Also, Adam Sessler (sp?) holy crap, I guess after G4 you really DIDN'T get another job. Thank god for stupidly biased youtube video makers.
...Ash. Context. The harassment that people are talking about is unwanted and there is nothing positive about it.
Like you get frustrated when people dismiss games, other people get frustrated when the dismiss their negative experiences. People are not complaining about it because they are whiners or thin skinned; they are complaining because they realize that they should not have to suffer more to enjoy the same things.
AdeptSister wrote: ...Ash. Context. The harassment that people are talking about is unwanted and there is nothing positive about it.
Like you get frustrated when people dismiss games, other people get frustrated when the dismiss their negative experiences. People are not complaining about it because they are whiners or thin skinned; they are complaining because they realize that they should not have to suffer more to enjoy the same things.
I get the message, but... It does not make up for the fact that they are saying I am privileged to be white. When all I have faced is adversary, Sexism, hatred, loathing, and racism. Because I am a different kind of white, I am not American.
Saying that all white people have privilege is like saying all Black People are good at sports.
People can claim all they want. Harassment is bad no matter where or who it is targeted. Unless you are harassing a terrorist and a serial killer. Because screw em.
But there are times when people confuse harassment for criticism.
Or play I am bigger victim than you. I have faced more hatred than you, I am a woman and I have been judged by people on twitter oh nooo.
Yeah. I know someone, who was actually killed by someone, they were threatened and they didn't take it seriously. It was a he, and his ex-girlfriend was his killer. I definately agree there are misgoynists out there, but I do not decry the many because of the few.
I do not say that all women are evil, because I knew someone who got murdered by a woman. I honestly think it is a human being doing stupid things, and acting irrationally.
illuknisaa wrote: You could copy and paste (like I did with the transscript) or use archive.
Please don't start. Not everyone is in on boycotting gaming journalism sites.
Its fine if you wish to archive, but demanding others to do the same is unreasonable.
A group of feminists make a video, ignorant people rant about how much they hate it without even watching it or trying to understand what it's talking about.
Would you kindly then explain what is the video trying to say because to me it doesn't make any sense.
Fore example:
1. I have never seen this ingame or in a forum. Even when I have met a woman online I have not seen any harassment directed at her.
It definitely exists and I've seen a lot of it.
Spoiler:
Like even just this afternoon pretty much. Even then it's a tame example.
It will more frequently happen in private usually (a lot of forums don't seem to have a report feature in private messages). It does happen in public (it's usually brutal and hateful instead, sort of like a witch hunt), but that's no where near as common in my experience. I could go on including chat logs where some have even tried to buy nude pictures, to inappropriate "fanfiction" to even an audio reading of the same. Obviously the last two (and a lot of it) aren't appropriate for Dakka or anywhere really
Sigh, stopped watching at 2 min. It's a "My privilege penis is longer than yours!" video that's...supposed to make you feel bad for being "privileged".
Zero constructivity, just another video looking for confirmation. Business as usual?
illuknisaa wrote: You could copy and paste (like I did with the transscript) or use archive.
Please don't start. Not everyone is in on boycotting gaming journalism sites.
Its fine if you wish to archive, but demanding others to do the same is unreasonable.
They can ask if they have a reason, but they won't say what their reason is.
A group of feminists make a video, ignorant people rant about how much they hate it without even watching it or trying to understand what it's talking about.
Would you kindly then explain what is the video trying to say because to me it doesn't make any sense.
Fore example:
1. I have never seen this ingame or in a forum. Even when I have met a woman online I have not seen any harassment directed at her.
It definitely exists and I've seen a lot of it.
Spoiler:
Like even just this afternoon pretty much. Even then it's a tame example.
It will more frequently happen in private usually (a lot of forums don't seem to have a report feature in private messages). It does happen in public (it's usually brutal and hateful instead, sort of like a witch hunt), but that's no where near as common in my experience. I could go on including chat logs where some have even tried to buy nude pictures, to inappropriate "fanfiction" to even an audio reading of the same. Obviously the last two (and a lot of it) aren't appropriate for Dakka or anywhere really
The fact that there is a smiling child as his avatar makes that post hilarious.
I've been sexually harassed here on Dakka, actually. I am not naming names, but suffice it to say, someone claimed to know what porn I looked at and demanded I be their friend and cyber with them if I wanted them to not post links about it "revealing your secret" (because not talking about things inappropriate for the forum in question is apparently secretive)..
They were subsequently permabanned and then IP banned when they tried to get arond that.
This was not the only time on Dakka someone stalked me. And certainly it happened on several forums before this. And on Steam. And on Twitter.
A group of feminists make a video, ignorant people rant about how much they hate it without even watching it or trying to understand what it's talking about.
Would you kindly then explain what is the video trying to say because to me it doesn't make any sense.
Fore example:
1. I have never seen this ingame or in a forum. Even when I have met a woman online I have not seen any harassment directed at her.
It definitely exists and I've seen a lot of it.
Spoiler:
Like even just this afternoon pretty much. Even then it's a tame example.
It will more frequently happen in private usually (a lot of forums don't seem to have a report feature in private messages). It does happen in public (it's usually brutal and hateful instead, sort of like a witch hunt), but that's no where near as common in my experience. I could go on including chat logs where some have even tried to buy nude pictures, to inappropriate "fanfiction" to even an audio reading of the same. Obviously the last two (and a lot of it) aren't appropriate for Dakka or anywhere really
rarely is Fanfiction even considered Appropriate. Having been on tumblr for a year. I can already say that some women have some interesting ideas.
Creative, but god awful at writing.
Actually saw one of my characters get used in a fanfic. No I am scarred for life, and actually killed the character in my book because of it.
Though to be honest I have actually tested this and changed one of my accounts to be SexyLadyforRaptors and I tested it. Yes I did get hit on, but two people, but the other people, they all knew I was a guy. Do I think it is misogyny no It sounds like those two people were more lonely than actual misogynists.
The problem though is that people often associate just because you are getting hit on is because of a male dominated culture. I have been hit on by girls before on xbox live. Because of my deep baritone voice and ability to copy peoples voices. Is that misandry? No its player speak, players do that sometimes. Often times those who find stuff to be harassing.
I mean I remember this a month ago.
Just watch. YOu'll see my point. If people are triggered by virtual rape, and call it realistic and harassment.
A group of feminists make a video, ignorant people rant about how much they hate it without even watching it or trying to understand what it's talking about.
Would you kindly then explain what is the video trying to say because to me it doesn't make any sense.
Fore example:
1. I have never seen this ingame or in a forum. Even when I have met a woman online I have not seen any harassment directed at her.
It definitely exists and I've seen a lot of it.
Spoiler:
Like even just this afternoon pretty much. Even then it's a tame example.
It will more frequently happen in private usually (a lot of forums don't seem to have a report feature in private messages). It does happen in public (it's usually brutal and hateful instead, sort of like a witch hunt), but that's no where near as common in my experience. I could go on including chat logs where some have even tried to buy nude pictures, to inappropriate "fanfiction" to even an audio reading of the same. Obviously the last two (and a lot of it) aren't appropriate for Dakka or anywhere really
rarely is Fanfiction even considered Appropriate. Having been on tumblr for a year. I can already say that some women have some interesting ideas.
Creative, but god awful at writing.
I'm talking about a graphic erotic story written to "impress" someone, but end up as harassment (obviously).
AdeptSister wrote: So why aren't you ignoring topics about feminism online? Why should others have to ignore it, but you don't?
I am trying to follow your logic, Ash.
Well. If you are being harassed don't acknowledge it. I have been harassed and bullied for my entire life, because I am different, because I spoke differently, and I was shy and rarely spoke to people in grade school. From my experience the best way to stop a bully apart from telling on them or jabbing them in the throat (which causes more harm than good). Is to ignore them, remove them from power, make them inadequate. Be intelligent.
People are trying to get a reaction from you. Thats where they get their power. They think they matter if they hurt someone. If they get a reaction, they feel powerful.
So when I see feminists or people who call themselves feminists and do not follow the feminist ideology at all. Say they are being harassed and do not follow the most common ideas I will be extremely doubting that they are legitmate feminists. I do not doubt Melissia is a Feminist. I actually know she is one, by the way she types and what she has said in the past. That means she should at least follow the same idea that I have been advised to do. Not responding to them and not making them gain any power. Only acknowledge the good people.
Peer pressure is a very real thing and it does wonders to people.
No. I'm not going to ignore harassment just to make you feel better about yourself.
If it is directed towards you, do not empower them by acknowledging their existence. Nothing makes someone feel more inadequate than to outright ignore their existence. That actually works all the time.
Giving attention to people who want attention will certainly show them. Nothing else has ever stopped people from doing what they want but doing what they want.
Melissia wrote: Ignoring them is what empowers them, not confronting them. Ignoring them makes them emboldened to do it again.
I have been stalked for years. I have successfully ignored my stalker, and they have no power over me, because I ignore them. They are just merely a shadow now to me.
Saying that it doesn't work is illogical.
It does work, and now your trying to prove that it doesn't when you have no evidence to support otherwise. Ignoring them the problem does work. Doing nothing does work.
Melissia wrote: They don't want attention . They want to intimidate and silence women.
Thats the problem though. They do want attention.
People want attention they want meaning to their pathetic lives. Saying they are doing it to do harm is no. People are not one dimensional. They are multi dimensional. They want things for themselves, not to harm other people. These are egoists were talking about. Not Black Mailers working for the mafia.
They want attention, they don't do it for harming people. They want their lives to mean something.
Logical proof needed for this illogical statement.
The only way to stop stalking is to penalize the stalker so they are disincentivized from their stalking behavior. Same with harassers. When doing the action is its own incentive, ignoring it only encourages more of the same.
I just deleted a lot of spammy messages (popcorn, cats, etc). Please remember Rule Number Three is No Spam.
As to harassment on DakkaDakka:
- the staff encourages victims of harassment not to respond to the person or people harassing them
- the victim should report the incidents to one or more moderators
- the staff will deal with the behavior as necessary, including and up to permanent suspension
Melissia wrote: I've been sexually harassed here on Dakka, actually. I am not naming names, but suffice it to say, someone claimed to know what porn I looked at and demanded I be their friend and cyber with them if I wanted them to not post links about it "revealing your secret" (because not talking about things inappropriate for the forum in question is apparently secretive)..
They were subsequently permabanned and then IP banned when they tried to get arond that.
This was not the only time on Dakka someone stalked me. And certainly it happened on several forums before this. And on Steam. And on Twitter.
Sorry to hear.
Your actions were correct and commendable for the Dakka issue.
"Several forums", Steam and Twitter??
You are outspoken which makes for lively discussion but what is with this "nut-farm" attraction?
Is there anything in particular in your discussions these people seem to latch-onto?
Sorry, genuinely curious.
I would typically figure if people do not agree with certain viewpoints they would just ignore them rather than hunt them down.
I guess part of my built-in "privilege" is to be ignorant of how bad it can get, so awareness is good.
People of this nature I assume like to shift to PM's and are not as vocal in the open forums (I have seen lately anyway).
Melissia wrote: Ignoring them is what empowers them, not confronting them. Ignoring them makes them emboldened to do it again.
I have been stalked for years. I have successfully ignored my stalker, and they have no power over me, because I ignore them. They are just merely a shadow now to me.
Saying that it doesn't work is illogical.
It does work, and now your trying to prove that it doesn't when you have no evidence to support otherwise. Ignoring them the problem does work. Doing nothing does work.
If your still being stalked.. then I don't think ignoring it has worked.
There is a difference between "feeding a troll" and allowing bad behavior to go unchallenged. If you don't challenge it, you make it clear that such behavior is appropriate. If you want it to change, you have to speak up.
I mean, isn't that what we are all doing by having a discussion?
Melissia wrote: They don't want attention . They want to intimidate and silence women.
You are wrong. And right. It all depends on the people we talk about.
If we're talking about people on the internet in general, especially online games, then all those people want is attention. The amount of people who actively want to oppress women out of sheer hate is far lower - and it's those who need to be taken care of. By reacting to the former in the same way as the latter, you do more harm than good.
Talizvar wrote: People of this nature I assume like to shift to PM's and are not as vocal in the open forums (I have seen lately anyway).
Frequently, stalking takes place in ways that the stalker thinks are private. Letters, PMs, phone calls, emails, etc. The stalker, after all, usually does not want their stalking called out and people to think of the stalker as the creepy person he or she is.
Talizvar wrote: I guess part of my built-in "privilege" is to be ignorant of how bad it can get, so awareness is good.
That's a really good point. For those of us lucky enough not to experience prejudice-motivated harassment online and elsewhere, it can be hard to imagine its frequency, intensity, and how terrible it makes the victim feel. Suggesting the victims should just ignore it is probably the most privileged response. "Privileged" here does not necessarily mean "mean" or "oppressive" -- it really means being ignorant about something because it fortunately doesn't apply to you.
Melissia wrote: Ignoring them is what empowers them, not confronting them. Ignoring them makes them emboldened to do it again.
I have been stalked for years. I have successfully ignored my stalker, and they have no power over me, because I ignore them. They are just merely a shadow now to me.
Saying that it doesn't work is illogical.
It does work, and now your trying to prove that it doesn't when you have no evidence to support otherwise. Ignoring them the problem does work. Doing nothing does work.
If your still being stalked.. then I don't think ignoring it has worked.
Surprisingly it has worked. I confronted them and it got worse, and when i started to ignore them they have stopped.
Different people call for different situations.
This wasn't the stereotypical shy person stalker this was an over obsessive person that I had to stop by ignoring their existence and acting erratic by saying "NOTICE ME!".
The just ignore them advice has never worked for me. I tend to just get the best results from confronting people.
Matters on the person. It works on the really bad people that stalk. Like the obsessive types.
Shy people. confrontation is the only way to go. But for people who aren't shy. It doesn't work.
The only way to stop stalking is to penalize the stalker so they are disincentivized from their stalking behavior. Same with harassers. When doing the action is its own incentive, ignoring it only encourages more of the same.
Not always.
People will still do it. even if they are disincentivized there is a high likely hood they will continue to do so.
Just because we have the death penalty for murderers does not make it so less people commit murder. It doesn't work all the time. There is no longer singular answer.
That's a really good point. For those of us lucky enough not to experience prejudice-motivated harassment online and elsewhere, it can be hard to imagine its frequency, intensity, and how terrible it makes the victim feel. Suggesting the victims should just ignore it is probably the most privileged response. "Privileged" here does not necessarily mean "mean" or "oppressive" -- it really means being ignorant about something because it fortunately doesn't apply to you.
It is true, but it is more or less used to put down people and their opinions on the matter.
You can look on tumblr for White Privilege and see soe really racist things put up by people, that are angry at cops and the so-called- white privilege. That I am privileged for being white is the idea spouted out by some people.
This one is different and true, but the one in the video does not make it true.
Asherian Command wrote: Just because we have the death penalty for murderers does not make it so less people commit murder.
In addition to general deterrence, punishment also and separately entails specific deterrence: that is to say, the perpetrator in question is prevented from committing the same offense.
Manchu wrote: "Privileged" here does not necessarily mean "mean" or "oppressive" -- it really means being ignorant about something because it fortunately doesn't apply to you.
It is true, but it is more or less used to put down people and their opinions on the matter.
The word "privilege" is thrown around a lot online. You have to be able to recognize when it is being used in a meaningful way and when it is just an insult. The first step is to acknowledge that it can be meaningful, which also means acknowledging that privilege does exist.
Manchu wrote: In addition to general deterrence, punishment also and separately entails specific deterrence: that is to say, the perpetrator in question is prevented from committing the same offense.
Sure, it's site-specific. We do not tolerate it here on Dakka. If I ban someone for stalking you here, it doesn't mean they can't do it on other sites. But that is no excuse for me or other moderators to let it happen here.
To use a video game example-- in Mass Effect 2, saving everyone is very difficult. However, it is also very rewarding and heartwarming to do, and rewards you in Mass Effect 3, as well. Just because it is difficult does not make it pointless.
Melissia wrote: The difficulty of stopping a horrible thing is no reason to let it continue.
I didn't say that :/
I am just saying the suggestion doesn't work on everything plastering it down as an end all be all won't solve it.
A combination of things is the answer. Not one thing.
Sure, it's site-specific. We do not tolerate it here on Dakka. If I ban someone for stalking you here, it doesn't mean they can't do it on other sites. But that is no excuse for me or other moderators to let it happen here.
No doubt, but that doesn't stop the, It just makes it harder. Ignoring them and not acknowledging them and getting away from them is the best solution to the issue.
AdeptSister wrote: Active oppression and passive oppression are still oppression, right? Why is it wrong to challenge it? Especially if leads to the same result.
Not challenging something is the easiest way to let it become the status quo.
I think it's part that you talk to the white supremacist differently then you the rich white kid in private school. It's that odd tone argument I think. People who aren't actively oppressing people want credit for not being actively oppressive and I can get that. I also get why form a practical point it doesn't matter though.
nomotog wrote: People who aren't actively oppressing people want credit for not being actively oppressive and I can get that. I also get why form a practical point it doesn't matter though.
Excellent point. A friend introduced me to this concept, which I think is really useful along those lines:
nomotog wrote: People who aren't actively oppressing people want credit for not being actively oppressive and I can get that. I also get why form a practical point it doesn't matter though.
Excellent point. A friend introduced me to this concept, which I think is really useful along those lines:
Taking stab at the video in question, thanks OP for the transcript:
I answered every question... wall of text... I am afraid looking back I label much of the list as BS.
Feel free to disagree, I have my experiences to draw-on and find that when participating in what is considered a "niche" competency, job or hobby some of the prejudices are equally felt.
Spoiler:
Many women have courageously spoken out about how they experience alienation and harassment in gaming.
Yes, can happen and should not be tolerated.
Despite this fact, too many male gamers dismiss the issue as “no big deal” and insist that there isn’t really a problem. One of the luxuries of being a member of a privileged group is that the benefits afforded to us often remain invisible to us. Working towards solutions requires that male gamers become aware of the ways in which we unconsciously benefit from sexism.
The benefit is not being the target group?
Out of sight, out of mind?
Since this is perpetuated by some elements of the male group not much can be said other than not to support the behavior (or participate).
We can’t work to fix something unless we first understand its effects. With that in mind the following is a checklist of some of the concrete benefits that male gamers automatically receive simply for being men.
When I have little choice in something I am born with it is nice to keep in mind but this makes me feel I should be feeling guilty...
1. I can choose to remain completely oblivious, or indifferent to the harassment that many women face in gaming spaces.
Works for women as well when guys are bullied and ridiculed, personal experience they just move-on and not get involved. I understand the point it just is applicable either way.
2. I am never told that video games or the surrounding culture is not intended for me because I am male.
As rightfully pointed out, there are less games that appear to specifically target the female audience. All I can say is my son really liked Dora the explorer. He was made fun of by both guys and girls for liking it ("not a guy show", but vastly better than her brother's show). He has a Dora blanket he hides. I am unsure if this is not again an equally applicable thing as the marketplace hopefully equals out.
3. I can publicly post my username, gamertag or contact information online without having to fear being stalked or sexually harassed because of my gender.
Despite trying to make all things equal, women in games online still seem to be a novelty.
Many guys still seem to think this environment they are comfortable with makes for a dating or fantasizing element in their life.
I will allow this one since I have seen this garbage happening time and again and have told a few pieces of work to "get a life" and leave the person alone.
This particular topic is most in need of correction.
4. I will never be asked to “prove my gaming cred” simply because of my gender.
Kinda a loaded question.
Again the interest is piqued of gender but "gaming cred" gets slammed around no-matter who you are, it tends to get proven in the next round of a game.
5. If I enthusiastically express my fondness for video games no one will automatically assume I’m faking my interest just to “get attention” from other gamers.
Huh? This is strange to me. Usually when someone "expresses fondness" for a game they may talk about specific events or features: it becomes obvious pretty quick if they have played it and like it.
