This one just hit my Facebook feed which means it's been out there a while. It is a post written by someone detailing how depraved and violent table top gamers are.
The essay that was linked target Wyrd (Malifaux) which was really strange as that is one of the more female-friendly games out there.
So, for your amusement (or ire) I'll link to the diatribe.
The first thing you notice is that it reads like something written by Jack Thompson during his anti-video game crusade. Claims of behavior that are alien to anything I have ever seen at a FLGS and the omission of those I have immediately suggest that the author is fabricating the entire thing. Make no mistake, this is a piece of work written by an activist for other activists.
I've not seen anything yet that indicates Wyrd's response (other than to ignore it), but the comments on Facebook by supposed games worry me greatly.
So, how prevalent is this stuff? I don't see much but then I'm not the type of person who collects friends and has a million posts across my FB feed each day.
Breotan wrote: This one just hit my Facebook feed which means it's been out there a while. It is a post written by some SJW detailing how depraved and violent table top gamers are.
The essay that was linked target Wyrd (Malifaux) which was really strange as that is one of the more female-friendly games out there.
So, for your amusement (or ire) I'll link to the diatribe.
The first thing you notice is that it reads like something written by Jack Thompson during his anti-video game crusade. Claims of behavior that are alien to anything I have ever seen at a FLGS and the omission of those I have immediately suggest that the author is fabricating the entire thing. Make no mistake, this is a piece of work written by a SJW for other SJW's.
I've not seen anything yet that indicates Wyrd's response (other than to ignore it), but the comments on Facebook by supposed games worry me greatly.
So, how prevalent is this stuff? I don't see much but then I'm not the type of person who collects friends and has a million posts across my FB feed each day.
I've never seen the behavior claimed in the post...anywhere, at least not at the level being described aside from the occaisional one-off comment from the weird guy that shows up once or twice a year to look around but never actually plays. I'm sure it exists on some level somewhere, but outside of the basement trolls going out of their way to be offensive simply to get a rise out of people when they put themselves out there, I've never seen it actually be a real thing.
I see a whole lot of the SJW chatter on facebook amongst friends & acquaintances in certain social circles. One pal is a PHD student, goes to tons of computer science conferences and tech cons, but doesn't ever go to the panels or events that the event is centered around or talk about what new tech frontiers are being explored, but rather "microaggression" trainings, E-Harassment seminars, and panels on online behavior management. These are echo chambers of the worst kind borne from the best of intentions.
Methinks the author of this particular piece has spent a bit too much time in such echo chambers.
Breotan wrote: This one just hit my Facebook feed which means it's been out there a while. It is a post written by some SJW detailing how depraved and violent table top gamers are.
The essay that was linked target Wyrd (Malifaux) which was really strange as that is one of the more female-friendly games out there.
So, for your amusement (or ire) I'll link to the diatribe.
The first thing you notice is that it reads like something written by Jack Thompson during his anti-video game crusade. Claims of behavior that are alien to anything I have ever seen at a FLGS and the omission of those I have immediately suggest that the author is fabricating the entire thing. Make no mistake, this is a piece of work written by a SJW for other SJW's.
I've not seen anything yet that indicates Wyrd's response (other than to ignore it), but the comments on Facebook by supposed games worry me greatly.
So, how prevalent is this stuff? I don't see much but then I'm not the type of person who collects friends and has a million posts across my FB feed each day.
I've never seen the behavior claimed in the post...anywhere, at least not at the level being described aside from the occaisional one-off comment from the weird guy that shows up once or twice a year to look around but never actually plays. I'm sure it exists on some level somewhere, but outside of the basement trolls going out of their way to be offensive simply to get a rise out of people when they put themselves out there, I've never seen it actually be a real thing.
I see a whole lot of the SJW chatter on facebook amongst friends & acquaintances in certain social circles. One pal is a PHD student, goes to tons of computer science conferences and tech cons, but doesn't ever go to the panels or events that the event is centered around or talk about what new tech frontiers are being explored, but rather "microaggression" trainings, E-Harassment seminars, and panels on online behavior management. These are echo chambers of the worst kind borne from the best of intentions.
Methinks the author of this particular piece has spent a bit too much time in such echo chambers.
Has this SJW ever been in a CoD match in BO2? Can't tell you how many death threats come from there.
I will have to agree Breotan and say this is entirely fiction (or the SJW in question has terrible luck). There is some possibility of you being sexually harassed for... 7-8 years running, but I find it hard to imagine that nobody helped or payed any attention to this "victim."
Social Justice Warrior. A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A social justice warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of. They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular blogger or commenter of the moment, hoping that they will "get SJ points" and become popular in return. They are very sure to adopt stances that are "correct" in their social circle.
The SJW's favorite activity of all is to dogpile. Their favorite websites to frequent are Livejournal and Tumblr. They do not have relevant favorite real-world places, because SJWs are primarily civil rights activists only online.
I just don't believe a good chunk of what I've written. That group of people chanting at a 13 year old girl like that? Don't believe it. She says she won a 'precedent-setting human rights case', that's a big claim that needs backing up. She says she gets abuse directly from staff at Wyrd, where's the evidence? Multiple sexual assaults and no one says anything? Really? Most places I've been, there'd likely be quite a fuss made.
Some just doesn't make sense. She says 13% of people report unwanted sexual comments, but then goes on to say that if 13% of people suffered that at SDCC it would be 17,000 in a weekend. Well the 13% of cases is clearly a lifetime of gaming not all those reported in a weekend. Women unfortunately get harassed in all walks of life, I bet over 13% have suffered such comments out in the street at some point. While I won't defend such behaviour, to then say, imagine if 13% of women suffered such comments today in London - that's nearly half a million sexual assaults against women in 24 hours in one city! It's clearly nonsense, meaningless numbers pulled out of the air without logic or context, simply to shock.
I think there's sexism in this hobby but generally it's low level awkwardness, or it's inappropriate language. I particularly the use of the word 'rape' when simply saying that someone is going to lose badly. But open sexual assaults are not common. Other gamers do not just cover up for other players and laugh at women. The author of this piece describes numbers is extreme situations and then tars all 'white male' players as being deliberately complicit. Frankly it sounds like she has a problem with white men, given how often she needs to repeatedly specify the gender and ethnicity of the people she has a problem with, despite her examples of racism in particular being a bit thin.
Not to be too mean here but I find the most extreme SJW crowd to be players of 'sisters of battle'. Not all of em are but they usually pick the 'all female' faction as a sort of 'girls rule, boys drool' agenda. It's sad as 'sisters of battle' as a faction don't really push that agenda but being all female they somewhat do.
The odd thing I find is most girls tend to play factions outside of sisters of battle like eldar, orks, nids, daemons and some others. So they tend to like gender mixed factions or ones without a gender. I've also seen some that like imperial guard that had pretty much no women at all.
Anyway at the end of the day I don't think the supposedly SJW's are trying to help out all women so much as certain women or their idea of what women want even if it isn't true.
-------
If anything when 'warhammer fantasy' existed you'd imagine SJW's had no room to complain. Greenskins were gender neutral, all 3 elf factions had female characters and models, vampire counts had at least one female character and models (coven throne) and even a book main character that was female, tomb kings had a female character, ogres had a female model goofy as it was (rolling pin butcher or man o' war), warriors of chaos had a female character (valkia the bloody), bretonnia had damsels (the wizard ladies of the 'lady of the lake'), skaven sort of had forgeworld females (brood horrors) and probably more that I don't know about.
Of 15 factions that's a lot of representation for women for a hobby that I've seen maybe 2-3 women players in my entire game experience. Seriously I've only seen one GW employee that was female, one that was a girlfriend of a player and another that was sort of a wife. I don't know what the employee played but one wanted to play nids and one of the elf factions before AoS was a thing and the other played orks.
Given what I know about the company, its employees, its policies and past behavior, I am inclined to believe Wyrd on this one.
In fact, I found the initial claims against Wyrd to be rather ridiculous, but as soon as I read "Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed" I was pretty sure it was all a load of bs.
Thats not to say that nobody would ever say it, but the idea that a group of warhammer 40k players would spontaneously erupt into chanting it after it was said by the person she was speaking to was outright comical, and conjures images of a gakky sexploitation film where they are in a torch lit dungeon where a bunch of illuminati types hidden beneath hoods slowly back their young naive victim into a corner as their claw like hands reach towards her and begin tearing at her clothes and flesh.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Not to be too mean here but I find the most extreme SJW crowd to be players of 'sisters of battle'. Not all of em are but they usually pick the 'all female' faction as a sort of 'girls rule, boys drool' agenda. It's sad as 'sisters of battle' as a faction don't really push that agenda but being all female they somewhat do.
The odd thing I find is most girls tend to play factions outside of sisters of battle like eldar, orks, nids, daemons and some others. So they tend to like gender mixed factions or ones without a gender. I've also seen some that like imperial guard that had pretty much no women at all.
Anyway at the end of the day I don't think the supposedly SJW's are trying to help out all women so much as certain women or their idea of what women want even if it isn't true.
-------
If anything when 'warhammer fantasy' existed you'd imagine SJW's had no room to complain. Greenskins were gender neutral, all 3 elf factions had female characters and models, vampire counts had at least one female character and models (coven throne) and even a book main character that was female, tomb kings had a female character, ogres had a female model goofy as it was (rolling pin butcher or man o' war), warriors of chaos had a female character (valkia the bloody), bretonnia had damsels (the wizard ladies of the 'lady of the lake'), skaven sort of had forgeworld females (brood horrors) and probably more that I don't know about.
Of 15 factions that's a lot of representation for women for a hobby that I've seen maybe 2-3 women players in my entire game experience. Seriously I've only seen one GW employee that was female, one that was a girlfriend of a player and another that was sort of a wife. I don't know what the employee played but one wanted to play nids and one of the elf factions before AoS was a thing and the other played orks.
You should probably read the post. The author is female.
Given what I know about the company, its employees, its policies and past behavior, I am inclined to believe Wyrd on this one.
In fact, I found the initial claims against Wyrd to be rather ridiculous, but as soon as I read "Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed" I was pretty sure it was all a load of bs.
Thats not to say that nobody would ever say it, but the idea that a group of warhammer 40k players would spontaneously erupt into chanting it after it was said by the person she was speaking to was outright comical, and conjures images of a gakky sexploitation film where they are in a torch lit dungeon where a bunch of illuminati types hidden beneath hoods slowly back their young naive victim into a corner as their claw like hands reach towards her and begin tearing at her clothes and flesh.
You'd have to share the text. It's a closed group.
Just read parts of this. I've never really been to game stores outside of GW's but from what I've seen this never takes place. If a gaming group exists with more than 5 women that's probably more than I've seen at any GW. While I'd imagine as gaming nerds we're not all the most comfortable bunch to be around if you're a woman (mostly an attractive one as average ones don't get any special treatment or interest). I don't think I've ever seen anything so extreme.
I think the worst thing I've ever done to a girl at a GW was say I thought it was funny that girls often enjoyed painting. I don't think she was too thrilled about that for some odd reason. I wasn't trying to be mean. It's more of an odd quirk I found. They are often really good at it. In general they just prefer stuff like painting, nids, orks and maybe elf factions. Not saying they all do but that's something quite a few of them do. It's like how somebody could say otakus loved tau.
Anyway I think most of this is crap. If this ever happened I'm pretty sure the people who did wrong in question would be punished. Not to mention the writer mentions groping and possibly rape as well as people insulting black players (huh?).
On the topic of black players we have at least a few at our local shop. 2 I've known are some of the nicest people you'd meet and another 2 have had moments of being jerks. Normally along the lines of teasing people though (one teased the fantasy players and the other was a GW manager at some point and was fun though sometimes teased too).
Yeah, I've read this, and we've seen the same thing from this individual last year when she expressed herself in our forums (you can easily find it if you really want to read through all that vitriol) and then took it upon herself to hound after my employees to demand a direct talk with myself, how I am responsible for stepping up to make certain the community at large (the whole of gaming and geek society, not just Malifaux) is policed, and to bring her on board to be the Woman's Ambassador to Gaming and to make certain that Wyrd is doing it right and proper as we're apparently misogynistic asses here. Considering that a large majority of the work force here is female, the males are outnumbered, I sort of kinda doubt we're all running around scratching our crotches and telling the ladies how they do it for us.
Somewhere in there apparently threats have been issues to her in my name as well as the company's and supposedly that there are copious amounts of evidence that has been made available to the Canadian law authorities as well as the FBI (which apparently were soon to swoop down and confiscate our entire office computers and arrest us if I didn't take the time to take her Skype call). That never happened. We also never received any copies of said evidence so that we could follow up or ban individuals from this end.
After multiple phone calls, e-mails, etc, etc, etc she and her circle of friends have been told to please do hand over any and all evidence to the authorities as we do not condone or tolerate any behavior of that matter, beyond that, all harassment calls without evidence beyond someones anger at the community could be directed to our on retainer lawyer who would love nothing more than to bill me for the privilege of telling folks legally what and where to go with it and to please bring forth legal evidence so that it can be sorted directly. To date that has never happened, and neither myself, the company or any individuals within it condone such behavior and if we did find someone of that ilk among us, it would be a rather large surprise, and a swift exit out the door to authorities.
As this issue is almost a year old at this point and I've yet to see any evidence to date, nor been contacted by authorities in any manner, I can only assume that someone is wanting to stir the waters and get attention. I neither know this individual personally nor what has happened in their history, what I do know. is what she has tried to do to this company and community with zero evidence of any misbehavior from anyone at Wyrd.
Wow this woman sounds pretty freaking terrible. Considering I've never noticed any of these things in the gaming scene myself esp. to that absurd degree I can only assume she's full of it.
Sounded like she also wanted a position of power and sort of tried to blackmail for it. Jeez she's out of control.
The owner should seriously consider filing a lawsuit against her and her constant harassment provided that's possible.
The same line is being used in video games "hire me or I will call your game sexist/Transphobic" and sadly it works as it's seen as cheaper than the negative publicity.
Im not going to say that this stuff doesn't happen in gamer/nerd culture. I/we know for a fact that it does, but this womans claims in particular and clearly over the top and reading her post make me suspect that she has a very clear axe to grind - the entire post should have been hashtagged #onlywhitemen
Oldmike wrote: The same line is being used in video games "hire me or I will call your game sexist/Transphobic" and sadly it works as it's seen as cheaper than the negative publicity.
In many ways I hate the 2012 time period onward. Maybe the world really did end in a sense and now we're living a trigger happy SJW world. Sad thing is there are places in the world where women do have it bad as well as race and religion. Pretty sure this is what the First World Problems Meme started existing for. What's sad is that real struggles happen (people dying from terrorist attacks for example) and in comparison these people's problems are a joke in comparison.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Wow this woman sounds pretty freaking terrible. Considering I've never noticed any of these things in the gaming scene myself esp. to that absurd degree I can only assume she's full of it.
Sounded like she also wanted a position of power and sort of tried to blackmail for it. Jeez she's out of control.
The owner should seriously consider filing a lawsuit against her and her constant harassment provided that's possible.
After reading through 30-odd pages of her Tumblr, I can tell you she LOVES bashing white men. There are occasionally valid issues, but the woman blows the rest of it way out of proportion. Most of the issues end in something like the OP; there is a problem, but I am going to make this gak up about it. Pretty fethin sad really.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Wow this woman sounds pretty freaking terrible. Considering I've never noticed any of these things in the gaming scene myself esp. to that absurd degree I can only assume she's full of it.
Sounded like she also wanted a position of power and sort of tried to blackmail for it. Jeez she's out of control.
The owner should seriously consider filing a lawsuit against her and her constant harassment provided that's possible.
After reading through 30-odd pages of her Tumblr, I can tell you she LOVES bashing white men. There are occasionally valid issues, but the woman blows the rest of it way out of proportion. Most of the issues end in something like the OP; there is a problem, but I am going to make this gak up about it. Pretty fethin sad really.
Why are white men the new devil in the world? Seriously aside from being pervy to women in my life I don't think I've really held power over any woman since ever or offended them. I mean sheesh even in some games some girl gamers have been awful to me for no reason or next to no reason. Why don't you hear about that? I mean i'll admit I've had my bad moments but never about saying women couldn't do something or do what they like.
Seriously just about all the women of my age in my family have better paying jobs than their male equivalents. This is absolutely insulting to hear. Not only that but making it out that men of other races can never be offensive to women by the SJW crowd. I'm pretty sure even Dave Chappelle commented on how black men supposedly objectify women (joking they did that a while back).
------
The saddest part of all this is you have to police your own language before writing it sometimes too. At one point a dakka member's wife played 'the witcher' series and I was curious why. I didn't say the reason why I was curious but it is because the game often has what the SJW crowd would see as being offensive to women or super empowering to men with all the hot women he has sex with (it'd be like a guy questioning why a girl wants to play 'duke nukem'). Suddenly for being curious about why said girl would play said game meant to a person that I was somehow not wanting a girl to play said game. Jeez it's like people want to be offended and to claim meanings and intent that the original speaker or writer didn't intend.
Another one of these huh....... Sad to say but I am not suprised she is from Canada.
When I was in highschool we had a female activist teacher tell us daily how men are pigs and women are better off with out men. Then as time went on these girls poped out of hishschool looking to keep the good fight going. So they would jump on issues that dont exist anymore. One actually got into a fight because she believed that the reason you marked your sex down on voting cards was because they threw out votes by women cause white men dont respect them......
It is like they want to be back in the day figting for rights they already have. Hell the girl on cnn was saying when bernie sandrs inturpted hillary clinton with a funny sounding voice it was ok. but when he sounded grump and talked to her like a rivial it was to far and typical man abuse to women....
You have to blame all your problems on someone, yes? Its so easy to blame those who "have been in power" because if they reverse the blame, it looks like they are oppressing someone, doesn't it? Why does the American Media feel the need to point out every "White cop shoots black guy" case and place the blame on the Cop, including the cases where the black guy was clearly in the wrong? Why is it so easy for the Left to call the Right "intolerant" whilst being intolerant themselves?
OgreChubbs wrote: Another one of these huh....... Sad to say but I am not suprised she is from Canada.
You could always consider moving to another country. I know people crap on the usa but it is one of the countries that isn't as big on this subject far as I know. Dunno how things are in the UK.
You have to blame all your problems on someone, yes? Its so easy to blame those who "have been in power" because if they reverse the blame, it looks like they are oppressing someone, doesn't it? Why does the American Media feel the need to point out every "White cop shoots black guy" case and place the blame on the Cop, including the cases where the black guy was clearly in the wrong? Why is it so easy for the Left to call the Right "intolerant" whilst being intolerant themselves?
At the end of the day sometimes I have seen how I fail and sometimes blamed those that hurt me. Truthfully though I kept holding myself down and held myself back. While they hurt me it was my choice to keep holding myself back.
There's actually a movie with this as a lesson learned by the end of the movie. It has woodie harrelson I think and is about him being a professional bowler taking a Mormon guy under him and training him to be great like he was. Supposedly woody's character almost won a big bowling tournament or something but ended out 2nd place and it really got to him. By the end of the movie he realizes he could've picked himself back up and didn't.
It's sad how in many ways these people could benefit from that movie's lesson.
You have to blame all your problems on someone, yes? Its so easy to blame those who "have been in power" because if they reverse the blame, it looks like they are oppressing someone, doesn't it? Why does the American Media feel the need to point out every "White cop shoots black guy" case and place the blame on the Cop, including the cases where the black guy was clearly in the wrong? Why is it so easy for the Left to call the Right "intolerant" whilst being intolerant themselves?
I blame it on the fooling people syndrome.
You know like when you see a weight loss commercial or those bible ones. You know you are in trouble when these comments show up.
Its not your fault
This is the reason you are not getting/got what you want
You do not have t work harder or better
Give me money/ follow me and
Soon as you see those things you know it is a scam.
OgreChubbs wrote: Another one of these huh....... Sad to say but I am not suprised she is from Canada.
You could always consider moving to another country. I know people crap on the usa but it is one of the countries that isn't as big on this subject far as I know. Dunno how things are in the UK.
Oh I LOVE Canada and 80% of what we do but are policey on this type of stuff makes me sick how they teach it at school. Our sex ed class taught us that if you touch a girl before 18 even if your under 18 your a rapist cause she cant concent then went on to tell the girls it is natural to have the desire to have sex.
Then the whole trudo idiot if we love isis they will stop killing people..... like.... this is what you get when you hire a snow boarding teacher to lead your country.
Oh I am editing to make sure I make sopmething clear cause people on here think I grumpy lol.
I am not for anyone getting hurt or upset and I do not agree with ANYONE for ANY reason to get picked on ever. But I do know click exist where they pick on new comers and altho not fair it happens. If any of this stuff did happen to her god love her hope they get whats coming to them. But at GW the store owners are known to be... close talkers and very aggresive to get sales. When your a man getting followed by a man smiling and telling you about stuff it is creepy but expected. When your a woman 90% of the time if thats happeneing he may be a rapist lol.
Sadly the uk is just as bad if not worse some have made a job out of exposing the SJW types and all the biggest ones are from UK. After all the BBC ran a program that stated men are raised to hate women. Sadly it was not a joke.
People can't accept blame. It's hard to accept blame for your own failures so people have to make up stories. It's kind of pathetic really but it's how people are.
-----
Odd as it is I know a girl from Toronto on here that agrees with what you generally say. She hates how women are treated in the middle east though. I hear Toronto has plenty of people that would be considered right wing. They do seem to love their health care system though.
I still wonder why she won't move to Michigan. We love hockey here too. Our weather is about the same. Really the only difference is health care and sorta more right wing. That said Michigan is the state with fairly high unemployment. Only a few hours away from Toronto though.
-----
Anyway I'm gonna go play some computer games (xcom 2). I fully expect this thread to go the way most SJW threads go on Dakka (getting locked). Hopefully in the future the whole thing can die over for both groups and we can accept each other more again. Shame how much these threads tend to break people apart.
Pity the OP couldn't come up with a more specific title, preferably one that is a little less flame-baiting.
flamingkillamajig wrote: I fully expect this thread to go the way most SJW threads go on Dakka (getting locked).
You know why these threads get locked? Because certain posters love to generalize. What happens then is the forum equivalent of this: This piles on for a while, and then other users jump in, sometimes to try and de-generalize, sometimes to take up a contrarian viewpoint...and the thread degenerates until the mods have to step in, edit here, delete there, issue a few warnings, suspend a user or two....
So, let's try this: Next time I see a user use "SJW" in a manner I consider pejorative, I'm banning them from the OT for a month. No other warnings.
What I see in the OP is the usual Internet flaming that is a side effect of giving absolutely everyone relatively easy access to a platform to speak from.
But why did it deserve its own thread? What useful discussion can we add other than 'some people are sadly sorely misguided, shake your head and move on'?
looks like not having the "right" politics kill freedom of speech
Just like on Facebook and Twitter if you cut out a mans tongue you only prove you fear what he may say.
Oldmike wrote: Sadly the uk is just as bad if not worse some have made a job out of exposing the SJW types and all the biggest ones are from UK. After all the BBC ran a program that stated men are raised to hate women. Sadly it was not a joke.
Nah, this whole obsession for SJWs thing seems like a pretty US based thing to me. If the BBC did a programme on this I would be certain that it was looking at the issue rather than promoting a viewpoint. Of course you could link to said programme and we can see.
To be honest this is barmy right up there with the DnD made a devil worshipper stuff you used to get back in the day.
@Janthkin: Didn't say it to offend really. It's just an easy abbreviation for what they seem to be about. I could say feminist instead I suppose. The other just seemed easier to type with caps lock on.
flamingkillamajig wrote: @Janthkin: Didn't say it to offend really. It's just an easy abbreviation for what they seem to be about. I could say feminist instead I suppose. The other just seemed easier to type with caps lock on.
See thing is then you get NAFALT or you hate women. I think it's the shoe fits deal or lack of experience with the authoritarian left.
You guys might want to watch out. I wouldn't want to make a mod angry after they say not to do something.
I disagree with the feminist approach by a lot but the extremists on their side are just awful. The more moderate feminists aren't too bad though. I'd go into more detail but it might cause a conflict on the boards and I'm really more in the mood to play computer games with a friend right now than to have a fruitless argument.
