Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
My gaming group and gaming store acually has loads of women, including the main staff. They all detest her and other professional victims with a passion.

This does not fit my preconceived notions, clearly you must be a lying woman-hater

When you invite Ricky Gervais to host the Oscars, you don't expect for him to make a program out of thoughtful criticisms of acting and art. Instead you can be absolutely certain he is going to make crass (hilarious) jokes about the celebrities in the audience. That is what he does.

I see nothing different in this case.

Sarkeesian actively seeks systemic sexism in everything she observes. It's what makes her money. It's what she does.

I do not care for her or her message, though I value her right to speak it nonetheless and regret the vitriol that was directed towards her.

She will find something wrong with tabletop games. She will speak about it a Gencon. She will receive backlash from many of the enemies she has already made that crossover into TT as well as make a few more in the process, galvanizing her followers to bring the fight to a new battleground.

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
If people do not think Sarkesian is not going to cause trouble in the community then just look at this thread - and all this is before she has had chance to spew her poison.
NOTHING good can come from letting this spiteful, manipulating, lying and toxic person anywhere near the borders of the hobby, let alone inviting the monster into the heart of it. Better to revoke her invitation and risk the inevitable but far less damaging backlash than to have her and her horde of followers gain a foothold and start to push in.

Whoa there Pedro. Whoa.

She’s done nothing in this thread. Not a comment, not a single exalt.

Who’s causing the waves here? People with a complaint (justified or not, I don’t care) against her, saying stuff she’s not present to defend.

It ain’t her cause the problem. Not right here. Not right now.

Exactly my point: She has done nothing yet bar be mentioned and already the community is going through an epic upheaval, and the entire conversation has devolved into a shitfest of epic proportions.
Now imagine what will happen when she actually speaks? Actually intrudes? If just her threatened presence can damage what was an otherwise relatively stable community (just head to /tg/ if you dont believe me - even there we can have civilised conversations) then imagine what will happen when she actually intrudes? When her drooling throng charge into out lands? It is going to be horrifically ugly.

Do you remember her destruction of the gaming forums? Gamergate? Sarkesian is the HIV of nerd communities, and the last thing that the TTWG/TTRPG community needs is to catch it.

Holy hyperbole, Batman.

There is no "epic upheaval" or "shitfest of epic proportions."

If you think that of any of this, then never go back into the archives of the US Politics or you might have a heart attack. There's, what - 3-4 posters having a bit of a tizzy over a disagreement (not to downplay the seriousness of it, but still. It's an argument on a forum about toy soldiers). Again, it's an internet forum. Just thank the dice it's not another "Should miniatures be painted" thread. Now those tend to get out of control.

Like others in the thread have mentioned, Sarkesian has basically been a nobody since Gamergate died down. It was only this conversation being made that even brought her into this forum at all. Go check out the video game subforum. Zero mention of her, at all.

Of course, mentioning /tg/ - that explains a lot. I wouldn't be surprised if all the little trolls gathering in the internet's cesspit still hiss and spit at the mere mention of her name.

Sarkesian may see some things wrong in the community, sure. There may be a flash in the pan. But I doubt there will be any upheaval or shutting down of forum. Tabletop gamers just aren't as plugged in to the internet as video game players.

On the other hand, the board game community is diverse enough that they probably could have gotten someone less controversial who's just as active in promoting diversity and equality in tabletop gaming. Then again, if they had, would anyone of us have known about this event at Gencon?

Also, I found an interesting webarticle The Women and Men Who Lead Games, which takes a look at the numbers of women who run games at Gencon each year. An interesting read, especially the gender breakdown of the various activities available at Gencon.

Polonius wrote:For some of this stuff, I'm not sure how it's possible to gather data without self report. And keep in mind, self report is considered reliable enough for medication testing. And in many of those, they asked both women and men, and women reported far higher levels of harassment. Which means either women experience more harassment, are more sensitive to similar levels of harassment, or are engaging in some sort of organized disinformation campaign.