6. I can look at practically any gaming website, show, or magazine and see the voices of people of my own gender widely represented.
This is anecdotal evidence but most game write-ups I recently checked-on were written by women. With all the diverse media I am sure either sex can easily find good and useful information presented by their gender. I list this under BS.
7. When I go to a gaming event or convention, I can be relatively certain that I won’t be harassed, groped, propositioned or catcalled by total strangers.
Seen it, let us say this one is accurate and needs to stop...
8. I will never be asked or expected to speak for all other gamers who share my gender.
I call BS on this as well, my wife and her friends have called on me to represent my gender for online behavior and it's motivations. Not a pretty position to be in.
9. I can be sure that my gaming performance (good or bad) won’t be attributed to or reflect on my gender as a whole.
But say in childcare? Kinda depends on the forum of choice these prejudices crop up... but to gaming yes, it does happen still.
10. My gaming ability will never be called into question based on unrelated natural biological functions.
Oh for petesake, takes someone pretty crass to bring that up... mind-you a saw one guy player mention "red rage" and got completely destroyed by a female player.
11. I can be relatively sure my thoughts about video games won’t be dismissed or attacked based solely on my tone of voice, even if I speak in an aggressive, obnoxious, crude or flippant manner.
Utter BS, guys in particular will get attacked with ANY tone to their voice, especially as outlined and I do not care what gender you are.
12. I can openly say that my favorite games are casual, odd, non-violent, artistic, or cute without fear that my opinions will reinforce a stereotype that “men are not real gamers.”
No it will not reinforce a "male" stereotype but it may create comments about sexual orientation which is targeting a different stereotype. Honestly, unless you speak in a "manly man" manner, you can quickly and easily be listed as homosexual as an easy stereotype. So not a fair comparision.
13. When purchasing most major video games in a store, chances are I will not be asked if (or assumed to be) buying it for a wife, daughter or girlfriend.
Usually the comment is determined by age, most common is "are you buying this for your kid(s)?". I find most EB games stores in my area mainly staffed by women.
14. The vast majority of game studios, past and present, have been led and populated primarily by people of my own gender and as such most of their products have been specifically designed to cater to my demographic.
I grew up enjoying games from Sierra and many women worked on Atari 2600 games back in the day but yes, the saturation of male staff of developers is greater. If programming and game development is important enough to women it would be nice to see them pursue the work.
15. I can walk into any gaming store and see images of my gender widely represented as powerful heroes, dastardly villains and non-playable characters alike.
Works either way. Many examples of heroes, villains and NPC's. Am I oblivious or are some of the best games out there with good representation of both sexes in either role? I call BS on this as well.
16. I will almost always have the option to play a character of my gender, as most protagonists or heroes will be male by default.
Most (good) games I have played recently give the option to play either gender (exceptions: Bioshock infinite, Dishonored, TombRaider).
17. I do not have to carefully navigate my engagement with online communities or gaming spaces in order to avoid or mitigate the possibility of being harassed because of my gender.
Anything to do with the parenting forums I was seeing all kinds of prejudice against males and their expertise in child rearing, I think it depends on the saturation of a gender in a given interest group.
18. I probably never think about hiding my real-life gender online through my gamer-name, my avatar choice, or by muting voice-chat, out of fear of harassment resulting from my being male.
I liked the icon/sprite/avatar of a female game character and went for the full persona.
I found being perceived as a female (and being reasonably polite) I was showered with all kinds of invites, I saw many benefits and the occasional clumsy "pass" at me that was easily deflected. I am sure in the more competitive first person shooter forums it would be greeted differently so this has merit.
19. When I enter an online game, I can be relatively sure I won’t be attacked or harassed when and if my real-life gender is made public
Variations of the same... sure fine, ok.
20. If I am trash-talked or verbally berated while playing online, it will not be because I am male nor will my gender be invoked as an insult.
No, I will be berated in some emasculated fashion bringing to question if I am indeed my gender or sexual orientation.
21. While playing online with people I don’t know I won’t be interrogated about the size and shape of my real-life body parts, nor will I be pressured to share intimate details about my sex life for the pleasure of other players.
No, they will comment on how small my body parts are and how ugly my sexual relations must be.
22. Complete strangers generally do not send me unsolicited images of their genitalia or demand to see me naked on the basis of being a male gamer.
Got me there, I just cannot find enough insane women to game with...
23. In multiplayer games I can be pretty sure that conversations between other players will not focus on speculation about my “attractiveness” or “sexual availability” in real-life.
But there will be speculation if I am grouped with "special needs" rode on the "short bus" or needed to pay for sexual relations, or how badly my output port is abused...
24. If I choose to point out sexism in gaming, my observations will not be seen as self-serving, and will therefore be perceived as more credible and worthy of respect than those of my female counterparts, even if they are saying the exact same thing.
If I choose to point out something it would be perceived as "complaining" and statements like "man-up" and quit my "whining". If I was to start a kickstarter on a video series of the tropes of men portrayed in games it would be greeted with ridicule far worse than it's counterpart.
25. Because it was created by a straight white man, this checklist will likely be taken more seriously than if it had been written by virtually any female gamer.
Then it could be stated it lacked the proper perspective or experience so this I call BS.
These benefits should not be reserved for men.
This list is not meant to suggest that male gamers are always treated well. Sometimes we are bullied or subjected to online nastiness, but it is not based on or because of our gender.
In order to make change first we need to acknowledge the problem, and then we must take responsibility for it as a community, so we can actively work together, with people of all genders, to dismantle the parts of gaming culture that perpetuate these imbalances.
Agreeable.
All people, of all genders, must be treated with respect and dignity.
Women, including trans women, commonly report experiencing gender-related microaggressions.[citation needed] Microaggressions commonly endured by women include catcalls or wolf-whistling; the male gaze in an inappropriate context; being touched without permission; condescension; being ignored or frequently interrupted; and having their ideas at work attributed to others.[7] Some examples of sexist microagressions are "[addressing someone by using] a sexist name, a man refusing to wash dishes because it is 'woman's work,' displaying nude pin-ups of women at places of employment, someone making unwanted sexual advances toward another person
Uhm, what? This is not microaggression. Its sexual harrassment and or bullying. I dont know about other countries but its covered quite clearly and openly under Irish law. I've done HR/employment law for 10 years.
You commit any of those above acts in a company that follows Irish legislation and has a bullying/harrassment policy and you're up on at least a disciplinary warning and at most a tribunial. And no Im not talking about the local knackers yard where the foreman dosent give a beep.
Wiki, once again proving to have gaping holes in its information
You know I was so happy when I saw that for multiple hours on in this had not been responded to. Let the storm begin and may those of us somewhat sane roast popcorn and feast to the storm we are about to watch!
Talizvar wrote: Taking stab at the video in question, thanks OP for the transcript: I answered every question... wall of text... I am afraid looking back I label much of the list as BS. Feel free to disagree, I have my experiences to draw-on and find that when participating in what is considered a "niche" competency, job or hobby some of the prejudices are equally felt.
Spoiler:
Many women have courageously spoken out about how they experience alienation and harassment in gaming.
Yes, can happen and should not be tolerated.
Despite this fact, too many male gamers dismiss the issue as “no big deal” and insist that there isn’t really a problem. One of the luxuries of being a member of a privileged group is that the benefits afforded to us often remain invisible to us. Working towards solutions requires that male gamers become aware of the ways in which we unconsciously benefit from sexism.
The benefit is not being the target group? Out of sight, out of mind? Since this is perpetuated by some elements of the male group not much can be said other than not to support the behavior (or participate).
We can’t work to fix something unless we first understand its effects. With that in mind the following is a checklist of some of the concrete benefits that male gamers automatically receive simply for being men.
When I have little choice in something I am born with it is nice to keep in mind but this makes me feel I should be feeling guilty...
1. I can choose to remain completely oblivious, or indifferent to the harassment that many women face in gaming spaces.
Works for women as well when guys are bullied and ridiculed, personal experience they just move-on and not get involved. I understand the point it just is applicable either way.
2. I am never told that video games or the surrounding culture is not intended for me because I am male.
As rightfully pointed out, there are less games that appear to specifically target the female audience. All I can say is my son really liked Dora the explorer. He was made fun of by both guys and girls for liking it ("not a guy show", but vastly better than her brother's show). He has a Dora blanket he hides. I am unsure if this is not again an equally applicable thing as the marketplace hopefully equals out.
3. I can publicly post my username, gamertag or contact information online without having to fear being stalked or sexually harassed because of my gender.
Despite trying to make all things equal, women in games online still seem to be a novelty. Many guys still seem to think this environment they are comfortable with makes for a dating or fantasizing element in their life. I will allow this one since I have seen this garbage happening time and again and have told a few pieces of work to "get a life" and leave the person alone. This particular topic is most in need of correction.
4. I will never be asked to “prove my gaming cred” simply because of my gender.
Kinda a loaded question. Again the interest is piqued of gender but "gaming cred" gets slammed around no-matter who you are, it tends to get proven in the next round of a game.
5. If I enthusiastically express my fondness for video games no one will automatically assume I’m faking my interest just to “get attention” from other gamers.
Huh? This is strange to me. Usually when someone "expresses fondness" for a game they may talk about specific events or features: it becomes obvious pretty quick if they have played it and like it.
6. I can look at practically any gaming website, show, or magazine and see the voices of people of my own gender widely represented.
This is anecdotal evidence but most game write-ups I recently checked-on were written by women. With all the diverse media I am sure either sex can easily find good and useful information presented by their gender. I list this under BS.
7. When I go to a gaming event or convention, I can be relatively certain that I won’t be harassed, groped, propositioned or catcalled by total strangers.
Seen it, let us say this one is accurate and needs to stop...
8. I will never be asked or expected to speak for all other gamers who share my gender.
I call BS on this as well, my wife and her friends have called on me to represent my gender for online behavior and it's motivations. Not a pretty position to be in.
9. I can be sure that my gaming performance (good or bad) won’t be attributed to or reflect on my gender as a whole.
But say in childcare? Kinda depends on the forum of choice these prejudices crop up... but to gaming yes, it does happen still.
10. My gaming ability will never be called into question based on unrelated natural biological functions.
Oh for petesake, takes someone pretty crass to bring that up... mind-you a saw one guy player mention "red rage" and got completely destroyed by a female player.
11. I can be relatively sure my thoughts about video games won’t be dismissed or attacked based solely on my tone of voice, even if I speak in an aggressive, obnoxious, crude or flippant manner.
Utter BS, guys in particular will get attacked with ANY tone to their voice, especially as outlined and I do not care what gender you are.
12. I can openly say that my favorite games are casual, odd, non-violent, artistic, or cute without fear that my opinions will reinforce a stereotype that “men are not real gamers.”
No it will not reinforce a "male" stereotype but it may create comments about sexual orientation which is targeting a different stereotype. Honestly, unless you speak in a "manly man" manner, you can quickly and easily be listed as homosexual as an easy stereotype. So not a fair comparision.
13. When purchasing most major video games in a store, chances are I will not be asked if (or assumed to be) buying it for a wife, daughter or girlfriend.
Usually the comment is determined by age, most common is "are you buying this for your kid(s)?". I find most EB games stores in my area mainly staffed by women.
14. The vast majority of game studios, past and present, have been led and populated primarily by people of my own gender and as such most of their products have been specifically designed to cater to my demographic.
I grew up enjoying games from Sierra and many women worked on Atari 2600 games back in the day but yes, the saturation of male staff of developers is greater. If programming and game development is important enough to women it would be nice to see them pursue the work.
15. I can walk into any gaming store and see images of my gender widely represented as powerful heroes, dastardly villains and non-playable characters alike.
Works either way. Many examples of heroes, villains and NPC's. Am I oblivious or are some of the best games out there with good representation of both sexes in either role? I call BS on this as well.
16. I will almost always have the option to play a character of my gender, as most protagonists or heroes will be male by default.
Most (good) games I have played recently give the option to play either gender (exceptions: Bioshock infinite, Dishonored, TombRaider).
17. I do not have to carefully navigate my engagement with online communities or gaming spaces in order to avoid or mitigate the possibility of being harassed because of my gender.
Anything to do with the parenting forums I was seeing all kinds of prejudice against males and their expertise in child rearing, I think it depends on the saturation of a gender in a given interest group.
18. I probably never think about hiding my real-life gender online through my gamer-name, my avatar choice, or by muting voice-chat, out of fear of harassment resulting from my being male.
I liked the icon/sprite/avatar of a female game character and went for the full persona. I found being perceived as a female (and being reasonably polite) I was showered with all kinds of invites, I saw many benefits and the occasional clumsy "pass" at me that was easily deflected. I am sure in the more competitive first person shooter forums it would be greeted differently so this has merit.
19. When I enter an online game, I can be relatively sure I won’t be attacked or harassed when and if my real-life gender is made public
Variations of the same... sure fine, ok.
20. If I am trash-talked or verbally berated while playing online, it will not be because I am male nor will my gender be invoked as an insult.
No, I will be berated in some emasculated fashion bringing to question if I am indeed my gender or sexual orientation.
21. While playing online with people I don’t know I won’t be interrogated about the size and shape of my real-life body parts, nor will I be pressured to share intimate details about my sex life for the pleasure of other players.
No, they will comment on how small my body parts are and how ugly my sexual relations must be.
22. Complete strangers generally do not send me unsolicited images of their genitalia or demand to see me naked on the basis of being a male gamer.
Got me there, I just cannot find enough insane women to game with...
23. In multiplayer games I can be pretty sure that conversations between other players will not focus on speculation about my “attractiveness” or “sexual availability” in real-life.
But there will be speculation if I am grouped with "special needs" rode on the "short bus" or needed to pay for sexual relations, or how badly my output port is abused...
24. If I choose to point out sexism in gaming, my observations will not be seen as self-serving, and will therefore be perceived as more credible and worthy of respect than those of my female counterparts, even if they are saying the exact same thing.
If I choose to point out something it would be perceived as "complaining" and statements like "man-up" and quit my "whining". If I was to start a kickstarter on a video series of the tropes of men portrayed in games it would be greeted with ridicule far worse than it's counterpart.
25. Because it was created by a straight white man, this checklist will likely be taken more seriously than if it had been written by virtually any female gamer.
Then it could be stated it lacked the proper perspective or experience so this I call BS.
These benefits should not be reserved for men. This list is not meant to suggest that male gamers are always treated well. Sometimes we are bullied or subjected to online nastiness, but it is not based on or because of our gender. In order to make change first we need to acknowledge the problem, and then we must take responsibility for it as a community, so we can actively work together, with people of all genders, to dismantle the parts of gaming culture that perpetuate these imbalances.
Agreeable.
All people, of all genders, must be treated with respect and dignity.
This is the whole thing in a nutshell.
4 and 5 I think that goes back to the fake geek girl thing. You know when we had some people saying some women were faking being geeks or that they were geek enough. It was horribly stupid, but it did happen.
9 and 17 In child care yes, in gameing no. We mostly talk about games in this forum, but ya men get no respect when it comes to domestic work and that bonks. (I ended up baseing one of my midterms around this. I got a B+ on it.)
You mention being called out for not being manly enough. I agree that is bonk too. People need to stop doing that. People need to cut that out.
Women, including trans women, commonly report experiencing gender-related microaggressions.[citation needed] Microaggressions commonly endured by women include catcalls or wolf-whistling; the male gaze in an inappropriate context; being touched without permission; condescension; being ignored or frequently interrupted; and having their ideas at work attributed to others.[7] Some examples of sexist microagressions are "[addressing someone by using] a sexist name, a man refusing to wash dishes because it is 'woman's work,' displaying nude pin-ups of women at places of employment, someone making unwanted sexual advances toward another person
Uhm, what? This is not microaggression. Its sexual harrassment and or bullying. I dont know about other countries but its covered quite clearly and openly under Irish law. I've done HR/employment law for 10 years. You commit any of those above acts in a company that follows Irish legislation and has a bullying/harrassment policy and you're up on at least a disciplinary warning and at most a tribunial. And no Im not talking about the local knackers yard where the foreman dosent give a beep. Wiki, once again proving to have gaping holes in its information
Ya that sounds like rather active oppression. Lets not do that stuff people.
As always I am firmly on the fence with this sort of thing. I never make as big a deal of things in life as people seem to, so it may just be part of my personality, but about half of them seem such a tiny deal that I think it starts to border on the crazy militancy side of things. You know, like say 13 for example "chances are I wont be asked if the game is for another person" is that really a big deal? I remember buying Burning Crusade back in the day and some fething.. super annoying hipster goth type guy went "Oh hang on.. I bet I can guess.. I can tell by the way you look, I bet you are like... an alliance paladin or something"
Thats similarly rude, but its a non issue surely? Some random guy speculates about you and you just go "yeah cheers mate" and walk off, is this type of thing really worth making videos about?
Obviously many of the points are good ones, specifically all of the actual harassment stuff, I took my wife to Blizzcon a few years ago and she got a few pervy comments and I find that gak embarrassing and intolerable, but some points aren't, and some apply to both sexes too.
For example I think if you put your actual contact details online you are a lunatic, regardless of your gender. I don't think men are immune to getting harassed off weirdos on the internet, obviously, because I wouldn't dream of putting my phone number under my dakka signature.
I've had it out with Mel plenty of times so i don't feel the need to bang on about it, I certainly support the core tenets of feminism, I just feel that some of this stuff is a little too facile so it actually harms the movement.
I would have cut the list down to the big ten, so people like me and tens of millions of women don't see them and go "Crazy feminists, they complain about the most stupid gak!"
LuciusAR wrote:Oh goodie, a video where a woman who has a huge platform and the ear of large media outlets lectures everyday joes on how ‘privileged’ they are.
Asherian Command wrote:A bunch of white guys telling me how Privileged I am, because I am a white male. Yes I completely privileged tell that to my friends living in Israel who are white males who are currently being bombed and killed.
Frankenberry wrote:So I'm supposed to apologize for being born a while male who plays video games. feth that.
Sigvatr wrote:Sigh, stopped watching at 2 min. It's a "My privilege penis is longer than yours!" video that's...supposed to make you feel bad for being "privileged".
I haven't seen so much aggressive apathy in quite some time.
No. Nobody wants you to apologise. Nobody wants you to feel bad for being born a white male. And if you think that people getting killed in Israel has anything to do with the discussion, you might as well link in what you had for breakfast today for all the comprehension you're actually showing. It would be about as relevant.
White male 'privilege' in this particular context/scenario, is not about having something that others do not. So all the comments about, 'being a white male never helped me get ahead in life', or 'Being a white male doesn't stop you starving on the streets!' are showing a fundamental disconnect and absolute failure to grasp what is actually being discussed.
The white male 'privilege' is actually about not having something that someone else does. In other words, not being lucky [/sarcasm] enough to have the same sexual harassment, denigration, and assumptions made about you as some others do.
Nobody is asking you to apologise. Nobody is telling you that you have something you don't. Nobody is demanding you be ashamed for being a male. All they are trying to do is make you aware of how some other people how to suffer in ways that you do not. Because as the first point says, you do have the luxury to 'remain completely oblivious, or indifferent to the harassment that many women face in gaming spaces'.
If somebody can seize upon that and turn it into a personal attack upon them, then they clearly have a persecution complex that clearly outstrips their reading comprehensive capacities and basic empathy for their fellow human beings. Which is sad, and more than a little pathetic.
Well. If you are being harassed don't acknowledge it. I have been harassed and bullied for my entire life, because I am different, because I spoke differently, and I was shy and rarely spoke to people in grade school. From my experience the best way to stop a bully apart from telling on them or jabbing them in the throat (which causes more harm than good). Is to ignore them, remove them from power, make them inadequate. Be intelligent.
Bullying and sexual or sexist harassment are very different things. One is purely sadistic. You are correct in that people do it to get a rise out of you. And you are correct in that ignoring it very often defuses it.