Even the flimsiest, most meaningless blog entry is useful ammunition if you're always wanting to be outraged about something and need a quick fix of butthurt.
Does anyone remember on the eve of the 2008 election, there was a lady who claimed she was mugged by a black dude, who then stopped to carve a B on cheek, and then told her she now had to vote for Obama. It was a crazy hoax, of course.
At the time people made a lot of noise that this was such a clear indication of a racist freak out about the increasingly likely election of black man to the Whitehouse. It wasn't, it was just a lone crazy woman who made up stories in which she fantasized about being persecuted. In the end the woman received a suspended sentence for filing a false complaint, in exchange for psychiatric care. Because she was obviously gakbox crazy.
This crazy lady is the same. So are the MRA guys. They're all just crazies living very weird fantasies out over the internet.
The only reason they get any attention at all is because people like to use them to attack the greater social movements they're loosely attached to. Really we should just look at these people, shake our heads and file them away in the same place that we put the people who think they're elves and dragons.
Unfortunately, my local gaming groups seem to be swallowing this in it's entirety. But then there's a reason I withdrew from it some time ago.
Here's the thing. They want us to take action when we see something not ok. While I'm sure there's things we'd all agree are not ok, who is the arbiter of the grey? If some Tublrina decides that Kaya's midriff is too sexy, that Lilith's push up armour objectifies her or Deneghra's 'female armour' (insert you own particular gaming lines sexy models here) is triggering or inappropriate? That Bombadier Bombshell is blatantly sexist! What happens then? Seriously, forget all the stuff in the article for a moment- we all agree that's terrible- that's clearly in the black. But what about the grey? What do we do when someone complains that those Infinity models are too sexualised? What if someone decides they don't like the fact that I made the chained guy pulling my Vessel of Judgement black?
What happens when someone complains your models upset them?
sebster wrote: file them away in the same place that we put the people who think they're elves and dragons.
You know who else filed away elves and dragons? SAURON! Obviously you support the construction of ominously named monolithic structures, and spreading darkness across the land
That story seems a bit unlikely, to say the least. I could believe some of the individual things have happened in some form, but all of them to one person? And why just in gaming circles? Surely there are sexist, racist and right-up criminal persons elsewhere too?
I've gamed for 26 or so years with a large group of guys and not so few girls either and not a single problem of this type. In fact, once we guys started playing the little sister of one of us started her own group with some of her friends after a few games with us. They didn't abandon the hobby despite starting it with a bunch of presumably horny 18-year old guys. The only really strange comment I've heard a (guest star) female player make was about our resident Mr. Money last summer, and it wasn't a complaint about his behavior. She just found him to be "frighteningly normal".
And ofc, anyone running a FLGS here is more than happy to see women walk in through the door. It means sales of novels and Japanese comics which is a large part of the selection these days. No matter how many plastic figures he's bought a guy who accosts girls in the shop will not be doing it for long. Some older shopkeeper might still harbor prejudice against Romani and not everyone is fond of foreign-looking people but times are hard and any business is good business...
Hmm. I suspect some posters above are correct - the game angle is just a tool to make an attack against the evil white man and his dominance.
What happened to "Not all nerds are like this. Most people manage a healthy divide between fantasy and reality," and what there is now, a campaign claiming all white men are terrorists, and that if you're not with her, you're against all women? I guess that's what happens when you're socialising in a echo chamber with your SJW women and 'genderqueer' friends who seem to have an axe to grind.
So she won a precedent setting human rights case against an attacker? Good for her, and that means that there should be a public record of this that a casual observer could read.
flamingkillamajig wrote: You guys might want to watch out. I wouldn't want to make a mod angry after they say not to do something.
I disagree with the feminist approach by a lot but the extremists on their side are just awful. The more moderate feminists aren't too bad though. I'd go into more detail but it might cause a conflict on the boards and I'm really more in the mood to play computer games with a friend right now than to have a fruitless argument.
If you post in off topic forum you probably will receive a ban eventually. The mods are very openative here and ban anyone who disagrees or they deem goes against their point of view.
flamingkillamajig wrote: In many ways I hate the 2012 time period onward. Maybe the world really did end in a sense and now we're living a trigger happy SJW world. Sad thing is there are places in the world where women do have it bad as well as race and religion. Pretty sure this is what the First World Problems Meme started existing for. What's sad is that real struggles happen (people dying from terrorist attacks for example) and in comparison these people's problems are a joke in comparison.
This post is a good example of why many people feel they need to be so strident in combating gender and race problems:
- Equating first world problem memes, generally all along the lines of "The pizza box doesn't fit in the fridge," with genderized and racial harassment, assault, rape, murder, etc., is to assert these as trivial problems, which is pretty offensive and small minded.
We COULD live in a world where people are both not killed by terrorists and not raped in substantial numbers. But not treating the latter as a real problem is part of what enables it to be so.
Kojiro wrote: Here's the thing. They want us to take action when we see something not ok. While I'm sure there's things we'd all agree are not ok, who is the arbiter of the grey? If some Tublrina decides that Kaya's midriff is too sexy, that Lilith's push up armour objectifies her or Deneghra's 'female armour' (insert you own particular gaming lines sexy models here) is triggering or inappropriate? That Bombadier Bombshell is blatantly sexist! What happens then? Seriously, forget all the stuff in the article for a moment- we all agree that's terrible- that's clearly in the black. But what about the grey? What do we do when someone complains that those Infinity models are too sexualised? What if someone decides they don't like the fact that I made the chained guy pulling my Vessel of Judgement black?
What happens when someone complains your models upset them?
Just having an environment where people can raise those issues and have a discussion about it is probably the approach. If someone feels a model is offensive and you can have a real discussion about it, then there's an avenue to figure out what that entails. Maybe they don't feel it so strongly as to be an issue. Maybe it really is a problem and other people will agree and determine some course of action. I would guess in some of these examples, what people really want is just an acknowledgement of the issue. Are some Infinity models unfortunately sexualised? Probably a lot of people, men and women, would agree with that. But that isn't the same as wanting them banned or anything like that. Gray issues can be arbitrated the same way they always have to be: By coming to some consensus. There's no magic oracle out there to give a definitive response. The key is to build a community that isn't trying to force everything into black and white.
For a non-gender, non-race (well, mostly) example, one of the 40k players in our community has an extremely well modeled Guard army very overtly themed around Nazis and child soldiers. Is that offensive? I don't actually know or have a strong opinion myself, but there's been friendly discussion along those lines. So at a minimum, if someone did have a real problem with it, our community and environment (and that player) would seem to be open to and supportive of bringing it up, rather than outright quashing and ignoring like gender issues in gaming so frequently are. That in itself is a big step and would ameliorate a lot of these issues, just recognizing that they are issues.
Something about this article seems kind of fishy....
I mean, sexism does exist,its a sad fact, but to have this level of sexism on an apparently daily basis and ignored by the authorities as well? Doesn't smell right.
I think this explains a lot. I have a friend. Genuinely nice guy, but about once a week he posts a link to some blog or other on facebook and has a rant about "SJW this" "Feminazi that".
People need to remember, there are about 7.2 billion people in the world. About 40% of them have internet access. That means around 2.9 billion people have the ability to post whatever the hell they like on the internet.
Some people need to learn, just because someone posts something and managed to pass it through a spell checker does not mean it is well thought out, widely believe, in anyway to be listened to or even true.
flamingkillamajig wrote: You guys might want to watch out. I wouldn't want to make a mod angry after they say not to do something.
I disagree with the feminist approach by a lot but the extremists on their side are just awful. The more moderate feminists aren't too bad though. I'd go into more detail but it might cause a conflict on the boards and I'm really more in the mood to play computer games with a friend right now than to have a fruitless argument.
If you post in off topic forum you probably will receive a ban eventually. The mods are very openative here and ban anyone who disagrees or they deem goes against their point of view.
As someone who's been in OT for far too long and yet haven't ever been banned despite disagreeing with moderators, perhaps you should try not being an donkeycave?
flamingkillamajig wrote: You guys might want to watch out. I wouldn't want to make a mod angry after they say not to do something.
I disagree with the feminist approach by a lot but the extremists on their side are just awful. The more moderate feminists aren't too bad though. I'd go into more detail but it might cause a conflict on the boards and I'm really more in the mood to play computer games with a friend right now than to have a fruitless argument.
If you post in off topic forum you probably will receive a ban eventually. The mods are very openative here and ban anyone who disagrees or they deem goes against their point of view.
As someone who's been in OT for far too long and yet haven't ever been banned despite disagreeing with moderators, perhaps you should try not being an donkeycave?
I've been here 7 years and haven't yet been banned that i can remember. I think you might be doing something wrong.
I am thirteen years old and in a game store for the first time. I examine their selection of dice and take them to the counter to pay.
“How old are you?” asks the balding, middle-aged man behind the counter.
“Thirteen.”
“Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed!” he chuckles in glee. The Warhammer 40K gamers at the table behind him take up the refrain. “Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed! Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed!”
My daughter is 13. She enjoys gaming (asked to play Battle Lore last night to celebrate her last night of Spring Break. She beat me.) and paints figures and has been helping me with basing and terrain for a few years at this point. She has gone to gaming conventions (and played several games at them) and game stores, but as she is a kid, it is always with me. I cannot imagine anyone talking to a 13 year old girl like that, and wonder (assuming it is true) where the hell the parents were. I would have been in the face of anyone who came close to that level of disgusting behavior towards a kid even if it was not my kid. If someone acted like that towards my daughter, they would definitely understand I did not approve of that behavior.
I am thirteen years old and in a game store for the first time. I examine their selection of dice and take them to the counter to pay.
“How old are you?” asks the balding, middle-aged man behind the counter.
“Thirteen.”
“Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed!” he chuckles in glee. The Warhammer 40K gamers at the table behind him take up the refrain. “Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed! Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed!”
My daughter is 13. She enjoys gaming (asked to play Battle Lore last night to celebrate her last night of Spring Break. She beat me.) and paints figures and has been helping me with basing and terrain for a few years at this point. She has gone to gaming conventions (and played several games at them) and game stores, but as she is a kid, it is always with me. I cannot imagine anyone talking to a 13 year old girl like that, and wonder (assuming it is true) where the hell the parents were. I would have been in the face of anyone who came close to that level of disgusting behavior towards a kid even if it was not my kid. If someone acted like that towards my daughter, they would definitely understand I did not approve of that behavior.
That doesn't sound like a real thing that actually occurred. Every time my wife or daughter was in a game or comic store, all the little nurglings lost the ability to speak, or even make eye contact, much less start a chant-a- thon.
The sad thing is there are definitely scum out there like that. I've never met someone who would say something like that to a 13 year old, let alone lead a chant of it with all the other players, but it's not outside the realms of possibility (just absurdly unlikely).
That all of these things just keep happening to this person who has been driven out of 3 wargaming communities...
MrDwhitey wrote: The sad thing is there are definitely scum out there like that. I've never met someone who would say something like that to a 13 year old, let alone lead a chant of it with all the other players, but it's not outside the realms of possibility (just absurdly unlikely).
That all of these things just keep happening to this person who has been driven out of 3 wargaming communities...
Also which edition of Battlelore?
There are enough bastards in the world that I could see the first comment, until the dad comes in and beats the out of the guy.
2nd Edition. Just the base game, non of the expansions (yet). We like it, not too complex but has enough in it to give the players a lot of cool choices/decisions to make.
And I agree, the situation I quoted is not likely to be true. If it was, I really wonder where her folks were and why they let her into any store unattended at that age.
EDIT: Went back and read the linked post beyond the first few paragraphs. Those are some pretty serious allegations. I retract my previous commentary as I thought I was commenting on a very different set of stories than that turned out to be.
welshhoppo wrote: Something about this article seems kind of fishy....
I mean, sexism does exist,its a sad fact, but to have this level of sexism on an apparently daily basis and ignored by the authorities as well? Doesn't smell right.
That's what I was thinking. It reads like an old time weekly cliffhanger of the type they used to play in the '30's just before the main feature. This week, the heroine is thrown on the railroad tracks, next week, she's tied to a log going through a buzz saw, etc. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before we get a movie "exposing" all of this in the style of the "Mazes and Monsters" film Tom Hanks was in years ago.
welshhoppo wrote: Something about this article seems kind of fishy....
I mean, sexism does exist,its a sad fact, but to have this level of sexism on an apparently daily basis and ignored by the authorities as well? Doesn't smell right.
It's fully believable. There really isn't such a thing as something that is too terrible to happen. Some communities are awful.
Sex-related crimes are rather notorious for being tough to go through charges with, both because it's difficult to have to bring up again and because many people in the justice system take your view.
Chongara wrote: Well it's a tumblr post, can't be taken too seriously it's just a place for kids to vent. Anyway even if the framing of it as "Terrorism" is probably melodramatic hyperbole, I don't doubt it's rooted in some real experiences. Most women I know who game have stories about running afoul of at least one group of insular neck-beards at some point. I'm willing to say that compared with other communities & hobbies I've engaged with gaming has a higher-dickbag density than other groups particularly where relating to women is concerned.
1. Its a group with a good bit of socially mal adjusted persons, so I could see some of that, definitely.
2. It makes me sad.
I will note though she seemed to slamabout every geek gaming thing around-miniatures, conventions, DnD, even good old Shadowrun. Sounds also like she was a store employee-which is its own little private hell I'd imagine. She also saounds REALLYYYYYY angry.
Chongara wrote: Well it's a tumblr post, can't be taken too seriously it's just a place for kids to vent. Anyway even if the framing of it as "Terrorism" is probably melodramatic hyperbole, I don't doubt it's rooted in some real experiences. Most women I know who game have stories about running afoul of at least one group of insular neck-beards at some point. I'm willing to say that compared with other communities & hobbies I've engaged with gaming has a higher-dickbag density than other groups particularly where relating to women is concerned.
1. Its a group with a good bit of socially mal adjusted persons, so I could see some of that, definitely.
2. It makes me sad.
I will note though she seemed to slamabout every geek gaming thing around-miniatures, conventions, DnD, even good old Shadowrun. Sounds also like she was a store employee-which is its own little private hell I'd imagine. She also saounds REALLYYYYYY angry.
Well I've since edited out my post. I made it originally only reading the general thoughts on abusive language and threats, plus the dude's creepy chant. The rest of the post goes on describe several real assaults, and at least one rape. That's well beyond what I'm going to provide any sort of commentary on.
CptJake wrote: If it was, I really wonder where her folks were and why they let her into any store unattended at that age.
Why should a 13yr old girl be unable to go into a game (toy) store without parents? When I was that age, I was out and about without parents in tow most every day. I used to hit up comic book shops and buy my RPG supplies without my parents present and everything was just fine.
Back to topic, why do some people feel the need to support stuff like this? Even if one is of like mind as the author, what possible good can come from disseminating an essay so obviously flawed that even a cursory read would off-put anyone you might be trying to convince?
CptJake wrote: If it was, I really wonder where her folks were and why they let her into any store unattended at that age.
Why should a 13yr old girl be unable to go into a game (toy) store without parents? When I was that age, I was out and about without parents in tow most every day. I used to hit up comic book shops and buy my RPG supplies without my parents present and everything was just fine.
And when I was that age the world was a different and in many ways safer place than it is now. I didn't let my two sons go into places unsupervised at that age, and don't let my daughter do it either. And most of those type of places I have been in over the last decade+ really don't WANT unsupervised kids in the place and will generally let you know it.
Having read the article I am truly sorry that this person has had to endure so many terrible assaults in a hobby I love. I am not learned enough to make any comment on the Canadian legal system and can only express my dismay and sympathy that this individual feels terrorised. As I only game with friends in the UK I have never known an intimidating and hostile community. If anything I'm the problem player keeping people out from my circle of friends.
The author obviously has dealt with terrible responses from the community and law enforcement, especially when battling difficult to tackle crimes when a community locks ranks against an individual. I'd like to think this case will be different. I'd invite the author to share the harassment she has received from Wyrd employees. In this instance I believe that's the best way forward, I do not doubt the author's experiences, however as this appears to be an ongoing complaint against Wyrd, and the author implies she can provide proof I'd like to see it before making any judgement. I will always presume innocent until proven guilty.
My experince is that tabletop gamers are the absolute opposite of female hating psychos mainly because to interact with girls in such a setting is unbelievably refreshing, exciting even And she might have girl friend gamers too!!!!111!!!
I call bull gak on this one. Just another misplaced, bitter soul venting on the webz me thinks.
CptJake wrote: And when I was that age the world was a different and in many ways safer place than it is now.
But was it really, or is it just increased news coverage of anything remotely scary that makes it seem so? When our police got mobile breathalyzers instead of having to judge whether the suspicious driver had to be taken in for a blood test the drunk driving numbers went up sharply, but that doesn't mean people didn't drive drunk before. They just weren't caught as often because the police only brought in the really obvious cases for an official test.
Having read through this article I can only make a couple of assumptions.
1: Canada is the most sexist place in the world and hates all women
or conversely
2: This women is full of excrement and is lying through her teeth.
I move around a fair bit, I have lived in cities,country areas and everything in between, i have been to about a dozen gaming stores (not a big sample I Know) all of them in the US. If any of these behaviors happened in a US store the person in question (depending on the actions) would either be fired, banned for life or arrested.
If I was ever in a store and heard some creepy old guy telling a young girl "Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed" I am positive that knowing myself I would make this person the target of a lot of criticism and probably get him fired or banned. I refuse to believe that our northern neighbors are any less "evolved" as Americans. So in reality this girl is either making things up, or more likely she did suffer a minor case of sexism against her "comments, words something" and when she didn't get enough attention about it she went "Full slow" and as we all know, you never go Full slow. (Tropic Thunder).
As I said, I have traveled a fair amount and played in a lot of different stores. In that whole time, excluding wives/girlfriends who are only there because they want to spend a bit of time with their overly nerdy husbands/boyfriends, I think I have come across maybe 3-5 girls actively playing. Not only were they treated EXACTLY the same as the guys playing they were completely un-noteworthy at all. 1 SoB player, 2 SM players 1 Tau Player and one rather confused Ork player who seemed to think that Nobz were best fielded in big blobs and were meant to foot slog across the board.
Ohh come on Dakka, You can't say the old medical term for someone who is "Slow"? really? Profanities I understand but really?
CptJake wrote: And when I was that age the world was a different and in many ways safer place than it is now.
But was it really, or is it just increased news coverage of anything remotely scary that makes it seem so? When our police got mobile breathalyzers instead of having to judge whether the suspicious driver had to be taken in for a blood test the drunk driving numbers went up sharply, but that doesn't mean people didn't drive drunk before. They just weren't caught as often because the police only brought in the really obvious cases for an official test.
Of course I could show the statistics that violent crime per capita has decreased from when I was a kid through the present, but of course, those are just statistics based on facts...
EDIT: Yeah, The stats show it is safer today. By far.
I still do not think letting kids go into stores unattended is a good idea, unless the store management agrees to it, and I don't know many that would.
At that point I realized that this was all a nightmare that the writer of this blog post perceives to be real due to the very serious case of PTSD she received from evil 4channers that made fun of her favorite Undertale character.
SemperMortis wrote: Having read through this article I can only make a couple of assumptions.
1: Canada is the most sexist place in the world and hates all women
or conversely
2: This women is full of excrement and is lying through her teeth.
I move around a fair bit, I have lived in cities,country areas and everything in between, i have been to about a dozen gaming stores (not a big sample I Know) all of them in the US. If any of these behaviors happened in a US store the person in question (depending on the actions) would either be fired, banned for life or arrested.
If I was ever in a store and heard some creepy old guy telling a young girl "Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed" I am positive that knowing myself I would make this person the target of a lot of criticism and probably get him fired or banned. I refuse to believe that our northern neighbors are any less "evolved" as Americans. So in reality this girl is either making things up, or more likely she did suffer a minor case of sexism against her "comments, words something" and when she didn't get enough attention about it she went "Full slow" and as we all know, you never go Full slow. (Tropic Thunder).
As I said, I have traveled a fair amount and played in a lot of different stores. In that whole time, excluding wives/girlfriends who are only there because they want to spend a bit of time with their overly nerdy husbands/boyfriends, I think I have come across maybe 3-5 girls actively playing. Not only were they treated EXACTLY the same as the guys playing they were completely un-noteworthy at all. 1 SoB player, 2 SM players 1 Tau Player and one rather confused Ork player who seemed to think that Nobz were best fielded in big blobs and were meant to foot slog across the board.
Ohh come on Dakka, You can't say the old medical term for someone who is "Slow"? really? Profanities I understand but really?
Having said that...
Originally Freud did not have a theory about the Eodipus complex etc. He had so many patients that came in abused by relatives that it was staggering. His original notations discussed this, but the backlash was so bad he came up with this interesting thory, because it couldn't be true...right?
Turns out it was true.
I am not saying everything she is saying is real-or even any of it. However I am saying, that the "surely that couldn't happen" mantra-including from me- is not always correct.
Being the psychotic neanderthal that I am, I do not have the frame of reference of a femme.
welshhoppo wrote: Something about this article seems kind of fishy....
I mean, sexism does exist,its a sad fact, but to have this level of sexism on an apparently daily basis and ignored by the authorities as well? Doesn't smell right.
It's fully believable. There really isn't such a thing as something that is too terrible to happen. Some communities are awful.
Sex-related crimes are rather notorious for being tough to go through charges with, both because it's difficult to have to bring up again and because many people in the justice system take your view.
Yeah, but there is a difference between that and calling the police claiming to be drugged and the first thing they say is "your obviously drunk, go away."
I also refuse to believe that she happened to stumble into a club full of hebephiles.
This seems almost entirely made up. Not that it can't happen (oh boy, it can and has happened), but most "nerds" or "gamers" are more likely to harass and assault someone via email than in person. Most people who play tabletop games I doubt would be so aggressive and physical in real life, but when on the internet, they become full tilt psychos.
Again, I'm generalizing here, but I'd argue women are more likely to face blank stares and awkward situations than full on physical/verbal harassment in a game store. Again, not saying it can't happen, just that I wouldn't bet on it.
Presuming the author is the same person in the linked court case then she has suffered and proved one of her assaults to be true in a court of law. I don't see any reason why she would invent the rest if the incidents and as a lot of the crimibal acts are verbal or sexual assaults with few or no witnesses then they're going to be additionally hard to indict.
However if she's recieving forum harassment and can link employee names to forum account names then that should be much simpler to prove. Again however until such evidence appears, Wyrd are innocent.
Frazzled wrote: Is it bad that I don't really know what Tumbler is, outside of its liquor holding capacity?
Tumblr has 3 main purposes, ranked in importance 1: Porn,especially the weird kind. 2: For Fandoms to connect and show weird/funny pics(Somethimes related to #1) 3: For White College Aged females with dyed hair to complain about the patriarchy.
I feel like the whole post is one of those "sadsue" stories. I think that is the name, where everything bad that can happen does happen. Allowing the writer to create a worst possible life for the character and thus receive maximal victim points on the internet.
I hope none of this happened to the (30 something?) woman. If however it did then the Canadian gaming community needs to be purged with extreme prejudice.
I mostly question the police telling her that she will die if she doesn't get out of the gaming community. As if to further anchor the whole terrorism angle that police for some reason are investigating.
There is also the chance it is a deep troll account (but then that is always a chance).
BrotherGecko wrote: There is also the chance it is a deep troll account (but then that is always a chance).
The account was pretty genuine. I read through 60-70 pages last night and most of it was social justice "issues," bashing white men (including homosexuals) and architecture. This post was by far the most exaggerated of the portion of the blog I read through.
Yeah, but there is a difference between that and calling the police claiming to be drugged and the first thing they say is "your obviously drunk, go away."
I also refuse to believe that she happened to stumble into a club full of hebephiles.
If you refuse to believe then *shrug* that's on you.
CptJake wrote: And when I was that age the world was a different and in many ways safer place than it is now.
But was it really, or is it just increased news coverage of anything remotely scary that makes it seem so? When our police got mobile breathalyzers instead of having to judge whether the suspicious driver had to be taken in for a blood test the drunk driving numbers went up sharply, but that doesn't mean people didn't drive drunk before. They just weren't caught as often because the police only brought in the really obvious cases for an official test.