And again, a study is still evidence. Unless you can show that the study is flawed enough to have zero probative value, it still carries weight. Like I said earlier, if a study shows that 40% of women have experience harassment, and that's off by an order of magnitude, it's still 4%. Is that an acceptable amount of harassment?

The really interesting studies are the experimental employment studies, which do tend to show gender preference, but not always for male.

There are many questions here, were is the control group? were is the peer review? were is the academic definition of harassment? we must know what on earth is the study about, did she include the socially norm and unisex applied Mediterranean behaviour as harassment? well nobody living in this area would take her seriously if she did, but I can see how people unfamiliar with the culture could see it that way.

Can the behaviour be only attributed to the fact the person targeted was a woman, or it can be attributed to any other reason and the target of the "harassment" just happened to be a woman? most common the perpetrator is a rotten individual who is vile to humans in general, not to women in particular.

How targeted was this extremely small sample and how one filters the bias of self reporting?

Can the fact of no counter studies be attributed to any other reasons than acceptance of the validity of the study, for example deemed not important?

A good study shows many of the controls used to lead to the result, social studies need them more so because they are a subjective field of science and common grounds and understanding of the terminology is a must, harassment is a vague nebulous word that means nothing, what exactly was the study considering harassment? and how it is understood by the average person of the time.

Strombones wrote:
I do not care for her or her message, though I value her right to speak it nonetheless and regret the vitriol that was directed towards her.

I do not think anybody here advocated for deplatforming her, this is not what normal humans do, there is a big criticism for her behaviour from well documented public appearances she has made plus her own personal work, there is an even bigger criticism that she does not debate her point of view cutting off any discussion with anybody who objects her view point.

And biggest criticism of all is for Gencon's choice to get her as a guest of honour, she is unrelated to the genre of boardgames, cardgames, RPG and miniature games, she has no practical involvement with the industry and there are many notable female individuals in the industry and the wider fandom who are more suited to be a guest of honour.

Everybody has the right to express themselves and their ideas and opinions, but by expressing them publicly they must be ready to have their ideas and options studied, objected and be ready to stand for their ideas in a public debate, accusing an individual or a group of individuals (as odd as such an idea can be) and then refusing to provide the citations for your conclusions and address any well founded objections is at best disingenuous.

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
If people do not think Sarkesian is not going to cause trouble in the community then just look at this thread - and all this is before she has had chance to spew her poison.
NOTHING good can come from letting this spiteful, manipulating, lying and toxic person anywhere near the borders of the hobby, let alone inviting the monster into the heart of it. Better to revoke her invitation and risk the inevitable but far less damaging backlash than to have her and her horde of followers gain a foothold and start to push in.

Whoa there Pedro. Whoa.

She’s done nothing in this thread. Not a comment, not a single exalt.

Who’s causing the waves here? People with a complaint (justified or not, I don’t care) against her, saying stuff she’s not present to defend.

It ain’t her cause the problem. Not right here. Not right now.

Exactly my point: She has done nothing yet bar be mentioned and already the community is going through an epic upheaval, and the entire conversation has devolved into a gakfest of epic proportions.
Now imagine what will happen when she actually speaks? Actually intrudes? If just her threatened presence can damage what was an otherwise relatively stable community (just head to /tg/ if you dont believe me - even there we can have civilised conversations) then imagine what will happen when she actually intrudes? When her drooling throng charge into out lands? It is going to be horrifically ugly.

Do you remember her destruction of the gaming forums? Gamergate? Sarkesian is the HIV of nerd communities, and the last thing that the TTWG/TTRPG community needs is to catch it.

Honestly, I'm more concerned about a couple of people on here turning this into a major crapfest and making allegations like "HIV of nerd communities" and "spiteful, manipulating, lying and toxic person." It reminds me of the kind of guy who gets upset because that woman "Dressed so slutty and kept turning me on." You're blaming her because you can't calm your fething jets.