Sexual/sexist harassment is different because the motivations are different. The goal is sexual harassment is not solely the reaction of the target, but also the gratification of the performer. Ignoring it does not take away that gratification, and so the harassment often continues. Likewise, the goal of sexist harassment (much like racial harassment), is the active denigration of another so as to lower their status in the eyes of both the target and other observers. That's why racists, sexists, and many other 'ists' are so very, very loud about what they have to say.
I think the biggest catch and the one that's going to ruin the points the most is those flawed moments of information. It's a classic for FeministFrequency. The concept itself isn't new. Overall, the "core" gaming demographic is targeted at the young adult/teen male (I'm going to be lazy and call "core" gaming video games and not include games on social media that is actually heavily more oriented and marketed towards females although more equally, I've certainly seen a decent chunk marketed to the "male" interests). Overall there are some decent ideas there, some things that do most certainly have merit to them but the big catch is that the observation has a lot of flaws. There's this catch that there always seems to be some hole in the argument that can get poked. For example, the Hitman moving dead bodies and Fallout dead bodies. The things add up and people poke holes at it. Also doesn't help that twitter is a terrible invention and ruins my opinions of basically anybody that frequently uses it especially when they are feeling emotional. Exception to this rule is the Bayonetta review, that was horrid.
Has some good merit, could have been sliced down to the key ones. Overall my biggest problem is I didn't learn anything new from it.
Obviously I agree with the majority of your post Ketara, but its words like "suffering" that I feel we use too cheaply.
I mean, actual harassment is suffering, if some arsehole shouts at you in the street or says something obscene its fething shocking, but if my wife goes to the game store to get me a game and the bloke says "So is this for your boyfriend or something?" are we actually classing that as "suffering" as well?
Being too aggressive with absolutely anything normally has a negative affect, whether its religion, feminism, drinking pints or loving candy. I think they should concentrate on the big issues like actual sexism and harassment more (number 22 is a perfect example!) and leave things like "people think I might be faking my interest" off.
I would argue (leaving legal definitions aside) that bullying is the exact same. Bullying is not purely sadism as you state.
You are correct. I would argue that sadism is the most prevalent and primary motivating force in bullying however, and very often the only one. Not always, but for the purposes of a discussion on sexism, a quick separation of the most common primary motivations for these behaviours is sufficient.
Sadism is often a feature of sexual/sexist harassment too, but sexual gratification is usually the primary motivation for the former, and that is why solutions for bullying are not usually the same as solutions for sexual harassment. Sexist harassment is a bit more convoluted and brings things such as belief systems and gender conditioning into play, which again, do not usually function as primary motivators for bog standard bullying.
Perhaps it becomes suffering if you have to endure the same kind of crap constantly, day in, day out. The straw that breaks the camel's back kind of thing.
mattyrm wrote: Obviously I agree with the majority of your post Ketara, but its words like "suffering" that I feel we use too cheaply.
I mean, actual harassment is suffering, if some arsehole shouts at you in the street or says something obscene its fething shocking, but if my wife goes to the game store to get me a game and the bloke says "So is this for your boyfriend or something?" are we actually classing that as "suffering" as well?
It comes down to a difference in perspective, I think.
For example, I was groped once by a thoroughly unattractive lady at a party. It didn't freak me out, and it didn't scar me psychologically in any way. Conversely, a female friend of mine was groped by an old man on public transport two weeks ago, and has suffered severe anxieties about taking the bus since.
What's the difference? Why does it bother her, but not me? The answer is perspective.
I, as a fairly broad man, am confident in myself. Not only am I reasonably certain that it most likely won't happen again to any substantial degree (leastways, not if the missus has anything to say about it), but I am secure that I could physically beat off any female assailant who appeared with the urge to shove her hands down my pants.
Your average woman does not have that security. The experience of having it done to you merely rams home extremely forcefully, the fact that you are at the absolute physical mercy of the majority of the male half of the population. It installs a level of fear and anxiety that I quite simply will never suffer. So when your average builder makes a wolfwhistle and crotch jerks in your direction on the street, you are suddenly struck again with the realisation that if one of these men gets it into their heads to do something to you, you cannot stop them. And what's more, the men who can do these things to you are everywhere.
Your average bloke will think to himself, 'Huh. Frigid cow. I'd be happy if women told me I was attractive every day!' But they fail to take into account that power dynamic. Their empathy only stretches as far as inserting themselves, with their own mentalities, assurances, and thought processes, into the woman's metaphorical shoes and situation.
The result is a failure to actually understand what it is the woman feels in that position. In a similar fashion, your average bloke simply does not comprehend what it is like to have implicitly sexist put downs hurled in our direction every ten minutes, because we don't tend to suffer from them ourselves.
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps it becomes suffering if you have to endure the same kind of crap constantly, day in, day out. The straw that breaks the camel's back kind of thing.
Online harassment is actual sexism.
True enough that I suppose, which is why I did take the time to mention that it may well be my personality to shrug things off that other people may find very offensive.
My wife said I am visibly brainwashed thanks to the grueling mental conditioning I received as a youngster because I rarely find anything genuinely upsetting. I never thought of it that way until she pointed it out though, so I am not quick to judge people that do have a low bar, I just stand by my opinion that being confrontational about small issues may do more harm than good.
I mean, that must be true because look at all of the women that sign up for these campaigns against feminism? I'm sure things like that whole "I don't need feminism" thing would never have existed, and the movement would have complete and total support from almost everyone if they focused on the big things, like sending people dick shots, and ignored the little things, like a bloke saying "good morning" during the walk to work.
After plenty of conversations with many of the active feminists on here I am now well aware of why they do concentrate on those things that I perceive to be small, I get it and I agree with most of what Mel says for example, but what I'm saying is that many people do not put the effort and reading time into things that the enlightened posters on dakka do, and I think if you really want a movement to succeed you need to aim your efforts at the layman, and when it comes to feminism, how many people have a negative outlook of it?
Plenty, and they really shouldn't, but focusing on the trivial so often has made people cynical, even women. I'm not arguing against any of the principals of feminism, I agree with it wholeheartedly, I'm simply saying that I feel a really aggressive Dawkins style approach to the topic may indeed be a negative for the movement in general. Things like say "Shirtgate" for example definitely seem to have a negative effect because how many women made YouTube videos decrying all of the women that complained about the guys shirt?
mattyrm wrote: Obviously I agree with the majority of your post Ketara, but its words like "suffering" that I feel we use too cheaply.
I mean, actual harassment is suffering, if some arsehole shouts at you in the street or says something obscene its fething shocking, but if my wife goes to the game store to get me a game and the bloke says "So is this for your boyfriend or something?" are we actually classing that as "suffering" as well?
It comes down to a difference in perspective, I think.
For example, I was groped once by a thoroughly unattractive lady at a party. It didn't freak me out, and it didn't scar me psychologically in any way. Conversely, a female friend of mine was groped by an old man on public transport two weeks ago, and has suffered severe anxieties about taking the bus since.
What's the difference? Why does it bother her, but not me? The answer is perspective.
I, as a fairly broad man, am confident in myself. Not only am I reasonably certain that it most likely won't happen again to any substantial degree (leastways, not if the missus has anything to say about it), but I am secure that I could physically beat off any female assailant who appeared with the urge to shove her hands down my pants.
Your average woman does not have that security. The experience of having it done to you merely rams home extremely forcefully, the fact that you are at the absolute physical mercy of the majority of the male half of the population. It installs a level of fear and anxiety that I quite simply will never suffer. So when your average builder makes a wolfwhistle and crotch jerks in your direction on the street, you are suddenly struck again with the realisation that if one of these men gets it into their heads to do something to you, you cannot stop them. And what's more, the men who can do these things to you are everywhere.
Your average bloke will think to himself, 'Huh. Frigid cow. I'd be happy if women told me I was attractive every day!' But they fail to take into account that power dynamic. Their empathy only stretches as far as inserting themselves, with their own mentalities, assurances, and thought processes, into the woman's metaphorical shoes and situation.
The result is a failure to actually understand what it is the woman feels in that position.
I concur, see above. A gay bloke once savagely grabbed both of my plums in a bar and after I managed to dislodge his hand I just wandered over to my missus, told her what happened, and we both found it most amusing, I'm sure the same wouldn't be true if a bloke jammed his hand up my missus skirt.
I concur, see above. A gay bloke once savagely grabbed both of my plums in a bar and after I managed to dislodge his hand I just wandered over to my missus, told her what happened, and we both found it most amusing, I'm sure the same wouldn't be true if a bloke jammed his hand up my missus skirt.
In my case, it has turned into an amusing anecdote I actually wheel out at parties.
Life is a rich tapestry of experiences for everyone, but often people don't bother to stop and think about why they think what they think, and what makes them behave the way they do. If all men could self-evaluate in the way that you have done, perhaps things would change for the better.
Unfortunately, many blokes prefer to just complain about people wanting them to apologise for being white men, and so totally and utterly miss the point.
mattyrm wrote: Obviously I agree with the majority of your post Ketara, but its words like "suffering" that I feel we use too cheaply.
I mean, actual harassment is suffering, if some arsehole shouts at you in the street or says something obscene its fething shocking, but if my wife goes to the game store to get me a game and the bloke says "So is this for your boyfriend or something?" are we actually classing that as "suffering" as well?
Being too aggressive with absolutely anything normally has a negative affect, whether its religion, feminism, drinking pints or loving candy. I think they should concentrate on the big issues like actual sexism and harassment more (number 22 is a perfect example!) and leave things like "people think I might be faking my interest" off.
The Wikipedia article (micro aggressions) that was linked captured that their are different levels.
I concur, see above. A gay bloke once savagely grabbed both of my plums in a bar and after I managed to dislodge his hand I just wandered over to my missus, told her what happened, and we both found it most amusing, I'm sure the same wouldn't be true if a bloke jammed his hand up my missus skirt.
In my case, it has turned into an amusing anecdote I actually wheel out at parties.
Life is a rich tapestry of experiences for everyone, but often people don't bother to stop and think about why they think what they think, and what makes them behave the way they do. If all men could self-evaluate in the way that you have done, perhaps things would change for the better.
Unfortunately, many blokes prefer to just complain about people wanting them to apologise for being white men, and so totally and utterly miss the point.
Yes of course, and that's what why I am talking about perception, not being critical of feminism. I think the fact that you have to do so much reading to fully understand the roots of the movement have made it be perceived critically by a great many people. I doubt that many of the posters on dakka that are instantly skeptical about these things (the guys posting in here without even watching it for example) are actually truly against equality for women, I just think there have been so many mountains made of the small issues, that many people are instantly skeptical and go "Oh here come the feminists again"
This needs to change in my eyes, because it harms the principals of a movement that I, and I am sure the vast majority of men and women fully agree with. At least in the west anyway!
If they cut that list down to the 10 most striking examples say, more people might watch it and go "yes! we must fight for this cause!" rather than "Oh feth me they complain about everything this lot!" you know what I mean? I had a chat with Mel about it, I think its like being a flag-waving atheist or a bible-thumping Christian, being really aggressive with your campaign can actually do a lot more harm than good.
Also one of the reasons people complain about the "small" stuff because it can get super annoying after awhile. Of course the big things matter, but being told "ignore" or "get over it" starts to wear you down.
Besides, people can't even agree on the "big" things and what they are.
Edit: See the whole issue about language and how certain terminology can create an unwelcoming environment.
Also one of the reasons people complain about the "small" stuff because it can get super annoying after awhile. Of course the big things matter, but being told "ignore" or "get over it" starts to wear you down.
Besides, people can't even agree on the "big" things and what they are.
Edit: See the whole issue about language and how certain terminology can create an unwelcoming environment.
Oh yeah I conceded that point back a page, I can well imagine things that I perceive to be small are actually really fething annoying, I'm just saying that a mob is only as smart as its dumbest member, and I think the equality argument could be better made by simply sticking with the visibly fething awful. However, I obviously don't disagree that many of the things that we men perceive to be small are actually rather large.
Also one of the reasons people complain about the "small" stuff because it can get super annoying after awhile. Of course the big things matter, but being told "ignore" or "get over it" starts to wear you down.
Besides, people can't even agree on the "big" things and what they are.
Edit: See the whole issue about language and how certain terminology can create an unwelcoming environment.
Oh yeah I conceded that point back a page, I can well imagine things that I perceive to be small are actually really fething annoying, I'm just saying that a mob is only as smart as its dumbest member, and I think the equality argument could be better made by simply sticking with the visibly fething awful. However, I obviously don't disagree that many of the things that we men perceive to be small are actually rather large.
Talking about only the really bad stuff might give the impression that your doing fine as long as your not visibly fething awful. I think part of the point of bring up the small stuff is that people might never think about the small stuff and it if's a bad thing to do. It's not really to shame and make people feel bad, but to get people to maybe change up some of the small annoying bits.
Melissia wrote: So who gets to define "visibly fething awful" to you, Matty?
Do only straight white men who hate feminists get to define it?
I dunno, I'm just saying you know.. if you want a movement to succeed you have to appeal to the masses, and so many people are needlessly critical of feminism because they don't fully understand it, so I think its something worth thinking about. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit, I just don't think that most people that slag off "feminism" REALLY hate women do they? You and I have talked about this plenty of times, Iike loads of women dismiss feminism, and they don't dislike feminism, Its just got bad press and we should attempt to address that.
Don;t ask me though, its all above my pay-grade and you are the one better versed on the whole thing.
Don't you think its a valid point? The mob is fickle, this skepticism needs to be addressed because it harms a movement that we should all wish to see succeed. Like if we see a story about a girl getting sent a cock-shot we all rail against it, but if we see something more trivial then people instantly complain about feminists and make out like they are all trite and churlish. Its all well and good telling people to do their research, but they don't!
This is where the concept of micro-aggression is helpful. Prejudice is not only about overt, intentional actions, like burning a cross in somebody's front yard. It's more about unconsciously and uncritically held assumptions.
mattyrm wrote: I think that's life in a nutshell isn't it?
That's certainly the dominant perspective, which precisely explains why people invest so much time and emotional intensity into these matters -- they know that even if we're only talking about video games on the surface, everything is implicated.
mattyrm wrote: I dunno, I'm just saying you know.. if you want a movement to succeed you have to appeal to the masses
In order to appeal to the masses you must educate them. That's what videos like this are about.
mattyrm wrote: and so many people are needlessly critical of feminism because they don't fully understand it
Or because they are politically or philosophically opposed to women being equal in society to men, but don't want to admit it. Or because they buy in to the status quo, without thinking about it, as the status quo is comforting to them.
mattyrm wrote: I just don't think that most people that slag off "feminism" REALLY hate women do they?
Hate? No. But they have biases against women.
mattyrm wrote: ou and I have talked about this plenty of times, Iike loads of women dismiss feminism, and they don't dislike feminism,
So? We have scientific studies that have shown that women are just as biased as men-- biased, I should note, against other women. Given two identical resumes, one with a male name and the other female, most people will default to thinking the male resume is more qualified, and it's only if they really think about it that they'll realize that they're really the exact same. Same for interviews, as well. And there's no statistically significant difference between the percent of bias shown by male managers vs female managers against prospective female employees.
This sort of thing bleeds over both from and in to the overall culture, both caused by and causing itself, and only continually challenging it and forcing people to really think clearly about their biases will get it to slow down, never mind stop.
mattyrm wrote: Obviously I agree with the majority of your post Ketara, but its words like "suffering" that I feel we use too cheaply.
I mean, actual harassment is suffering, if some arsehole shouts at you in the street or says something obscene its fething shocking, but if my wife goes to the game store to get me a game and the bloke says "So is this for your boyfriend or something?" are we actually classing that as "suffering" as well?
It comes down to a difference in perspective, I think.
Spoiler:
For example, I was groped once by a thoroughly unattractive lady at a party. It didn't freak me out, and it didn't scar me psychologically in any way. Conversely, a female friend of mine was groped by an old man on public transport two weeks ago, and has suffered severe anxieties about taking the bus since.
What's the difference? Why does it bother her, but not me? The answer is perspective.
I, as a fairly broad man, am confident in myself. Not only am I reasonably certain that it most likely won't happen again to any substantial degree (leastways, not if the missus has anything to say about it), but I am secure that I could physically beat off any female assailant who appeared with the urge to shove her hands down my pants.
Your average woman does not have that security. The experience of having it done to you merely rams home extremely forcefully, the fact that you are at the absolute physical mercy of the majority of the male half of the population. It installs a level of fear and anxiety that I quite simply will never suffer. So when your average builder makes a wolfwhistle and crotch jerks in your direction on the street, you are suddenly struck again with the realisation that if one of these men gets it into their heads to do something to you, you cannot stop them. And what's more, the men who can do these things to you are everywhere.
Your average bloke will think to himself, 'Huh. Frigid cow. I'd be happy if women told me I was attractive every day!' But they fail to take into account that power dynamic. Their empathy only stretches as far as inserting themselves, with their own mentalities, assurances, and thought processes, into the woman's metaphorical shoes and situation.
The result is a failure to actually understand what it is the woman feels in that position. In a similar fashion, your average bloke simply does not comprehend what it is like to have implicitly sexist put downs hurled in our direction every ten minutes, because we don't tend to suffer from them ourselves.
Well thought out and carefully written, I agree.
There is so much effort to carefully say that women can equal or exceed many men in many things (which I believe).
But it does appear to be a rare thing where I can look at a woman and think "she could beat the out of me.". (It is rather exciting to come across though!).
Rude and forward communication could easily be perceived as potential rude and forward action.
The more public misbehavior goes unpunished, the more it may happen and stress/worry increases to those receiving unwanted attention.
I must say I was a little upset when my "goods" were grabbed by a man in a nun outfit, I had a wine glass in each hand (delivering to my wife) and I had to "suggest" the glasses could become contacts if I was not released. Fun times for anyone...
mattyrm wrote: I dunno, I'm just saying you know.. if you want a movement to succeed you have to appeal to the masses
In order to appeal to the masses you must educate them. That's what videos like this are about.
mattyrm wrote: and so many people are needlessly critical of feminism because they don't fully understand it
Or because they are politically or philosophically opposed to women being equal in society to men, but don't want to admit it. Or because they buy in to the status quo, without thinking about it, as the status quo is comforting to them.
mattyrm wrote: I just don't think that most people that slag off "feminism" REALLY hate women do they?
Hate? No. But they have biases against women.
mattyrm wrote: ou and I have talked about this plenty of times, Iike loads of women dismiss feminism, and they don't dislike feminism,
So? We have scientific studies that have shown that women are just as biased as men-- biased, I should note, against other women. Given two identical resumes, one with a male name and the other female, most people will default to thinking the male resume is more qualified, and it's only if they really think about it that they'll realize that they're really the exact same. Same for interviews, as well. And there's no statistically significant difference between the percent of bias shown by male managers vs female managers against prospective female employees.
This sort of thing bleeds over both from and in to the overall culture, both caused by and causing itself, and only continually challenging it and forcing people to really think clearly about their biases will get it to slow down, never mind stop.
So do you entirely disagree with me then Mel? You don't think feminism has an image problem and the movement should just continue as it is?
You know more about the subject than me, I'm not attempting to claim otherwise, I just think that so many people of both sexes, seem to be critical of a movement that they really shouldn't be, and in my book I think that's something needs to change.
I don't know enough about it to formulate a strategy, I'm just saying that from my own interactions with people I think you definitely get along better with a carrot than a stick.
Saying "feth em they are ignorant" and cracking on as normal seems counterproductive to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: Or, to quote Margaret Atwood: "'Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them."
This is still generally true.
Hey firearms are the great equalizer, and this is America. I'm just as scared of women as I am of men.
The last couple of pages have been really heartening. I've been staying away from this topic on dakka because of the vitriol from the anti-feminist side, but I am really happy to see the discussion here.