Of course I could show the statistics that violent crime per capita has decreased from when I was a kid through the present, but of course, those are just statistics based on facts...
EDIT: Yeah, The stats show it is safer today. By far.
I still do not think letting kids go into stores unattended is a good idea, unless the store management agrees to it, and I don't know many that would.
Children are at a lot more risk in other ways though. Harassment online, due to the boom in mobile phone use and vast social media outlets, is a huge problem and a lot of it is very cruel and tends towards exploitation and coercion of children. A lot of parents aren't aware of the extent of it, or what their children spend their time online and who they contact, or the fact that much of it it weakly monitored and regulated. Children are much more likely to get into contact with sexual predators now than when most of us were children. The number of children that have sent, be sent, or exchanged pornographic materials of themselves and others is probably greatly underreported.
Overall crime is down in society, but this other stuff is rife, stuff that wasn't accessible to us 20 years ago.
CptJake wrote: If it was, I really wonder where her folks were and why they let her into any store unattended at that age.
Why should a 13yr old girl be unable to go into a game (toy) store without parents? When I was that age, I was out and about without parents in tow most every day. I used to hit up comic book shops and buy my RPG supplies without my parents present and everything was just fine.
Sometimes it is safer for men. Sometimes the neighborhood makes a difference. I know at least 4 family members who were assaulted or raped in their early teens while out and about alone. If I have a daughter, she is not going to go out alone at that age without at least 2 friends, a big dog or some sort of weapon.
Hell, when I was substitute teaching, I saw gak worse than that chanting story in the classroom several times. And when I went to the principal, it was always the same story: they knew the instigator was a problem, he has already been kicked out of numerous schools, they are working on getting him kicked out here, and he'll probably go to another unsuspecting middle school rather than juvie. The other kids' parents were called and either, a) didn't care, or b) beat them with the vacuum cord for making the school call them at work.
The idea that kids have unlimited access to the Internet is flat out piss poor parenting. But no we can't have someone raise the kids at home as no one can afford it or it's sexist .
I'm of many minds about this and might post a bit about it later.
However, one thought does come up to me. Having been an avid follower of FLGS Horror Stories and the sheer number of them that have involved Dakka's very own ButteryCommissar and his experience in the hobby... In short, some people are just that unlucky. And, knowing from some other people I know in real life, some people genuinely are what I mentally refer to as "drama magnets" (I would like to find a less mean spirited phrasing off this). - But yeah, there are people I know, where something insane or crazy or terrible keeps on happening to them.
So, it's not impossible. Additionally, as a guy, I'm pretty sure I could list various rubbish experiences I've had in the hobby and hobby shops over the last 18 years. So, it doesn't seem unlikely that a woman involved in the hobby over the past 20 and is far more active in the hobby scene (eg working in a store, going to actual conventions) would have proportionally more 'bad stories' - nor, is it unlikely that those proportionally more 'bad stories' would have a sexual harrassment component to them.
But there is another part of my mind that is, "I do know other people (women included) who have made things, or manipulated situations so that they do become a martyr in this sort of vein." On the other hand, the number of those I've encountered is WAY lower than my aforementioned 'drama magnets.' So, I don't disbelieve Wyrd's response either.
Of course, people always have the need for 'good guys' and bad guys' and it could very well be that every fact said in that article is true. As it could very well be that every fact said in Wyrd Miniatures response is true. But does that mean that the interpretation of the facts is 100 percent accurate? Not necessarily.
Is it entirely possible that someone with the same name as Wyrd's staff are emailing the lady involved? Yep. Does that necessarily guarantee they're staff members? Nope. - And that would be a very very silly thing for a staffmember to do anyhows. - Especially in a company that probably numbers less than 30 people.
I could (hypothetically) - and I acknowledge this is getting into conspiracy theory territory here. Imagine that someone, so beat down at various rubbishy events that have happened to them over 20 years does decide that 'enough is enough' and attempting to get their own back, by doing the things that Wyrd allege. Or by taking various stories like our own FLGS Horror Stories thread and compiling them into a single article. But I'm not saying that happened in this situation.
And yet, even if it is a composite thing, or a case of someone having really really bad luck (or even moderately bad luck, if you take into account time gaming / interactions with new people), does that really change anything? If most female gamers have one bad story about this sort of thing. Isn't that one bad story too many?
Would it really hurt Wyrd, for example, to run that response through their lawyer on retainer and publish a generic statement on an "about us" section of their website, or a newsfeed. Perhaps stating an inclusive policy. - Would that be a bad thing for other companies to do?
Would it helps? Maybe not (Probably not), but it might. - Considering the investment required (not much), the possibly positive press from doing such a thing, isn't it worth trying out?
CorporateLogo wrote: Yes, those diabolical social justice warriors, out to make hundreds of dollars on Patreon
Some make 3 grand a month for not doing anything. Then there's the speaking fees and the lump sum cash drops AS makes $20k per speech as an example.
Before it ended she was a guest on 'The Colbert Report'. Nobody with an opposing view has ever gotten that kind of publicity esp. on gaming sites. It usually works out that they complain about racism and feminism issues or they just write a normal piece like they're supposed to. Not gonna say all of a site's writers are like this but some are. End of the day it just gets views I guess. Most gaming sites write false reviews though. They are bought out as we all knew they were. If they're not snobs criticizing and complaining instead of actually working for a job then they lie because their company was paid for a review.
CorporateLogo wrote: Yes, those diabolical social justice warriors, out to make hundreds of dollars on Patreon
Sarkeesian's last kickstarter was looking for $6,000 and got $160,000. There's a lot of money in this.
Being honest here wtf was she Kickstarting? What could she possibly do or what does she do that's even worth that kind of money. That's an absurdly large amount of money.
Seriously that's enough money to Kickstart a freaking business or small time game. She could even get a really nice house out of that kind of money.
CorporateLogo wrote: Yes, those diabolical social justice warriors, out to make hundreds of dollars on Patreon
Sarkeesian's last kickstarter was looking for $6,000 and got $160,000. There's a lot of money in this.
Being honest here wtf was she Kickstarting? What could she possibly do or what does she do that's even worth that kind of money. That's an absurdly large amount of money.
Seriously that's enough money to Kickstart a freaking business or small time game. She could even get a really nice house out of that kind of money.
As far as I'm aware, one was to make a series of videos tackling the difference of males and females in the video game industry. Which she didn't actually deliver completely on. And the videos that were made were of a rather poor quality of research, IMHO.
CorporateLogo wrote: Yes, those diabolical social justice warriors, out to make hundreds of dollars on Patreon
Sarkeesian's last kickstarter was looking for $6,000 and got $160,000. There's a lot of money in this.
Being honest here wtf was she Kickstarting? What could she possibly do or what does she do that's even worth that kind of money. That's an absurdly large amount of money.
Seriously that's enough money to Kickstart a freaking business or small time game. She could even get a really nice house out of that kind of money.
She was kickstarting to produce videos about gaming and stuff.
From my personal experience as a former gaming video producer, $160,000 isn't a huge amount of money. You can make some good videos for that, not doubt, but it's not massive.
You couldn't afford a one-bed flat in southern Britain for that little money.
My observation is that Anita S. is a bit of a gakhead, but she got a far more vitriolic reaction from "the gaming community" than is normal when someone is a bit of a gakhead.
Likewise, here is a person complaining about poor treatment and a hobby company, and it gets it's own 4 page (so far?) thread. This hobby is full of people complaining that GW ruined their lives, and they don't each get a thread.
So, I am pretty cynical about the whole GG thing and it seems like a pretty bad case of thin skin on the part of the various defenders of games culture.
Da Boss wrote: Likewise, here is a person complaining about poor treatment and a hobby company, and it gets it's own 4 page (so far?) thread. This hobby is full of people complaining that GW ruined their lives, and they don't each get a thread.
You don't actually lump the "complaint" in the OP of this thread with a run-of-the-mill gripe about GW (or any other gaming company for that matter), right?
A bitch-fest about GW doesn't usually end with the author labeling male gamers as terrorists, or making nearly as many awful accusations as are made in by the author quoted in the OP. Perhaps those factors are the cause of 4+ pages of discussion, not so much that a is woman complaining about war games.
Da Boss wrote: My observation is that Anita S. is a bit of a gakhead, but she got a far more vitriolic reaction from "the gaming community" than is normal when someone is a bit of a gakhead.
Likewise, here is a person complaining about poor treatment and a hobby company, and it gets it's own 4 page (so far?) thread. This hobby is full of people complaining that GW ruined their lives, and they don't each get a thread.
So, I am pretty cynical about the whole GG thing and it seems like a pretty bad case of thin skin on the part of the various defenders of games culture.
In the defense of everyone else, I don't think most of those "GW ruined my life" threads involve accusations of sexual assault. Maybe I've been reading the wrong the threads.
I checked out her story to see if I could determine where she was located. Some small towns in parts of Canada are backwards enough that the stories described are not outside the realm of possibility, and the RCMP has a pretty crap track record when it comes to women.
Idk, though. It all seems pretty far fetched. Her stories read like a parody of what definitely does happen every day.
feeder wrote: I checked out her story to see if I could determine where she was located. Some small towns in parts of Canada are backwards enough that the stories described are not outside the realm of possibility, and the RCMP has a pretty crap track record when it comes to women.
Idk, though. It all seems pretty far fetched. Her stories read like a parody of what definitely does happen every day.
Agreed. I will admit, I did ask on her tumblr for her to explain her article. She categorically shut me down. I really have no sympathy for her if she refuses to have a civilized conversation about it.
Da Boss wrote: My observation is that Anita S. is a bit of a gakhead, but she got a far more vitriolic reaction from "the gaming community" than is normal when someone is a bit of a gakhead.
Likewise, here is a person complaining about poor treatment and a hobby company, and it gets it's own 4 page (so far?) thread. This hobby is full of people complaining that GW ruined their lives, and they don't each get a thread.
So, I am pretty cynical about the whole GG thing and it seems like a pretty bad case of thin skin on the part of the various defenders of games culture.
methinks its because most people dont complain about GW being terrorists or fill their posts with other such socially and politically charged language, nor do they cast aspersions on large segments of the population, nor are they making insinuatuions or open accusations of very serious crimes, theyre just bitching about GW.
There's a huge difference in the language being used and the buttons being pushed.
CorporateLogo wrote: Yes, those diabolical social justice warriors, out to make hundreds of dollars on Patreon
Sarkeesian's last kickstarter was looking for $6,000 and got $160,000. There's a lot of money in this.
Being honest here wtf was she Kickstarting? What could she possibly do or what does she do that's even worth that kind of money. That's an absurdly large amount of money.
Seriously that's enough money to Kickstart a freaking business or small time game. She could even get a really nice house out of that kind of money.
She was kickstarting to produce videos about gaming and stuff.
From my personal experience as a former gaming video producer, $160,000 isn't a huge amount of money. You can make some good videos for that, not doubt, but it's not massive.
You couldn't afford a one-bed flat in southern Britain for that little money.
That must be why she went on another fundraiser to read wiki pages about women in history. All the money goes into a 501c4 charity, which only exists to pay her a yearly salary. Then when she's bored with the videos she can cash out at any time and transfer the money to herself.
If you don't like her product, whatever, but to claim that she and other folks are somehow making big bucks being "professional victims" is a crock
Really? What about this woman trying to get a position in this company by using blackmail? At least that seems to be the claims of Wyrd which I actually believe. I don't honestly think any gaming community could ever be this bad esp. in this day and age.
-----
Also this woman (OP article lady) receives hate because she most likely lied about everything or exaggerated the actual story to such an extent just to get people angry or to view it. There are people in the feminist movement that probably believe what they say but there are some that don't or probably go so overboard with it they just demean the ones that might truly feel something is wrong and might be right about it.
You seriously can't compare that to people pissed about GW's greed or their killing off of a well loved games universe (warhammer fantasy). Keep in mind when we complain about GW it's probably just the heads of the company and business practices. I don't hate everybody that's worked for GW. In fact I like quite a few that have. It's also not comparable to hating white guys or positioning them out to be the bad guys. That is just absurd, sexist and racist. Don't get me wrong do we all know how to run a business as GW does? No. However we've heard of businesses in gaming that have treated their customers better and been more well loved. I suppose when you're at the top you just get corrupt and drunk with power. Perhaps talking about a gaming company so seriously is absurd itself but for a game we invest hundreds if not thousands of dollars in (or whatever equivalent in currency) I should expect better quality, better treatment of the player base and better balance. What we get is disappointment.
I mean they say warhammer fantasy didn't sell well. Yeah well guess what? Their LotR game didn't either. I suppose that means LotR is unpopular. Oh wait what about the movies and a gajillion games inspired by the books that are about 100 years old? Thing is warhammer fantasy was great but just handled poorly by GW just like everything these days.
Some people now days. The part I find funny is back in the day, buried in the magic rings table of the second edition dungeon masters guide is a ring that once you put it on permanently changes your sex. Now that I think about it, that was probably one of the many issues christians had with the game
Oh my, so much delicious butthurt. If one can't handle a world in which there is a girl that used to be a guy, then perhaps high fantasy isn't for you.
Couldn't care what they want out of life as long as they aren't hurting anybody. Not my place to get in the way of that. Long as they don't get in the way of my lifestyle it's all cool.
Anyway if you're willing to post an article with a bit of evidence perhaps you'd consider that they may have left some out. Evidence that it probably is some gamers saying the worse stuff and others not-so-much. I'll give it a proper look later but this is something that should be seen in the game as it's played. Once again find it surprising all people playing a game would be extreme for no reason or perhaps this is a very small sample only showing criticism that proves the article's point more.
Some people now days. The part I find funny is back in the day, buried in the magic rings table of the second edition dungeon masters guide is a ring that once you put it on permanently changes your sex. Now that I think about it, that was probably one of the many issues christians had with the game
Just checked through the Steam reviews of various players. That article writer is a lying pile of crap. Read the Steam Reviews you find yourself. They're just covering their ***es for a game they ruined.
Oh btw I read one of the comments myself in this stories own comment section. This is one by a somebody that identifies as a gay man.
------
Riddles > Paul Tamburro • 11 minutes ago
Hi, my names Robert. I'm a cis gay male. I've been gay for most of my life. I found out my true sexuality at a young age which was really a slow build up of realizations. I've had a couple of sexual relationships in my later years with a number of men, most who were bi. My mother is largely accepting of my sexuality while my father as far as I can tell doesn't care either way. Throughout my life I've had some instances of harassment though thankfully nothing major.
Now that we've got my sexuality out of the way thanks for asking I can talk about the stuff you are interested in.
People don't like it when they are being preached to and using a LGBTQ character as a token for the sake of telling you about their sexuality is just that. Especially when said character is so one dimensional that their sexuality is the most important part about them.
If we want LGBTQ people to be seen as normal then they have to be treated as normal. That means no token characters. If I become known as "the gay guy" then I know either I've failed in introducing myself or the people that label me as such are the sort that care about my sexuality more than me as a person.
------
So there you have it. A gay person wants to be seen like everybody else rather than to have their sexual preferences stated constantly. It's almost like they have a personality besides being their gender, race, religion or sexual preferences. I mean what kind of crazy world is this. *rolls eyes*
I am thirteen years old and in a game store for the first time. I examine their selection of dice and take them to the counter to pay.
“How old are you?” asks the balding, middle-aged man behind the counter.
“Thirteen.”
“Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed!” he chuckles in glee. The Warhammer 40K gamers at the table behind him take up the refrain. “Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed! Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed!”
flamingkillamajig wrote: Just checked through the Steam reviews of various players. That article writer is a lying pile of crap. Read the Steam Reviews you find yourself. They're just covering their ***es for a game they ruined.
So there you have it. A gay person wants to be seen like everybody else rather than to have their sexual preferences stated constantly. It's almost like they have a personality besides being their gender, race, religion or sexual preferences. I mean what kind of crazy world is this. *rolls eyes*
I'm sorry any kind of inclusivity/repsresentation ruins a game for you
I'm confused now, I thought Cis was supposed to be the opposite of gay, ie straight?
griddle, ring, I knew it was something, not to shabby even recalling that much from so long ago
But thinking back on BG2, now I'm even more amused by the outrage towards this new character. When minsc in the very first part revealed he smuggled his pet rat boo into the jail, by leading us to believe it was hidden in his arse
apparently playing hide the gerbil is ok, but a trans guy goes to far. If that's his only contribution to the party, than that is pretty lame.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Just checked through the Steam reviews of various players. That article writer is a lying pile of crap. Read the Steam Reviews you find yourself. They're just covering their ***es for a game they ruined.
So there you have it. A gay person wants to be seen like everybody else rather than to have their sexual preferences stated constantly. It's almost like they have a personality besides being their gender, race, religion or sexual preferences. I mean what kind of crazy world is this. *rolls eyes*
I'm sorry any kind of inclusivity/repsresentation ruins a game for you
He was being sarcastic, and no representation doesn't ruin games for me, as long as it isn't shoehorned and cringy. Which most of the time it is and it is really bad writing on the writing writers part.
I am not overtly opposed to transgender/sexual people (though my track record would like to say the contrary), but I felt that that dialogue was shoehorned in and didn't help progress anything. Did the character need to go out of her way to say "I was a boy once?"
In I think it was my 2nd 'Dragon Age: Origins' playthrough I went for romancing zevran as one of the romances my main character had. I tried for 3 at a time but one wrong dialog option meant Alistair didn't like me. I found him somewhat annoying anyway. Seriously how could you not love the Antonio banderas elf that is good looking, an assassin and generally pretty cool. Probably about as trustworthy as a Skaven in warhammer fantasy but he was an interesting character. There's even background on him. I might be wrong but I think he was more Bi than Gay. Of course in that game it was just an option and it's not like everybody was gay. A few options are fine and as long as the character has more to them than being an absolute stereotype.
What's more I feel I need to disclose this with you guys. Though I am not trans, gay, female or of a different race I do have Aspbergers and to an extent I know people with mental disabilities. I know from personal experience the things people hate most are stating your mental illness/disability all the time, imagining it defines all of what you are (if that's your only defining feature you have no depth as a person) and treating you like someone would treat a child (babying you and taking light of your opinions). I actually prefer people that treat me like crap as long as they treat me as an adult and don't define me by my mental disability. In fact I'd rather be defined by my personality, what I'm good at, what I'm bad at and what I like to do. In fact I hate being around too many people with Aspbergers because we're all socially awkward and annoying together. It brings out flavor to have diversity of people sometimes.
Now I understand gay, non-white, female or other characters may need characters but to put them on a pedestal with a loudspeaker announcing their difference to others does the exact opposite of helping them to feel equal and like everybody else.
Also as somebody that is atheist/agnostic I feel no need to crap on religious people. They have their beliefs and I have mine. As long as they don't push their religion on me i'll will respect them and will leave them alone as well (or i'll try to).
Not only that but as far as playing the blame game on people that have harmed me in the past as I said. Though it's a particular person that has hurt me in each case instead of one person in an entire group that has harmed me (which is really unfair to said group). I at the end of the day allow me to keep myself down. That is my fault and mine alone to wallow in my own self-pity for so long. However I realize it and don't blame a whole group for it.
welshhoppo wrote: Nah, cis means that you were a born the same sex you identify with. Just sounds like having a name for the sake of having a name to me.
To me, if the most interesting about you if you sexual/gender orientation, then I don't care because your obviously a very boring person.
Well, the regressive leftists consider the more reasonable leftists to be just as much the enemy as the right. What was the "New Left" in the 1960's is now the "Old Left". That includes gay men (and lesbians who don't toe the neo-progressive, post-modernist party line) who happen to be white or asian. So, they had to come up with a new slur. "Cis-Gendered Scum" was as good as any, I suppose.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Just checked through the Steam reviews of various players. That article writer is a lying pile of crap. Read the Steam Reviews you find yourself. They're just covering their ***es for a game they ruined.
So there you have it. A gay person wants to be seen like everybody else rather than to have their sexual preferences stated constantly. It's almost like they have a personality besides being their gender, race, religion or sexual preferences. I mean what kind of crazy world is this. *rolls eyes*
I'm sorry any kind of inclusivity/repsresentation ruins a game for you
You've missed his point. A token is not inclusiveness/representation.
The volume of bad gak that that the linked article claimed made me dubious at first, but then I remembered the FLGS horror stories threat someone else cited above- ButteryCommisar's comments were taken as absurd etc. but believed. Some people have bad luck etc. Also, I hadn't really seen any sexism in gaming stores I frequented (so had really thought of it as a thing of the dark past) until I moved to a new city and a new gaming store, where my (also gamer) wife got treated like some sort of idiot, so I've learned to hesitate on calling things I haven't seen unbelievable.
I disagree with the term "terrorism" that she used- I don't believe it falls under the category of coercion, but it's clearly harassment, and it's frankly an extremely small portion of the population that will lie about harassment etc.
I'm also a little confused about the Wyrd thing- isn't that a local gaming problem? Did I misunderstand something?
Also, for all those of you who're attacking "sjw"s, just, IDK, just think for a second about the fact that you're using the idea of justice in a pejorative term- I'm not saying that everyone who claims to be seeking justice is right, but, still.
@spiralingcadaver: I honestly just haven't seen it. I've never seen it come anywhere even remotely close to what the article claimed. I just have a hard time believing it unless this was like the 70's or 80's or earlier or if she moved to the middle east or asia for some odd reason perhaps. Far as I've seen except for pervy dudes from time to time I don't think gamer girls have it much different esp. in real life where most guys don't care unless they're attractive anyway. Also let's be honest here if any person is attractive any person attracted to the attractive person's respective gender will pretty much always go after them (barring significant others in some cases).
Also on the subject of the feminists let's also be honest about this. How many people attack just women or just black people or just one group? If somebody is a jerk to somebody then usually they'll be a jerk to others. However if a bunch of people are being a jerk to somebody and they find themselves the only target then chances are the issue lies with them and something they probably haven't told everybody else. Perhaps said person offended them in a way the person didn't notice or left out in an attempt to make themselves out to be the good guy in their story. I mean we all like to consider ourselves a protagonist in each of our stories and consider ourselves like some sort of hero that we can cheer for a bit. I mean after all we can control what we do and follow our moral codes more easily and anybody outside of our personal moral code may seem immoral while we often like those that are most like ourselves.
As far as the feminists go I think often times they jump to conclusions. For an example look at that video of a woman walking around New York. I realize it's old but when the opposing side stated an attractive man walking through new York suddenly he got exactly the same type of attention right? In the end it wasn't her being female so much as being attractive that made guys try to talk to her and honestly if you have to walk into a bad neighborhood where crime is probably more common just to prove people in a bad neighborhood are likely to make vulnerable people feel uncomfortable then that's kind of sad.
-----
Honestly I just don't understand. Women in the West have it pretty freaking great. What more rights do you exactly need anyway? You want more characters in games or something and less skimpy armor? Far as jobs go as I said in my family all the women in their 20's and 30's are doing fairly well and in many cases better than their male peers. My half nephew's fiancée is a lawyer for god's sake.
If there's any sort of gender divide at all then I just can't see it. Wherever I look women are doing fantastic and they still get to enjoy whatever they like. I mean I'm pretty sure if a war were to occur they wouldn't even be thrown into it like the guys would be (girls might get more choice) though i'll probably get crap from people for saying it.
One thing, though- regarding "I just can't see it", that's unfortunately a lot of the issue. I grew up in a super-de-duper progressive area and in a fairly sheltered environment, so I didn't really see it, either. But then I moved other places and interacted with more people.
I'm not white. Actually, I'm half-white, half-Japanese. Which is a mix that makes me look hispanic. There are a lot of places where people treat me like trash because of it. For a while, I thought it was just they were jerks, but then I went to some of the same places with my white friends, and, well, people were less suspicious of me and treat me better since I'm not some random mexican who's going to steal their hardware. Another of my friends is something like 1/8 cherokee, which is enough to make him look middle-eastern, and he's sometimes socially treated like gak and targeted by basically any security because of that.
I have a family member who's transgender, who's treated fine in my generation, but treated as a source of anywhere from confusion to outright suspicion by the next-older generation.
Women my age who are my friends/family have variously had cat calls, to oblivious harassment at work, to a fair amount of very physical violence done to them.