Dude. It's on you. You're the issue, not her, and your reactions just dig that hole deeper and deeper.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

Polonius wrote:For some of this stuff, I'm not sure how it's possible to gather data without self report. And keep in mind, self report is considered reliable enough for medication testing. And in many of those, they asked both women and men, and women reported far higher levels of harassment. Which means either women experience more harassment, are more sensitive to similar levels of harassment, or are engaging in some sort of organized disinformation campaign.

And again, a study is still evidence. Unless you can show that the study is flawed enough to have zero probative value, it still carries weight. Like I said earlier, if a study shows that 40% of women have experience harassment, and that's off by an order of magnitude, it's still 4%. Is that an acceptable amount of harassment?

The really interesting studies are the experimental employment studies, which do tend to show gender preference, but not always for male.

There are many questions here, were is the control group? were is the peer review? were is the academic definition of harassment? we must know what on earth is the study about, did she include the socially norm and unisex applied Mediterranean behaviour as harassment? well nobody living in this area would take her seriously if she did, but I can see how people unfamiliar with the culture could see it that way.

Can the behaviour be only attributed to the fact the person targeted was a woman, or it can be attributed to any other reason and the target of the "harassment" just happened to be a woman? most common the perpetrator is a rotten individual who is vile to humans in general, not to women in particular.

How targeted was this extremely small sample and how one filters the bias of self reporting?

Can the fact of no counter studies be attributed to any other reasons than acceptance of the validity of the study, for example deemed not important?

A good study shows many of the controls used to lead to the result, social studies need them more so because they are a subjective field of science and common grounds and understanding of the terminology is a must, harassment is a vague nebulous word that means nothing, what exactly was the study considering harassment? and how it is understood by the average person of the time.

Strombones wrote:
I do not care for her or her message, though I value her right to speak it nonetheless and regret the vitriol that was directed towards her.

I do not think anybody here advocated for deplatforming her, this is not what normal humans do, there is a big criticism for her behaviour from well documented public appearances she has made plus her own personal work, there is an even bigger criticism that she does not debate her point of view cutting off any discussion with anybody who objects her view point.

And biggest criticism of all is for Gencon's choice to get her as a guest of honour, she is unrelated to the genre of boardgames, cardgames, RPG and miniature games, she has no practical involvement with the industry and there are many notable female individuals in the industry and the wider fandom who are more suited to be a guest of honour.

Everybody has the right to express themselves and their ideas and opinions, but by expressing them publicly they must be ready to have their ideas and options studied, objected and be ready to stand for their ideas in a public debate, accusing an individual or a group of individuals (as odd as such an idea can be) and then refusing to provide the citations for your conclusions and address any well founded objections is at best disingenuous.

I consider myself quite articulate... you are putting me to shame.


You have touched on one of my biggest issues with the so called “SJW” and “alt right” crowds (both are stereotypes these says it seems), they are two sides of the same coin and both make spurious claims that when challenged you are either a pussy special snowflake or a right wing nazi woman hater ... and other colourful terms, why are both parties so adverse to proving their statements, why are both crowds so contentious all the time, do they not realise they hurt their so called causes by being like they are?

It truelly boggles the mind that so many are incapable of critical thinking or self reflection.

 Strombones wrote:
When you invite Ricky Gervais to host the Oscars, you don't expect for him to make a program out of thoughtful criticisms of acting and art. Instead you can be absolutely certain he is going to make crass (hilarious) jokes about the celebrities in the audience. That is what he does.

I see nothing different in this case.

Sarkeesian actively seeks systemic sexism in everything she observes. It's what makes her money. It's what she does.

I do not care for her or her message, though I value her right to speak it nonetheless and regret the vitriol that was directed towards her.

She will find something wrong with tabletop games. She will speak about it a Gencon. She will receive backlash from many of the enemies she has already made that crossover into TT as well as make a few more in the process, galvanizing her followers to bring the fight to a new battleground.