The points about CVs and interviews are really horrible if you think about it. I dunno. I see this a lot in my work, and it depresses the crap out of me. I think guys struggle against this because it feels like an attack to them, but it really isn't.
In my school we have Prefects, and they are supposed to be model students. Now, most of the model students in this year's bunch are girls. But the management (who are, of course, all male, in a female dominated profession) felt it would be unfair to have the prefects be mostly female, so they included a couple of lazy boys in the mix. These boys have been doing a pretty awful job. It is quite amusing to see that decision made by a group of men in management, not once reflecting (apparently) on the irony that they did not apply the same standard of "fairness" to situations like their own where women were disadvantaged.
Life is full of this crap. My girlfriend found out recently she was being paid 15% less than men in her workplace doing exactly the same job. It was rectified, which is good, but why would that even happen in the first place? I gotta say I was floored by that one.
Many women have courageously spoken out about how they experience alienation and harassment in gaming. Despite this fact, too many male gamers dismiss the issue as “no big deal” and insist that there isn’t really a problem. One of the luxuries of being a member of a privileged group is that the benefits afforded to us often remain invisible to us. Working towards solutions requires that male gamers become aware of the ways in which we unconsciously benefit from sexism. We can’t work to fix something unless we first understand its effects. With that in mind the following is a checklist of some of the concrete benefits that male gamers automatically receive simply for being men.
1. I can choose to remain completely oblivious, or indifferent to the harassment that many women face in gaming spaces. 2. I am never told that video games or the surrounding culture is not intended for me because I am male. 3. I can publicly post my username, gamertag or contact information online without having to fear being stalked or sexually harassed because of my gender. 4. I will never be asked to “prove my gaming cred” simply because of my gender. 5. If I enthusiastically express my fondness for video games no one will automatically assume I’m faking my interest just to “get attention” from other gamers. 6. I can look at practically any gaming website, show, or magazine and see the voices of people of my own gender widely represented. 7. When I go to a gaming event or convention, I can be relatively certain that I won’t be harassed, groped, propositioned or catcalled by total strangers. 8. I will never be asked or expected to speak for all other gamers who share my gender. 9. I can be sure that my gaming performance (good or bad) won’t be attributed to or reflect on my gender as a whole. 10. My gaming ability will never be called into question based on unrelated natural biological functions. 11. I can be relatively sure my thoughts about video games won’t be dismissed or attacked based solely on my tone of voice, even if I speak in an aggressive, obnoxious, crude or flippant manner. 12. I can openly say that my favorite games are casual, odd, non-violent, artistic, or cute without fear that my opinions will reinforce a stereotype that “men are not real gamers.” 13. When purchasing most major video games in a store, chances are I will not be asked if (or assumed to be) buying it for a wife, daughter or girlfriend. 14. The vast majority of game studios, past and present, have been led and populated primarily by people of my own gender and as such most of their products have been specifically designed to cater to my demographic. 15. I can walk into any gaming store and see images of my gender widely represented as powerful heroes, dastardly villains and non-playable characters alike. 16. I will almost always have the option to play a character of my gender, as most protagonists or heroes will be male by default. 17. I do not have to carefully navigate my engagement with online communities or gaming spaces in order to avoid or mitigate the possibility of being harassed because of my gender. 18. I probably never think about hiding my real-life gender online through my gamer-name, my avatar choice, or by muting voice-chat, out of fear of harassment resulting from my being male. 19. When I enter an online game, I can be relatively sure I won’t be attacked or harassed when and if my real-life gender is made public 20. If I am trash-talked or verbally berated while playing online, it will not be because I am male nor will my gender be invoked as an insult. 21. While playing online with people I don’t know I won’t be interrogated about the size and shape of my real-life body parts, nor will I be pressured to share intimate details about my sex life for the pleasure of other players. 22. Complete strangers generally do not send me unsolicited images of their genitalia or demand to see me naked on the basis of being a male gamer. 23. In multiplayer games I can be pretty sure that conversations between other players will not focus on speculation about my “attractiveness” or “sexual availability” in real-life. 24. If I choose to point out sexism in gaming, my observations will not be seen as self-serving, and will therefore be perceived as more credible and worthy of respect than those of my female counterparts, even if they are saying the exact same thing. 25. Because it was created by a straight white man, this checklist will likely be taken more seriously than if it had been written by virtually any female gamer.
These benefits should not be reserved for men.
This list is not meant to suggest that male gamers are always treated well. Sometimes we are bullied or subjected to online nastiness, but it is not based on or because of our gender.
In order to make change first we need to acknowledge the problem, and then we must take responsibility for it as a community, so we can actively work together, with people of all genders, to dismantle the parts of gaming culture that perpetuate these imbalances.
All people, of all genders, must be treated with respect and dignity.
Together, we can make gaming gaming. Together, we will make gaming better.
Sounds like someone needs to get off the freaking nerdbox, get out of mom's basement, and get a job. Things were much simpler when it was just pinball. Anyone could play it, and everyone got harassed. EDIT: Although I don't understand about half of it, I kind of agree with it, just referencing when I sat in and provided useful advice to the Boy whilst he did battle online with many a Newb.
mattyrm wrote: So do you entirely disagree with me then Mel?
I never said I did. Whether or not change needs to occur within feminism as a movement isn't something my post discussed.
To be honest, I don't like the idea of feminism with some kind of central command with some head feminist telling everyone else what to do. To me, that goes against what feminism is meant to be in the first place. So I don't really have a good answer.
mattyrm wrote: Saying "feth em they are ignorant" and cracking on as normal seems counterproductive to me.
Most feminists try not to do this. But that doesn't mean it isn't really damned tempting after the thousandth time.
Da Boss wrote: The last couple of pages have been really heartening. I've been staying away from this topic on dakka because of the vitriol from the anti-feminist side, but I am really happy to see the discussion here.
The points about CVs and interviews are really horrible if you think about it. I dunno. I see this a lot in my work, and it depresses the crap out of me. I think guys struggle against this because it feels like an attack to them, but it really isn't.
In my school we have Prefects, and they are supposed to be model students. Now, most of the model students in this year's bunch are girls. But the management (who are, of course, all male, in a female dominated profession) felt it would be unfair to have the prefects be mostly female, so they included a couple of lazy boys in the mix. These boys have been doing a pretty awful job. It is quite amusing to see that decision made by a group of men in management, not once reflecting (apparently) on the irony that they did not apply the same standard of "fairness" to situations like their own where women were disadvantaged.
Life is full of this crap. My girlfriend found out recently she was being paid 15% less than men in her workplace doing exactly the same job. It was rectified, which is good, but why would that even happen in the first place? I gotta say I was floored by that one.
Yeah that's absolutely fething ridiculous, I don't even see how that can happen in this day and age. Like you are setting up a new employees account and you go "Oh hang on I thought that said John not Jean, knock a few grand a year off"?
Really absurd. Is that in Germany? I thought the EU was all over that gak!
mattyrm wrote: Hey firearms are the great equalizer, and this is America. I'm just as scared of women as I am of men.
I dunno about that! Frankly I'm a bit more scared of women when they are pointing guns. I dunno about you but as a Texan I've seen my mom and dad shoot and let's just say it isn't the male that's the best shot
mattyrm wrote: I dunno, I'm just saying you know.. if you want a movement to succeed you have to appeal to the masses
In order to appeal to the masses you must educate them. That's what videos like this are about.
mattyrm wrote: and so many people are needlessly critical of feminism because they don't fully understand it
Or because they are politically or philosophically opposed to women being equal in society to men, but don't want to admit it. Or because they buy in to the status quo, without thinking about it, as the status quo is comforting to them.
mattyrm wrote: I just don't think that most people that slag off "feminism" REALLY hate women do they?
Hate? No. But they have biases against women.
mattyrm wrote: ou and I have talked about this plenty of times, Iike loads of women dismiss feminism, and they don't dislike feminism,
So? We have scientific studies that have shown that women are just as biased as men-- biased, I should note, against other women. Given two identical resumes, one with a male name and the other female, most people will default to thinking the male resume is more qualified, and it's only if they really think about it that they'll realize that they're really the exact same. Same for interviews, as well. And there's no statistically significant difference between the percent of bias shown by male managers vs female managers against prospective female employees.
This sort of thing bleeds over both from and in to the overall culture, both caused by and causing itself, and only continually challenging it and forcing people to really think clearly about their biases will get it to slow down, never mind stop.
So do you entirely disagree with me then Mel? You don't think feminism has an image problem and the movement should just continue as it is? ...
...
IDK about Melissia but in my view as a middle-aged, middle-class, white man, feminism has an image problem among anti-feminist juvenile male white video game players. I don't see why that is something feminists should deign to address.
IDK about Melissia but in my view as a middle-aged, middle-class, white man, feminism has an image problem among anti-feminist juvenile male white video game players. I don't see why that is something feminists should deign to address.
Well self proclaimed feminists haven't been representing feminism that well. Even though some of them are sexists and racists.
The last couple of pages have been really heartening. I've been staying away from this topic on dakka because of the vitriol from the anti-feminist side, but I am really happy to see the discussion here.
Some of them aren't really feminists they don't follow any of the theology or principals of any of the feminist thinkers and follow the marxist ideas.
Personally I do not find certain parts of that agenda in line with general Feminist Ideal.
That's just infuriating. I mean, just look at the petition these three women submitted. It's clear that they've never even seen the game, let alone played it. Encourages violence against women? Rewards players with "health points" for killing women? This is worse than when Anita tried to pretend that the aim of Hitman was to kill and mutilate the corpses of sex workers.
"Some of them aren't really feminists they don't follow any of the theology or principals of any of the feminist thinkers and follow the marxist ideas"
Asherian Command wrote: Some of them aren't really feminists they don't follow any of the theology or principals of any of the feminist thinkers and follow the marxist ideas.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Pretty sure Ash wasn't saying that. He's saying that a lot of current feminists are actual Cultural Marxists using feminism as a friendly disguise.
If that's the nonsense he's spewing this week, it doesn't really change my "what the hell" reaction.
Kilkrazy wrote: IDK about Melissia but in my view as a middle-aged, middle-class, white man, feminism has an image problem among anti-feminist juvenile male white video game players. I don't see why that is something feminists should deign to address.
Oh man, absolutely and equivocally not, its why I have been making this point since we started on the topic, because like most pleasant well-meaning secular people I am a supporter of complete equality for women, and feminism has a fething awful reputation. Saying "Oh we don't need to address it because the only people who have a negative opinion are spotty teenagers" is really a terrible road to go down, its the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears.
Just Google "negative opinion of feminism" and see what results you get. Its not just juvenile white males, its everybody.
Were not talking about white teenagers that live in trailer parks, female undergrads have a negative opinion of bloody feminism!
Its pretty much exactly what I have said from the off, particularly
Avoid rhetoric or actions that reinforce the stereotype of the angry activist. Realize that if people find you off-putting, they’re not going to listen to your message.
Feminism has a rap it does not deserve, and I genuinely feel it should be addressed because most women and men I know definitely roll their eyes and reactive negatively towards feminism. The same can be said of many other things I agree with. Animal rights, atheism, climate change, gay right. I agree with and support all of those positions, and yet all of those groups have a bad fething rap because people take gak too far.
I don't know exactly what the solution is, but as I have suggested, not acting as militant may be a good place to start, and not just regarding feminism.
A lot of those things you listed have a bad rap because a group of people are ideologically invested in giving them a bad rap, and often have the ear of our media circuit, rather htan necessarily anything any of them have actually done.
Gay rights, for example. You wouldn't believe half the gak that politicians here in Texas say about it... and all because they are politically invested in opposing gay marriage, they continue to make up lies about it for the sake of justifying their opposition.
What the hell, Asherian Command? If you have a point, your convoluted grammatical mess of a post failed to make it.
Yeah I wrote the wrong word. Whoops. It was suppose to say Ideology. Not Theology. My bad.
You honestly are trying to claim that someone isn't REALLY a feminist unless they believe in Marxism?
What?
No I am saying some feminists are saying that. Not me. I said "Some of them aren't really feminists they don't follow any of the ideology or its principals of any of the feminist thinkers, but instead follow marxist ideas. "
That was what I meant to say. There are some women who 'identify' as 'feminists' who do use the ideas of feminism in a militant way. Got it?
If not, do not insult me. Thank you.
If that's the nonsense he's spewing this week, it doesn't really change my "what the hell" reaction.
Well, in all honesty it is what is going on. There are divisions in Feminism that are quite interesting.
Melissia wrote: A lot of those things you listed have a bad rap because a group of people are ideologically invested in giving them a bad rap, and often have the ear of our media circuit.
True enough Mel, but it doesn't mean what I have said isn't true does it? Whatever the reason, its harming the movement. You and I have had this out so there's no need to go over it anymore, I was just pointing out how wrong KKs thinking was, it clearly isn't just a tiny minority of teenage white kids with a negative opinion of... well.. equality! Its a fething gak load of people. The fact that anybody has a problem with something as just as bloody equality shows that there is a real issue to address here right?
Now, we disagree because you think that education is the answer, and I'm cynical because I think people are dumb and don't like getting educated. We both want the same thing, we just have different views about how to achieve it. I think my idea sounds like it will yield better results, combining education with a new approach, which entails not coming across as being pedantic. If feminists picked their battles better, I'm not saying that the small things don't matter, plenty of conversations with you have convinced me that they do, but we don't live in an ideal world, and I'm saying that the masses clearly react badly to the little things, so we should go after things that really and overtly are genuinely offensive to anybody with a brain, and let the little things take care of themselves when the big things have been nailed on.
I honestly think that making a big fuss over things that the masses (rightly or wrongly, and both men and women) find to be pedantic or nit-picky holds back the cause of equality. It makes women say "I dont need feminism" when what they should be saying is "this movement is important and I agree with it"
I still don't see the point of your post, Asherian Command. That there are feminists whom are also communists isn't really a surprise. There are also feminists whom are intensely capitalist (in fact, I have one of them as a professor, she's perhaps even best described as devoutly capitalist). Also feminists whom take no strong stance either way on economic matters. There really isn't much of a point to your argument. Just because someone is both a feminist and a communist doesn't somehow make them no longer a feminist. That's like saying "you can't be both a gamer and a 40k player".
The militant versus moderate debate has raged for ages and happens in all movements. Its easy to see both sides. And the term feminist took a beating in the last 20 years by a concentrated attack. There has been many discussions on if the term is salvageable. I appreciate the problem when a term that was created was twisted and wrestled away from you.
While there has been improvements, it is a continuous battle.
Edit:
And Mattym, that argument has been also going on awhile. Like it was stated, "who chose what is important?" Feminism is not a united movement. And there has been an organised push against it. I remember when I first heard the term femanazi: I didn't take it seriously and didn't think anyone would take it seriously. Wowser, I was wrong.
Melissia wrote: I still don't see the point of your post, Asherian Command. That there are feminists whom are also communists isn't really a surprise. There are also feminists whom are intensely capitalist (in fact, I have one of them as a professor, she's perhaps even best described as devoutly capitalist). Also feminists whom take no strong stance either way on economic matters. There really isn't much of a point to your argument. Just because someone is both a feminist and a communist doesn't somehow make them no longer a feminist. That's like saying "you can't be both a gamer and a 40k player".
Well that is not what I am saying they say they are feminists but then they do and say another thing. Instead of practicing the ideals of feminism they think it is an invite club only, and that only those who ascribe themselves to cultural marxism and social marxism are the only 'true' feminists I make fun of them by saying no they aren't feminists because they say they are. But in practice they are not. You can't be a christian and say I don't believe in god at the same time. It doesn't really work. You need to have the ideology and know at least some of the thinkers.'
The militant versus moderate debate has raged for ages and happens in all movements. Its easy to see both sides. And the term feminist took a beating in the last 20 years by a concentrated attack. There has been many discussions on if the term is salvageable. I appreciate the problem when a term that was created was twisted and wrestled away from you.
While there has been improvements, it is a continuous battle.
No Doubt. There will always be that battle in Feminism.
But the Gaming has the largest concentration of Cultural Marxists because they think it is easy to work in. Look up Atheism Plus. For some hardcore laughs.
You haven't actually answered my question here....
Melissia wrote: So who gets to define "visibly fething awful" to you, Matty?
Do only straight white men who hate feminists get to define it?
Well? Who does?
The "little things" you mention are intrinsically tied to the "big things". The fact that women make 15-18% less money than men is intrinsically tied to the fact that both men and women devalue what women do. Which, itself, is tied to the idea that being male is default, while being female is different. Which, itself, is tied to the idea that masculinity is superior to femininity. Which, itself, is tied in to homophobia. Which in and of itself is tied to the ide aof male dominance and female submission. Which in and of itself is tied to the idea of male supremacy. Which in and of itself is tied to the fact that society as a whole devalues what women do. And so on and so on and so forth.
The "little things" HAVE to be fought if the big things are to be defeated. Otherwise all you're doing is trying shovel water out of a leaking ship.
mattyrm wrote: I honestly think that making a big fuss over things that the masses (rightly or wrongly, and both men and women) find to be pedantic or nit-picky holds back the cause of equality.
To use a more extreme example, a few generations ago, people opposing segregation were said to be nit-picky. "Oh, they're equal but separate, stop complaining!"
If you honestly believe most people are dumb, why do you respect their opinions so much?
Some of that I can agree with. But still some of it is BS there are tons of games were female characters are hero/villain (though the usually have fantastic bodies but then again haven't seen a CoD with a overweight male) Honestly being harrassaed on online gaming suck but just mute people I guess I dont know im conflicted with some of there points but i do understand what they are trying to get at...
"Nothing is more badass then treating women with respect!"-- Mr. Torgue
zombiekila707 wrote: Some of that I can agree with. But still some of it is BS there are tons of games were female characters are hero/villain (though the usually have fantastic bodies but then again haven't seen a CoD with a overweight male) Honestly being harrassaed on online gaming suck but just mute people I guess I dont know im conflicted with some of there points but i do understand what they are trying to get at...
"Nothing is more badass then treating women with respect!"-- Mr. Torgue
Your avatar is... unique. Where does Mr. Torgue come from?
AdeptSister wrote: VorpalBunny did a count in another thread: the top 100 games of 2013 had Batman protagonists than female protagonists.
And?
Characters should flow naturally from the stories being told. I've said it a dozen times: We don't need more women, and we don't need less women. We need exactly as many women as works with the stories being told. This applies to men as well.
And that's half of it. The other half is demographics, which cannot be ignored. If there's a reason why X amount of games have male protagonists vs Y for women, it's probably got a lot to do with what sells and a lot less to do with "inherent misogyny" or "toxic masculinity" or whatever other tripe Sarkeesian/McIntosh are pushing this week to get money. Capitalism is pretty simple when you boil it down - if something sold really well, they'd do it.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Characters should flow naturally from the stories being told.
A nice fantasy, but not one that actually exists in modern gaming. Characters, right now in big name developers anyway, instead flow from focus testing which excludes women from participating in the focus tests. You're assuming a meritocracy without any evidence of a meritocracy existing.
Thinking on it I can't actually recall even 1 game I've played where the primary villain is a woman. Maybe a handful of female monsters like say mother brain, but I can't think of any women in the sense of being both female and vaguely human-like. Lots of 2nd fiddles and more than few that are part of villainous teams but like no female BBEGs.
AdeptSister wrote: And people disagree that the status quo should remain the status quo.
Yes, Cultural Marxists who, by the very definition of who they are, disagree with capitalist values.
--- OR ---
Why? Give a good reason why the status quo should be changed. For tokenisitic "inclusiveness". Women play a lot of games and already make a significant part of the gaming community. For the most part they play vastly different styles of games to males, and there's nothing wrong with that. They have made the choice to play the games that they want to play (usually casual, mobile and social games), and thus game makers make games marketed to that specific demographic. So, again, what's wrong with that?