Not seeing the problem is entirely possible that it's because you're not the object of said discrimination. And this can become all sorts of divisive, since it means that straight white guys get upset when someone calls them out on not having experienced some of this stuff, but, well, they haven't. Being part of the group that's traditionally been in power means all sorts of things, and there's no need to attack someone over it or feel guilty about it or anything, but it's also worth acknowledging that one's race and sex do affect how people treat you, and that just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.
Regarding equality, (growing towards) workplace equality is nice, and yes, women have it better now than they've probably ever had it any time or place before now, but there's still a lot more before I'd say I've seen a culture that's actually egalitarian.
edit- flaming, reading your earlier post more closely, I feel like I get more where you're coming from. There are definite problems with a lot of how people handle their feeling discriminated against. Attacking whole groups in response to being attacked due to discrimination is hypocritical, and I've definitely known people who define themselves by their difference, which isn't the best approach, but lots of people define their lives by some aspect (gaming, perhaps?) and it's just a particularly noticeable one when reacting against something, like in the case of groups that feel discriminated. I don't believe in going on the offensive as a way to act, nor do I find it personally interesting to define myself by a single characteristic.
And regarding equality, I think you're conflating equality with homogeneity. Like I said above, some like to turn what is discriminatory into something they claim for themselves. Also, I believe that treating everyone as the same is ignoring, well, everything that makes them different, which is just as problematic as judging them purely on those differences.
spiralingcadaver wrote: Not seeing the problem is entirely possible that it's because you're not the object of said discrimination. And this can become all sorts of divisive, since it means that straight white guys get upset when someone calls them out on not having experienced some of this stuff, but, well, they haven't. Being part of the group that's traditionally been in power means all sorts of things, and there's no need to attack someone over it or feel guilty about it or anything, but it's also worth acknowledging that one's race and sex do affect how people treat you, and that just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.
Hmm. A good point. I'm white enough in my predominantly white country that no one treats me differently for that, but I've had a (very) few bad encounters due to my native language being not Finnish. If I was Romani, or Sami, or looked like an immigrant (Vietnamese, Thai, African) I might meet more prejudice. The Vietnamese aren't really seen as suspicious anymore, but Thai women coming here to marry a native are sometimes treated badly. And Africans, well, even other African immigrants don't like the Somali we have here.
LordofHats wrote: You know who else filed away elves and dragons? SAURON! Obviously you support the construction of ominously named monolithic structures, and spreading darkness across the land
Well I'm opposed to his monolithic structure plan, but it will be a job creator, and I do support his elf killing policy...
LordofHats wrote: You know who else filed away elves and dragons? SAURON! Obviously you support the construction of ominously named monolithic structures, and spreading darkness across the land
Well I'm opposed to his monolithic structure plan, but it will be a job creator, and I do support his elf killing policy...
Well I think everybody hates elves even other elves since they do basically hate themselves ;P.
@spiralingcadaver: Holy crap! Are you going to tell me 2 people with opposing views are going to get along in the Off-topic forum? This is cause for celebration. Get out the booze, drugs and prostitutes for everyone. This is a great day indeed!
I have friends that are somewhat sympathetic to some of the calmer feminists that are more reasonable about all of this.
While I can be sympathetic if people are giving you a hard time for your race or what race they think you are I'm almost certain those people are fairly awful people in the first place. I don't condone their behavior but I find in the younger generations most of that behavior is stamped out far as I've seen. I don't hate my older family as much anymore. They are a product of their times much as we are a product of everything that came to the point we are at today. Some people don't change too much from where they were at when they were young.
Personally I don't really mind what a person chooses for their lifestyle as long as it works for them and hurts nobody. A woman can choose to raise kids instead of work and be in the kitchen or work a full time job while her husband (or perhaps wife) is doing similar or working in the kitchen. I really don't care what gay couples do with their lives. It seriously doesn't effect me.
I want you to fully understand I'm about Freedom. It means a lot to me in the way I imagine it should mean. It means choosing your lifestyle and being able to live that lifestyle to the utmost happiness you can. Possibly in a way I think Americans have forgotten.
In the case of feminists or the PC crowd I believe some are neutering uncomfortable thoughts. I want you to understand I once saw a diorama in 'cool mini or not' about a female eldar with her shirt ripped off in a scene that depicted guardsmen hovering around her with one unbuckling his pants and getting ready to rape her. While this image disgusted me and I hated it I would not prevent others from looking at it if they wanted to. Hopefully more the emotions it evokes are what's seen as important though about the brutality of war at times rather than somebody's sick rape fantasy. I will say the eldar lady was quite attractive and had it been more in a pervy fan fiction form (with the sex being consensual) I'd have enjoyed it more (then again 'love can bloom' is probably a good example of awful eldar to human pervy fan fiction) but then I'm a pervert . I don't find that something I should be ashamed of though. Nothing wrong with people wanting to have sex with each other. It's when one group doesn't want it that it becomes bad.
I don't feel I should be sorry for making an offensive joke if the intent is just to tease others playfully. I would get into the specifics but that might take a while. I still believe death and rape shouldn't be joked about mostly if it's based on an actual event. If somebody dies just don't joke about it. That's poor form. In the case of making fun of groups it's not so bad as you don't put a particular person on the spot and make it personal. In that case it's usually some broad generalization and honestly if you can't laugh at yourself you have a real problem with how you see yourself. If the teasing is more focused on a person it has to be seen that it is well received by the person in question. I don't care if it offends a hundred million people. That teasing is only between the person that teased and the person that was the object of being teased. If the teasing isn't well received by the person being teased an apology is probably needed unless the person needs to be taken down a notch. Perhaps they're acting out and being a bad guy and need to be knocked down a peg. A good example would be making fun of people that do terrible things like Putin and Kim Jong Il or Un or people that are being hypocrites. Also as far as teasing goes I tend to do it to my friends and they tease me back. If only one person is doing the teasing and the other person is just looking incredibly hurt by it then there may be a big problem. Hopefully this is a totally reasonably way of doing things. Generally if I joke about something that seems offensive having to do with a group there's no ill intent meant. It's absolutely just there to tease various groups and get a laugh out of everybody.
It's absolutely ok not to like something as some Feminists don't. However to absolute remove it or change it is not so good (I believe the director or writer should do as they wish at times). Even worse to assume ill intent whether because you have been wronged and see others as always trying to wrong you is also bad. Trust me I know that type of thought process. I used to be depressed a lot and to an extent still am. I thought of myself as worthless and was bullied a lot. Sometimes when some have tried to help I thought they were trying to pick on me. It was my previous experience and mindset that saw ill intent where it did not exist. In some cases people actually legitimately tried to help me. In the case of some feminists I think they are striking out what they find offensive even if a possible other intent existed and even if they couldn't possibly see any other possibility to that action. In this case it's not always good to jump at the first possibility and conclusion that you come to.
In the case of changing things feminists can have their own works of fiction that is more about them. If it's sort of a fan fiction they write then whatever. In the case of a character in the DC universe being a lesbian way back when I don't see much problem with it provided they did it a certain way. That way is that many characters have had reboots or different characters step into a similar role like the black green lantern character which I actually kind of prefer myself. There's been more than one version of various marvel characters. I'd be willing to let at least one version of a marvel character be gay or lesbian. It's really not asking much when done that way. I think what people mind is when it is changed with no possibility of ever going back to a previous loved character. In this way both versions are allowed and both groups win.
Also when watching the Star Wars episode 7 movie bad fan fiction or not once it was stated I did kind of imagine Poe and Finn made a better romantic couple than the more forced Finn and Rei romance that just seemed cheesy to me.
Funny thing is the game stores close to me have women who play magic and one that plays x wing. I never seen one being treated worse then treating them as "one of the guys " most are happy to have women playing.
Sometimes I wonder if that's the thing being "one of the guys " is a large step down from how women are treated in the west. Guy call one another names in jest play pranks and tease one another.
Oldmike wrote: Funny thing is the game stores close to me have women who play magic and one that plays x wing. I never seen one being treated worse then treating them as "one of the guys " most are happy to have women playing.
Sometimes I wonder if that's the thing being "one of the guys " is a large step down from how women are treated in the west. Guy call one another names in jest play pranks and tease one another.
I think that's fine. I always did prefer tomboy girls that preferred to fart loud, snort while laughing and smell each other's farts and armpits. Oddly as far as looking for a female romantic partner as a guy I only want them to wear more girly clothes and take care of their hygiene like a girl. I don't mind a girl that would get her hands dirty working in a factory.
@spiralingcadaver: I think I had more to discuss about what you said but I can't really remember the details. Anyway it's getting late (1 AM over here) and I have to work tomorrow so I don't have the time to describe it in detail. Rather sad as I didn't get to play too many games to unwind. It's rather unfortunate. At least your post was infinitely more reasonable than some others with opposing views to mine. There's a few people in particular in off-topic that I'm surprised if they didn't get perma-banned for their hijinks.
Like an actual transgender person on their forums said, she wouldn't tell that to a stranger she just met at all because she wants to be seen as a woman, not a transgender.
What also bugs a lot of people is that you can't give any negative response to it, whereas you can with all other characters.
Like an actual transgender person on their forums said, she wouldn't tell that to a stranger she just met at all because she wants to be seen as a woman, not a transgender.
What also bugs a lot of people is that you can't give any negative response to it, whereas you can with all other characters.
The argument has gone so meta I can't follow it any more.
Baldur's Gate isn't a pillar of English literature. If people are angry because an LGBT character has been put in the plot, it's because an LGBT character has been put in the plot makes them angry. Then they get angry because they can't express their anger at an LGBT character.
If people are angry because an LGBT character has been put in the plot, it's because an LGBT character has been put in the plot makes them angry. Then they get angry because they can't express their anger at an LGBT character.
No, they are mad because the writers has taken the corpse of a cherished work of art and used it to push their agenda in the worst way possible. If there where any sort of creative spark or idea behind this it could have worked, the issues people are getting worked up about is not really new in d&d (see girdle of femininity/masculinity and the elven god Corellon Larethian), the problem is how it has been handled. Instead of trying to do a good story with interesting and deep characters they instead opted for shallow tokenism and posturing in "culture war" issues (Minsc for example has a line that references gamergate of all things...).
For example, The token trans characters first lines of dialogue is basically "Hi, I´m the trans character!", it´s like it´s a character from a political pamphlet or jack chick tract instead of a living human being who happens to be trans.
A bit late to the party. But that article seems... far too horrible to be true. Like all that stuff happening to her and her alone? I have trouble believing that
ulgurstasta wrote: To some people, it might as well be and it commends the same sort of respect to many people.
People who treat Baldur's Gate as holy writ are a whole other problem, that's true. I love the series, but I love it because it plays like a D&D session - lots of goofy jokes, simple but effective villains, and a plot that manages to connect the various fights well enough.
Anyhow, there's a difference between not liking a game, and not liking a game you haven't played because politics. This is pretty clearer the latter. Go look at the metacritic scores, and look at how many of the negative scores mention politics. Then remember this is for a game with 25 hours of gameplay that was released five days ago.
Also, there's no politics in simply existing, either in life or in a game. There's no dialogue option for 'please, tell me more about diversity and how I can respect your decision'. The character simply says they exist, and that's that. That isn't adding politics, that's recognising that a certain type of person exists.
ulgurstasta wrote: To some people, it might as well be and it commends the same sort of respect to many people.
Also, there's no politics in simply existing, either in life or in a game. There's no dialogue option for 'please, tell me more about diversity and how I can respect your decision'. The character simply says they exist, and that's that. That isn't adding politics, that's recognising that a certain type of person exists.
Tokenism is a thing I´m afraid. It´s like you designed a character thats just there to be straight and who´s first line of dialogue is "Hello! I´m Steve the straight cis man, nice too meet you", it´s comes of as fake and artificial and shatters your immersion that this a living breathing world populated by actual people.
ulgurstasta wrote: Tokenism is a thing I´m afraid. It´s like you designed a character thats just there to be straight and who´s first line of dialogue is "Hello! I´m Steve the straight cis man, nice too meet you", it´s comes of as fake and artificial and shatters your immersion that this a living breathing world populated by actual people.
Tokenism is a criticism that something isn't inclusive enough. It means just adding someone for representation, without ever exploring that character's differences. I don't think those 0 scores are because people are concerned that the transgender character wasn't developed in sufficient depth.
ulgurstasta wrote: Tokenism is a thing I´m afraid. It´s like you designed a character thats just there to be straight and who´s first line of dialogue is "Hello! I´m Steve the straight cis man, nice too meet you", it´s comes of as fake and artificial and shatters your immersion that this a living breathing world populated by actual people.
Tokenism is a criticism that something isn't inclusive enough. It means just adding someone for representation, without ever exploring that character's differences. I don't think those 0 scores are because people are concerned that the transgender character wasn't developed in sufficient depth.
I think it has something to do with it, had this not come of as cheap tokenism to get diversity brownie points I think it would have gone over much better. There are of course reactionary people in the gaming hobby, but remember these are the same people who fought against right wing Christians a decade ago when they tried to control gaming, So I have hard time seeing the whole of the gaming hobby as hard-line republicans
The thing is, isn't it unlikely that the people who think that are the same ones who are giving it 0 scores?
Ok, sure, I'm sure there's people who are saying, "I think this was implemented badly." But I don't think there's a direct correlation between that and, "Get those politics out of my game!"
ulgurstasta wrote: I think it has something to do with it, had this not come of as cheap tokenism to get diversity brownie points I think it would have gone over much better. There are of course reactionary people in the gaming hobby, but remember these are the same people who fought against right wing Christians a decade ago when they tried to control gaming, So I have hard time seeing the whole of the gaming hobby as hard-line republicans
I think if the transgender character was more central to the plot it wouldn't have been a lighter reaction. But ymmv.
I don't think any past fights against socially conservative christians are relevant. It doesn't even out if you're a jerk to both ends of the political spectrum, then you're just a person who's a jerk to lots of people. And anyone who gets worked up enough about the presence of a transgender character that they'd write a review without even playing the game is being a jerk.
And note I'm not saying that everyone who gives the game a bad score hasn't played the game. I'm sure there are genuine reviews there, but seeing that many reviews with a few days of release for a game with 25 hours of content, when so many of those reviews mention the transgender thing... well it isn't hard to conclude that this is playing out just like sad puppies/rabid puppies did. A lot of people parachuting in who are first and foremost committed to reactionary politics, fighting their own very weird and largely imaginary culture war.
Much like the author of the piece that started this whole thread.
Overlord Thraka wrote: A bit late to the party. But that article seems... far too horrible to be true. Like all that stuff happening to her and her alone? I have trouble believing that
The idea (at least as far as I gather) is that this sort of thing, this sort of experience, is not restricted to "her alone", and in fact is representative of the experiences of many women involved in the community.
Also, something else that could be going on here is that her experience is atypical. Say you had a community of 10,000 people, with about 20 truly horrible, sociopathic gakheads. Most people would only run into two or three of them, but, sooner or later, there will be someone unfortunate enough to run into all 20. And then such run-ins go from isolated incidents to patterns of patterns of behaviour worth writing irate blog posts about. (And some lucky few will never run into any of them.)
Ofcouse there is alot more to all of this; Sexism in Gaming Communities, but other people in this thread are doing a pretty good job of covering that territory, so I'll leave it there.
The problem with things like Tumblr is that it is entirely about seeking attention and being special. No one with a job and over 25 bothers spending their time online describing the hardships of being non-binary-demi-genderqueer or whatever invented labels they want to pick for themselves.
I used to know a group of people who were polyamarous and mixed genders and sexualities, and it was all they ever talked about. I understand that most gay people don't want to make it the defining thing about their identity, but these people did, it was all about being a polyamarous man with the gender identity of a gay woman. Most of the socialising revolved around discussion of their sexuality and gender, like they didn't have anything else interesting about themselves or had anything to define themselves as individuals. And talking about sex and sexuality becomes pretty tiresome after a while - yes I'm a straight man with one partner, no I don't want to talk about the details of my/your sex life.
Out of interest, in the Baldur's Gate DLC is it possible to respond to the trans-gay whatever character with "So what?" And how does the character react to that?
If people are angry because an LGBT character has been put in the plot, it's because an LGBT character has been put in the plot makes them angry. Then they get angry because they can't express their anger at an LGBT character.
No, they are mad because the writers has taken the corpse of a cherished work of art and used it to push their agenda in the worst way possible. If there where any sort of creative spark or idea behind this it could have worked, the issues people are getting worked up about is not really new in d&d (see girdle of femininity/masculinity and the elven god Corellon Larethian), the problem is how it has been handled. Instead of trying to do a good story with interesting and deep characters they instead opted for shallow tokenism and posturing in "culture war" issues (Minsc for example has a line that references gamergate of all things...).
For example, The token trans characters first lines of dialogue is basically "Hi, I´m the trans character!", it´s like it´s a character from a political pamphlet or jack chick tract instead of a living human being who happens to be trans.
So, what, they don't mind at all about an LGBT character, they are only angry that the quality of script writing is too low because it sounds like what they imagine a jack chick tract to sound like?
ulgurstasta wrote: To some people, it might as well be and it commends the same sort of respect to many people.
Also, there's no politics in simply existing, either in life or in a game. There's no dialogue option for 'please, tell me more about diversity and how I can respect your decision'. The character simply says they exist, and that's that. That isn't adding politics, that's recognising that a certain type of person exists.
Tokenism is a thing I´m afraid. It´s like you designed a character thats just there to be straight and who´s first line of dialogue is "Hello! I´m Steve the straight cis man, nice too meet you", it´s comes of as fake and artificial and shatters your immersion that this a living breathing world populated by actual people.
Faculty and students protest return of professor accused of harassment and assault to campus after a one-term unpaid leave.
April 5, 2016
By
Colleen Flaherty
Should a professor who can’t be trusted to be alone with students be trusted to teach at all? Students at the University of California at Los Angeles say no, and they’re protesting the university’s decision to allow a professor accused of serial sexual harassment and assault to return to campus, despite a university agreement that stipulates he must leave his door open when meeting with students, among other requirements.
He “harassed, assaulted and really psychologically terrorized these women … on the clear understanding that he had the impunity to do so,” said Matthew Kelly, a recent Ph.D. from UCLA’s history department, in which Gabriel Piterberg, the accused professor, teaches. “If the university's final response is to allow him to return to the department after paying [a fine] -- what is it, a sexual assault fee? -- and agreeing to leave his door open, then he was right. He has effective impunity.”
Kelly’s comments echo those students shared at a rally last month in opposition to Piterberg’s planned return to campus this summer. He was put on leave after being accused of sexually harassing and assaulting two female graduate students. A university investigation into those claims resulted in punishments for Piterberg -- including a $3,000 fee and the open-door office rule -- that students say are too light, and effectively condone his alleged behavior. Faculty members and other alumni also have spoken out against his return.
UCLA students and student workers union join together in protest of history professor Gabriel Piterberg's return pic.twitter.com/Jp0QiottP8
-- Annita K. (@caketwitty) March 2, 2016
The complaints against Piterberg are detailed in a lawsuit filed last year by two graduate students who have been public about their involvement in the case, Nefertiti Takla and Kristen Glasgow. According to the suit, which names the regents of the University of California as co-defendants, Piterberg consistently attempted to bring up sexual topics with and make advances toward Takla, starting in 2011. For example, Piterberg told Takla, his former research assistant, that he’d been “distant” lately because he’d been feeling “frustrated,” and, later, that if she hadn’t been his student, he would have “risked everything” and really kissed her, the suit says.
On another occasion in 2013, according to the complaint, during a meeting at Piterberg’s home (where Takla says she felt safe going only after she told Piterberg that she wanted to keep the relationship strictly professional), he allegedly told Takla intimate details about his relationships with other women, including his wife. When she got up to leave, Piterberg allegedly tried to caress and grope her and stuck his tongue into her mouth.
Later that year, Piterberg again groped Takla, grabbing her posterior and trying to kiss her, despite her repeated pleas that she wanted to keep things professional, according to the complaint. Worried that breaking with Piterberg, one of just two Middle East specialists in the department, would ruin her career, Takla called Piterberg the next day and asked him for a letter of recommendation for a Fulbright fellowship, the suit says.
According to the complaint, he responded, “Why can’t we just be lovers?” Piterberg allegedly soon told Takla that he was having trouble controlling himself around her, and that he wouldn’t blame her for switching advisers, but that it would be very bad for her academically.
Takla took that as a threat, which seemed to bear out a few months later when she discovered that Piterberg’s letter of recommendation was missing necessary information and was “lukewarm,” according to the complaint. Piterberg continued to discuss sex with her, despite her insistence that the relationship be professional, saying at one meeting that he and a graduate student had had sex on a desk and that the student demanded multiple orgasms. At another meeting, he allegedly said he wished he could use his research funds to hire a mistress instead of an assistant.
In mid-2013, Takla finally told Piterberg that she could no longer have him as an adviser. He responded by saying that philosophers Hannah Arendt and Martin Heidegger had had a career-long love affair, and that “if done right, professor and student relationships are supposed to [be] intimate,” according to the complaint. He also allegedly said he masturbated while thinking about her, and said that “if anything happened between us, it would be while you are writing your dissertation.”
Takla took that to mean Piterberg might insist on sex in exchange for signing off on her dissertation. Based on the advice of a university ombudsman, she reported the harassment to Pamela Thomason, at the time UCLA’s coordinator for Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which bans sex-based discrimination in education. Takla also tried to secure a new adviser but was allegedly encouraged within the department to stick with Piterberg, based on his expertise, and then later encouraged not to talk about the harassment.
Thomason never advised Takla of her rights under Title IX, according to the complaint. She eventually informed her that she’d interviewed Piterberg, who admitted to the basic facts but denied manipulating or trying to coerce Takla, the suit says. Thomason also allegedly said that another graduate student and a faculty member had come forward with complaints against Piterberg, but that she was only concerned about those students whom he advised.
Responding to news that Thomason wanted to deal with the case via an early resolution, distinct from a formal hearing, Takla said she wanted a hearing before the Academic Senate instead. Thomason allegedly discouraged Takla from that tack because the senate would side with Piterberg, and said early resolution would ensure that she would learn of Piterberg’s punishment anyway.
Despite what eventually amounted to additional reports of harassment concerning Piterberg, UCLA treated Takla’s complaint like a “one-off,” according to the suit. Moreover, early resolutions are not supposed to apply to cases in which the facts are in dispute or those involving sexual assault or patterns of sexual harassment.
The Title IX investigation took nine months and resulted in no findings of any kind, in contravention of Title IX requirements, according to the suit. And despite Thomason’s alleged assurance that Takla would know how Piterberg had been punished, she was later denied that information.
Glasgow’s claims are similar to Takla’s. She met Piterberg socially through another faculty member in the department in 2008, according to the complaint. During a conversation over coffee, Glasgow revealed that she had recently been divorced, prompting a flood of questions from Piterberg, such as how a man could lie in bed next to her and not “molest” her.
After walking to their cars, parked in the same lot, Piterberg allegedly forcefully tried to kiss her. Glasgow raised her hands to defend herself and avoided Piterberg for a year, until they came to work in the same building. He started to join her for smoking breaks, steering the conservation toward sexual topics such as his favorite sexual position, and asking her out, according to the suit. He once called her in the evening, saying he was in the neighborhood and “was going to stop by so we could make love.” Glasgow denied his advances but worried about angering Piterberg because he sat on the department’s funding awards committee.
In 2013, Glasgow learned that Takla had filed a complaint against Piterberg and quickly filed her own. Despite asking Thomason to keep her informed of developments in the case, Glasgow said she heard nothing for four weeks. When she followed up with Thomason, according to the suit, the Title IX coordinator said she didn’t remember meeting with her. She also allegedly said that taking Glasgow’s report before the Academic Senate would result in all of Piterberg’s peers siding with him.
Glasgow was eventually informed that Thomason had left UCLA. She is now the Title IX compliance officer for the California State University System.
The lawsuit is ongoing. UCLA has denied some of the allegations concerning Thomason, saying she never attempted to obstruct reporting procedures. Under pressure from graduate students, the university only recently released the terms of Piterberg’s 2014 settlement based on the Title IX investigation -- the findings of which, if any, are still unclear.
Too Little, Too Late?