I think that's the main issue I have, and many others might have. It doesn't need to be a fight. It's a discussion, and a topic of converse to fix the issue present. Her followers/psuedo-followers, and those that vehemently oppose them with vitrol, do not need to make the hobby and the community a battlefield, even though it's in their nature to be aggressive in how they confront and spread their message/propaganda against one another.

I do agree that the platform should not be taken away, but I also think it should have never been given to her.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
If people do not think Sarkesian is not going to cause trouble in the community then just look at this thread - and all this is before she has had chance to spew her poison.
NOTHING good can come from letting this spiteful, manipulating, lying and toxic person anywhere near the borders of the hobby, let alone inviting the monster into the heart of it. Better to revoke her invitation and risk the inevitable but far less damaging backlash than to have her and her horde of followers gain a foothold and start to push in.

Whoa there Pedro. Whoa.

She’s done nothing in this thread. Not a comment, not a single exalt.

Who’s causing the waves here? People with a complaint (justified or not, I don’t care) against her, saying stuff she’s not present to defend.

It ain’t her cause the problem. Not right here. Not right now.

Exactly my point: She has done nothing yet bar be mentioned and already the community is going through an epic upheaval, and the entire conversation has devolved into a gakfest of epic proportions.
Now imagine what will happen when she actually speaks? Actually intrudes? If just her threatened presence can damage what was an otherwise relatively stable community (just head to /tg/ if you dont believe me - even there we can have civilised conversations) then imagine what will happen when she actually intrudes? When her drooling throng charge into out lands? It is going to be horrifically ugly.

Do you remember her destruction of the gaming forums? Gamergate? Sarkesian is the HIV of nerd communities, and the last thing that the TTWG/TTRPG community needs is to catch it.

Honestly, I'm more concerned about a couple of people on here turning this into a major crapfest and making allegations like "HIV of nerd communities" and "spiteful, manipulating, lying and toxic person." It reminds me of the kind of guy who gets upset because that woman "Dressed so slutty and kept turning me on." You're blaming her because you can't calm your fething jets.

Dude. It's on you. You're the issue, not her, and your reactions just dig that hole deeper and deeper.

Opinions may vary but she is on record as being quite a spiteful and manipulative individual, some would consider that toxic behaviour (hate that term) she is also on record as a liar I’ve been told, but I cannot confirm that personally, I will have to check it out for myself.

She was also on film literally abusing a member of an audience and hurled abuse at them, I believe it was

“And people like this piece of gak are out there making videos about me”

Regardless of who you are, that kind of behaviour should get you banned from whatever event she was attending, I will find the video for whomever in interested.

Like her or lump her, she is a very divisive person and there are plenty of other, more deserving woman out there that would be a better guest in my opinion.

 Formosa wrote:

Opinions may vary but she is on record as being quite a spiteful and manipulative individual, some would consider that toxic behaviour (hate that term) she is also on record as a liar I’ve been told, but I cannot confirm that personally, I will have to check it out for myself.

She was also on film literally abusing a member of an audience and hurled abuse at them, I believe it was

“And people like this piece of gak are out there making videos about me”

Regardless of who you are, that kind of behaviour should get you banned from whatever event she was attending, I will find the video for whomever in interested.

Like her or lump her, she is a very divisive person and there are plenty of other, more deserving woman out there that would be a better guest in my opinion.

I've seen that one, and she continued to go off, to cheers at the panel. It might have been Sargon or someone who was the object of her attentions. It was bad behavior and outside of code of conduct for someone on a panel addressing a crowd. She is also on record having chastised and bullied ANOTHER panel member at another event. Though I'm not well versed on that one, nor do I know the details as such. It was Boogie whatsit or some such who was a fan, friend, and supporter of her platform.

I also agree there could be others who have 'similar' view points and actually have constructive things to say about any sort of inequality in the community. If they wanted someone to talk about it that badly, they could have picked someone better (don't ask me to specify, woefully uneducated on it, being oblivious most of the time) to address the community. Someone who's done something in the community and been a part of it.