Melissia wrote: A nice fantasy, but not one that actually exists in modern gaming. Characters, right now in big name developers anyway, instead flow from focus testing which excludes women from participating in the focus tests. You're assuming a meritocracy without any evidence of a meritocracy existing.
That's overly cynical and I'd like some proof of it please.
And I'm not assuming a meritocracy. I'm talking about story and narrative.
Then again, why am I even arguing with you? You believe that giving every game a character creation screen that allows you to pick gender would suddenly improve any game that has it, completely gaking on the idea that certain narratives are better told with male protagonists and others with female protagonists. Men and women are not interchangeable.
Chongara wrote: Thinking on it I can't actually recall even 1 game I've played where the primary villain is a woman. Maybe a handful of female monsters like say mother brain, but I can't think of any women in the sense of being both female and vaguely human-like. Lots of 2nd fiddles and more than few that are part of villainous teams but like no female BBEGs.
Chongara wrote: Thinking on it I can't actually recall even 1 game I've played where the primary villain is a woman. Maybe a handful of female monsters like say mother brain, but I can't think of any women in the sense of being both female and vaguely human-like. Lots of 2nd fiddles and more than few that are part of villainous teams but like no female BBEGs.
Bioshock 2?
Maybe. I've never played any of the bioshock games. I'm hardly claiming my experience is exhaustive. However for most of my life games were my primary form of entertainment. I've played tons, it says something that I can't think of any like women that are also the big bad. You'd think I'd have blundered into at least one in some 20-odd years.
EDIT:
Sofia Lamb from Bioshock 2?
Does SHODAN count?
Not familiar with these examples. However if we're asking what counts I'd set the metrics along these lines:
-The character is in control of, or is themselves the primary force the player is working against for the majority of the game.
-The character is not a monster, robot, computer, or vague disembodied natural force. I guess you could count a ghost if it was a woman's ghost.
-The character is present in some capacity for a meaningful part of the game. They're not a giant space flea from nowhere that shows up with no explanation at the very end.
-They're a villain not an anti-hero, sometimes-ally or temporary protagonist on a regular basis.
-The protagonist "wins" or the story reaches a climax in the form of some conflict with the character in question.
Tons and tons and tons of men from games I've played pass those metrics pretty easily.
EDIT: I think Ultimecia from Final Fantasy 8 would probably qualify. It's been so long since I've played that I forget how involved she was in the plot before the final dungeon. I'll count it. That's one. Keep wracking my brain see if I can remember any others.
You haven't actually answered my question here....
Melissia wrote: So who gets to define "visibly fething awful" to you, Matty?
Do only straight white men who hate feminists get to define it?
Well? Who does?
The "little things" you mention are intrinsically tied to the "big things". The fact that women make 15-18% less money than men is intrinsically tied to the fact that both men and women devalue what women do. Which, itself, is tied to the idea that being male is default, while being female is different. Which, itself, is tied to the idea that masculinity is superior to femininity. Which, itself, is tied in to homophobia. Which in and of itself is tied to the ide aof male dominance and female submission. Which in and of itself is tied to the idea of male supremacy. Which in and of itself is tied to the fact that society as a whole devalues what women do. And so on and so on and so forth.
The "little things" HAVE to be fought if the big things are to be defeated. Otherwise all you're doing is trying shovel water out of a leaking ship.
mattyrm wrote: I honestly think that making a big fuss over things that the masses (rightly or wrongly, and both men and women) find to be pedantic or nit-picky holds back the cause of equality.
To use a more extreme example, a few generations ago, people opposing segregation were said to be nit-picky. "Oh, they're equal but separate, stop complaining!"
If you honestly believe most people are dumb, why do you respect their opinions so much?
That's an easy one, I don't respect their opinion but I have to sway them if I want to get gak done. Look how many moron politicians there are, in both the U.S. and U.K. there are a large number that think fluoride really does feth you up, they haven't bothered to do their research (it doesn't) but they pass measures to ban it because they are pig-ignorant. If you want gak to happen, you need to aim at winning over the masses and the people that make the rules, regardless for whether you have any respect for them or not.
Don't you ever stop to wonder how many American politicians sigh and roll their eyes when they hear the words "feminism"? I bet there are a gak ton of them, especially all the old Republican types. gak, haven't the likes of Bachman and Palin actually mouthed off about feminism? I'm pretty sure they will have done. These are the people you need to win over if you want gak doing, bloody politicians. Perhaps if such a big deal wasn't made over things that give them ammunition, then we wouldn't have a ton of gak for brains bureaucrats bashing something as just and noble as equality for women in the year 2014. Don't you see the point I am making? I agree with you, I can see how the small things matter, but plenty of people cant, and giving them ammunition is a poor idea.
To answer your question, I suppose I would have to say that an actual "leader" would be a good thing. I was discussing the Occupy movement with a mate and we sorta discussed the whole leadership thing. Basically they made loads of good points, and people were with them, but they just sorta.. fizzled out because nobody was a figurehead. They didn't have a Martin Luther King, so they slowly died a death. I think people need leadership, it may grate naturally with libertarians, because by definition people that are feminists or socialists seem to lean away from being "told what to do" but at the end of the day, it seems like the time-honored way of having your grievances genuinely listened too seems to involve having a figurehead.
So, I dunno.. maybe we DO need a "feminist-prime" to sit at the top and say "you know what, maybe our time would be better spent doing X, Y and Z today"
Perhaps it's because I am a military guy with a love for the monarchy, but like I always say, someone has to be in charge if you want to get anything done, it might as well be someone you like. I am good at following orders if they seem like smart ones, I certainly dont mind the idea of someone being in charge because all of this "freedom" talk everyone loves over here (as if the rich, corrupt, slimy politicians actually do work for us!) is all a grand nonsense.
Anyway, You are smart, and don't hate men, I nominate you for the role of supreme leader.
mattyrm wrote: To answer your question, I suppose I would have to say that an actual "leader" would be a good thing.
Feminism, as it exists right now, focuses a great deal about giving women more freedom and control over our own lives, which sadly we still don't have, or at least hte freedoms we do have aren't very well respected. Feminism having a "leader" would be rather hypocritical of this.
To put it another way, having each individual feminist able to focus on where they feel they can make the biggest impact, or where they feel most strongly, is a great deal of the point of the current generation of feminism. The common goal of equality is there, but each person's voice is their own, not some echo of a "Grand Arch-Feminist"-- with the goal being that the best, most coherent ideas will rise to the top. A marketplace of ideas, and goals, and efforts, and struggles, hopefully adding to one another and reinforcing each other perhaps, but still distinctly separate.
To be authoritarian like you suggest would probably just be replacing patriarchy with matriarchy, and in spite of what some people on this forum believes, most feminists don't want that.
AdeptSister wrote: VorpalBunny did a count in another thread: the top 100 games of 2013 had Batman protagonists than female protagonists.
Yep - 2 games with female protagonists, vs 51 with male protagonists
Tomb Raider & Beyond Two Souls vs DmC, Sleeping Dogs, Max Payne, God of War, GTA 5, Batman, Batman, Batman, Batman. . . etc
It DOES include Sport games however, which bumps up the male only numbers, but I don't think they should be excluded. Daniel Vavra did with his count of top 2014 games recently, which I didn't agree with.
Now I'm slowly doing it for all games from 2011-2013, as well as a few other factors like genre. It's going to take a while. 40% done
Current stats for the 2011-13 cohort:
Male protagonists: 57%
Female: 5%
Both genders: 27%
N/a: 11%
HOWEVER so far 77% of games do not feature the traditional Damsel in Distress trope. I'm not kidding, I'm tracking that too
**Forgot to add - I attach no theory to my counts of male/female protagonists. Could be that's what sells, could be that's what devs want to make, I don't know.
Sports games could easily include female sports stars in them if they wanted to, the devs don't want to, however.
I mean if you can have a sports game where the Detroit Lions have a chance to win the superbowl, it's not much harder of a stretch of believability to have the most impressive three IWFL teams cross over in to an NFL video game.
mattyrm wrote: To answer your question, I suppose I would have to say that an actual "leader" would be a good thing.
Feminism, as it exists right now, focuses a great deal about giving women more freedom and control over our own lives, which sadly we still don't have, or at least hte freedoms we do have aren't very well respected. Feminism having a "leader" would be rather hypocritical of this.
To put it another way, having each individual feminist able to focus on where they feel they can make the biggest impact, or where they feel most strongly, is a great deal of the point of the current generation of feminism. The common goal of equality is there, but each person's voice is their own, not some echo of a "Grand Arch-Feminist"-- with the goal being that the best, most coherent ideas will rise to the top. A marketplace of ideas, and goals, and efforts, and struggles, hopefully adding to one another and reinforcing each other perhaps, but still distinctly separate.
To be authoritarian like you suggest would probably just be replacing patriarchy with matriarchy, and in spite of what some people on this forum believes, most feminists don't want that.
Ah ok.... well I'm fethed for a good idea then.
I don't think its necessarily "authoritarian" to have a leader though, like almost everything in life has a leader. Be it the police department, political party, business, almost anything. You need someone to take on the mantle if you want to have a well-led and cohesive... well.. anything!
Its like I said, people naturally pull away from the thought of "being told what to do" but I bet it hamstrings their attempts. They say that its famously hard to mobilize secular people for that reason, like "herding cats" and yet groups like the Catholic Church enjoy great success thanks to having a bloke at the top organizing everything and directing everybody's efforts.
But tell secular people to form a church in order to get something done together, and they'll flip you the bird and call you a jackass-- and I only exaggerate a little bit, there
I think the current method works actually. Some of it is actually a backlash to get AWAY from the leader-centric ways of the previous generations of the feminist movement, especially the racism, homophobia, and transphobia many of them showed. Certainly it's a flawed method, but I kind of struggle to think of an alternative that would really work with the current generation.
Melissia wrote: Sports games could easily include female sports stars in them if they wanted to, the devs don't want to, however.
I mean if you can have a sports game where the Detroit Lions have a chance to win the superbowl, it's not much harder of a stretch of believability to have the most impressive three IWFL teams cross over in to an NFL video game.
I think they'd run into licencing issues, mainly.
Unless you're talking about create-a-player functionality, which I am assuming most sports games have? (I don't play them, generally)
I know at least the hockey ones do, and have had more create-a-player fucntion than other sports games have for a while now. Not sure how recent the female characters are though.
If it's built in from the start, I can't see how gender select in sports games that already have create a character would be a problem to implement. If Soul Calibur has it, can't see why they don't.
Clipping might be an issue, but so would a height slider allowing extremely tall or short players.
I'm not a dev though, so I could be completely wrong in thinking it's straightforward.
Melissia wrote: Sports games could easily include female sports stars in them if they wanted to, the devs don't want to, however.
There's that word:
"Easily".
It's easy to do so is it? To make a sports game and include female characters? Sure. No real issue there. To gain the likeness rights for every female player across a league? Multiple leagues? Profession and college?
That "easily" is looking smaller and smaller every passing second.
Not familiar with these examples. However if we're asking what counts I'd set the metrics along these lines:
-The character is in control of, or is themselves the primary force the player is working against for the majority of the game.
-The character is not a monster, robot, computer, or vague disembodied natural force. I guess you could count a ghost if it was a woman's ghost.
-The character is present in some capacity for a meaningful part of the game. They're not a giant space flea from nowhere that shows up with no explanation at the very end.
-They're a villain not an anti-hero, sometimes-ally or temporary protagonist on a regular basis.
-The protagonist "wins" or the story reaches a climax in the form of some conflict with the character in question.
Tons and tons and tons of men from games I've played pass those metrics pretty easily.
EDIT: I think Ultimecia from Final Fantasy 8 would probably qualify. It's been so long since I've played that I forget how involved she was in the plot before the final dungeon. I'll count it. That's one. Keep wracking my brain see if I can remember any others.
Miss lamb would count. SHODAN would not because she is a computer.
Melissia wrote: Sports games could easily include female sports stars in them if they wanted to, the devs don't want to, however.
There's that word:
"Easily".
It's easy to do so is it? To make a sports game and include female characters? Sure. No real issue there. To gain the likeness rights for every female player across a league? Multiple leagues? Profession and college?
That "easily" is looking smaller and smaller every passing second.
Besides, don't the vast majority of professional sports segregate the sexes? Games like Fifa strive for realism, by accurately portraying real world sports "men" (INB4 someone calls me sexist for using the "Male as default" trope), teams, and leagues.
Having the England's women's football team go up against the French men's football team, or Venus Williams go up against Andy Murray, is self evidently absurd in a game that is supposed to be an accurate reflection of a real world sport that segregated by gender. And it strikes me as somewhat petulant to demand that developers inject a degree of fiction into these games and smacks of tokenism.
In an arcade mode, or a less realistic sports game like Fifa street that isn't supposed to be an accurate reflection of a real world sport, sure, why not have women's teams going up against men's teams or even mixed gender teams.
These games are a case of "Art reflects life". Demanding/expecting male/female sporting matchups in a pseudo realistic game is effectively demanding that the "Art" be changed to suit your pre conception of what life should be. At which point the game in question is no longer an accurate portrayal of the real world.
Wouldn't a better and more realistic solution just be more sports games based on women's sports, sports leagues etc?
E.g.
-a spin off Fifa game about Women's football.
-Or Different modes and leagues within Fifa games for women's leagues
But of course, that would raise questions over whether such a women's sports focused Title would be commercially viable - is there sufficient market demand?
By all means, if there is, then let's have more women's sports titles to cater to that demand.
Or let's have more arcadey games that don't aspire to be an accurate portrayal of the real world sport, or arcadey modes within existing titles, that mix the genders in sports.
But please, let's not twist beyond recognition games that are supposed to accurately reflect the real world sports that do segregate by gender.
Chongara wrote: Thinking on it I can't actually recall even 1 game I've played where the primary villain is a woman. Maybe a handful of female monsters like say mother brain, but I can't think of any women in the sense of being both female and vaguely human-like. Lots of 2nd fiddles and more than few that are part of villainous teams but like no female BBEGs.
Bioshock 2?
Maybe. I've never played any of the bioshock games. I'm hardly claiming my experience is exhaustive. However for most of my life games were my primary form of entertainment. I've played tons, it says something that I can't think of any like women that are also the big bad. You'd think I'd have blundered into at least one in some 20-odd years.
EDIT:
Sofia Lamb from Bioshock 2? Does SHODAN count?
Not familiar with these examples. However if we're asking what counts I'd set the metrics along these lines:
-The character is not a monster, robot, computer, or vague disembodied natural force. I guess you could count a ghost if it was a woman's ghost.
Tons and tons and tons of men from games I've played pass those metrics pretty easily.
EDIT: I think Ultimecia from Final Fantasy 8 would probably qualify. It's been so long since I've played that I forget how involved she was in the plot before the final dungeon. I'll count it. That's one. Keep wracking my brain see if I can remember any others.
Well, that rules SHODAN out. Sofia Lamb fits everything else though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: "Realism" is a rather lazy excuse for rather lazy game design.
Would you have jet packs and a cyborgs in a game that's trying to be somewhat faithful to World War 1?
Melissia wrote: "Realism" is a rather lazy excuse for rather lazy game design.
There's nothing lazy about it.
It's a deliberate design choice to accurately reflect a real world sport.
If you inject female players and teams into a sports game that depicts real world sporting leagues (e.g. the Premier League) that are in fact segregate by gender, it would devalue any sense of realism the game has. At that point we might as well start adding powerups, and anthropomorphic animals.
What we need are more women's sporting titles, like Fifa women's football 2015, or w.e... not Feminist power fantasy propaganda.
Really, your demands for video game reforms grow ever more absurd by the week.
Melissia wrote: "Realism" is a rather lazy excuse for rather lazy game design.
There's nothing lazy about it.
It's a deliberate design choice to accurately reflect a real world sport.
If you inject female players and teams into a sports game that depicts real world sporting leagues (e.g. the Premier League) that are in fact segregate by gender, it would devalue any sense of realism the game has. At that point we might as well start adding powerups, and anthropomorphic animals.
What we need are more women's sporting titles, like Fifa women's football 2015, or w.e... not Feminist power fantasy propaganda.
Really, your demands for video game reforms grow ever more absurd by the week.
That a mixed men and women's sports league modeled on real players in the same realm of implausible fantasy as anthropomorphic animals and power-ups is absurd. Certainly it is a bit of fantasy, but ultimately we're talking about people who actually exist and could actually play sports against one another. This line of thinking is just silly and really rather telling about where your objections are coming from.
EDIT: This is doubly true given every sports game put out these days has a "Create a Player" feature. A strictly imaginary character spun whole-cloth from the character's imagination is at least as much fantasy as mixed-gender player and making that player an avatar of yourself, your best friend is just as much if not more so a power fantasy.
I'd certainly agree that such a game probably wouldn't be feasible but that's all to do with licensing and fanbase overlap. Presumably if you're making such a game that covers both male and female athletes, you'll have the rules and models available for each. Maintaining realism is as simple as having two sets of toggles
"Men's League"
"Mixed League"
"Women's League"
for player rosters and
"Pro-Men's Rules"
"Pro-Women's Rules"
to set the standards for the balls, field/court markings, and scoring standards.
Since the game would already have all these mechanics in place, the development overhead on setting these toggles should be relatively low. If they really wanted to go all out, you could make individual rules such swappable such that you could have like markings/scoring standards from a men's game, and the penalties and equipment from a women's game.
If the game can already support both male & female players, you're not gonna lose "Realism" because you can always just choose to select the options that emulate that if you want. They could even be made default if making the mixed features opt-in rather than opt-out is super important for the realism crowd.
It's a deliberate design choice to accurately reflect a real world sport.
If you inject female players and teams into a sports game that depicts real world sporting leagues (e.g. the Premier League) that are in fact segregate by gender, it would devalue any sense of realism the game has. At that point we might as well start adding powerups, and anthropomorphic animals.
Melissia wrote: Sports games could easily include female sports stars in them if they wanted to, the devs don't want to, however.
There's that word:
"Easily".
It's easy to do so is it? To make a sports game and include female characters? Sure. No real issue there. To gain the likeness rights for every female player across a league? Multiple leagues? Profession and college?
That "easily" is looking smaller and smaller every passing second.
They seem to easily be able to do it with a whole LOT of men though.
Melissia wrote: "Realism" is a rather lazy excuse for rather lazy game design.
There's nothing lazy about it.
It's a deliberate design choice to accurately reflect a real world sport.
If you inject female players and teams into a sports game that depicts real world sporting leagues (e.g. the Premier League) that are in fact segregate by gender, it would devalue any sense of realism the game has. At that point we might as well start adding powerups, and anthropomorphic animals.
What we need are more women's sporting titles, like Fifa women's football 2015, or w.e... not Feminist power fantasy propaganda.
Really, your demands for video game reforms grow ever more absurd by the week.
That a mixed men and women's sports league modeled on real players in the same realm of implausible fantasy as anthropomorphic animals and power-ups is absurd. Certainly it is a bit of fantasy, but ultimately we're talking about people who actually exist and could actually play sports against one another. This line of thinking is just silly and really rather telling about where your objections are coming from.
It's called hyperbole. But whatever. Psycho analyse and make assumptions about my motivations all you like, it still not a valid counter argument.
In a game that's supposed to be an accurate reflection of real world sports, injecting a fantasy into it would rather defeat the point.
For arcade / non career, modes, or non realistic sports titles that don't aspire to be an accurate reflection of the real world, realism is not an issue and so mixing genders wouldn't destroy the immersion.
EDIT: This is doubly true given every sports game put out these days has a "Create a Player" feature. A strictly imaginary character spun whole-cloth from the character's imagination is at least as much a power fantasy as mixed gender play.
I'd certainly agree that such a game probably wouldn't be feasible but that's all to do with licensing and fanbase overlap. Presumably if you're making such a game that covers both male and female athletes, you'll have the rules and models available for each. Maintaining realism is as simple as having two sets of toggles
"Men's League"
"Mixed League"
"Women's League"
for player rosters and
"Pro-Men's Rules"
"Pro-Women's Rules"
to set the standards for the balls, field/court markings, and scoring standards.