“In order to avoid the cost, uncertainty and inconvenience of an administrative proceeding related to this matter, and to settle fully and finally the differences that may exist between them, the parties have reached the mutual decision to resolve the dispute on the terms and conditions outlined,” the document reads. “Piterberg does not concede or admit the truth or accuracy of any allegation made by [the] complaint … or that Piterberg has engaged in improper or unlawful conduct.”
Under the agreement, Piterberg was suspended without pay for one quarter, charged $3,000 by the university and made to write a letter of recommendation for Takla. He also acknowledged university policies against sexual harassment and consensual relationships between faculty members and students wherein a supervisory relationship exists. He was assigned Title IX training and prohibited from engaging in relationships with students. He may not contact Takla.
For the three years following the agreement, Piterberg also is prohibited from meeting with students outside of office hours or off campus, and must meet with students with the door open “at all times.” Any future claims against him shall be promptly presented to the Committee on Privilege and Tenure for an immediate hearing. Possible sanctions include suspension without pay or dismissal.
Piterberg, who is on sabbatical in Europe and did not respond to a request for comment, is scheduled to return to UCLA this summer, prompting the recent on-campus protest by undergraduate and graduate students.
One Ph.D. candidate in history, Cassia Roth, on the popular blog The Professor Is In also questioned the timing of Piterberg's suspension -- spring 2015, which coincided with his Fernand Braudel Senior Fellowship at the European University Institute.
"This means that Piterberg applied for the fellowship in September 2013 (after the initiation of the UCLA early resolution process)," Roth wrote. "Essentially, UCLA allowed Piterberg to delay the settlement for nine months, so he could take a fellowship that coincided with the quarter he took off in spring 2015 …. More important than the individual figures, however, is the issue of prestige. Reputation and prestige are everything in academia. By covering up the sexual harassment case and allowing Piterberg to get the Braudel fellowship, UCLA protected Piterberg’s reputation. Piterberg’s 'quarter off' may have cost him financially, but it actually boosted his real academic capital, his research status. And it also enhanced UCLA’s own academic standing."
Although some faculty members were allegedly indifferent to Takla’s and Glasgow’s harassment, 38 history professors also signed a recent letter expressing “grave concerns” about Piterberg’s return to campus. Among them is that his “public presence on campus will signal that an effective climate of tolerance for harassment persists at UCLA.” Department alumni who are now faculty members at other institutions have expressed similar sentiments.
Jerry Kang, UCLA’s vice chancellor for diversity, equity and inclusion, responded to such concerns in letters of his own last month. In his response to graduate students, he wrote, “Even if many believe that the discipline imposed wasn't harsh enough, it's important to have an accurate measure of what the consequence actually was. For example, Piterberg did not lose only $3,000 … but was suspended without pay for a quarter, which meant losing a third of his salary ($50,333). He was also barred from directing a center during his suspension, which meant losing a third of the payment associated with that position ($13,419 in summer monies and stipend). … For many, this may not be enough. And the talk of dollars, I know, risks commodification. My modest point is that the sanctions weren’t trivial.”
Regarding the alleged “opacity” of the investigation, Kang said that “those with concerns today must understand that this matter all took place before the new Title IX Office was created, before the Office of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion was created, and before new policies and procedures on sexual harassment and violence were adopted. Going forward, these new procedures greatly increase transparency by providing key information to the complainant about the investigation, its findings and their consequences.”
While Piterberg’s settlement already includes various constraints on how he may interact with students, Kang added, “Our goal continues to be crafting some arrangement that responds to the concerns expressed while making sure that bad behavior is not inadvertently rewarded (for instance, with less work or responsibility). What society does with those who have violated institutional norms when they return to the community presents hard questions about retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation and closure. The university is no exception.”
Kang's response displeased graduate students, who continue to organize in opposition of the university's position. Scottie Buehler, a Ph.D. candidate in history, said via email that administrators' "focus on the future without any appreciation of the past, demonstrates a lack of understanding about the ways that Piterberg’s actions have changed the way our department functions and interacts with each other, as well as a failure to recognize how their actions have contributed to a culture of silence around sexual violence on campus."
Ricardo Vazquez, university spokesperson, said in a statement that UCLA is “committed to maintaining an atmosphere where all students can live and learn free of discrimination, harassment, exploitation or intimidation. UCLA views sexual harassment and sexual violence not only as violations of university policy, but also of the dignity and safety of the individuals affected and, indeed, of our entire community. Deliberate action will be taken in response to all reports of sexual harassment and sexual violence.”
The statement also referenced a University of California systemwide task force on sexual assault and harassment that is looking at reforms. Some of that effort was prompted by a similar case at the Berkeley campus in which a prominent astronomer, Geoff Marcy, was found to have repeatedly harassed graduate students over many years. Berkeley warned Marcy not to repeat the behavior or risk immediate dismissal, but many said the punishment was too light. Marcy eventually resigned, amid public outcry.
Regarding Takla and Glasgow’s lawsuit, Vazquez said the university “vigorously disputes allegations made in the lawsuit and will respond in due course.”
Michael Porcello, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said the university has substantively challenged few of his clients’ claims thus far, and its actions continue to exhibit disregard for students’ safety.
“The most egregious piece of this to us is that Piterberg has gotten off with more or less a slap on the wrist,” he said. “This professor had a long campaign of sexual harassment against both clients, and there are rumors and reports of other women he sexually harassed in the past. Yet the settlement terms allow him to continue teaching under a number of terms that already are required by Title IX and university policy. We do not consider these terms, when you look at them closely, to be those that would protect other clients who could harassed in the future by this predator.”
I don't think anyone said it doesn't happen, they just don't believe it happened to that degree. that professor didn't have the class chanting at the girls, and I'm guessing he's tenure, which makes getting rid of him extremely difficult. While he probably is guilty of harassing these women, he was never found guilty in a court of law, so he's technically innocent.
“In order to avoid the cost, uncertainty and inconvenience of an administrative proceeding related to this matter, and to settle fully and finally the differences that may exist between them, the parties have reached the mutual decision to resolve the dispute on the terms and conditions outlined,” the document reads. “Piterberg does not concede or admit the truth or accuracy of any allegation made by [the] complaint … or that Piterberg has engaged in improper or unlawful conduct.”
I'd say the second coming is more likely to happen first before a tenured teacher is fired over a 'he said/she said' situation.
I'm not going to disagree that the hobby is male-dominated, and that some of them may be jerks to newcomers in general and female players in particular, but some of her stories definitely strain credulity.
I mean, a room full of adult men thinking it's appropriate to quote and laugh about pedobear-isms to a 13 year old girl?
A guy at a gaming convention who can grab her ass strongly enough to leave bruises, but swiftly enough to be back at his gaming table before she can turn around?
Even the one about her 'friend' drugging her soda and raping her, while within the sphere of possibility, I mean, it seems unlikely. Men in this hobby are generally of the sort who can barely talk to women, and not really the sort who commit date rape.
It's not impossible, again, but just something sounds a bit fishy with too many of her anecdotes.
I'm interested to see if any women in this thread have similar stories to share in that vein, I might be wrong.
Kap'n Krump wrote: I'm not going to disagree that the hobby is male-dominated, and that some of them may be jerks to newcomers in general and female players in particular, but some of her stories definitely strain credulity.
I mean, a room full of adult men thinking it's appropriate to quote and laugh about pedobear-isms to a 13 year old girl?
A guy at a gaming convention who can grab her ass strongly enough to leave bruises, but swiftly enough to be back at his gaming table before she can turn around?
Even the one about her 'friend' drugging her soda and raping her, while within the sphere of possibility, I mean, it seems unlikely. Men in this hobby are generally of the sort who can barely talk to women, and not really the sort who commit date rape.
It's not impossible, again, but just something sounds a bit fishy with too many of her anecdotes.
I'm interested to see if any women in this thread have similar stories to share in that vein, I might be wrong.
The thing that strains reason the most is how much of this has "happened" to her in one community. The amount of bystanderism is ridiculous as well. We're to believe that she was in a gaming store with multiple people, and they were all cool with this guy slipping her a roofie, and dragging her from the store? That an entire store was chanting "old enough to bleed, old enough to breed."
Just no... if this stuff was legit, then it is not a gaming problem. It's a community problem. The community she lives in is responsible for this behavior.
Kap'n Krump wrote: I'm not going to disagree that the hobby is male-dominated, and that some of them may be jerks to newcomers in general and female players in particular, but some of her stories definitely strain credulity.
I mean, a room full of adult men thinking it's appropriate to quote and laugh about pedobear-isms to a 13 year old girl?
A guy at a gaming convention who can grab her ass strongly enough to leave bruises, but swiftly enough to be back at his gaming table before she can turn around?
Even the one about her 'friend' drugging her soda and raping her, while within the sphere of possibility, I mean, it seems unlikely. Men in this hobby are generally of the sort who can barely talk to women, and not really the sort who commit date rape.
It's not impossible, again, but just something sounds a bit fishy with too many of her anecdotes.
I'm interested to see if any women in this thread have similar stories to share in that vein, I might be wrong.
The thing that strains reason the most is how much of this has "happened" to her in one community. The amount of bystanderism is ridiculous as well. We're to believe that she was in a gaming store with multiple people, and they were all cool with this guy slipping her a roofie, and dragging her from the store? That an entire store was chanting "old enough to bleed, old enough to breed."
Just no... if this stuff was legit, then it is not a gaming problem. It's a community problem. The community she lives in is responsible for this behavior.
I believe that sums it up perfectly. Also what were her parents doing? Did she not bother to tell them "Mom, dad those guys inside were chanting Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed, at me" Not saying kids would necessarily tell parents, plenty of examples of this, but as a father of 2 little girls I think I am smart/aware enough to notice if my girls were scared or ashamed or anything like this.
As I said, either Canada (or the specific area she lives in) is so backwards and archaic that this stuff actually goes on so regularly that its common and nobody cares (SERIOUSLY unlikely) or more likely she is a lying little attention grabber (Jeff Dunham).
Edited by RiTides - Please don't circumvent the swear filter
You say stuff like this and then act incredulous that a lot of people would do nothing to stop sexual harassment. You and everyone else whose first instinct was to say that this can't be true because if it were true it would be bad are part of the problem.
You say stuff like this and then act incredulous that a lot of people would do nothing to stop sexual harassment. You and everyone else whose first instinct was to say that this can't be true because if it were true it would be bad are part of the problem.
You act like no one has made stuff like this up for attention before.
@spiralingcadaver: Holy crap! Are you going to tell me 2 people with opposing views are going to get along in the Off-topic forum? This is cause for celebration. Get out the booze, drugs and prostitutes for everyone. This is a great day indeed!
quoted for much truthiness
Regarding off-color jokes and whatnot... I agree in theory, the problem is practice. One person's playful can be another person's mean jab, subtle threat, or actual threat. For example, some big clothing chain last holiday season had an ad campaign about spiking your lady coworkers' drinks at parties with the implicit date-rape culture. So, one can only assume some advertising writer thought they were being funny or edgy or ironic, but then some idiot or donkey-cave actually does it, and, well, they've had violating someone culturally condoned.
Or, your idea of playful might just be an off-color joke that the other person thinks is just as funny as you do.
The problem is, it's hard to tell, since most people will generally think they're in the right, and this is kind of the heart of all the PC cultural stuff. Ignoring the crazies who think that everything should be whitewashed into oblivion, a lot of the PC stuff is about being consciousness of maybe that thing you're doing that you think okay really isn't, and it's sometimes better to overcompensate than assume.
Which isn't to say, censor your whole life- I'm all about freedom of expression, and I think most of the best drama, action, and of course horror has graphic or upsetting things in it, and there are very few good comedies that don't end up insulting some group- I'm just saying that there's a degree to which it's probably good to think another minute about if something you think is okay is because it definitively is, or is because it's culturally accepted as such.
Regarding star wars 7 (and baldur's gate mentioned above), I haven't experienced either. They might be ham-fisted, or it might be a matter of people who don't like it reacting against it, or more likely something in the middle since I'm expecting neither is anything like high art. Personally, I appreciate the fact that someone tried. Going back to the culturally condoned stuff above, there are so many aspects of pop culture that have some really negative things in them even if it's just a product of an earlier time (i.e. vast portions of pre-90's cartoons, that kids still grow up on- the further back you go, the more you'll wince at it) that culturally support some gakky stuff, that I'm happy to see mainstream entertainment try to react against that even if it doesn't do a great job. The more it's done, the more there'll be so the more chances that some of it is good, and the better people will get at doing it, and the better they'll get at recognizing what works and doesn't, and at a certain point it won't need to be about an agenda but just another part of story telling.
So, this is a bunch of theory. For a concrete example, I watched a movie kind-of recently called Princess Arete (was on netflix, IDK if it still is), which is one of the only things I'd feel 100% great about showing my (hypothetical future) kid. It's clearly a kids' movie, and it's obviously got a feminist agenda dealing with notions of subjugation, but it's got a pretty moving little story told in a simple way in a cool sci-fi/fantasy fable- and isn't about how how all mans is bad, but is basically about about a smart kid in a bad situation and how she overcomes it. It's probably the best example I can think of of PC stuff done right, if you want to see something put into practice.
You say stuff like this and then act incredulous that a lot of people would do nothing to stop sexual harassment. You and everyone else whose first instinct was to say that this can't be true because if it were true it would be bad are part of the problem.
The difference is that I have seen actual sexual harassment and I have seen the stuff that gets reported as Sexual harassment and I have witness COUNTLESS false accusations because someone wanted to hurt someone elses career. So maybe I am jaded, but if this is true as I said, then this area of Canada should be cordoned off from the rest of the country because clearly they haven't evolved in the last 100 years or so.
You say stuff like this and then act incredulous that a lot of people would do nothing to stop sexual harassment. You and everyone else whose first instinct was to say that this can't be true because if it were true it would be bad are part of the problem.
I've seen people who have manipulated the system so they appear to be the victim. I have also seen victims go unnoticed by the community. In essence, I think both of you are wrong and right.
Late tot he party,but this was the best line of complaint about the Trans character from the article...
"forcing gender politics down [their] throats."
What is it with people being obsessed with having things forced down their throats? It's like some sort of fixation?
It's amusing for the obvious innuendo, and also because, in this case, it's really not forced anywhere. You have to go out of your way to find this NPC and then query her about her "odd" name.
It's not like she says "Hey you over there! I TOTALLY USED TO BE A DUDE BUT NOW I'M NOT! Isn't that great?"
flamingkillamajig wrote: I mean they say warhammer fantasy didn't sell well. Yeah well guess what? Their LotR game didn't either. I suppose that means LotR is unpopular. Oh wait what about the movies and a gajillion games inspired by the books that are about 100 years old? Thing is warhammer fantasy was great but just handled poorly by GW just like everything these days.
The Lord of the Rings actually sold extremely well in Britain for a few years while the LOTR films were still current and generating a huge wave of hype in the general public. Hell, the SBG is how I found wargaming and its still my main wargame.
Are you sure you're not thinking of the later iteration of the game based on the Hobbit films?
Is there a new rule now that women aren't allowed to make money?
Someone's complaining about the USA women's soccer team asking for more money, and Sarkeesian is a bad person for being paid for her public engagements.
Kilkrazy wrote: Is there a new rule now that women aren't allowed to make money?
Someone's complaining about the USA women's soccer team asking for more money, and Sarkeesian is a bad person for being paid for her public engagements.
I didn't really pay attention to it, but I did read about it somewhere else.
It was my understanding that they are suing their employer because they aren't paid as much as the men, after signing a collectively bargained contract.
I'm from the wrong side of the pond, but it sounds batgak crazy to antagonize your employer that much... then again, USA, so what do I know.
Here is Anita's YouTube page. Can you find all twelve videos? Can you find 10? Can you even find half of them?They were scheduled for completion by August.2012. It's now April 2016, three plus years after they promised completion date.
Has she not had enough time? It must be the time thing right? Because it certainly wasn't the money thing.
Now I'm still waiting on my Maelstrom's Edge pledge. For now I'm being patient but if I don't get it for another three years, and when I do it's got less than half of what I was promised, I'm going to take a very dim view of those that ran the kickstarter. And not a single person here would say they'd behaved well or as one poster claimed, 'had delivered the product'.
Yet she has the audacity to launch another crowdfunding project, asking for $200,000 to make a new Feminist Frequency series, even while her former project lies unfulfilled. This she does while, if her own declarations are to believed, Feminist Frequency has over four hundred thousand dollars in it's kiity.
BENEFITING: International Women's Health Coalition
THE STORY:
Hello, I'm TJ Kirk. I hope that you will join me in supporting The International Women's Health Coalition, whose goals are to provide sexual education, reproductive rights, and educational opportunities women and girls in places like Africa, India, The Middle East and Asia. They strive to help girls in these regions by:
Advancing the rights of adolescent girls
Promoting comprehensive sexual education
Ending child marriages and forced marriages
Ensuring safe and legal abortions
The IWHC accomplishes these goals by working with governments and global health policymakers as well as funding educational programs and grassroots political movements. They are bringing true feminism to woman and girls who suffer actual oppression and inequality. Their organization has received a 4 star rating from Charity Navigator, a service that rates charities based on the financial health of the charity and the transparency and accountability of the charity. The IWHC received a rating of 90 out of 100 for financial health and 100 out of 100 for transparency and accountability. To learn more about the IWHC you can check out their website here: https://iwhc.org
In response to our new project, a very vocal, known harasser who has spent years attacking feminism and individual feminists on YouTube, has launched a counter-fundraising campaign specifically designed to both discredit me and mobilize his viewers to abuse me further on social media.
Yeah she's allowed to make money. I for one would prefer if she did it in a moral and honest way though.
Kilkrazy wrote: Well, it's covered in the thread on the soccer but the basic point is that people are allowed to renegotiate contracts, so why aren't women?
I don't know, there must be reasons.
When I renegotiate my contract, the implied leverage is that "else I walk". Since we're talking nationals and not football club, what are they gonna do? Change nationality? Since they can't leave, maybe that's a factor for the suing after failed negotiations.
Kilkrazy wrote: Well, it's covered in the thread on the soccer but the basic point is that people are allowed to renegotiate contracts, so why aren't women?
I don't know, there must be reasons.
When I renegotiate my contract, the implied leverage is that "else I walk". Since we're talking nationals and not football club, what are they gonna do? Change nationality?
Since they can't leave, maybe that's a factor for the suing after failed negotiations.
Of course they can leave. It's the USA, not the Soviet Union.
Kilkrazy wrote: Is there a new rule now that women aren't allowed to make money?
Someone's complaining about the USA women's soccer team asking for more money, and Sarkeesian is a bad person for being paid for her public engagements.
A mod completely misrepresenting what is happening in another thread, while taking another thread off-topic. Say it ain't so.
Nobody has said Anita Sarkeesian is a bad person for charging fees for her public engagements, I simply pointed out that she is making a lot of money out of it in response to someone who claimed she isn't making money out of her "Professional victim" status.
She's a bad person for making a huge amount of money off a Kickstarter for a project she failed to complete, and filled with plagiarisms, falsehoods and poorly researched arguments; then pocketed the remaining cash and started a new Kickstarter that she probably won't complete either.
Charging for her speaking engagements is probably the most honest way that she makes money. Much more honest than half finished Kickstarters, certainly.
Nobody has said Anita Sarkeesian is a bad person for charging fees for her public engagements, I simply pointed out that she is making a lot of money out of it in response to someone who claimed she isn't making money out of her "Professional victim" status.
She's a bad person for making a huge amount of money off a Kickstarter for a project she failed to complete, and filled with plagiarisms, falsehoods and poorly researched arguments; then pocketed the remaining cash and started a new Kickstarter that she probably won't complete either.
Charging for her speaking engagements is probably the most honest way that she makes money. Much more honest than half finished Kickstarters, certainly.
She's also a bad person for being paid to speak about a subject she knows absolutely nothing about. 99% of her claims have been refuted with evidence or just laughed at, and she has yet to completely back them (especially in regards to finishing her video series). Hell, I'm willing to bet she hasn't even played half the games she accuses of being misogynistic and having the Princess trope. Also, she completely ignores games that don't fit in to her thesis (i.e. Tomb Raider, Metroid, games with good female characters). Hell, she goes on to criticize the Last of Us, even though Ellie is one of the strongest characters in the game. The only reason she gets captured and you rescue her is because she's a 13 year old girl, and even then, you only show up after she breaks out on her own and kills the bad guy. She completely missed the fething point of the game.
The problem isn't with her making money, the problem is she's completely dishonest and uses that dishonesty and rage to make money, and any time someone calls her out on it, she goes "Oh no misogyny!" and the media rushes to her defense.
jreilly89 wrote: She's also a bad person for being paid to speak about a subject she knows absolutely nothing about. 99% of her claims have been refuted with evidence or just laughed at, and she has yet to completely back them (especially in regards to finishing her video series). Hell, I'm willing to bet she hasn't even played half the games she accuses of being misogynistic and having the Princess trope. Also, she completely ignores games that don't fit in to her thesis (i.e. Tomb Raider, Metroid, games with good female characters).
This... isn't a very good point. If you're making videos to say "Hey, this thing happens sometimes and is bad, look at the thing" why on earth would you put in the cases where it doesn't happen?
Lets say 10% of children are bullied. You make a video to showcase the plight of that 10% of children. People then go on the internet to accuse you of dishonesty because you didn't feature the story of any of the kids that aren't bullied.
Here is Anita's YouTube page. Can you find all twelve videos? Can you find 10? Can you even find half of them?They were scheduled for completion by August.2012. It's now April 2016, three plus years after they promised completion date.
Has she not had enough time? It must be the time thing right? Because it certainly wasn't the money thing.
How extremely weird it was for you to literally supply all the URLs needed to prove exactly what you're claiming is not true.
What she promised:
Spoiler:
What she delivered:
Spoiler:
So what's it going to be? Admit you were completely and utterly wrong, and re-examine your opinion, or double down by moving the goalposts?
3 people in this page claimed she didn't deliver what she said she would, and it took me literally less than 2 minutes to find the videos. I don't know what to say to that.
jreilly89 wrote: She's also a bad person for being paid to speak about a subject she knows absolutely nothing about. 99% of her claims have been refuted with evidence or just laughed at, and she has yet to completely back them (especially in regards to finishing her video series). Hell, I'm willing to bet she hasn't even played half the games she accuses of being misogynistic and having the Princess trope. Also, she completely ignores games that don't fit in to her thesis (i.e. Tomb Raider, Metroid, games with good female characters).
This... isn't a very good point. If you're making videos to say "Hey, this thing happens sometimes and is bad, look at the thing" why on earth would you put in the cases where it doesn't happen?
Lets say 10% of children are bullied. You make a video to showcase the plight of that 10% of children. People then go on the internet to accuse you of dishonesty because you didn't feature the story of any of the kids that aren't bullied.
You see how stupid that situation is, right?
But her claim wasn't 10% of children are bullied, her claim was 75% of children are bullied. If I can survey at least half of the chose and show they aren't bullied, then that's dishonest.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: 3 people in this page claimed she didn't deliver what she said she would, and it took me literally less than 2 minutes to find the videos. I don't know what to say to that.
Well, I haven't been able to find any info her failing to deliver on her Kickstarter so I'm willing to admit I was wrong on that. However, I refuse to admit that she knows what she's talking about, because she doesn't. She throws out wild accusations with no evidence and then cries wolf when criticized.
Also, apparently she released a breakdown of how she spent the Kickstart money. An interesting read.
jreilly89 wrote: She's also a bad person for being paid to speak about a subject she knows absolutely nothing about. 99% of her claims have been refuted with evidence or just laughed at, and she has yet to completely back them (especially in regards to finishing her video series). Hell, I'm willing to bet she hasn't even played half the games she accuses of being misogynistic and having the Princess trope. Also, she completely ignores games that don't fit in to her thesis (i.e. Tomb Raider, Metroid, games with good female characters).
This... isn't a very good point. If you're making videos to say "Hey, this thing happens sometimes and is bad, look at the thing" why on earth would you put in the cases where it doesn't happen?
Lets say 10% of children are bullied. You make a video to showcase the plight of that 10% of children. People then go on the internet to accuse you of dishonesty because you didn't feature the story of any of the kids that aren't bullied.