Asking for good faith debate when the first page of this thread is filled with one guy ringing the warning bell about poor male gamers being fooled by anyone 'with teats on' is pretty disingenuous.
We barely have to get two pages in before people are expressing panic about being falsely accused of harassment by hordes of ravening feminists, and questioning if systemic harassment of women is even really a thing.
Trigger warning, soy boy, it's like nervous male bingo in here.

On her particular behaviour mentioned above, harassing someone to the point that they react and 'look crazy' is hardly a new technique. Women encounter it literally every day in the workplace. The fact that it continues to work on 'neutral observers' is the only shocking part.

infinite_array wrote:Holy hyperbole, Batman.

There is no "epic upheaval" or "shitfest of epic proportions."

If you think that of any of this, then never go back into the archives of the US Politics or you might have a heart attack. There's, what - 3-4 posters having a bit of a tizzy over a disagreement (not to downplay the seriousness of it, but still. It's an argument on a forum about toy soldiers). Again, it's an internet forum.

Yes, quite. Aside from a redtext to a edgelord there aren't even any in-thread warnings and at this point in the thread it's improved dramatically from where it started.

Carnikang wrote:I do agree that the platform should not be taken away, but I also think it should have never been given to her.

The funny thing about this, kind of, is that so far as I know, not even one person in this thread has disagreed with the sentiment. Even the people that like her think there are many, many other better picks.

 plastictrees wrote:

On her particular behaviour mentioned above, harassing someone to the point that they react and 'look crazy' is hardly a new technique. Women encounter it literally every day in the workplace. The fact that it continues to work on 'neutral observers' is the only shocking part.

I sometimes wonder in horror what is the everyday life in US and Canada, if this is what women encounter literally every day? around here it would be considered extremely abnormal and at the very best extremely inappropriate.

I saw the video, I get it, lashing out hysterically against Sargon (who was just there?) and then denying him the microphone to reply back is an extremely effective, if not extremely disingenuous and inappropriate tactic to frame an opponent and have only your opinion be heard, but have such things be used in everyday life? this is a political confrontation tactic used to frame an opponent in a public confrontation, normal people do not use and cannot use such elaborate tactics when debating or are in open confrontation with each other, if nothing else they cannot deny their adversary to speak up.

 infinite_array wrote:


Also, I found an interesting webarticle The Women and Men Who Lead Games, which takes a look at the numbers of women who run games at Gencon each year. An interesting read, especially the gender breakdown of the various activities available at Gencon.

I got a couple issues with this link. First it says she was a target for harrassment and disruption by Gamer Gate. The FBI investigated Gamer Gate and found only 0.6% of of people part of Gamer Gate sent her threatening messages. The second thing is that this article says the more and more women have gotten involved into gaming which is true. This is a welcome good change but it just seems this article seems to trying to say its because women fighters like Anita is the cause of women finding interests in gaming. Seems to be pushing a agenda but I could be wrong.

As far as I can tell women don't need feminist like Anita to inspire them that they can join the men in gaming. Tabletop, video game, comics, etc, have all evolved and became more open to people. There are game types for everyone. I have seen girls play the small cute characters, the sexy badass warriors wearing little clothing, and giant armored tank monsters. People are individuals and are capable of finding enjoyment of what interests them. They don't need political correctness to change things to there liking. Demanding that others change their games to what you want all because it doesn't share your views is nothing but selfishness and narcissistic. There are literally hundreds of different games out there for everyone whose interested.

I am baffled as to how people can defend and support people like Anita. How can you defend someone that wont go out of their bubble and defend their own arguments against critics or others that disagree but instead label them as sexist harassers. Yes she has received hateful threatening messages and that is not okay but what do you expect to happen when you call a group a bunch of sexist misogynist human beings and provide poorly said evidence for it.

If .6% of some thousands of people were sending me threatening messages, I'd be pretty pissed off.

I'm pretty sure systemic sexual harassment ended at least 40 years ago. It's not like you can just slap you secretary on the ass, or bend her over the desk like in the Mad Men days. Nowadays, you do that, you get fired and go to jail.