Since the game would already have all these mechanics in place, the development overhead on setting these toggles should be relatively low. If they really wanted to go all out, you could make individual rules such swappable such that you could have like markings/scoring standards from a men's game, and the penalties and equipment from a women's game.
If the game can already support both male & female players, you're not gonna lose "Realism" because you can always just choose to select the options that emulate that if you want. They could even be made default if making the mixed features opt-in rather than opt-out is super important for the realism crowd.
That's exactly what I suggested. More women's sports titles, or modes within existing titles with options for women's sporting leagues.
zombiekila707 wrote: Some of that I can agree with. But still some of it is BS there are tons of games were female characters are hero/villain (though the usually have fantastic bodies but then again haven't seen a CoD with a overweight male) Honestly being harrassaed on online gaming suck but just mute people I guess I dont know im conflicted with some of there points but i do understand what they are trying to get at...
"Nothing is more badass then treating women with respect!"-- Mr. Torgue
Your avatar is... unique. Where does Mr. Torgue come from?
Borderlands 2, which is a legitimately great game, and floating on and off sale right now on Steam during the holiday shopping season. The first one should be played first.
That's exactly what I suggested. More women's sports titles, or modes within existing titles with options for women's sporting leagues.
So if I'm understanding you correctly having a women's league mode in your standard-sports-game-of-the-year-re-release-edition, is totally fine but the moment you add an option to mix the two rosters (in an alternate "career"-mode) your entire ability to enjoy the individual modes on their own merit is obliterated due to the lack of realism in an option you aren't even using?
Manchu wrote: Putting women's teams in Madden is really the wrong fight here.
You're probably right on this and it's certainly not feasible for any number of reasons. The realism line of arguing on it is just annoying because of how weak it is. Like if you're gonna object, object because the brand-conscious professional sports leagues probably don't want their star players possibly losing to female teams, or being perceived as rough-housing the female teams, or conflicts between sponsors, or the amount of detail you put into what franchises. These are huge expensive brands that have already locked into a particular model of doing things, they wouldn't budge easily.
That's exactly what I suggested. More women's sports titles, or modes within existing titles with options for women's sporting leagues.
So if I'm understanding you correctly having a women's league mode in your standard-sports-game-of-the-year-re-release-edition, is totally fine but the moment you add an option to mix the two rosters (in an alternate "career"-mode) your entire ability to enjoy the individual modes on their own merit is obliterated due to the lack of realism in an option you aren't even using?
No. You answered your own question there.
An "alternate career mode" is by definition not supposed to be realistic.
For arcade / non career, modes, or non realistic sports titles that don't aspire to be an accurate reflection of the real world, realism is not an issue and so mixing genders wouldn't destroy the immersion.
What I'm saying is that a game that purports to accurately reflect Premier league football (Fifa) should not be injecting fictional and fantastical elements by having mixed gender teams/games.
Alternate, non realistic game modes are fair play.
What I'm saying is that a game that purports to accurately reflect Premier league football (Fifa) should not be injecting fictional and fantastical elements by having mixed gender teams/games.
Alternate, non realistic game modes are fair play.
I really can't understand the distinction you're making here between it being in mode in Fifa and.. being a mode in Fifa, but it's not really material. I can't help but think we're getting caught up minor semantic nitpicking at this point. Especially given just how unfeasible getting the IP for a such a project together would be anyway.
Manchu wrote: Putting women's teams in Madden is really the wrong fight here.
You're probably right on this and it's certainly not feasible for any number of reasons. The realism line of arguing on it is just annoying because of how weak it is. Like if you're gonna object, object because the brand-conscious professional sports leagues probably don't want their star players possibly losing to female teams, or being perceived as rough-housing the female teams, or conflicts between sponsors, or the amount of detail you put into what franchises. These are huge expensive brands that have already locked into a particular model of doing things, they wouldn't budge easily.
Why is it weak? You need to back up that assertion with an actual argument.
Games like Fifa strive toe be realistic, in that they're an accurate portrayal of the Premier League, etc. Injecting token women players and teams into said Premier League is not realistic, because in the real world women don't play in the Premier League.
That's all fine and dandy, if you want a fictional game, like Fifa Street, but it's a silly thing to do in a game that's supposed to be accurate.
Just because you don't personally like the fact that these games accurately reflect the real world doesn't make it a "weak argument". It's not weak. It's a statement of objective fact. Professional footballers do not play with the opposite sex.
If gamers want women's football, then the best solution would be a dedicated spin off Fifa title.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Would you have jet packs and a cyborgs in a game that's trying to be somewhat faithful to World War 1?
Why not? German (especially Nazi) super weapons are a common theme in fiction around the two world wars.
Not in a game that strives to be faithful to what actually happened back then though.
Yeah but I don't like gakky games.
Also, by my standards, there's no such thing as an interactive video game that's faithful to WWII. Nor should there be, it'd be sucky, boring, and awful-- just like the real thing was (and yes, there was a TON of boredom in the world wars, interspaced with short, brief moments of sheer terror).
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Would you have jet packs and a cyborgs in a game that's trying to be somewhat faithful to World War 1?
Why not? German (especially Nazi) super weapons are a common theme in fiction around the two world wars.
Not in a game that strives to be faithful to what actually happened back then though.
Yeah but I don't like gakky games.
Also, by my standards, there's no such thing as an interactive video game that's faithful to WWII. Nor should there be, it'd be sucky, boring, and awful-- just like the real thing was (and yes, there was a TON of boredom in the world wars, interspaced with short, brief moments of sheer terror).
Also, by my standards, there's no such thing as an interactive video game that's faithful to WWII. Nor should there be, it'd be sucky, boring, and awful-- just like the real thing was (and yes, there was a TON of boredom in the world wars, interspaced with short, brief moments of sheer terror).
Fine then, let me rephrase my argument: Not in a game whose portrayal of technology strives to be of a level that existed during the time period being described.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Fine then, let me rephrase my argument: Not in a game whose portrayal of technology strives to be of a level that existed during the time period being described.
Rockets were only a few years away, it's not really unrealistic to have someone try to produce a prototype. As for cyborgs, that's what steampunk and other such things are for.
I'm sorry to intrude on a secondary matter, but... Fight club's message is not about misogyny. That doesn't make the author earn credibility, as far as I am concerned.
I'm sorry to intrude on a secondary matter, but... Fight club's message is not about misogyny. That doesn't make the author earn credibility, as far as I am concerned.
Your going to get different interpretations of a movie. One is that it's a criticism of masculinity. The funny thing is that different people see that criticism going different ways. Some see it commenting that the new men have become too weak, some see it as commenting that old school masculinity was destructive. I am not a huge movie buff, so you might want to look some of this up yourself. The tweet is basically talking about how you have media that is maybe meant to mean one thing, but it taken as another thing by it's audience.
Edit: You know really look up what other people have said. This is a very deep rabbit hole and I can't explain all of it
H.B.M.C. wrote: Pretty sure Ash wasn't saying that. He's saying that a lot of current feminists are actual Cultural Marxists using feminism as a friendly disguise.
Oh, so he's just buying into right-wing conspiracy crackpottery. The intersection of feminism and marxism is mostly an attempt to reconcile Marx's blanket class-based approach to inequality with a more modern and nuanced version that accounts for other factors like sex, gender etc, and to try and understand the interaction between economic inequality and gender inequality; to what extent does one cause or reinforce the other etc. "Cultural Marxism" is not actually a thing, it's a desperate attempt by certain atrophied right-wing "thinkers" in the USA to force cultural shifts they disagree with(like "being polite to black people" and "not assuming the only two states of being for a woman are childlike innocence or degenerate whoredom") into the classic "better dead than red" rhetoric they know already has a foothold in the American collective psyche - it's much easier to argue against basic levels of politeness and consideration for other people being applied universally if you paint it as an academia-led conspiracy designed to undermine "Western values" in order to pave the way for Communism.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Pretty sure Ash wasn't saying that. He's saying that a lot of current feminists are actual Cultural Marxists using feminism as a friendly disguise.
Oh, so he's just buying into right-wing conspiracy crackpottery. The intersection of feminism and marxism is mostly an attempt to reconcile Marx's blanket class-based approach to inequality with a more modern and nuanced version that accounts for other factors like sex, gender etc, and to try and understand the interaction between economic inequality and gender inequality; to what extent does one cause or reinforce the other etc. "Cultural Marxism" is not actually a thing, it's a desperate attempt by certain atrophied right-wing "thinkers" in the USA to force cultural shifts they disagree with(like "being polite to black people" and "not assuming the only two states of being for a woman are childlike innocence or degenerate whoredom") into the classic "better dead than red" rhetoric they know already has a foothold in the American collective psyche - it's much easier to argue against basic levels of politeness and consideration for other people being applied universally if you paint it as an academia-led conspiracy designed to undermine "Western values" in order to pave the way for Communism.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Pretty sure Ash wasn't saying that. He's saying that a lot of current feminists are actual Cultural Marxists using feminism as a friendly disguise.
Oh, so he's just buying into right-wing conspiracy crackpottery. The intersection of feminism and marxism is mostly an attempt to reconcile Marx's blanket class-based approach to inequality with a more modern and nuanced version that accounts for other factors like sex, gender etc, and to try and understand the interaction between economic inequality and gender inequality; to what extent does one cause or reinforce the other etc. "Cultural Marxism" is not actually a thing, it's a desperate attempt by certain atrophied right-wing "thinkers" in the USA to force cultural shifts they disagree with(like "being polite to black people" and "not assuming the only two states of being for a woman are childlike innocence or degenerate whoredom") into the classic "better dead than red" rhetoric they know already has a foothold in the American collective psyche - it's much easier to argue against basic levels of politeness and consideration for other people being applied universally if you paint it as an academia-led conspiracy designed to undermine "Western values" in order to pave the way for Communism.
Why aren't people paid for house work? Well they are in a way. You would be indirectly paid by the member who brings home a wage, but that puts a odd work boss idea in the relationship. Hmm.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Would you have jet packs and a cyborgs in a game that's trying to be somewhat faithful to World War 1?
Why not? German (especially Nazi) super weapons are a common theme in fiction around the two world wars.
In fact, set it up around something like Turtledove's World War series, feth yeah I'll play that game!
Faithful was the key word there.
Turtledove's World War series was more faithful to WWII than pretty much every WWII game, and it involved an alien invasion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nomotog wrote: Why aren't people paid for house work? Well they are in a way. You would be indirectly paid by the member who brings home a wage, but that puts a odd work boss idea in the relationship. Hmm.
Given that most people who advocate women stay at home are in fact people who believe in male supremacy (and yes, this includes several people on Dakka), is this really surprising?
1. I can choose to remain completely oblivious, or indifferent to the harassment that many women face in gaming spaces.
Having witnessed verbal harassment in pretty much any online game, I can assure you what I choose to do or not do has no effect on its existence and likely continued existence.
2. I am never told that video games or the surrounding culture is not intended for me because I am male.
I don't think I've been told anything isn't intended for me, perhaps I can just attach that to my being generally awesome, or my gender, I mean, if we're just gonna spitball.
3. I can publicly post my username, gamertag or contact information online without having to fear being stalked or sexually harassed because of my gender.
This is patently absurd and incredibly subjective, if in these modern times you as an individual regardless of what's between your legs can post your personal information publicly online without fear, more power to you.
4. I will never be asked to “prove my gaming cred” simply because of my gender.
I've never been asked to prove my gaming credentials, is that a thing? I've certainly been skeptical that certain commentators haven't played the game they're commenting on
5. If I enthusiastically express my fondness for video games no one will automatically assume I’m faking my interest just to “get attention” from other gamers.
This happens? Perhaps associate with less skeptical friends. I've certainly been pleasantly surprised to find out individuals I would not have thought to enjoy video games in fact do enjoy them and play them regularly, I don't recall being skeptical. In the few instances this has happened, it was age no gender that would have me thinking they're not into games.
6. I can look at practically any gaming website, show, or magazine and see the voices of people of my own gender widely represented.
And why is that positive or negative? Should I be more emotionally involved with people's wee wee's and hoo haa's? People are people.
7. When I go to a gaming event or convention, I can be relatively certain that I won’t be harassed, groped, propositioned or catcalled by total strangers.
I don't think I can be relatively certain of that due to my gender, but what do I know, I've only been the victim of violent assault by both sexes, people scare me in general.
8. I will never be asked or expected to speak for all other gamers who share my gender.
No one asks anyone to do that, they just do, speculating as to why they choose to make everything about gender doesn't sound like a fun game.
9. I can be sure that my gaming performance (good or bad) won’t be attributed to or reflect on my gender as a whole.
But I'll be mocked for sucking all the same, which if I do mess up and let my team down they'll be the first to call me a bad word. I won't connect that to my gender, I'll connect that to the fact that I'm currently sucking at game x.
10. My gaming ability will never be called into question based on unrelated natural biological functions.
I've gotten guff for going to the washroom at inopportune times during online gaming, so I guess I feel your pain?
11. I can be relatively sure my thoughts about video games won’t be dismissed or attacked based solely on my tone of voice, even if I speak in an aggressive, obnoxious, crude or flippant manner.
I'm sorry but on the internet my thoughts have been dismissed and attacked by just about everybody.
12. I can openly say that my favorite games are casual, odd, non-violent, artistic, or cute without fear that my opinions will reinforce a stereotype that “men are not real gamers.”
This is a stereotype? I don't think I've ever gone true scotsman on anyone in relation to gaming as a whole, I have made the logical conclusion that individual x isn't that into the game we're talking about but that's just general inference based on body language and tone. I'm not seeing the gender thing here, plenty of people do the no true scotsman in just about any context because they're insecure, that's not in my experience a gender specific thing.
13. When purchasing most major video games in a store, chances are I will not be asked if (or assumed to be) buying it for a wife, daughter or girlfriend.
Yeah I'm sure that could be annoying.
14. The vast majority of game studios, past and present, have been led and populated primarily by people of my own gender and as such most of their products have been specifically designed to cater to my demographic.
Wasn't it like a few question ago we were talking about the no true scotsman thing? Well, there are plenty of people from both genders producing video games, Some of whom have been attacked by their own gender for making the games they want.
15. I can walk into any gaming store and see images of my gender widely represented as powerful heroes, dastardly villains and non-playable characters alike.
I can also see dragons and elves and robots and powerful images representing both genders. But then again I'll be told a badass individual of the opposite sex wielding a gun or a sword is just some trope and it's somehow negative or something.
16. I will almost always have the option to play a character of my gender, as most protagonists or heroes will be male by default.
I would say in the majority of the games I play gender doesn't enter into it, I tend to prefer strategy games. If men of war had included female russian soldiers, I'd be all for it. In the case of some of the rpg's I've played like skyrim, my first character was a famele argonian archer/thief. I think the problem with listing 25 generalizations is it's the buzzfeed lazy way to communicate with a wider audience.
17. I do not have to carefully navigate my engagement with online communities or gaming spaces in order to avoid or mitigate the possibility of being harassed because of my gender.
I would say I do have to navigate online communities or gaming spaces carefully, the internet is a hostile place at times. To infer the internet even has the initiative to discriminate in its targeting implies a clarity of purpose that simply isn't there, quite often it's as simple as give a man a mask.
18. I probably never think about hiding my real-life gender online through my gamer-name, my avatar choice, or by muting voice-chat, out of fear of harassment resulting from my being male.
The thing is, I've been harassed online and it wasn't because of gender, it was because I was online. Is it ever possible that connecting everything to your own gender might be a bit of a complex? I mean yes, it could totally be on account of your gender, but the safer bet 100% of the time is because the person harassing strangers on the internet is an donkey-cave, regardless of their gender.
19. When I enter an online game, I can be relatively sure I won’t be attacked or harassed when and if my real-life gender is made public
The thing is there is no relative certainty when it comes to human interaction online, this is why you have admin control on team speak. I constant;y see people getting kicked from groups for taking the piss out of other players. And the reason range from an individuals perceived lack of skill to their tone of voice to who knows, why am I speculating on the intent of online trolls? Just kick them from the group.
20. If I am trash-talked or verbally berated while playing online, it will not be because I am male nor will my gender be invoked as an insult.
But I'll be trash talked just the same, so why make it about my gender when it's simply about the other person being disturbed and douchey?
21. While playing online with people I don’t know I won’t be interrogated about the size and shape of my real-life body parts, nor will I be pressured to share intimate details about my sex life for the pleasure of other players.
This has never happened to me in terms of being interrogated about my own physical attributes, I've certainly heard other's un-asked for bragging about their own physical prowess. Yeah I guess I can count my lucky stars that no one has requested my measurements online as of yet. Consider my privilege checked.
22. Complete strangers generally do not send me unsolicited images of their genitalia or demand to see me naked on the basis of being a male gamer.
Yeah I've never had that happen, sounds like a legitimately bad experience.
23. In multiplayer games I can be pretty sure that conversations between other players will not focus on speculation about my “attractiveness” or “sexual availability” in real-life.
It's occurred many a time, but then again it was always in joking fashion. Do you even lift bro?
24. If I choose to point out sexism in gaming, my observations will not be seen as self-serving, and will therefore be perceived as more credible and worthy of respect than those of my female counterparts, even if they are saying the exact same thing.
The problem is sexism is often simply "things I don't like" and inherently subjective. There are simply so many things to be critical about when it comes to games When it comes to being perceived as credible and worthy, again it's subjective, I tend not to focus on the sex of individuals whose opinions I share or oppose but perhaps I'm just not divisive enough, I gotta work on that.
25. Because it was created by a straight white man, this checklist will likely be taken more seriously than if it had been written by virtually any female gamer.
There we go, injecting sexual preference and race into a commentary on gender, gotta do the triple threat and evoke every divisive ghost in the attic. You know what is more effective, telling a genuine viewpoint and hoping that those we disagree with are still human and capable of basic empathy. Presenting a buzzfeed style list just doesn't seem like an effective way to shed light on the female experience in gaming and thus an effective means of us silly men to check our collective privilege.
I have to agree with matty, choose your battles, if you're just nitpicking everything it just feels like you're the hypochondriac and the reader is the doctor and they're forced to wade through you're paranoia to try and actually figure out what the problem is.
I'm going to my friend's place tomorrow night to play video games, she's a lesbian and her gf loves video games, I'm more concerned with not coming off like a snob cause I'm generally not a console player and more into pc games than offending anyone on account of their gender.
One of the core problems of the entire discussion is that most people think that it actually is about a gender conflict - when in fact...it's not.
It's a minority-in-a-surrounding-majority issue. Your "white male privileges" aren't worth a lot if you move into a neighborhood with mostly black people. Your "straight" privilege is worth nothing in a gay club.
Gender, to some people, is just one reason to insult others. Making the entire thing a purely gender issue while disregarding the core conflict is just lusting for attention and trying too hard.
It works both ways. How does "outing" yourself as a japanese dating sim lover will make a "white mal" look like? He'll be looked down upon and be called a "creep" or worse. Where's his privilege?
Ahtman wrote: A bunch of guys online telling women there really isn't a problem and that they don't understand? This is unexpected and surprising.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Never attribute misogyny to that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
That doesn't mean that men and women aren't the targets of misogynists and misandrists online, only that to infer that as the cause of the harassment an individual might receive can easily become a complex and in many ways is difficult to prove. I'm overweight, sometimes I get the feeling people are treating me a certain way on account of my weight. If I start the thought pattern that any person I encounter that I don't gel with or doesn't seem to like me has to do with my weight I'm going to A give myself an aneurysm and B develop some serious self image issues and C not give anyone a fair shake.
This is no different than kanye west accusing critics of racism, when it's not his race they take issue with, it's his genral habit of just being the worst.