You see how stupid that situation is, right?
But her claim wasn't 10% of children are bullied, her claim was 75% of children are bullied. If I can survey at least half of the chose and show they aren't bullied, then that's dishonest.
Okay, I can't actually tell what you're trying to say here. I'm assuming it's a typo of some sort.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: 3 people in this page claimed she didn't deliver what she said she would, and it took me literally less than 2 minutes to find the videos. I don't know what to say to that.
Well, I haven't been able to find any info her failing to deliver on her Kickstarter so I'm willing to admit I was wrong on that. However, I refuse to admit that she knows what she's talking about, because she doesn't. She throws out wild accusations with no evidence and then cries wolf when criticized.
Are you going to make any actual claims that can be debated at some point? You keep on saying that these wild accusations are being made and they're obviously really prevalent and make up 99.99999% of her videos but you haven't pointed out a single one. It can't be that hard to find one, surely?
Also, apparently she released a breakdown of how she spent the Kickstart money. An interesting read.
Goliath wrote: I can't tell whether this is meant to be a criticism or not, but "She released her financials" doesn't work as one if that's what you're trying to do.
Well, arguing about the financials is sort of a red herring. For one, arguing that she should have spent the money one way, or the other, or taken less salary, or whatever, is a pretty ballsy move when you think about it. When you buy a bag of rice for a dollar from Walmart, do you feel entitled to demand that the Waltons shouldn't charge a dollar for the bag of rice because it didn't cost a dollar to produce, or whatever insipid reason I often see leveled in this specific discussion? She said she wanted to make x videos for x money, she hit her goal, if people wanted to keep giving her money, in my mind she's free to spend it on crack and hookers. She earned it, it's a profit, it's the bedrock of capitalism or some gak.
The more salient one is arguing about the financials lets these guys successfully move the goalposts from the previous, pulled firmly from their asses, idea that she never completed the project. I refuse to get into a debate with people reciting facts they just know when they clearly are willing to regurgitate gak they don't know anything about, debunked in less that 2 minutes, so confidently.
Ouze wrote: 3 people in this page claimed she didn't deliver what she said she would, and it took me literally less than 2 minutes to find the videos. I don't know what to say to that.
While I was never one of those who supported that claim, Ouze, I do find hilarious (in a cynical way) the notion that she needed kickstarter funds to make those videos. That being said, if people are honestly willing to part with their money for stupid stuff like this, I guess I can't disparage her for taking it.
Here is Anita's YouTube page. Can you find all twelve videos? Can you find 10? Can you even find half of them?They were scheduled for completion by August.2012. It's now April 2016, three plus years after they promised completion date.
Has she not had enough time? It must be the time thing right? Because it certainly wasn't the money thing.
How extremely weird it was for you to literally supply all the URLs needed to prove exactly what you're claiming is not true.
What she promised:
Spoiler:
What she delivered:
Spoiler:
So what's it going to be? Admit you were completely and utterly wrong, and re-examine your opinion, or double down by moving the goalposts?
Go watch the video for the kickstarter, and write out the video topics she said she'd make, and then check off which ones she made. I believe the count was 4. She was way over budget, and way past her deadlines, I can't see how anyone would support a new series from her and believe she can deliver what she promises.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Is there a new rule now that women aren't allowed to make money?
Someone's complaining about the USA women's soccer team asking for more money, and Sarkeesian is a bad person for being paid for her public engagements.
Whos exactly is complaining about the soccer team asking for more money? name one strike where the fans weren't outraged that the players wanted more money. See it's just equality in action.
Who said she's a bad person for being paid to speak?
Your sounding like fox news here. fox is fond of saying "critics say obamas the worst president ever" while never stating who those critics are. Where the use 'critics' to mean 'fox news'
sirlynchmob wrote: Go watch the video for the kickstarter, and write out the video topics she said she'd make, and then check off which ones she made. I believe the count was 4. She was way over budget, and way past her deadlines, I can't see how anyone would support a new series from her and believe she can deliver what she promises.
She said she would cover 5 themes/tropes. That is exactly what she did. She claimed the videos would be between 10 and 20 minutes long, and some were much longer - the average length for the main 5 is like 25 minutes.
I mean, you guys are literally just making things up to justify your inexplicable rage boner for this woman. Anyway, I know where this extremely well travelled path ends up, so I'll let you guys resume it.
sirlynchmob wrote: Go watch the video for the kickstarter, and write out the video topics she said she'd make, and then check off which ones she made. I believe the count was 4. She was way over budget, and way past her deadlines, I can't see how anyone would support a new series from her and believe she can deliver what she promises.
She said she would cover 5 themes/tropes. That is exactly what she did. She claimed the videos would be between 10 and 20 minutes long, and some were much longer - the average length for the main 5 is like 25 minutes.
I mean, you guys are literally just making things up to justify your inexplicable rage boner for this woman.
I have no rage towards anyone, least of all her. That's just your white male chauvinistic attitude speaking where you feel the need to protect her from legitimate criticism.
feel free to link her sexy villionous video, ugly is evil video, top ten common defenses of sexism in games, the violent feth toy and this Classroom Curriculum
You're the one making stuff up to cover for her failure to deliver what she promised. You can't even get the number of videos right, she promised a theme of 12 videos and breaking 1 video into 3 parts, still just covers that 1 video. Link them all or admit you're wrong.
sirlynchmob wrote: Go watch the video for the kickstarter, and write out the video topics she said she'd make, and then check off which ones she made. I believe the count was 4. She was way over budget, and way past her deadlines, I can't see how anyone would support a new series from her and believe she can deliver what she promises.
She said she would cover 5 themes/tropes. That is exactly what she did. She claimed the videos would be between 10 and 20 minutes long, and some were much longer - the average length for the main 5 is like 25 minutes.
I mean, you guys are literally just making things up to justify your inexplicable rage boner for this woman.
I have no rage towards anyone, least of all her. That's just your white male chauvinistic attitude speaking where you feel the need to protect her from legitimate criticism.
feel free to link her sexy villionous video, ugly is evil video, top ten common defenses of sexism in games, the violent feth toy, women as rewards, misses male character, man with boobs,
You're the one making stuff up to cover for her failure to deliver what she promised. You can't even get the number of videos right, she promised a theme of 12 videos and breaking 1 video into 3 parts, still just covers that 1 video. Link them all or admit you're wrong.
The Ms. Male Character and Women as Rewards videos were linked in the thread already. You're not even keeping track of what you're arguing against. "Legitimate criticism" indeed...
I have no rage towards anyone, least of all her. That's just your white male chauvinistic attitude speaking where you feel the need to protect her from legitimate criticism.
feel free to link her , women as rewards, misses male character, man with boobs,
You're the one making stuff up to cover for her failure to deliver what she promised. You can't even get the number of videos right, she promised a theme of 12 videos and breaking 1 video into 3 parts, still just covers that 1 video. Link them all or admit you're wrong.
The Ms. Male Character and Women as Rewards videos were linked in the thread already. You're not even keeping track of what you're arguing against. "Legitimate criticism" indeed...
so no link to sexy villainous video, ugly is evil video, top ten common defenses of sexism in games, the violent feth toy, so clearly she did not do over 1/2 of the videos she promised. She had over 4 years and couldn't make the 12 videos she claimed she would on her kickstarter. People paid her for 12 videos and a curriculum, and she totally failed to produce them. yet again I can't see how anyone would support a new series from her and believe she can deliver what she promises.
Could people please be more honest in representing what she has or hasn't done of this list, thanks.
I would like to add, that kickstarters being late is a common thing. As to how late is acceptable given the content, that's up for debate.
It should be pointed out the image posted showing her twelve videos was in fact a recap she posted this year, and not an image showing promised content.
I'm very interested how this whole thing plays out. If it turns out she was making gak up wholesale I'll be disappointed as that would be two relatively high profile sexual assault cases in my country that neckbeard morons can use as evidence for their argument that women often make up a lot of their complaints.
What is counted as a false accusation? I suspect there's a lot of underreporting going on with both sides. I've known accusations made that have not gone to any authority, but are just finger pointing that result in someone being socially ostracised. Does that count as one of the 'false accusations' that are supposedly so rare? I've known of sexual assaults where the victim wouldn't go to the police. Then of the number of reported cases that actually result in a prosecution being so different to reported cases, either a lot of stories are made up or a lot of rapists walk free. I rather think it's mostly the latter, and that's a serious problem. But I also think a lot of accusations, real and false, never go before any authority and are never counted or tested in any fashion.
I think underreporting goes much deeper the other way, too. I've known many people who have been assaulted or raped. Only one of those incidents was ever reported to the police, and not by the victim but by the victim's sibling acting on the victim's behalf. Sadly, I know of a few cases where a child was victimized, the parents found out, and still no one contacted the police.
Having tried to contact the police over something similar, they were not very helpful.
Howard A Treesong wrote: What is counted as a false accusation? I suspect there's a lot of underreporting going on with both sides. I've known accusations made that have not gone to any authority, but are just finger pointing that result in someone being socially ostracised. Does that count as one of the 'false accusations' that are supposedly so rare? I've known of sexual assaults where the victim wouldn't go to the police. Then of the number of reported cases that actually result in a prosecution being so different to reported cases, either a lot of stories are made up or a lot of rapists walk free. I rather think it's mostly the latter, and that's a serious problem. But I also think a lot of accusations, real and false, never go before any authority and are never counted or tested in any fashion.
In my opinion, the very nature of he said/ she said evidence in most rape cases means that criminally prosecuted rape will always remain rare.
That's why I think emphasis on educating young people about enthusiastic consent is more important than educating young girls about not walking alone or counting her drinks.
This lady should come game at my flgs. There's lots of young women and minorities who participate in games of all sorts (especially MtG). All events are supervised by the nice older married couple who own the shop along with their staff. Its a family friendly environment where even adult language is frowned upon because of kids playing Pokemon or star wars or whatever. People smoke there, but they do it in a designated area outside, and alcohol is prohibited.
The article itself was confusing. Is she saying all the events in the article happened to her personally, or were these stories from numerous people?
jasper76 wrote: This lady should come game at my flgs. There's lots of young women and minorities who participate in games of all sorts (especially MtG). All events are supervised by the nice older married couple who own the shop along with their staff. Its a family friendly environment where even adult language is frowned upon because of kids playing Pokemon or star wars or whatever. People smoke there, but they do it in a designated area outside, and alcohol is prohibited.
The article itself was confusing. Is she saying all the events in the article happened to her personally, or were these stories from numerous people?
She was saying all the events she described actually happened to her.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Not to be too mean here but I find the most extreme SJW crowd to be players of 'sisters of battle'. Not all of em are but they usually pick the 'all female' faction as a sort of 'girls rule, boys drool' agenda. It's sad as 'sisters of battle' as a faction don't really push that agenda but being all female they somewhat do.
I am interested in your analysis of why I also play trollblood. I have a guess though .
You have to blame all your problems on someone, yes? Its so easy to blame those who "have been in power"
And frankly quite logical. Blaming your problems on people without any power?
flamingkillamajig wrote: Also on the subject of the feminists let's also be honest about this. How many people attack just women or just black people or just one group? If somebody is a jerk to somebody then usually they'll be a jerk to others. However if a bunch of people are being a jerk to somebody and they find themselves the only target then chances are the issue lies with them and something they probably haven't told everybody else.
In other news, Black slaves were responsible for slavery. Surely if they were the only one being enslaved, then “chances are the issue lies with them and something they probably haven't told everybody else.”
Thanks flamingkillamajig for that very interesting insight!
Did you told us about how Jews and how “chances are the issue lies with them and something they probably haven't told everybody else”?
Oh, sorry, that was 70 years ago. This kind of things could never happen anymore!
jasper76 wrote: The article itself was confusing. Is she saying all the events in the article happened to her personally, or were these stories from numerous people?
She was saying all the events she described actually happened to her.
Kilkrazy wrote: Although to be clear, the stats on rape versus false rape accusation make it very clear that real actual rape is about 10 times more prevalent.
What stats? I love stats. What is this based on?
And yes, I'm going to try and pick it apart if it doesn't stand up under scrutiny. The same as if someone said there are 100 false rape accusations for every real actual rape.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Did you told us about how Jews and how “chances are the issue lies with them and something they probably haven't told everybody else”?
Hello Godwin my old friend, I've come to talk to you again
Breotan wrote: SJW seem to have appropriated the Bush Doctrine. Either you're with them or you're against them.
That sort of thinking pre-dates the Bush administration by at least, what, 30,000 years? As long as there have been 2 or more groups of people, there have been us and them.
Was it not the thinking of a rather accomplished (and thoroughly despicable) propagandist* that, "“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." And the rest, "The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie." Or in modern terms, the creation and enforcement of "safe spaces"-- among other things-- to shield the people, and using what is called vindictive protectionism. ( interesting thoughts here http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/)
*Yeah, Godwin's Law applies here. I lose the argument. Meh.
Easy E wrote: What is it with people being obsessed with having things forced down their throats? It's like some sort of fixation?
It's called Irrumatio-- in some cases anyway. You can look it up.
Kilkrazy wrote: Although to be clear, the stats on rape versus false rape accusation make it very clear that real actual rape is about 10 times more prevalent.
What stats? I love stats. What is this based on?
And yes, I'm going to try and pick it apart if it doesn't stand up under scrutiny. The same as if someone said there are 100 false rape accusations for every real actual rape.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Did you told us about how Jews and how “chances are the issue lies with them and something they probably haven't told everybody else”?
Hello Godwin my old friend, I've come to talk to you again
The stats on rape are all over the place and are rarely fairly done. Like the much talked about 1 in 4 on college campuses that counted things as rape that the women didn't think was rape. Or the UN 1 in 3 women claim that if you used the same questions it's 1 in 1 men. A big part of the problem is that money is involved.
As for false rape stats study's have it anywhere from 2 to 40% keep in mind that false stories are rarely called out do to fear that it will keep women from coming forward and you see the problem.
As for AS she is a con-woman who makes good cash from it thanks to her telemarketing classes she dose not play games she takes others work and makes cash off of it.
The US women's soccer team makes less do to the amount of money the sport brings in from what I have seen if that is off then they should win.
But you can't force people to care about sports and for some reason men are more interested in sports at lest in the US
Well you are an extremist on the feminist side as anybody can see on your posts. You can generally tell who some are by not just people throwing women into everything but trying to exclude men from those things. I remember another person on this board that messed around with the male to female ratio of soldiers in xcom to have only female soldiers. Which is just as sexist as all males though I find it funny how hypocritical it can be that you think you're doing the right thing.
Basically where you can you have the all female factions.
-----
Yes totally all white men in the current day and age that have been born 10-20 years ago should be crapped on for the injustices some people in their race and gender did a long time ago (like 50 or more years ago). Very interesting approach hybrid. Yep blame the son for the father's sins. Makes a lot of sense there.
It doesn't matter what experiences they've been through either, their upbringing, how much they've worked or tried or the hardships they've faced. White guys from the previous Soviet Union that are some of my co-workers (one of which fled the military and another which absolutely was forced into the Soviet military to serve his time) at my factory have totally had it better than people like Obama which is the current president of the United States. Quit bringing me down low income white guys that came from a country that has no non-whites. I can tell you this and force you to do it because I'm the president of your country.
Interesting....
-----
No Hybrid wrong again. I said the issue "Probably" lies with them if everybody is being a jerk to them. Do you legitimately believe every single person is a jerk to certain groups? If so then you believe just being a white man means you're a jerk to women and black people even if in your life you never once harmed or insulted one. I'd believe even some slave-owners weren't the most massive D-bags they were pictured to be and some probably were rather nice to various slaves. I'm not saying what the Nazis, whites or slave-owners did was right even a little but I'm saying if a person is being a jerk to a group that "Usually" (not always) that person is a jerk to other people as well. You generally don't find an *** that is only an *** to some and not others. For instance my father is a jerk and hates most groups.
Also in the case of the Jewish people not all people in Nazi Germany were being mean to them (and if they were only did so publicly so they wouldn't die) just as if you go to the South (in the usa) not everybody is a racist, gay hating, redneck piece of crap (to an extent plenty weren't thrilled about gay people even in the 90's when I was there but some people stuck up for them too). You are letting media and such make you believe everybody in a group is instantly evil or bad. I mean jeez even in the worst groups I'm sure there's at least one decent person in the group. In the Civil War believe it or not though General Lee was actually a really decent person in general and after the war was shocked by the cruelty towards slaves in the Deep South. I mean so you mean to say you would willingly fight your neighbors, friends and family because some people where you lived decided to be Dill holes? Ok then let's say France becomes massively oppressive tomorrow. Would you take up arms and kill every French person wielding a weapon against you?
-----
Hybrid while I in a sense insulted you indirectly because of your views and the army you play I did help you considerably by cheering you on in your search for a special lady in another thread. I find it odd how much you've come out to attack me in this thread.
Don't specifically hate you but your posts did aim at me pretty hard.
Once again I suppose I did indirectly insult you though. I suppose I'm sorry to an extent. Still imagine the bit about extremist feminists and all female armies or very female heavy games is kind of true though.
jasper76 wrote: The article itself was confusing. Is she saying all the events in the article happened to her personally, or were these stories from numerous people?
She was saying all the events she described actually happened to her.
She did?
That was the assumption considering she didn't say "These are a bunch of anecdotes from various women who got sexually assaulted"
Oldmike wrote: The stats on rape are all over the place and are rarely fairly done. Like the much talked about 1 in 4 on college campuses that counted things as rape that the women didn't think was rape. Or the UN 1 in 3 women claim that if you used the same questions it's 1 in 1 men. A big part of the problem is that money is involved.
As for false rape stats study's have it anywhere from 2 to 40% keep in mind that false stories are rarely called out do to fear that it will keep women from coming forward and you see the problem.
I know, that's what's frustrating. Numbers of convicted rapes in a country, city, state or worldwide by year should be straightforward to map, as they are factual data. But they wouldn't include all sexual assaults, because some that occur in reality would never get a conviction or be reported.
The number of unreported cases would be impossible to factually claim, because the most realistic way to get those numbers would be a survey, which is rife with the potential for mishandling, and the sample chosen would only indicate for that region.
The number of sexual assault cases that result in no conviction should also be straightforward to map, but the lack of conviction doesn't mean the offender is innocent, there would absolutely be a margin of offenders where the evidence wasn't good enough to convict, but they did it in reality.
I'd be keen to see solid stats, but I just don't know if that's possible.
Oldmike wrote: The stats on rape are all over the place and are rarely fairly done. Like the much talked about 1 in 4 on college campuses that counted things as rape that the women didn't think was rape. Or the UN 1 in 3 women claim that if you used the same questions it's 1 in 1 men. A big part of the problem is that money is involved.
As for false rape stats study's have it anywhere from 2 to 40% keep in mind that false stories are rarely called out do to fear that it will keep women from coming forward and you see the problem.
I know, that's what's frustrating. Numbers of convicted rapes in a country, city, state or worldwide by year should be straightforward to map, as they are factual data. But they wouldn't include all sexual assaults, because some that occur in reality would never get a conviction or be reported.
The number of unreported cases would be impossible to factually claim, because the most realistic way to get those numbers would be a survey, which is rife with the potential for mishandling, and the sample chosen would only indicate for that region.
The number of sexual assault cases that result in no conviction should also be straightforward to map, but the lack of conviction doesn't mean the offender is innocent, there would absolutely be a margin of offenders where the evidence wasn't good enough to convict, but they did it in reality.
I'd be keen to see solid stats, but I just don't know if that's possible.
One thing that gets me mad is the idea that everyone that's not convicted was still a rapist. The world seems to have a guilty until proven innocent mentally. Going by sexual harassment lawsuits their are 3 categories true false and the kicker "not a crime" I think sexual assault is the same way some have gone so far as to call asking a woman out or even looking at her as rape. Until we move away from feelings and more into logic.
Oldmike wrote: One thing that gets me mad is the idea that everyone that's not convicted was still a rapist. The world seems to have a guilty until proven innocent mentally. Going by sexual harassment lawsuits their are 3 categories true false and the kicker "not a crime" I think sexual assault is the same way some have gone so far as to call asking a woman out or even looking at her as rape. Until we move away from feelings and more into logic.
Eh, just like any crime, there are convicted innocents and the unconvicted guilty. But I do agree the 'guilty until proven innocent' is a big problem.
As always, I blame the media, and myself. It's difficult to read a story and not consider it in good faith to be true, usually. We're a sentimental species.
Kilkrazy wrote: Although to be clear, the stats on rape versus false rape accusation make it very clear that real actual rape is about 10 times more prevalent.
What stats? I love stats. What is this based on?
...
31,000 rapes recorded by police in England and Wales in the year to June 2015.
6,448 cases of perverting the course of justice. This includes various offences of which false accusation of rape is one.
One thing that gets me mad is the idea that everyone that's not convicted was still a rapist. The world seems to have a guilty until proven innocent mentally. Going by sexual harassment lawsuits their are 3 categories true false and the kicker "not a crime" I think sexual assault is the same way some have gone so far as to call asking a woman out or even looking at her as rape. Until we move away from feelings and more into logic.
If someone steals your car, you report it, they are arrested but not convicted, he is 'not guilty' of stealing your car, doesn't make your car suddenly 'not stolen'.
Just because a rapist is found 'not guilty' doesn't means the rape didn't happen and the victim wasn't raped. And never making it to trial is not the same as 'innocent' either.
It is pretty vulgar to tell a rape victim, "welp, he wasn't convicted so you were not raped." The system makes it pretty hard to actually get someone convicted of rape unless if happens in the scary 'Man from the bushes at knifepoint' scenario. A lot of rapes go reported but ignored and prosecuted.
nkelsch wrote: The system makes it pretty hard to actually get someone convicted of rape unless if happens in the scary 'Man from the bushes at knifepoint' scenario. A lot of rapes go reported but ignored and prosecuted.
And quite a few go unreported because the victim is ashamed, or unprosecuted because the victim (due to being traumatized) doesn't report it in time to gather conclusive evidence.
Still, can't say I've ever considered gaming to be the prime scene of harassing and sexually assaulting women. School, anyone? The workplace?
One thing that gets me mad is the idea that everyone that's not convicted was still a rapist. The world seems to have a guilty until proven innocent mentally. Going by sexual harassment lawsuits their are 3 categories true false and the kicker "not a crime" I think sexual assault is the same way some have gone so far as to call asking a woman out or even looking at her as rape. Until we move away from feelings and more into logic.
If someone steals your car, you report it, they are arrested but not convicted, he is 'not guilty' of stealing your car, doesn't make your car suddenly 'not stolen'.
Just because a rapist is found 'not guilty' doesn't means the rape didn't happen and the victim wasn't raped. And never making it to trial is not the same as 'innocent' either.
It is pretty vulgar to tell a rape victim, "welp, he wasn't convicted so you were not raped." The system makes it pretty hard to actually get someone convicted of rape unless if happens in the scary 'Man from the bushes at knifepoint' scenario. A lot of rapes go reported but ignored and prosecuted.
Two people go out and get drunk ( not blackout drunk or passed out) they have sex was someone raped? What if someone lies to get someone to sleep with them is it rape? It's things like this that are problems for people
Oldmike wrote: I think sexual assault is the same way some have gone so far as to call asking a woman out or even looking at her as rape.
And this, everybody, is why people get so frustrated having to explain this all the time.
Because people argue about rape statistics and try to have discussions, but then gak like this gets said, and people read it, and they go "Oh my god! Why would people do that?! Ugh, I hate that it's so unfair to men." and then they repeat it as if it's a fact. And then someone else hears it and does the same thing. And then soon you have an entire side of the debate talking about it in ridiculous exaggerations about how looking at a woman is rape and they're obviously making it up and 50% of rape accusations are lies, and then it spreads to "well, there's loads of rape accusations that are false, so these claims about sexual harrassment (OP) must obviously be false as well! I've never seen anything like it, it can't have happened!", and then you have basically any claim that doesn't come with a signed confession, video evidence and DNA samples being treated as suspect by people on the internet because we need to stop the scourge that is false rape accusations.
Kilkrazy wrote: Although to be clear, the stats on rape versus false rape accusation make it very clear that real actual rape is about 10 times more prevalent.