I don't think many people are under any illusions that anonymity when combined with total freedom will be without it's downsides. I think the problem is that we're watering down the definition of harassment and annoyance quite often is a more honest description.
Ahtman wrote: A bunch of guys online telling women there really isn't a problem and that they don't understand? This is unexpected and surprising.
This isn't what I said. The point is that women (for the most part) don't just get hated on just for being women. If that was the case, then they'd be hated on as well if it was the other way around, if they were the majority. They are hated on because they are a minority. This happens with pretty much every minority that lives in a majority culture and it's explainable by mere human logic. It's not good, and noone ever said that, but this (mostly) isn't about misogny, even as much as some want it to be.
As I said in my examples - if the very same minority suddenly becomes a majority, it's different. A woman claiming to like dress-up? So...? Everyone will be like "Hey, that's cool. You play games." A man outing himself as a dress-up game lover? "LOL NECKBEARD CREEP".
Sigvatr wrote: One of the core problems of the entire discussion is that most people think that it actually is about a gender conflict - when in fact...it's not.
It's a minority-in-a-surrounding-majority issue. Your "white male privileges" aren't worth a lot if you move into a neighborhood with mostly black people. Your "straight" privilege is worth nothing in a gay club.
Gender, to some people, is just one reason to insult others. Making the entire thing a purely gender issue while disregarding the core conflict is just lusting for attention and trying too hard.
It works both ways. How does "outing" yourself as a japanese dating sim lover will make a "white mal" look like? He'll be looked down upon and be called a "creep" or worse. Where's his privilege?
This is correct, though of course the point is that most of the western world is not a majority black area or gay club. Thus, white male privilege is a significant factor in most social situations for most of us.
I'll make sure to remind the individuals whose only social contact is world of warcraft how good they've got it because they can pee standing up can be considered hidden when naked in snowy condtions. They better check themselves, they risk wrecking themselves.
This is correct, though of course the point is that most of the western world is not a majority black area or gay club. Thus, white male privilege is a significant factor in most social situations for most of us.
Exactly, that's my point. We can all agree that those things happening to e.g. women online are bad. But using those events to make up a point that just can't hold critical inspection is poor behavior.
Using the term "privilege", however, is easily misleading and it's highly recommendable to stay away from using it. It's highly frowned upon in higher fields as it has an extremely negative bias. Minority / majority (sub) culture are the neutral terms to use. "Privilege" is mostly used by people who like big words or want to impress like-minded people. The correct terms are not only neutral, they also explain the issue by themselves and are thus vastly superior.
I didn't say you did. In fact I didn't use any names at all. This is a multi-page/multi-poster thread, why would you immediately assume you were being talked to?
I didn't say you did. In fact I didn't use any names at all. This is a multi-page/multi-poster thread, why would you immediately assume you were being talked to?
Reply directly to my post, content fitting to my post's content, not the first time you're getting on my back
If you want to know what white privilege is, HBO's the wire is coming out on HD soon. It's a far more effective way to contemplate how good you have it as a white person. It is far more effective than hearing another white person whine on about silly crap online The only person I've ever heard talk about checking privelege was holding a 7 dollar star bucks coffee in one hand a university sweater in the other. I'm sure they'll feel blessed actually receiving a paycheck in the ever expanding industry of people who took gender studies in college starting a blog in which articlese generally start with "eveyone needs to x".
I didn't say you did. In fact I didn't use any names at all. This is a multi-page/multi-poster thread, why would you immediately assume you were being talked to?
Reply directly to my post, content fitting to my post's content, not the first time you're getting on my back
I posted after your post, which isn't the same. If I had replied directly to you I would have quoted you.
I could sure as hell use every advantage I can get right now.
You are most likely already benefiting from it. It has never been about getting things, but about not having to deal with things up to the point of not even having to realize it exists. Pretending that it doesn't exist is one of the benefits of being one of the in-group. It doesn't mean you get extra free things, it means you don't get extra bs. It doesn't mean you won't ever get pulled over but it does mean you most likely won't get pulled over for no reason. It doesn't keep you from being mocked for being a poor athlete but it does keep people from assuming you are a poor athlete just because you are a guy. I've never heard anyone say "you throw like a guy!" as an insult but I have heard for decades "you throw like a girl!" used as an insult.
You are most likely already benefiting from it. It has never been about getting things, but about not having to deal with things up to the point of not even having to realize it exists. .
I've had to deal with most of the points made, the difference was I didn't internalize the various occurrences as happening on account of my gender. Perhaps I should be more negative and focus on what makes us different rather than our collective humanity. If a store clerk constantly asked me if a game was for my signifcant other, I can see that being more common for a certain gender, and I can also try and empathize and I would agree that could get annoying. I've also encountered plenty of female clerks at eb so does that count as progress? I think so. Just as a thought experiment, if someone were to ask me who the makeup I'm purchasing is for, or infer it's for a significant other, I can see that assumption being fairly safe as makeup is more often purchased and utilized by the female gender. But men using and purchasing makeup is certainly more accepted today than in the past, progress I would also think that. I think talking about gaming a whole as a boys club isn't productive, you really would have to break it down by genre of game. The other problem is the assumption that all games regardless of genre's require or even allow for an obvious identification of a player's sex, or frankly any way to tell if the player is lying about that. Really, unless the game you're playing online involves team speak or voice chat, tying the annoyance you're experiencing or the harassment being directed towards you as in response to your gender is pathological in the extreme.
Again, my main point is you can paint any garden variety online donkey-cave or troll as subscribing to any ideology you want to serve your own ends but it's pretty obvious. The reality is humans, that's both men and women don't do well when given total freedom and anonymity. If the only solution is censorship, give me freedom or give me death. I'm resigned to the fact that the internet, like the world, is full of terrible people doing terrible things to each other.
Ahtman wrote: You can list anecdotal evidence all you want, but it doesn't really effect trends nor does it make research showing it is a problem disappear.
Negative human interaction online is a problem? Someone better do something.
But Ahtman, the fact that research shows certain people here is wrong and deeply ignorant offends them, and we can't have thaaa~aat, they're a white guys!
nomotog wrote: Why aren't people paid for house work? Well they are in a way. You would be indirectly paid by the member who brings home a wage, but that puts a odd work boss idea in the relationship. Hmm.
Given that most people who advocate women stay at home are in fact people who believe in male supremacy (and yes, this includes several people on Dakka), is this really surprising?
No it's not surprising. It's kind of a keystone almost. You learn one piece and then a lot of things that didn't make sense now kind of make sense.
This is correct, though of course the point is that most of the western world is not a majority black area or gay club. Thus, white male privilege is a significant factor in most social situations for most of us.
Exactly, that's my point. We can all agree that those things happening to e.g. women online are bad. But using those events to make up a point that just can't hold critical inspection is poor behavior.
Using the term "privilege", however, is easily misleading and it's highly recommendable to stay away from using it. It's highly frowned upon in higher fields as it has an extremely negative bias. Minority / majority (sub) culture are the neutral terms to use. "Privilege" is mostly used by people who like big words or want to impress like-minded people. The correct terms are not only neutral, they also explain the issue by themselves and are thus vastly superior.
Just out of curiosity, what does the term "intersectionality" mean to you?
Ahtman wrote: You can list anecdotal evidence all you want, but it doesn't really effect trends nor does it make research showing it is a problem disappear.
So only one side of the argument are permitted to use anecdotes?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: But Ahtman, the fact that research shows certain people here is wrong and deeply ignorant offends them, and we can't have thaaa~aat, they're a white guys!
Careful now, thats straying into gender and racial stereotyping!
Looking back at the list, this is all far less effective than simply pointing guys to http://fatuglyorslutty.com/ (NSFW)
Funnily enough, item 25:
Because it was created by a straight white man, this checklist will likely be taken more seriously than if it had been written by virtually any female gamer.
made me take the list LESS seriously. The 'straight white' bit sells it, because why not add race and sexual preference?
Looking at that list again from the video reminds me of the Wiki-wars as groups tried to re-write / define various topics.
This "check your privilege" fad is another media to hijack and stir up some controversy.
I like how the discussions have pointed out that your "privilege" mileage may vary depending on immediate surrounding audience.
The list seems more a means to throw a few statements out there and see what sticks.
Rather than pointing out male privilege / differences they could have had the opportunity to point out what is universally unacceptable for anyone to be targeted with.
I found many of the points a guy would be just as easily a target as a woman: so it has all the more support to abolish, it is a common experience.
Because it was created by a straight white man, this checklist will likely be taken more seriously than if it had been written by virtually any female gamer.
made me take the list LESS seriously. The 'straight white' bit sells it, because why not add race and sexual preference?
To be divisive... I mean inclusive. One love y'all.
Rather than pointing out male privilege / differences they could have had the opportunity to point out what is universally unacceptable for anyone to be targeted with.
I think the truth is that plenty of it is universally unacceptable but the eventual conclusion of unrestricted communication. Haters gon hate is not justification, merely an acknowledgement of an eventuality when humans intermingle with pure anonymity.
I found many of the points a guy would be just as easily a target as a woman: so it has all the more support to abolish, it is a common experience.
But other than censorship and restriction on access, what else hasn't been tried?
From my anecdotal experience, if someone is being annoying, abrasive, hostile, rude, loud, we kick that person from the team speak channel and continue playing the game. But generally, I would say I have a pretty high tolerance when it comes to language, but I would say offensive language (subjective) is annoying, when it's directed at someone it can generally be seen as harassment, especially if the other player complains. So kick that person from team speak and if they keep acting out, kick them from the server. That seems to work as a stop gap solution, forums seem to do that same thing.
You know when you have friends who have a kid and then they become really abrassive and whiny and develop a victim complex and no one else understands how hard it is to be a parent, that's what a lot of the commentary on gender comes off as with the whole entitlement and privelege stuff. I personally think a narrative is a more effective way to share one's worldview and subjective experience and hope that that leads to better understanding and treatment of "the other" .
Why aren't people paid for house work? Well they are in a way. You would be indirectly paid by the member who brings home a wage, but that puts a odd work boss idea in the relationship. Hmm.
^Thats a problem.
But Yeah I do not hate marxists. Infact I find communists interesting but in no way sensible. As they ignore alot of interesting things.
The problem is people shouldn't treat marriage in general as a business agreement. It should just be a marriage.
(This in terms of that idea you gave)
I do not agree with marxists. Even though are ideas do align on several parts, its just I do not believe in cultural marxism as working. Me and Karl Marx are complete oppposites in terms of belief in god and life. I do not like the current idea by these 'feminists' they aren't real feminists they attack and are rabid people. Yet most of them are men. Not women. A few are women, but they are special snowflakes and often do more harm than good.
No one is disagreeing with them when they say we need better games. But we don't need more female characters, we need better characters in general, including female. The other problem is harassment and no one disagrees on that front.
There will be harassment, but I don't think it is rampant as people make it out to be.
It maybe happening but there is not hundreds of millions of people that are being affected.We will always have people being hurt and damaged by idiots. We will get threats. But that is the problem with being a celebrity. If you put yourself out there and expect no one to harass you, then you are a fool.
Everytime someone makes an account they risk being revealed to the public and being attacked personally.
It is an issue in terms of it happening, but it is not because it is rampant.
No one will argue that is a problem.
But it is happening on both sides of this GG situation. I don't think one side is suffering more than the other. Both are having harassment thrown at them.
In gaming everyone gets harassed by anons.
But this is a reaction to the twitter situation. where just about anyone can make an account on it,
You know. No we don't need better female characters. We need more. The few we have are surprisingly good. It is just that no matter how good they are, they can't hold up when we have so few of them.
Everyone can agree that we need better characters in general regardless of their gender. Both male and female characters in most games are terribly bland and poorly written.
Sigvatr wrote: Everyone can agree that we need better characters in general regardless of their gender. Both male and female characters in most games are terribly bland and poorly written.
This. I don't care what the gender is, just give me a well written engaging storyline and protagonist.
Case in point. Clementine of TWD is probably my favourite video game protagonist to date, or at least the first that comes to mind.
Sigvatr wrote: Everyone can agree that we need better characters in general regardless of their gender. Both male and female characters in most games are terribly bland and poorly written.
You know no. I don't think I will agree. I think that pulling that up is more a way to avoid talking about the problem. It's not that we don't have good enough characters (how do you even define a good character? Well you can't because what is good will be different from person to person and game to game.) I think the problem is we have fewer female characters then we have batman. (going by the last top 100) I think of it as a quantity problem.
If out of a hundred games, you have ten female characters and half of them are great, but you have ninety male characters and one in ten of them are great, you'll still have more great male characters than female characters, simply due to sheer numbers problems.
Amusingly enough, that's not a bad summary of the current situation, either.
Melissia wrote: If out of a hundred games, you have ten female characters and half of them are great, but you have ninety male characters and one in ten of them are great, you'll still have more great male characters than female characters, simply due to sheer numbers problems.
Amusingly enough, that's not a bad summary of the current situation, either.
Well there should be better characters in general.
Female characters will slowly start to come into the game design world.
A lot of people have been making a lot of female characters in games. They are starting to equalize.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: They seem to easily be able to do it with a whole LOT of men though.
There's nothing "easy" about it. You think organising the licenses to the names and likeness rites to hundreds of players across multiple professional codes is easy? No double that if you want to include women's leagues.
I could sure as hell use every advantage I can get right now.
I was sure glad for my white male privilege when I lost my job in June. Man it was great to be so privileged while I got rejected time and time again for new jobs. So God-damned privileged. Went home every day thinking "Well, I'm Tumblr's natural enemy - a white cis het male - but so what 'cause everything will be ok! I don't need to work for anything, because I've got a great big heaping of privilege!".
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:How does one cash in on this so called straight white male privilege?
I could sure as hell use every advantage I can get right now.
H.B.M.C. wrote:I was sure glad for my white male privilege when I lost my job in June. Man it was great to be so privileged while I got rejected time and time again for new jobs. So God-damned privileged. Went home every day thinking "Well, I'm Tumblr's natural enemy - a white cis het male - but so what 'cause everything will be ok! I don't need to work for anything, because I've got a great big heaping of privilege!".
Feth. That.
Are we doing this again?
White male 'privilege' in this particular context/scenario, is not about having something that others do not. So all the comments about, 'being a white male never helped me get ahead in life', or 'Being a white male doesn't stop you starving on the streets!' are showing a fundamental disconnect and absolute failure to grasp what is actually being discussed.
The white male 'privilege' is actually about not having something that someone else does. In other words, not being lucky [/sarcasm] enough to have the same sexual harassment, denigration, and assumptions made about you as some others do.
Nobody is asking you to apologise. Nobody is telling you that you have something you don't. Nobody is demanding you be ashamed for being a male. All they are trying to do is make you aware of how some other people how to suffer in ways that you do not. Because as the first point says, you do have the luxury to 'remain completely oblivious, or indifferent to the harassment that many women face in gaming spaces'.
As for the next thing...
Sigvatr wrote:Everyone can agree that we need better characters in general regardless of their gender. Both male and female characters in most games are terribly bland and poorly written.
Asherian Command wrote:
No one is disagreeing with them when they say we need better games. But we don't need more female characters, we need better characters in general, including female. The other problem is harassment and no one disagrees on that front.
No. If someone says, 'Hey, we should make sure that disabled people get equal treatment!', turning around replying, 'It's not about disabled people getting equal treatment, it's about everyone everywhere ever getting equal treatment!' is a very nice and convenient way of deflecting the issue. You get to hide behind a grand ideal, and belittle the other person for only looking at the small picture.
Unfortunately, what happens is that hiding behind, 'Justice for all', or in this case, 'Better video game characters for all' means that absolutely diddly squat actually happens. Because setting an insanely high goal is a good way of ensuring that nobody even tries to hit it. It's the difference between a country pledging to cut their coal power supply by twenty percent, or completely switching to green power. If you target the first, you might actually get somewhere, and take a step towards that eventual larger goal. If you just start off with the huge goal, nobody even bothers. And then nothing improves.
Big steps are made up of little steps. You want awesome characters in every game. Alright. Focus on getting more female characters in decent roles. Maybe then focus on trying to give all them slightly better back stories. Then focus on getting in a few FPS's that actually have storyline. One step at a time. Because if you just say, 'Screw putting more women in video games, you think too small! WE SHOULD MAKE EVERY GAME EVERYWHERE AMAZING' nothing will change.
A more cynical person might even be tempted to suggest that would be a deliberate motive for making such a patently absurd deflection in the first place.
White male 'privilege' in this particular context/scenario, is not about having something that others do not. So all the comments about, 'being a white male never helped me get ahead in life', or 'Being a white male doesn't stop you starving on the streets!' are showing a fundamental disconnect and absolute failure to grasp what is actually being discussed.
The white male 'privilege' is actually about not having something that someone else does. In other words, not being lucky [/sarcasm] enough to have the same sexual harassment, denigration, and assumptions made about you as some others do.
Nobody is asking you to apologise. Nobody is telling you that you have something you don't. Nobody is demanding you be ashamed for being a male. All they are trying to do is make you aware of how some other people how to suffer in ways that you do not. Because as the first point says, you do have the luxury to 'remain completely oblivious, or indifferent to the harassment that many women face in gaming spaces'.
Bull gak from start to finish. People suffer in many ways. No ways are more worthy than others. This is just another way to guilt white people and I'm fething sick of it. You can't just be. You can't just exist. You can't have problems and struggles unique to you, struggles that you have from birth that you cannot escape because some group of feth wits has decided that your colour or gender determines your standing in society. You've got to be put into a box of "privilege" that is utterly detached from real life, and fails to take into account specific circumstances because it's so damned broad.
White people differ across the whole world. Black people differ across the whole world. Women differ across the whole world. To try and say that certain groups have privilege based upon these enormously broad concepts (I am not the same as a white guy from Estonia, any more than that white guy from Estonia is different to another white guy in Canada) is complete lunacy.
And this:
"All they are trying to do is make you aware of how some other people how to suffer in ways that you do not."
This is the worst part of it. Some people suffer in different ways to me? Yeah, and I suffer in different ways to other people. Why are my sufferings (whatever they may be), somehow deemed "less than" because I'm white. Why are any sufferings suffered by white people - as if that distinction even MEANS anything given just how many different types of white people there are across the world; no race is a fething hive mind collective - any more or less worthy/different/important than anyone else's?
These pointless titles seek only to divide us further into utterly meaningless categories that solve no problems.
nomotog wrote: Privilege shouldn't be such a radical concept. It's basically understanding that different people have had different life experiences then you.
nomotog wrote: Privilege shouldn't be such a radical concept. It's basically understanding that different people have had different life experiences then you.
And yet it is.
Maybe because people are treating it like a contest or challenge of some kind? Like the one with the most privilege wins or something, but it's not really about winning. It's more just about understanding.
nomotog wrote: Privilege shouldn't be such a radical concept. It's basically understanding that different people have had different life experiences then you.
And?
There are many people with different walks of life. I grew up in sururban town where everyone was pampered to all hell. But I also lived in a city for a few years outside of the bubble and pampering.
I didn't live a privilege life. Many dakknauts here probably don't either. As a lot of people here are or were in the military.
Living in the West is a bloody privilege, being rich and white. Is a privilege. Barely having the money to pay your taxes and under constant threat of being deported, is not privilege.
Being White does have perks, but I am less likely to get a job in my career because other people follow that in suite. Whites make up around 60% of the population of the United States.So no duh there will be difficulty in finding a career.
No. If someone says, 'Hey, we should make sure that disabled people get equal treatment!', turning around replying, 'It's not about disabled people getting equal treatment, it's about everyone everywhere ever getting equal treatment!' is a very nice and convenient way of deflecting the issue. You get to hide behind a grand ideal, and belittle the other person for only looking at the small picture.
Unfortunately, what happens is that hiding behind, 'Justice for all', or in this case, 'Better video game characters for all' means that absolutely diddly squat actually happens. Because setting an insanely high goal is a good way of ensuring that nobody even tries to hit it. It's the difference between a country pledging to cut their coal power supply by twenty percent, or completely switching to green power. If you target the first, you might actually get somewhere, and take a step towards that eventual larger goal. If you just start off with the huge goal, nobody even bothers. And then nothing improves.
Big steps are made up of little steps. You want awesome characters in every game. Alright. Focus on getting more female characters in decent roles. Maybe then focus on trying to give all them slightly better back stories. Then focus on getting in a few FPS's that actually have storyline. One step at a time. Because if you just say, 'Screw putting more women in video games, you think too small! WE SHOULD MAKE EVERY GAME EVERYWHERE AMAZING' nothing will change.
A more cynical person might even be tempted to suggest that would be a deliberate motive for making such a patently absurd deflection in the first place.
The problem with that frame of mind is that is ignoring many other facets. I mean fighting games in general have a gender split. Equal between men and women. Most point and click adventure games have female characters as main characters.
Puzzle games as well also have this. The FPS genre is the smallest genre but it makes the most amount of money. The easiest games to create are point and click games not FPS. FPS is a combination of point and click. There are more tools for the FPS genre. But they are more expensive to make than lets say a puzzle game.
The thing is that alot of the things I am talking about are happening. Games writing has gotten better. I think it would be a disservice to say it hasn't.
Games have slowly started to diversify because there are more women getting into higher positions and more shared ideas and talks among the writers and game creators.
Its not 1 to 9 ratio like some people in this thread have said. Its more 50 50.
Having seen all the indie work recently and the work of many of my colleagues. At least 80% of them had females in them.
Most triple A don't have that. And considering less Triple A games are made for a dying demographic that we call hardcore gamers. Which is a stupid marketing term that was used by the Younger Games Industry that really needs to shut up and die.
The Games Industry does not have an over abundance right now. Actually no I lied. We do. All the same characters are being pumped out.
I think this year in particular has seen the rise of many female characters in prominent positions. This year we had Bioshock Infinite Burial At Sea Episode 2, Alien Isolation, The Walking Dead Season 2, Game of Thrones (TellTale), and The Last of Us. That is 5 female characters in five triple A games.Game of thrones Telltale has many female characters that are the main characters.
This is the worst part of it. Some people suffer in different ways to me? Yeah, and I suffer in different ways to other people. Why are my sufferings (whatever they may be), somehow deemed "less than" because I'm white. Why are any sufferings suffered by white people - as if that distinction even MEANS anything given just how many different types of white people there are across the world; no race is a fething hive mind collective - any more or less worthy/different/important than anyone else's?
These pointless titles seek only to divide us further into utterly meaningless categories that solve no problems.
And I'm sick of it.
I agree.
There is a problem of saying this type of thing. (But that I mean saying Check your privilege) It just divides us even more. And causes tension. There is no need to say this. Some people are privileged but not in the way that has been talked about.
H.B.M.C. wrote: People suffer in many ways. No ways are more worthy than others.
Do you realize nobody said otherwise? Nobody is dismissing your suffering (or at least, nobody should be). People will however tell you to feth off if you are using your own suffering to dismiss, belittle or divert attention from other peoples suffering.
H.B.M.C. wrote: You've got to be put into a box of "privilege" that is utterly detached from real life, and fails to take into account specific circumstances because it's so damned broad.
I think you are mixing up having some privilege, and being better off. You can have more privilege than someone and still be way, way worse off. Wizardchan has lots of people for have many privileges yet still are way, way worse off than most people.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Why are my sufferings (whatever they may be), somehow deemed "less than" because I'm white.
The real question is: “Why, when other people talk about their sufferings, do you feel the need to focus on comparing those to your sufferings, rather than on how you can help alleviate their sufferings”.
If you want to talk about your sufferings, tell about them on their own, not as a diversion in a conversation about someone else. Just go and create a different topic. I mean, do you see homosexual people hijacking discussions on racism to say “But we have problems too, so stop talking about your problems”? How do you think any outsider would react to this kind of stuff?
nomotog wrote: Privilege shouldn't be such a radical concept. It's basically understanding that different people have had different life experiences then you.
And?
There are many people with different walks of life. I grew up in sururban town where everyone was pampered to all hell. But I also lived in a city for a few years outside of the bubble and pampering.
I didn't live a privilege life. Many dakknauts here probably don't either. As a lot of people here are or were in the military.
Living in the West is a bloody privilege, being rich and white. Is a privilege. Barely having the money to pay your taxes and under constant threat of being deported, is not privilege.
Being White does have perks, but I am less likely to get a job in my career because other people follow that in suite. Whites make up around 60% of the population of the United States.So no duh there will be difficulty in finding a career.
There isn't really an and. It's about understanding each others struggles. Like when someone says check your privilege it means stop and think about how your situation might be different then theirs and how they might come to different conclusion then you do about the same issue.
“Why, when other people talk about their sufferings, do you feel the need to focus on comparing those to your sufferings, rather than on how you can help alleviate their sufferings”.
Then Question I would ask is why do you sit around and complain and not do anything about it?
There are people right now, being shot and killed. And your complaining?
The reality is that we can't do everything. The reality is we can't give up our fortunes and our lives to help other people. We can set up charities and donate, but our lives should not be thrown away for someone thousands of miles away because they have it worse off. I don't want to sound like a prick. Which I am!
But it is not right to say that we are privileged to be white. I didn't choose to be white, I didn't choose to have more rights than other people.
I only have chosen one to be honest and help other people when I can and wherever possible.
We as human beings are usually selfish and wanting people to know about our pain. Its what we do.
This retains and repeats and repeats. There is no such thing as living a privileged life. WE are all pretty miserable. Some are more miserable than others. There are people of different color who do have it worse than someone like me. But it does not mean that I have some hidden privilege. That is false. I don't. I live my life quite honestly and most white people do as well. The problem is that people say that. And it all causes adversity and strife. That is a problem and should stop.
I see every human being as the same. There is only one race I care about, and that is the human one. Black White, Blue Orange, I don't care. They are human beings, saying black people are a different race from white people, is completely stupid and one that makes me laugh. They are a subspecies not a completely different race entirely. Someone who is African does not have four hearts and sixteen lungs, Africans have 1 heart and 2 lungs. Like me. (There may be some who might have defects) The only biggest difference between white and black, is one is white and one is black. End of Discussion.
Human Beings are all the same and are all miserable living.
There isn't really an and. It's about understanding each others struggles. Like when someone says check your privilege it means stop and think about how your situation might be different then theirs and how they might come to different conclusion then you do about the same issue.
That only causes difficultly. You should not say check your privilege white man!
You should say. There are other people who have it worse than you. Which I agree with. But I won't say check your privilege. Unless you are fething loaded. Then I will, but that is mostly because I hate rich people.
H.B.M.C. wrote: You've got to be put into a box of "privilege" that is utterly detached from real life, and fails to take into account specific circumstances because it's so damned broad.
I agree with this, especially when wealth plays a much bigger part than race or gender. Unless someone wants to argue a white homeless man is more privileged than Oprah
Bull gak from start to finish. People suffer in many ways. No ways are more worthy than others. This is just another way to guilt white people and I'm fething sick of it.
Who said one type of suffering was more worthy than another? Somebody seems to be projecting a lot of rage from their personal life here.
You can't just be. You can't just exist. You can't have problems and struggles unique to you, struggles that you have from birth that you cannot escape because some group of feth wits has decided that your colour or gender determines your standing in society.
Yep, definitely channeling rage from real life here. Newsflash. People suffer all over the place in different places in different ways. Bizarely enough, being rich excludes you from being poor, being male excludes you from being female, being disabled prevents you from being abled, and being white excludes you from being black (except in very specific situations in Brazil). Each of those categories comes with it's own trials and tribulations.
In this specific case, being female comes with a whole batch of problems that the other category, 'men' do not have to suffer from. And comparatively speaking, 'men' do not suffer quite as many drawbacks for being the sex they are. There are some. But not as many. In exactly the same way a rich person has problems that a poor does not, and a black person often has problems a white person does not, based upon that specific attribute.
You've got to be put into a box of "privilege" that is utterly detached from real life, and fails to take into account specific circumstances because it's so damned broad.
White people differ across the whole world. Black people differ across the whole world. Women differ across the whole world. To try and say that certain groups have privilege based upon these enormously broad concepts (I am not the same as a white guy from Estonia, any more than that white guy from Estonia is different to another white guy in Canada) is complete lunacy.
That's why 'white privilege' is a stupid term, that only stupid people pay attention to. It's not that you have something others don't. It's that others have specific problems that you don't. Comprende, senor?
This is the worst part of it. Some people suffer in different ways to me? Yeah, and I suffer in different ways to other people. Why are my sufferings (whatever they may be), somehow deemed "less than" because I'm white. Why are any sufferings suffered by white people - as if that distinction even MEANS anything given just how many different types of white people there are across the world; no race is a fething hive mind collective - any more or less worthy/different/important than anyone else's?
Oh. Alright then. Might as well cancel all concerns about race, sex, age, and any other kind of discrimination or suffering. Because if somebody else is suffering in some way, recognising that first person's suffering would denigrate the second person's suffering. Right? I mean the concept of a scale of seriousness? Or the concept that you could *gasp* pay attention to MORE than one kind of suffering? Perish the thought!
Asherian Command wrote: But it is not right to say that we are privileged to be white. I didn't choose to be white, I didn't choose to have more rights than other people.
You know, the “official” privileges, those that were part of actual law and were abolished after our revolution, people also did not choose to have them. They were born with them. That was part of the problems with them.
Having privilege is not your fault, and it does not make you a bad person. What is a problem is not realizing your privilege. Because then you cannot understand other people's experience.
Those words are so loaded with ideology that if they had any kind of biological relevance at any point, it is long gone now. That is therefore completely irrelevant.
Asherian Command wrote: The only biggest difference between white and black, is one is white and one is black. End of Discussion.
And yet, in some places, whether you are white or black will lead to some very different experience, because society is made that way. If you do not see, or refuse to see, how your experience would have been different if you were a different skin color in that society, then you need to, wait for it… check your privilege .
You should say. There are other people who have it worse than you.
No. Because if you are the typical wizard, and the black woman you are compared to is a well-adjusted, confident, smart with a though skin, you certainly have it worse than her. You still have privilege.
Similarly, if some straight black guy and some gay white guy talk together, they may both have to check their privilege. Because it is not about having to worse or better. It is about understanding each other better.
Bull gak from start to finish. People suffer in many ways. No ways are more worthy than others. This is just another way to guilt white people and I'm fething sick of it.
Who said one type of suffering was more worthy than another? Somebody seems to be projecting a lot of rage from their personal life here.
The check your privilege is basically saying and implying that.
You can't just be. You can't just exist. You can't have problems and struggles unique to you, struggles that you have from birth that you cannot escape because some group of feth wits has decided that your colour or gender determines your standing in society.
Yep, definitely channeling rage from real life here. Newsflash. People suffer all over the place in different places in different ways. Bizarely enough, being rich excludes you from being poor, being male excludes you from being female, being disabled prevents you from being abled, and being white excludes you from being black (except in very specific situations in Brazil). Each of those categories comes with it's own trials and tribulations.
In this specific case, being female comes with a whole batch of problems that the other category, 'men' do not have to suffer from. And comparatively speaking, 'men' do not suffer quite as many drawbacks for being the sex they are. There are some. But not as many. In exactly the same way a rich person has problems that a poor does not, and a black person often has problems a white person does not, based upon that specific attribute.
And being male doesn't? How many times have I been thrown out of a potential job because I lacked oh what was it called again? Oh yeah lady parts? Apparently they don't want people that can type fast.
How many people have been not allowed to come to schools because they already have enough white males.
It is a competitive world out there. And saying that white men have it good. You have no idea. We still face adversory because we are human beings. We constantly backstab, and kill each other if we rub each other the wrong way.
You've got to be put into a box of "privilege" that is utterly detached from real life, and fails to take into account specific circumstances because it's so damned broad. White people differ across the whole world. Black people differ across the whole world. Women differ across the whole world. To try and say that certain groups have privilege based upon these enormously broad concepts (I am not the same as a white guy from Estonia, any more than that white guy from Estonia is different to another white guy in Canada) is complete lunacy.
That's why 'white privilege' is a stupid term, that only stupid people pay attention to. It's not that you have something others don't. It's that others have specific problems that you don't. Comprende, senor?
Then you agree. So don't use. Just put it under stupid terms that people use. Like Sheople, and White Cis Male. Also senor, there be strange folk abroad.
This is the worst part of it. Some people suffer in different ways to me? Yeah, and I suffer in different ways to other people. Why are my sufferings (whatever they may be), somehow deemed "less than" because I'm white. Why are any sufferings suffered by white people - as if that distinction even MEANS anything given just how many different types of white people there are across the world; no race is a fething hive mind collective - any more or less worthy/different/important than anyone else's?
Oh. Alright then. Might as well cancel all concerns about race, sex, age, and any other kind of discrimination or suffering. Because if somebody else is suffering in some way, recognising that first person's suffering would denigrate the second person's suffering. Right? I mean the concept of a scale of seriousness? Or the concept that you could *gasp* pay attention to MORE than one kind of suffering? Perish the thought!
What an absolute load of old crock.
Well we would only move forward if people you knew how to address it and weren't confrontational and say it is my fault for allowing my ancestors to be slave owners. Oh the wonderous memories. I am over hundred years old. I have even seen the great napoleonic wars. And Charlemane taking his scepter and becoming the king of the holy roman empire.
Because it is definately my fault that he didn't like the muslims that much.
If you can't tell. But this is satire and me saying this stupid, because I have been blamed before for being white. By people who identify as feminists. And you guessed it. They were white, Wait for it. Males!
So yes tell me. Oh the irony. The Sweet irony.
But jokes aside. It is a load of crock the whole situation that a bunch of white dudes all are telling me I am privileged you know people who have well paying jobs, and jobs that I wouldn't mind having.
ALA most of the men there were interestingly enough not very reliable or interested in world politics and don't know what they are talking about half the time.
nomotog wrote: Privilege shouldn't be such a radical concept. It's basically understanding that different people have had different life experiences then you.
It's about presentation as well, though. Correct or not, when one person says "check your privilege", what the other person hears is "shut up, your opinion doesn't matter". So if you want to stop any reasoned debate, go ahead with the privileged comment. But if you want to actually have a meaningful conversation you should choose a different way of making your point.
Asherian Command wrote: Then Question I would ask is why do you sit around and complain and not do anything about it?
Why are you sitting around not doing anything about it?
I do. Its called charity.
Its called having lost half my family to other peoples wars.
Its called charity work. Working with people. I help other people. I do things. I don't sit my arse all day. I help people by saying hello, saying how are you. Helping people with problems. Doing my best to be a good human being.
Not someone who just ignores everyone on the road.
Asherian Command wrote: But it is not right to say that we are privileged to be white. I didn't choose to be white, I didn't choose to have more rights than other people.
You know, the “official” privileges, those that were part of actual law and were abolished after our revolution, people also did not choose to have them. They were born with them. That was part of the problems with them.
Having privilege is not your fault, and it does not make you a bad person. What is a problem is not realizing your privilege. Because then you cannot understand other people's experience.
Those words are so loaded with ideology that if they had any kind of biological relevance at any point, it is long gone now. That is therefore completely irrelevant.
Tada!
Now you know what I am talking about.
Asherian Command wrote: The only biggest difference between white and black, is one is white and one is black. End of Discussion.
And yet, in some places, whether you are white or black will lead to some very different experience, because society is made that way. If you do not see, or refuse to see, how your experience would have been different if you were a different skin color in that society, then you need to, wait for it… check your privilege .
I already have. and it is nonexistant.
What privileges do I have. That I should all be concerned with.
None. I don't have any benefits. People look at me strangely on the bus all the time. When I walk down the street people ask me If I got any weed in my backpack, because I am white. So I clearly must have some. (Answer: Nope I don't.)
You should say. There are other people who have it worse than you.
No. Because if you are the typical wizard, and the black woman you are compared to is a well-adjusted, confident, smart with a though skin, you certainly have it worse than her. You still have privilege.
Similarly, if some straight black guy and some gay white guy talk together, they may both have to check their privilege. Because it is not about having to worse or better. It is about understanding each other better.
Am I saying that? No!
There are certain regions in the world where there are white people who are shot and killed and murdered, and many other things. There are white people who go without food for months. Sometimes they have to scavenge for food. Sometimes they are in the middle of a warzone. And should I say white cis scum to one of them?
Privilge is out of reality. White Males and White Females Do not have it better. There are people who die everyday. Death is not sexist or racist. It visits us all. Some sooner than others based on where you are on the world map.
The thing is that you are all using strawman arguments to make that point. So no wonder why I would stand here and say that is wrong .
Human beings everywhere are killed.
So stop saying that just because I am white means I have privileged.
Instead check your own. Because you Live in europe and the west.
Americans have better than anyone else. Stop kidding yourselves. You all have privileges. You all have rights. Your rights are not violated like someone in the east.
So do not equate to them.
They have it worse. Your problems are minuscule compared to the ones the world faces. There are women in the world who face death for wanting to go to school. You complain that there is no representation of women in games. Yet there are. You should be more concerned that those women do not get a chance for education.
For that I step back from this conversation. Because some of you won't learn that. There are bigger fish to fry. Than video games. Leave it to us. The ones in the industry to solve. We know about it. We talk about it. We are changing it. So why fuss, if you don't see the results yet?
I understand this is a thread for that. But its not that big of an issue. Privilege is a stupid idea. And always will be. Especially when it comes from someone that lives in the west.
nomotog wrote: Privilege shouldn't be such a radical concept. It's basically understanding that different people have had different life experiences then you.
It's about presentation as well, though. Correct or not, when one person says "check your privilege", what the other person hears is "shut up, your opinion doesn't matter". So if you want to stop any reasoned debate, go ahead with the privileged comment. But if you want to actually have a meaningful conversation you should choose a different way of making your point.
The problem is expecting people to explain a complex problem hundreds, if not thousands of times. "Check your privilege" is, essentially, a shorthand, because the problem comes up time and time and time and time again.
At some point, explaining the same, well established trend shouldn't be the expected thing. People should instead be expected to know it themselves, rather than expecting others to enlighten their ignorance.
nomotog wrote: Privilege shouldn't be such a radical concept. It's basically understanding that different people have had different life experiences then you.
It's about presentation as well, though. Correct or not, when one person says "check your privilege", what the other person hears is "shut up, your opinion doesn't matter". So if you want to stop any reasoned debate, go ahead with the privileged comment. But if you want to actually have a meaningful conversation you should choose a different way of making your point.
The problem is expecting people to explain a complex problem hundreds, if not thousands of times. "Check your privilege" is, essentially, a shorthand, because the problem comes up time and time and time and time again.
At some point, explaining the same, well established trend shouldn't be the expected thing. People should instead be expected to know it themselves, rather than expecting others to enlighten their ignorance.
That doesn't help a situation though.
That makes it worse.
Saying check your privilege is a put down. Very childish and uncalled for.
If they don't know it. Then you should explain it.
People get my name wrong all the time. I do not expect them to know my name if they haven't met me before.
I explain to them how it is pronounced. But I won't get offended if someone gets my name wrong.
If someone says a fact wrong. I educate them. I don't put them down. I say thats all in good, but that fact is actually kind of wrong. And explain it to them. Kindly. And well. Not through putdowns or childish speech.
Neither does some random jackass demanding an exasperated, stressed out person explain, in detail, sonmethign that has already been explained millions of times in the past, which a simple and easy google search would give them tons of information about-- but no, they can't be assed to do that because they're self-important pricks.
This stopped being a thread people would benefit from, that they could disagree with each other politely and state their points well, about 9 pages ago. Given the prevailing conditions in this, the Video(t) Games subforum, it isn't going to improve. So yeah, if you guys want to talk about this again, all sides of this will need to up their game. Until then,