What stats? I love stats. What is this based on?
...
31,000 rapes recorded by police in England and Wales in the year to June 2015.
6,448 cases of perverting the course of justice. This includes various offences of which false accusation of rape is one.
If anything, a 10 to 1 ratio of rape to false rape accusations is a conservative estimate.
Unless they are 100% positive it's false they just drop it and the U.K. has some pushing to not prosecute even those. In the US it's even worse as even proven false stores are not prosecuted
Oldmike wrote: Two people go out and get drunk ( not blackout drunk or passed out) they have sex was someone raped? What if someone lies to get someone to sleep with them is it rape? It's things like this that are problems for people
Depends, and most likely, yes. See, there's this whole thing called nuance, and another thing called context. Try them sometime!
Oldmike wrote: Two people go out and get drunk ( not blackout drunk or passed out) they have sex was someone raped? What if someone lies to get someone to sleep with them is it rape? It's things like this that are problems for people
Depends, and most likely, yes. See, there's this whole thing called nuance, and another thing called context. Try them sometime!
So I betting to you if it's a woman and a man who are dunk then he raiped her but if it's two women then not rape.
Oldmike wrote: Two people go out and get drunk ( not blackout drunk or passed out) they have sex was someone raped? What if someone lies to get someone to sleep with them is it rape? It's things like this that are problems for people
Depends, and most likely, yes. See, there's this whole thing called nuance, and another thing called context. Try them sometime!
So I betting to you if it's a woman and a man who are dunk then he raiped her but if it's two women then not rape.
No. Just stop talking, you are only making yourself look very stupid when you come out with complete rubbish like that.
Oldmike wrote: Two people go out and get drunk ( not blackout drunk or passed out) they have sex was someone raped? What if someone lies to get someone to sleep with them is it rape? It's things like this that are problems for people
Depends, and most likely, yes. See, there's this whole thing called nuance, and another thing called context. Try them sometime!
So I betting to you if it's a woman and a man who are dunk then he raiped her but if it's two women then not rape.
There it is. The assumption that I'm *obviously* going to be anti-male. I obviously think men can't be raped, right? That's what you're suggesting? Well, fun fact, but it can be either of the people! How weird is that? All genders are capable of being gakky, predatory people!
And, another fun fact, but I've been in the situation you're hypothesising about, and I was the one that was taken advantage of, and I'm a guy! I know right?! See, you seem to have this preconception that everyone that discusses consent is obviously anti-male, when it's just not true.
nkelsch wrote: If someone steals your car, you report it, they are arrested but not convicted, he is 'not guilty' of stealing your car, doesn't make your car suddenly 'not stolen'.
Just because a rapist is found 'not guilty' doesn't means the rape didn't happen and the victim wasn't raped. And never making it to trial is not the same as 'innocent' either.
It is pretty vulgar to tell a rape victim, "welp, he wasn't convicted so you were not raped." The system makes it pretty hard to actually get someone convicted of rape unless if happens in the scary 'Man from the bushes at knifepoint' scenario. A lot of rapes go reported but ignored and prosecuted.
Sounds like you're saying all of those charged with but found not guilty of rape were still rapists and only got off on technicalities/lack of evidence.
Kilkrazy wrote: Although to be clear, the stats on rape versus false rape accusation make it very clear that real actual rape is about 10 times more prevalent.
What stats? I love stats. What is this based on?
...
31,000 rapes recorded by police in England and Wales in the year to June 2015.
6,448 cases of perverting the course of justice. This includes various offences of which false accusation of rape is one.
If anything, a 10 to 1 ratio of rape to false rape accusations is a conservative estimate.
Unless they are 100% positive it's false they just drop it and the U.K. has some pushing to not prosecute even those. In the US it's even worse as even proven false stores are not prosecuted
Please would you show your source for these assumptions you have made?
nkelsch wrote: If someone steals your car, you report it, they are arrested but not convicted, he is 'not guilty' of stealing your car, doesn't make your car suddenly 'not stolen'.
Just because a rapist is found 'not guilty' doesn't means the rape didn't happen and the victim wasn't raped. And never making it to trial is not the same as 'innocent' either.
It is pretty vulgar to tell a rape victim, "welp, he wasn't convicted so you were not raped." The system makes it pretty hard to actually get someone convicted of rape unless if happens in the scary 'Man from the bushes at knifepoint' scenario. A lot of rapes go reported but ignored and prosecuted.
Sounds like you're saying all of those charged with but found not guilty of rape were still rapists and only got off on technicalities/lack of evidence.
No, I think he is more saying that just because the person accused of the crime is found not guilty, does not mean that a crime was not committed in the first place.
So in the car example the person accused by the police might be innocent but that just means that somebody else stole the car, so the crime of somebody stealing your car was still committed.
To make that example in a rape scenario, lets say somebody was drugged in a club and wakes up later having been raped. They report that they were raped, evidence seems to lead to a suspect who is arrested and charged but then found not guilty in court. That persons innocence does not mean that the first person was not raped, it just means that they were not raped by the person who went to trial and that their rapist is still out there.
So an accused being found not guilty does not mean the crime was not committed in the first place. A very famous example we could look at is the OJ murder trial. He was found not guilty, whatever peoples personal opinions on that may be, but that does not make his wife and the other guy suddenly not murdered.
You can look at rape and false accusation of rape by reference to the police crime reporting (which records accusations, not prosecutions or convictions) and by conviction rate.
In both cases, rape is far more common than false accusation of rape.
Kilkrazy wrote: You can look at rape and false accusation of rape by reference to the police crime reporting (which records accusations, not prosecutions or convictions) and by conviction rate.
In both cases, rape is far more common than false accusation of rape.
That will not show a true number for false accusations as its up to the prosecution to file that
That's why police crime stats have to be considered too, as I pointed out. Police crime reports are reports to the police of crime, not prosecution filings.
Kilkrazy wrote: Although to be clear, the stats on rape versus false rape accusation make it very clear that real actual rape is about 10 times more prevalent.
What stats? I love stats. What is this based on?
...
31,000 rapes recorded by police in England and Wales in the year to June 2015.
6,448 cases of perverting the course of justice. This includes various offences of which false accusation of rape is one.
If anything, a 10 to 1 ratio of rape to false rape accusations is a conservative estimate.
Unless they are 100% positive it's false they just drop it and the U.K. has some pushing to not prosecute even those. In the US it's even worse as even proven false stores are not prosecuted
Please would you show your source for these assumptions you have made?
for the US look at duke lacrosse the Rolling Stones story from last year and mattress girl. All proven false yet no charges .
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: That's why police crime stats have to be considered too, as I pointed out. Police crime reports are reports to the police of crime, not prosecution filings.
Yet false claims are not filed as a report of crime any more then perjury charges it's up to a prosecutor.
False Rape Accusations are recorded first as Rape Accusations then as Perverting the Course of Justice, if found to have no substance to them. This is in the UK.
I provided links and detailed information to support my argument. If you cannot do the same, your argument does not deserve to be taken seriously.
Oldmike wrote: Two people go out and get drunk ( not blackout drunk or passed out) they have sex was someone raped? What if someone lies to get someone to sleep with them is it rape? It's things like this that are problems for people
Depends, and most likely, yes. See, there's this whole thing called nuance, and another thing called context. Try them sometime!
So I betting to you if it's a woman and a man who are dunk then he raiped her but if it's two women then not rape.
There it is. The assumption that I'm *obviously* going to be anti-male. I obviously think men can't be raped, right? That's what you're suggesting? Well, fun fact, but it can be either of the people! How weird is that? All genders are capable of being gakky, predatory people!
And, another fun fact, but I've been in the situation you're hypothesising about, and I was the one that was taken advantage of, and I'm a guy! I know right?! See, you seem to have this preconception that everyone that discusses consent is obviously anti-male, when it's just not true.
Oldmike, you going to respond at any point? Or are you planning on just ignoring the post so that you don't have to maybe admit that you were off the mark?
Kilkrazy wrote: You can look at rape and false accusation of rape by reference to the police crime reporting (which records accusations, not prosecutions or convictions) and by conviction rate.
In both cases, rape is far more common than false accusation of rape.
There are a lot more cases of rape reported than are prosecuted, and then even fewer result in conviction. All the reported cases that are dropped, the majority of cases, you cannot say what the circumstances are in those cases. Which were clearly rape but dropped due to lack of willingness by the victim, which were dropped due to lack of evidence, which were a grey area (eg. both parties drunk) and which were malicious false allegations.
Kilkrazy wrote: False Rape Accusations are recorded first as Rape Accusations then as Perverting the Course of Justice, if found to have no substance to them. This is in the UK.
I provided links and detailed information to support my argument. If you cannot do the same, your argument does not deserve to be taken seriously.
Oldmike wrote: Two people go out and get drunk ( not blackout drunk or passed out) they have sex was someone raped? What if someone lies to get someone to sleep with them is it rape? It's things like this that are problems for people
Depends, and most likely, yes. See, there's this whole thing called nuance, and another thing called context. Try them sometime!
So I betting to you if it's a woman and a man who are dunk then he raiped her but if it's two women then not rape.
There it is. The assumption that I'm *obviously* going to be anti-male. I obviously think men can't be raped, right? That's what you're suggesting? Well, fun fact, but it can be either of the people! How weird is that? All genders are capable of being gakky, predatory people!
And, another fun fact, but I've been in the situation you're hypothesising about, and I was the one that was taken advantage of, and I'm a guy! I know right?! See, you seem to have this preconception that everyone that discusses consent is obviously anti-male, when it's just not true.
Oldmike, you going to respond at any point? Or are you planning on just ignoring the post so that you don't have to maybe admit that you were off the mark?
I missed the post my point is drunk sex is seen by many as must be the mans fault. The key unless you're blackout drunk you still have control. we still hold drunk drivers accountable why to we give drunk F'ers a victim card? In the US men can't be raped by a woman only " made to penetrate " it's that sexist idea that many hold to this day even feminist.
Oldmike wrote: Two people go out and get drunk ( not blackout drunk or passed out) they have sex was someone raped? What if someone lies to get someone to sleep with them is it rape? It's things like this that are problems for people
Depends, and most likely, yes. See, there's this whole thing called nuance, and another thing called context. Try them sometime!
So I betting to you if it's a woman and a man who are dunk then he raiped her but if it's two women then not rape.
There it is. The assumption that I'm *obviously* going to be anti-male. I obviously think men can't be raped, right? That's what you're suggesting? Well, fun fact, but it can be either of the people! How weird is that? All genders are capable of being gakky, predatory people!
And, another fun fact, but I've been in the situation you're hypothesising about, and I was the one that was taken advantage of, and I'm a guy! I know right?! See, you seem to have this preconception that everyone that discusses consent is obviously anti-male, when it's just not true.
Oldmike, you going to respond at any point? Or are you planning on just ignoring the post so that you don't have to maybe admit that you were off the mark?
I missed the post my point is drunk sex is seen by many as must be the mans fault. The key unless you're blackout drunk you still have control. we still hold drunk drivers accountable why to we give drunk F'ers a victim card? In the US men can't be raped by a woman only " made to penetrate " it's that sexist idea that many hold to this day even feminist.
So let me get this straight.
You say "Well I guess you must believe X then? Right? Huh?".
I then respond pointing out how categorically, astronomically, insultingly incorrect that is.
And you respond by saying "well, but other people do! Even feminists! so nyuh!"
Can you at least apologise for the accusation? Please? I mean, you've just accused me of thinking that it's impossible for myself to be taken advantage of, when it's actually fething happened! Do you have any idea how gakky that feels?
Oldmike wrote: Two people go out and get drunk ( not blackout drunk or passed out) they have sex was someone raped? What if someone lies to get someone to sleep with them is it rape? It's things like this that are problems for people
Depends, and most likely, yes. See, there's this whole thing called nuance, and another thing called context. Try them sometime!
So I betting to you if it's a woman and a man who are dunk then he raiped her but if it's two women then not rape.
There it is. The assumption that I'm *obviously* going to be anti-male. I obviously think men can't be raped, right? That's what you're suggesting? Well, fun fact, but it can be either of the people! How weird is that? All genders are capable of being gakky, predatory people!
And, another fun fact, but I've been in the situation you're hypothesising about, and I was the one that was taken advantage of, and I'm a guy! I know right?! See, you seem to have this preconception that everyone that discusses consent is obviously anti-male, when it's just not true.
Oldmike, you going to respond at any point? Or are you planning on just ignoring the post so that you don't have to maybe admit that you were off the mark?
I missed the post my point is drunk sex is seen by many as must be the mans fault. The key unless you're blackout drunk you still have control. we still hold drunk drivers accountable why to we give drunk F'ers a victim card? In the US men can't be raped by a woman only " made to penetrate " it's that sexist idea that many hold to this day even feminist.
So let me get this straight.
You say "Well I guess you must believe X then? Right? Huh?".
I then respond pointing out how categorically, astronomically, insultingly incorrect that is.
And you respond by saying "well, but other people do! Even feminists! so nyuh!"
Can you at least apologise for the accusation? Please?
I apologize for assuming I got into to many of these talks and 90% of them fall into that category my idea was to trigger thought not offend. The line I used has gotten others with that mindset to stop and think I regretfully skipped a step and strawmaned you on that part.
Rape - Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means penetration by the offender(s). Includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims, and both heterosexual and homosexual rape. Attempted rape includes verbal threats of rape
How is this false unless the victim is penetrated it is classed as Sexual assault listed as made to penetrate. This is US law UK may be different.
Rape - Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means penetration by the offender(s). Includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims, and both heterosexual and homosexual rape. Attempted rape includes verbal threats of rape
How is this false unless the victim is penetrated it is classed as Sexual assault listed as made to penetrate. This is US law UK may be different.
Each state has its own law as well, but many states are identical to that. Tennessee for example.
welshhoppo wrote: UK law is quite clear. To be able to rape you need a penis.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here is the law to prove it. S1 S1 Sexual offenses Act 2003.
Rape
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents
But if we go to the next section we also get this:
Assault by penetration
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina or anus of another person (B) with a part of his body or anything else,
(b)the penetration is sexual,
(c)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.
Kindly note that assault by penetration does not require a penis and that the maximum sentence is identical to rape (life sentence).
Rape - Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means penetration by the offender(s). Includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims, and both heterosexual and homosexual rape. Attempted rape includes verbal threats of rape
How is this false unless the victim is penetrated it is classed as Sexual assault listed as made to penetrate. This is US law UK may be different.
Forcible penetration does not require a penis. Somebody forcibly inserting an outside object into your person is still forcible penetration.
Witzkatz wrote: This wording still wouldn't punish a woman that raped a man with vaginal intercourse, if I'm reading it correctly?
That is true. Under the current law in the UK (unless there has been an update to the 2003 Sexual Offences Act in a later law) a woman having intercourse against a man could only be charged with sexual assault which carries a 10 year maximum sentence.
If that is the case then it is wrong and should be fixed.
However it is likely that a woman would be able to be charged with other crimes which could add on to that sentence. For example she would have likely needed to give him viagra against his consent and to forcibly restrain him in some way, so you could probably increase the sentence using those but yeah, it is an oversight.
Rape - Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means penetration by the offender(s). Includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims, and both heterosexual and homosexual rape. Attempted rape includes verbal threats of rape
How is this false unless the victim is penetrated it is classed as Sexual assault listed as made to penetrate. This is US law UK may be different.
For starters, that's the definition for statistical purposes, not a criminal statute. Second, they go on to state that it includes victims of both sexes.
For example in Ohio (the state whose laws I'm most familiar with), rape is defined by statue as:
(A)
(1) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another who is not the spouse of the offender or who is the spouse of the offender but is living separate and apart from the offender, when any of the following applies:
(a) For the purpose of preventing resistance, the offender substantially impairs the other person's judgment or control by administering any drug, intoxicant, or controlled substance to the other person surreptitiously or by force, threat of force, or deception.
(b) The other person is less than thirteen years of age, whether or not the offender knows the age of the other person.
(c) The other person's ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age, and the offender knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the other person's ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age.
(2) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another when the offender purposely compels the other person to submit by force or threat of force.
With:
(A) "Sexual conduct" means vaginal intercourse between a male and female; anal intercourse, fellatio, and cunnilingus between persons regardless of sex; and, without privilege to do so, the insertion, however slight, of any part of the body or any instrument, apparatus, or other object into the vaginal or anal opening of another. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete vaginal or anal intercourse.
It's pretty clear that women can be prosecuted for vaginal sex with a male.
Witzkatz wrote: This wording still wouldn't punish a woman that raped a man with vaginal intercourse, if I'm reading it correctly?
That is true. Under the current law in the UK (unless there has been an update to the 2003 Sexual Offences Act in a later law) a woman having intercourse against a man could only be charged with sexual assault which carries a 10 year maximum sentence.
If that is the case then it is wrong and should be fixed.
However it is likely that a woman would be able to be charged with other crimes which could add on to that sentence. For example she would have likely needed to give him viagra against his consent and to forcibly restrain him in some way, so you could probably increase the sentence using those but yeah, it is an oversight.
It's the same way in the US classed as sexual assault and is called "made to penetrate" men do not have full control of it just ask any 13 year old boy and there have been nasty cases where something has been inserted with disastrous results.
djones520 wrote: Each state has its own law as well, but many states are identical to that. Tennessee for example.
Tennessee explicitly allows for the defendant to be penetrated by the victim:
39-13-503. Rape.
(a) Rape is unlawful sexual penetration of a victim by the defendant or of the defendant by a victim accompanied by any of the following circumstances:
(1) Force or coercion is used to accomplish the act;
(2) The sexual penetration is accomplished without the consent of the victim and the defendant knows or has reason to know at the time of the penetration that the victim did not consent;
(3) The defendant knows or has reason to know that the victim is mentally defective, mentally incapacitated or physically helpless; or
(4) The sexual penetration is accomplished by fraud.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oldmike wrote: It's the same way in the US classed as sexual assault and is called "made to penetrate" men do not have full control of it just ask any 13 year old boy and there have been nasty cases where something has been inserted with disastrous results.
It's really important to remember that almost no crime is classified the same way across the US. There is a federal criminal code, which generally either involves the United States as a party, or covers crimes committed on federal property, and 50 different state codes, plus DC, Puerto Rico, and all the Indian reservations.
djones520 wrote: Each state has its own law as well, but many states are identical to that. Tennessee for example.
Tennessee explicitly allows for the defendant to be penetrated by the victim:
39-13-503. Rape.
(a) Rape is unlawful sexual penetration of a victim by the defendant or of the defendant by a victim accompanied by any of the following circumstances:
(1) Force or coercion is used to accomplish the act;
(2) The sexual penetration is accomplished without the consent of the victim and the defendant knows or has reason to know at the time of the penetration that the victim did not consent;
(3) The defendant knows or has reason to know that the victim is mentally defective, mentally incapacitated or physically helpless; or
(4) The sexual penetration is accomplished by fraud.
Wow so in Tennessee you can be changed with rape for telling someone you are a rich doctor is that how 4 is defined?
djones520 wrote: Each state has its own law as well, but many states are identical to that. Tennessee for example.
Tennessee explicitly allows for the defendant to be penetrated by the victim:
39-13-503. Rape.
(a) Rape is unlawful sexual penetration of a victim by the defendant or of the defendant by a victim accompanied by any of the following circumstances:
(1) Force or coercion is used to accomplish the act;
(2) The sexual penetration is accomplished without the consent of the victim and the defendant knows or has reason to know at the time of the penetration that the victim did not consent;
(3) The defendant knows or has reason to know that the victim is mentally defective, mentally incapacitated or physically helpless; or
(4) The sexual penetration is accomplished by fraud.
Wow, #2 and 3 seem like they were intentionally placed there to give any rapist a pass. The "I was too drunk to know better" defense.
I don't know. If the prosecution can't prove 1 or 4, and the defendent was drunk, I don't see how you get a conviction. "I was too drunk to know there was no consent" and "I was too drunk and to know the victim was defective, incapacitated, or defenseless" seem like valid defenses against a rape according to this law.
Oldmike wrote: Wow so in Tennessee you can be changed with rape for telling someone you are a rich doctor is that how 4 is defined?
I don't know anything about Tennessee rape case law, but I'd doubt it. Pure speculation, I'd guess two scenarios envisioned by that are a person promising a woman marriage, sleeping with her, and than abandoning her (a common law cause of action in civil courts, btw), or a person pretending to be somebody else, such as at the end of Revenge of the Nerds.
djones520 wrote:A woman drugging a man, and then having sex with him, is still not considered rape. The victim was not "penetrated".
In at least the two states that I looked up, it would totally be rape.
jasper76 wrote: Wow, #2 and 3 seem like they were intentionally placed there to give any rapist a pass. The "I was too drunk to know better" defense.
The law doesn't work like that. Drunkenness is rarely a defense, and anything they would have known, or should have known, sober, they are held liable to while drunk.
Sure Polonious, I know that there are some states that are like that, but as the Federal law is written, and such states like Tennessee, it's not.
Michigan for example is a state that any unwanted sexual contact is considered sexual assault (the states term for rape). So it's a mixed bag across the country.
I don't know. If the prosecution can't prove 1 or 4, and the defendent was drunk, I don't see how you get a conviction. "I was too drunk to know there was no consent" and "I was too drunk and to know the victim was defective, incapacitated, or defenseless" seem like valid defenses against a rape according to this law.
Not to get into the nitty gritty, but how drunk would you have to be to be unable to tell that a person wasn't into having sex with you, while still functioning?
AS for mental capacity, you'd basically have to argue that you were nearly black out drunk when you first met the person, but decided to have sex with them.
This is stuff of law school hypotheticals, but in practice stuff like this would be plea bargained pretty quickly.
jasper76 wrote: Wow, #2 and 3 seem like they were intentionally placed there to give any rapist a pass. The "I was too drunk to know better" defense.
The law doesn't work like that. Drunkenness is rarely a defense, and anything they would have known, or should have known, sober, they are held liable to while drunk.
I must have missed the clause that said "being drunk is not a valid reason for not knowing that the victim did not consent". Maybe that's just assumed?
Not to get into the nitty gritty, but how drunk would you have to be to be unable to tell that a person wasn't into having sex with you, while still functioning?
djones520 wrote: Sure Polonious, I know that there are some states that are like that, but as the Federal law is written, and such states like Tennessee, it's not.
Michigan for example is a state that any unwanted sexual contact is considered sexual assault (the states term for rape). So it's a mixed bag across the country.
I'm not sure what you mean. Federal and Michigan law don't really use the term rape, but felonious sexual assault or sexual abuse for both do not require that the defendant penetrate the victim. For example, Michigan reads: "Sec. 520b. (1) A person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree if he or she engages in sexual penetration with another person and if any of the following circumstances exists:"
Federal crime simple reads "Whoever...knowingly causes another person to engage in a sexual act—
(1) by using force against that other person..."
Yes, a generation ago most rape statutes were written with the idea that men raped women, but most have changed over the decades.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: I must have missed the clause that said "being drunk is not a valid reason for not knowing that the victim did not consent". Maybe that's just assumed?
It's been nearly a decade since I touched criminal law, and that was only in school, but yes, I believe it's assumed.
Either way, it becomes a question for the jury, not for the police. You'd have to convince a jury "sure, I had sex with a passed out/mentally incompetent" person, but you see, I was too drunk to notice!"
As with many things... you try that out first, and let me know how it goes!
Black out drunk, I suppose.
The problem becomes... you'd have to be too drunk to be able to realize that you're trying to have sex with somebody that can't possibly consent, but not too drunk to remember that you didn't notice. No offence, but if you're black out drunk, you have no way of testifying credibly about what you did, or did not, know.
It's OK I'm not offended at all. I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility to convince 1 sympathetic juror that you could not know because you were too drunk.
Anyway, I feel like I am defending drunk rapists. My only real point was the Tennessee law seemed pretty vague with #2 and #3, that's all.
Rape - Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means penetration by the offender(s). Includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims, and both heterosexual and homosexual rape. Attempted rape includes verbal threats of rape
How is this false unless the victim is penetrated it is classed as Sexual assault listed as made to penetrate. This is US law UK may be different.
Each state has its own law as well, but many states are identical to that. Tennessee for example.
First: BJS is a statistics database, not a source of law. If you want the federal law, see 10 USC 920, which defines rape as "committing a sexual act" upon a person, under a variety of circumstances.
California penal code isn't gender-specific, and only speaks to an "act of sexual intercourse" under various circumstances. New York penal code is similar to California's. Texas takes a slightly different approach, but covers both scenarios.
That's a good percentage of the country's population right there.
jasper76 wrote: My only real point was the Tennessee law seemed pretty vague with #2 and #3, that's all.
That's actually not uncommon, and it's one of the reason non-lawyers often get into trouble when they try to read the law: they don't understand all the context. There are all kinds of rules and practices that go into criminal law that makes analyzing the text almost silly. If nothing else, there is almost certainly case law on whatever issue you have. I don't have a Westlaw account, or the time to dig through it, but I'm guessing somebody has tried the drunk defense, and there's an answer from the court whether it is appropriate.
djones520 wrote: Each state has its own law as well, but many states are identical to that. Tennessee for example.
Tennessee explicitly allows for the defendant to be penetrated by the victim:
39-13-503. Rape.
(a) Rape is unlawful sexual penetration of a victim by the defendant or of the defendant by a victim accompanied by any of the following circumstances:
(1) Force or coercion is used to accomplish the act;
(2) The sexual penetration is accomplished without the consent of the victim and the defendant knows or has reason to know at the time of the penetration that the victim did not consent;
(3) The defendant knows or has reason to know that the victim is mentally defective, mentally incapacitated or physically helpless; or
(4) The sexual penetration is accomplished by fraud.
Wow, #2 and 3 seem like they were intentionally placed there to give any rapist a pass. The "I was too drunk to know better" defense.
I think we missed the turning guys, we should have gone left at the topic back there, much as I'm enjoying the details of comparitive state law.
Personally I think that the OP article was designed to create this controversy, the language used is deliberately emotive and provocative, to provoke reaction and debate. It's been successful at that, on this forum at least, but I'm not seeing much of a reaction beyond the walls of the hobby.
I take my wife and daughter into my local games store, but I seriously doubt they would go if I was not there. But even if they did, I would be confident that they would be treated equally, if not awkwardly, by the regulars. However, I fully recognise that one shop is not representative of the whole hobby, there may exist a dingy hole, full of salivating sexual predators, but I've not found it yet myself.
I sincerely hope that such a place does not exist, even beyond the need to actively attract more participants of either gender to our hobby, we should be as inclusive as possible.
I've been to one GW store. It is small and cramped and packed with young men (only young men, every time I've been) with only one person working who looks about 19. I'm not saying by any stretch its a den of harassment, because I wouldn't know, but its not the kind of place I'd want a hypothetical daughter of mine to be spending her time.
Doesn't that attitude support the argument of the article? That in some way these environments are unwelcoming, or in fact dangerous for females?
Whilst by and large most GW and game stores have been the province of young men, I have also met several women who patronise and work there too.
I don't believe that the ones I have met have had cause for complaint, but I couldn't say that was true for all women.
If, however, they were treated poorly by an individual, I would hope that the management would treat the case seriously, fairly and robustly.
Well, virtually all social enclaves made up mostly of men are pretty rough places for women. I think that gaming is not a particularly welcoming place for women, based on what I've seen, what female gamers have told me, and based on the attitudes of at least some of the gamers I know pretty well.
I think you add in the relatively low social status of most gamer guys, and you get a pretty toxic combination in some of them. There is very little awful conduct towards women that I'd categorically find implausible, and while the OPs story certainly doesn't seem to hold water, I think there is deep rooted hostility to women in gaming.
It's the same for every place that's highly dominated by either gender or even race. Be it a man picking up your daughter at the kindergarten or a white guy strolling through the bronx, if you enter an area / field that is dominated by a specific group, you can't count on being welcomed all of a sudden. It's how humans work.
r_squared wrote: Doesn't that attitude support the argument of the article? That in some way these environments are unwelcoming, or in fact dangerous for females?
Whilst by and large most GW and game stores have been the province of young men, I have also met several women who patronise and work there too.
I don't believe that the ones I have met have had cause for complaint, but I couldn't say that was true for all women.
If, however, they were treated poorly by an individual, I would hope that the management would treat the case seriously, fairly and robustly.
I suppose so. I mean, my own wife won't go to my flgs because she was ogled and commented at there, and that was st a place that actually is frequented by many young ladies, as well as children.
You know, when I first read the article, I probably had the normal response: I hacen't been witness to anything as bad as what she's describing in her anecdotes, so it must be BS. But then I asked myself, why do I think that way? The answer basically boils down to (a) because her writing style seems intentionally provocative, (b) her method of argument isn't very refined, and (c) she illogicially incriminates the many for the actions of the (presumably) few.
The truth is, I have no way of knowing if her assertions are 100% lies, 100% truth, or somewhere inbetween. And fortunately, I don't have to know. What I do think is that stores can and should do more to make gaming areas safer for women
Sigvatr wrote: It's the same for every place that's highly dominated by either gender or even race. Be it a man picking up your daughter at the kindergarten or a white guy strolling through the bronx, if you enter an area / field that is dominated by a specific group, you can't count on being welcomed all of a sudden. It's how humans work.
Sort of. A community that's relatively high status, but with a sharp gender/racial skew, will paradoxically often be more accepting of outsiders. A rich black kid at Harvard is still a rich kid. Also, for all of the beating it's taken, the concept of privilege kicks in here as well. When a subculture is made up of the dominate gender and race, it tends to be far more hostile to outsiders than a subculture is overwhelmingly minority. Look at male RNs, who tend to out earn female RNs, or the success of white rappers with the relative paucity of black country acts.
In essence, subcultures for white males, of which gaming very much is, albeit far more male than white, is seen as a place for guys that don't always fit in with mainstream culture. It's their subculture, and one of it's defining features is low social status, as seen by limited dating options. I wouldn't say hostility to women is baked into the culture, but a resentment towards women certainly is.
As someone who's worked at a game store, I can say from personal experience that things like this happen (albeit thankfully not the point of physical assault). As an employee, you obviously put a stop to it whenever you see it or when it's reported, kicking out the offenders. My former employer, being a decent human being, has an official policy in place supporting his employees in doing so.
However, we can't be everywhere to enforce the rules, and the community in general does a rather gak job of policing itself. After all, we're generally a hobby of socially awkward individuals, and for all the talk of punching out these scumbags most gamers would rather hide their heads in the sand than risk actual confrontation. That's a feature that humanity in general seems to have, but exacerbated here.
If anything, a 10 to 1 ratio of rape to false rape accusations is a conservative estimate.
Fantastic, thanks for the source for your claims. My problem with their stats, as per their report:
Police recorded crime
Police recorded crime is the primary source for sub-national crime statistics and for relatively serious, but low volume, crimes that are not well measured by a sample survey.
Statistics based on police recorded crime data do not currently meet the required standard for designation as National Statistics (further details are provided in the ‘Recent assessments of crime statistics and accuracy’ section).
In this, they admit that their police recorded crime data is not complete, and later they theorise that the figures are less than in reality due to underreporting. There's no way to know though, that's admitted speculation.
Notes for understanding crime statistics
Police recorded crime statistics are based on the year in which the offence was recorded, rather than the year in which it was committed. Therefore, such data for any given period will include some historic offences that occurred in a previous year to the one in which it is reported to the police.
This I have an issue with, as I'd prefer if the data correlated to the year the offense was committed, but I can understand this only means historical data would be complete due to the lag it takes for cases to get investigated and go to trial. Still frustrating though, because you're not looking at when crimes are committed, and if those crimes are going down or up in frequency. Its outside the scope.
7. Sexual Offences
It is thought these rises in police recorded sexual offences were due to both an improvement in recording by the police and an increase in the willingness of victims to come forward and report these crimes to the police.
The rises in the volume of sexual offences recorded by the police should be seen in the context of a number of high-profile reports and inquiries, which is thought to have resulted in police forces reviewing and improving their recording processes.
HMIC found records of crimes on these systems which had not made it onto the force’s main crime recording system. Those that had not been recorded on the force’s crime recording system would therefore not have fed through into official statistics. As forces have taken steps to improve their systems and recording processes, it is likely that proportionately more referrals are appearing in the official statistics.
And here's the rub, speculation that the increases in number of rapes are due to better reporting, not more offences.
As for the perverting the course of justice statistics, they admit that:
In recent years we have worked hard to dispel the damaging myths and stereotypes which are associated with these cases. One such misplaced belief is that false allegations of rape and domestic violence are rife.
They've started with the conclusion, and worked backwards. You're supposed to collect data first then analyse it, not start with a theory they want to prove.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Erections are not part of the somatic nervous system; drugs would probably not be required.
But there are drugs specifically for getting an erection (see Viagra and derivatives). It might not be as common for men to be abused in that manner but it's in no way impossible. Besides, as the erection is a quite autonomous function you might find men being "used" when drunk, drugged or just otherwise incapacitated a bit more common that you'd expect. They're just even more ashamed than women to go tell that to the police.
Spetulhu wrote: They're just even more ashamed than women to go tell that to the police.
Back when I was 14, my older sister (18) held a party at our house while my parents were away. She had heaps of her friends over and I invited one too. During the course of the evening he was physically restrained by two young women, one of whom took his virginity. So far as I know, he never told anyone about this for at least a decade. He was never 'proud' he'd had two women or thrilled about having sex. He was terrified and ashamed and to my shame I never spoke up about it either. Even worse, those girls thoroughly believed they were doing him a favour.
Sigvatr wrote: It's the same for every place that's highly dominated by either gender or even race. Be it a man picking up your daughter at the kindergarten or a white guy strolling through the bronx, if you enter an area / field that is dominated by a specific group, you can't count on being welcomed all of a sudden. It's how humans work.
Sure, but if someone wrote an article about how every time they walked through the Bronx, they got stares, someone call out 'go home cracker!', he was made to feel vulnerable and unwelcome and even if he once got assaulted just for being white, would it be fair to write an article saying 'The Bronx has a problem with black male terrorists'?
Sigvatr wrote: It's the same for every place that's highly dominated by either gender or even race. Be it a man picking up your daughter at the kindergarten or a white guy strolling through the bronx, if you enter an area / field that is dominated by a specific group, you can't count on being welcomed all of a sudden. It's how humans work.
Sure, but if someone wrote an article about how every time they walked through the Bronx, they got stares, someone call out 'go home cracker!', he was made to feel vulnerable and unwelcome and even if he once got assaulted just for being white, would it be fair to write an article saying 'The Bronx has a problem with black male terrorists'?
Of course it would not be "fair". The thing you have to understand about these sorts of debates over racism and sexism is that there are double standards in play.
Sigvatr wrote: It's the same for every place that's highly dominated by either gender or even race. Be it a man picking up your daughter at the kindergarten or a white guy strolling through the bronx, if you enter an area / field that is dominated by a specific group, you can't count on being welcomed all of a sudden. It's how humans work.
Sort of. A community that's relatively high status, but with a sharp gender/racial skew, will paradoxically often be more accepting of outsiders. A rich black kid at Harvard is still a rich kid. Also, for all of the beating it's taken, the concept of privilege kicks in here as well. When a subculture is made up of the dominate gender and race, it tends to be far more hostile to outsiders than a subculture is overwhelmingly minority. Look at male RNs, who tend to out earn female RNs, or the success of white rappers with the relative paucity of black country acts.
In essence, subcultures for white males, of which gaming very much is, albeit far more male than white, is seen as a place for guys that don't always fit in with mainstream culture. It's their subculture, and one of it's defining features is low social status, as seen by limited dating options. I wouldn't say hostility to women is baked into the culture, but a resentment towards women certainly is.
No offense but I think you are basing your argument heavily on a stereotype that is not necessarily backed by the facts. Recent servery by the pew research center was done of gamers. They found that facial minorities like blacks and Hispanics were more likely to identify with the term gamer than whites. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/12/15/gaming-and-gamers/
I have seen data there and from books I have read like Proteus Paradox that points to gaming being more diverse than people often think it is.
My own personal experience is that I have met also quite a few LGPT while gaming over the years as well. More than one would expect given the size the subculture.
Gaming in my experience isn't a culture that is hostile to people based on sex really or other demographics. There are bigoted people sure but generally it is subculture were acceptance is based on "geek cred". For instance if you actually watch videos on youtube criticizing Anita Sarkeesian (mentioned previously in this thread) the problem some people, including women seem to have is not that she is women, is that they think she is a poser. She lacks the the "geek cred" and therefore is not really "one of them".
So I have seen lots of examples of the years of people from gaming being hostile towards people like anita, or jack thompson. It isn't necessarily due to any form of bigotry against someone like jack thomspon for example it is what I have seen one blogger at forbes call revanchism. Basically being a gamer to many of these people is very strong part of their identity, so much so that they attack anyone they see as threatening that. http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2015/09/03/metroid-hero-samus-aran-can-be-transgender-or-not-and-the-world-will-keep-spinning/#eee90af1a710
Polonius wrote: Well, virtually all social enclaves made up mostly of men are pretty rough places for women. I think that gaming is not a particularly welcoming place for women, based on what I've seen, what female gamers have told me, and based on the attitudes of at least some of the gamers I know pretty well.
I think you add in the relatively low social status of most gamer guys, and you get a pretty toxic combination in some of them. There is very little awful conduct towards women that I'd categorically find implausible, and while the OPs story certainly doesn't seem to hold water, I think there is deep rooted hostility to women in gaming.
That sounds quite Freudian, why do you have a deep rooted hostility towards women?
I know it's fun to point at sub cultures and point out all their faults and project them onto the entire community, but lets remember it's a sub culture. attitudes towards women were developed long before gamers started throwing dice. So you should have said, 'there's a deep rooted hostility towards women in america'.
Sigvatr wrote: It's the same for every place that's highly dominated by either gender or even race. Be it a man picking up your daughter at the kindergarten or a white guy strolling through the bronx, if you enter an area / field that is dominated by a specific group, you can't count on being welcomed all of a sudden. It's how humans work.
Sort of. A community that's relatively high status, but with a sharp gender/racial skew, will paradoxically often be more accepting of outsiders. A rich black kid at Harvard is still a rich kid. Also, for all of the beating it's taken, the concept of privilege kicks in here as well. When a subculture is made up of the dominate gender and race, it tends to be far more hostile to outsiders than a subculture is overwhelmingly minority. Look at male RNs, who tend to out earn female RNs, or the success of white rappers with the relative paucity of black country acts.
In essence, subcultures for white males, of which gaming very much is, albeit far more male than white, is seen as a place for guys that don't always fit in with mainstream culture. It's their subculture, and one of it's defining features is low social status, as seen by limited dating options. I wouldn't say hostility to women is baked into the culture, but a resentment towards women certainly is.
do you have any studies to back up any of that? It sounds like BS to me. Most of the gamers I know are married, and over 1/2 of them have kids. You're still sounding Freudian here and seem to be projecting your feelings onto the community.
Polonius wrote: Well, virtually all social enclaves made up mostly of men are pretty rough places for women. I think that gaming is not a particularly welcoming place for women, based on what I've seen, what female gamers have told me, and based on the attitudes of at least some of the gamers I know pretty well.
I think you add in the relatively low social status of most gamer guys, and you get a pretty toxic combination in some of them. There is very little awful conduct towards women that I'd categorically find implausible, and while the OPs story certainly doesn't seem to hold water, I think there is deep rooted hostility to women in gaming.
That sounds quite Freudian, why do you have a deep rooted hostility towards women?
I know it's fun to point at sub cultures and point out all their faults and project them onto the entire community, but lets remember it's a sub culture. attitudes towards women were developed long before gamers started throwing dice. So you should have said, 'there's a deep rooted hostility towards women in america'.
Huh? This woman is Canadian unless you count that as American in this case.
I don't think there's a deep rooted hostility towards women at all. More that the gamer guys esp. at tabletop wargaming places are just very socially awkward. That means when a pretty girl somehow decides to venture in things can get awkward. I've seen some not so pretty girls in the store. In fact I'm willing to say a lot of girlfriends have been of the not so good looking variety.
There's one girl there that is attractive but she is currently another guy's girlfriend that goes to the store. Ho ho ho and you wouldn't believe how willing the GW store owner and another guy in the store were to alienate me at first possibility. My only comments to one were "So. Who's girlfriend is she?" (said in a very disappointed and uncaring way) and the guy says "Don't flirt with her! She hates guys that do that!" Funny thing is this very guy later becomes her boyfriend. Haha I guess he just tried to eliminate competition. Keep in mind this was said at a local sandwich place when she wasn't there at the moment. Oh and in another case when she wasn't there I said near the store manager something along the lines of "Wow! She's pretty!" and he said "Yeah and if you ever make her feel uncomfortable i'll kick you out of the store." Funny bit as a guy that wasn't willing to make her uncomfortable in the first place I find it disgusting how fully ready he was to knock out a long time customer of years for an attractive girl that came in that hadn't even started an army yet. As I said I wasn't even wanting to make her uncomfortable so it seemed like such an extreme response for somebody that had yet to do anything really wrong and aside from warhammer fantasy being killed and shunned by the store owner was one of the things at the GW store to alienate me. Fairly certain the GW manager there alienated me just for not buying enough as well when I was unhappy with warhammer fantasy dying and he mentioned it at one point. I also find it funny at one point this same attractive girl was visibly hitting on a guy in the store until he started talking about his girlfriend. I guess it's totally ok for her to hit on us but not vice versa. But I mean it's totally ok for feminists to be hypocrites . Funny thing is as far as I noticed this girl is a decent person and I wonder what her responses would be if I told her about these guys telling this to me. It alienated me being told this by these other dudes in the store and made me less willing to talk to her and made me feel more awkward to even do so in the first place. I don't think awkward conversation is something anybody wants. I mean if somebody feels alienated just being around you I think you'd realize it and it'd make you uncomfortable too. It'd just feel very unnatural and uncomfortable.
Also of the about 3 regular female players at GW's that I've known about one was a wife of a GW player, one was introduced by a GW player and became a girlfriend of another GW player and the final one I don't know the full story of but was made manager of a GW store and was attractive. So yep they must have been totally mistreated. I mean it's not like their significant others would have come around and given us crap if we were mean to them (except they would have). And the 3rd girl man we were so mean to her we made her manager of a whole store. Typical sexist gamer boys am I right ? From what little I last heard she got married to her gamer boyfriend. Supposedly she was a great painter, preferred being seen as a gamer rather than a gamer girl (not really shocked) and probably wasn't such a good manager of the store (that said this info came from the most massive jerk employee I've ever known to work for GW so take it with a grain of salt).
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Erections are not part of the somatic nervous system; drugs would probably not be required.
But there are drugs specifically for getting an erection (see Viagra and derivatives). It might not be as common for men to be abused in that manner but it's in no way impossible. Besides, as the erection is a quite autonomous function you might find men being "used" when drunk, drugged or just otherwise incapacitated a bit more common that you'd expect. They're just even more ashamed than women to go tell that to the police.
...that was my point. You don't need drugs to rape a man because getting an erection is not part of the somatic nervous system, and thus not something we have control over.
sirlynchmob wrote: That sounds quite Freudian, why do you have a deep rooted hostility towards women?
I know it's fun to point at sub cultures and point out all their faults and project them onto the entire community, but lets remember it's a sub culture. attitudes towards women were developed long before gamers started throwing dice. So you should have said, 'there's a deep rooted hostility towards women in america'.
You're still sounding Freudian here and seem to be projecting your feelings onto the community.
sirlynchmob wrote: That's just your white male chauvinistic attitude speaking where you feel the need to protect her from legitimate criticism.
You realise that "I know you are, but what am I?" is a form of argument that gets trained out of people in lower school, right? Immediately going "well actually it sounds like you're the real sexist!" isn't an actual point, but it seems to be your go-to tactic.
sirlynchmob wrote: That sounds quite Freudian, why do you have a deep rooted hostility towards women?
I know it's fun to point at sub cultures and point out all their faults and project them onto the entire community, but lets remember it's a sub culture. attitudes towards women were developed long before gamers started throwing dice. So you should have said, 'there's a deep rooted hostility towards women in america'.
You're still sounding Freudian here and seem to be projecting your feelings onto the community.
sirlynchmob wrote: That's just your white male chauvinistic attitude speaking where you feel the need to protect her from legitimate criticism.
You realise that "I know you are, but what am I?" is a form of argument that gets trained out of people in lower school, right? Immediately going "well actually it sounds like you're the real sexist!" isn't an actual point, but it seems to be your go-to tactic.
you'd think quote mining and taking things out of context would be included in arguments that should be trained out by middle school.
So is that what I'm doing? you base my "go to tactic" on two posts taken out of context? Does this mean you agree that any valid criticism of anita can only come from raging hatred towards her? and that the whole gaming community has a deep rooted hostility towards women?
That sounds quite Freudian, why do you have a deep rooted hostility towards women?
I know it's fun to point at sub cultures and point out all their faults and project them onto the entire community, but lets remember it's a sub culture. attitudes towards women were developed long before gamers started throwing dice. So you should have said, 'there's a deep rooted hostility towards women in america'.
Well, I'm a member of that sub culture, so I'm not exactly wild about trashing it. And yes, there are plenty of poor attitudes towards women in the broader culture, but gaming is the area in which men that wouldn't really be able to otherwise express that hostility feel comfortable doing so.
And me? I've got no beef with women. I'm married to one, work with them, manage them, and I've been managed by them.
do you have any studies to back up any of that? It sounds like BS to me. Most of the gamers I know are married, and over 1/2 of them have kids. You're still sounding Freudian here and seem to be projecting your feelings onto the community.
Well, it depends what you mean by gamer. the article is talking about the guys that hang out at the gaming store a lot, which probably precludes the professional, married gamers, who overwhelmingly game at home or in events.
I was at Adepticon last weekend. tons of good guys, more than a few women, and I'd guess that nearly everybody there was fine with women. But those are all people that have the means to travel to Chicago and game for a weekend.
Let's be blunt: gaming attracts some losers. And because gamers are oddly inclusive, we allow some awful behaviors, including the desire to exclude others, to go on because we don't want to lose members of our group.
As for projection, you might be on to something. I like my guy time with my buddies, and my wife generally respects that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sirlynchmob wrote: Does this mean you agree that any valid criticism of anita can only come from raging hatred towards her? and that the whole gaming community has a deep rooted hostility towards women?
As a complete outsider, in that I don't play video games and I'm not really into internet culture, I find the criticism towards her bizarrely disproportionate to her alleged misconduct.
sirlynchmob wrote: you'd think quote mining and taking things out of context would be included in arguments that should be trained out by middle school.
Please illuminate me as to the correct context in which I should take you saying "Why do you have a deep rooted hostility towards women?" and "That's just your white male chauvinistic attitude speaking". I'm genuinely curious as to how quoting the entirety of one of your posts is taking it out of context.
So is that what I'm doing? you base my "go to tactic" on two posts taken out of context?
Again, not sure how a direct quote of the entirety of a post is taking it out of context, but okay. You are responding to peoples comments by immediately retorting that there isn't a problem, but that they are the problem. That's what you're doing. At the time I made the post you had made 9 posts. (I just counted). Of those 9, 2 of them were accusing people of being sexist for disagreeing with you. A quarter of your posts exhibit this tactic. I would say that that easily qualifies as a "go to tactic".
Does this mean you agree that any valid criticism of anita can only come from raging hatred towards her?
Holy non-sequitur Batman! Erm, no? There are certainly things that can be criticised about her. I just think that frothing at the mouth while you post makes your arguments look bad.
and that the whole gaming community has a deep rooted hostility towards women?
Nope. Certain parts of the community, sure. I mean, there's an entire subculture of gaming seemingly devoted to opposing any and all efforts to promote inclusivity. You can't turn around and say that there's no hostility towards women. You just can't.
Getting back to the topic at hand and away from people having an e-peen shouting contest:
Another point that, so far I guess, hasn't been brought up yet is that this entire thing is a cry for help that falls upon deaf ears. That woman obviously has extremely severe psychological problems and is in dire need of professional help, but will not get it as she herself cannot realize it on her own and her story is welcomed by other psychologically conspicious women, re-inforcing her ill behavior.
out of the guy.