OTOH, in India, I understand that the multi-day gang rape and brutal murder of women is just a fact of life there, without the slightest consequences.

It's the literal difference between "I'm being repressed!" and the violence inherent in the system.

 kestral wrote:
If .6% of some thousands of people were sending me threatening messages, I'd be pretty pissed off.

If I was getting that many threatening messages I would look back on what I said or did to piss so many people off and see what I did wrong. I would also try to have a discussion with them on why they feel that way. Try to be a decent human being and try to understand their side.

For reference, Dakka has 120,000 members. 0.6% of them would be 720. That's a lot of threats.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

 plastictrees wrote:

On her particular behaviour mentioned above, harassing someone to the point that they react and 'look crazy' is hardly a new technique. Women encounter it literally every day in the workplace. The fact that it continues to work on 'neutral observers' is the only shocking part.

I sometimes wonder in horror what is the everyday life in US and Canada, if this is what women encounter literally every day? around here it would be considered extremely abnormal and at the very best extremely inappropriate.

I saw the video, I get it, lashing out hysterically against Sargon (who was just there?) and then denying him the microphone to reply back is an extremely effective, if not extremely disingenuous and inappropriate tactic to frame an opponent and have only your opinion be heard, but have such things be used in everyday life? this is a political confrontation tactic used to frame an opponent in a public confrontation, normal people do not use and cannot use such elaborate tactics when debating or are in open confrontation with each other, if nothing else they cannot deny their adversary to speak up.

This isn't the place for this particular thread so I won't respond after this.
Women reacting to repeated inappropriate behaviour in the workplace and then being called hysterical (oh look) or forced to endure conflict resolution programs with their abuser(s) is a daily occurrence and hardly limited to Canada and the US.
You are trying to frame the poor little men's rights activist as the victim so I'm confident in making some assumptions about your definition of harassment.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
For reference, Dakka has 120,000 members. 0.6% of them would be 720. That's a lot of threats.

I agree that is but the point I was trying to make is that so many people make Gamer Gate this group that was only made to harass Anita and others when actually it was fighting against corruption in game journalism. Also if your going create content for the public to see then you better be ready for criticism. Their will be people that won't like you and your content no matter what.

 Kiggler wrote:

 kestral wrote:
If .6% of some thousands of people were sending me threatening messages, I'd be pretty pissed off.

If I was getting that many threatening messages I would look back on what I said or did to piss so many people off and see what I did wrong. I would also try to have a discussion with them on why they feel that way. Try to be a decent human being and try to understand their side.

Really? Kudos to you then. Your attitude is perhaps unique. Personally, I'd assume that anyone making threats over the internet is either a Jerk, a coward, or most likely both. I certainly wouldn't be like "Hey, dude who threatened to rape/kill me or whatever, I'm sorry if I made you mad. I can see the problem lies with me. Can we talk about this? I'll try to to better." Though that would probably put an end to the issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm not that saintly, I suspect very, very few are.

 kestral wrote:
If .6% of some thousands of people were sending me threatening messages, I'd be pretty pissed off.

This is the main reason most people do not want to become a public figure, when you decide to become one and one chooses to be one, you must accept that you will be attacked for your ideas and opinions, 0.6% is surprisingly tame for the period been discussed if one considers the entrenchment and polarisation it existed, I can assume with no evidence that the bulk of the "opposing side" was compromised of average, not really political sided individuals who were lumped to that side because they opposed the accusations they faced as individuals because they were thrown in a generic group (ie "gamers").

One cannot be a public figure and be shielded from public opinion, it is a great example of wanting a cake and eating it, if I choose to open a youtube channel and devote it to lets say gameplay videos and battle reports, I choose to open myself to the public and I must accept that people will rip me apart for any and every single mistake I do, likewise and with more vigour is when one does the same for politics, you cannot expect to be a public political figure and not get backlash, you literally say to some people their worldview and moral value is at best wrong and at worse vile, they will react and you chose to be a public figure.

It is complicated and simple at the same time choices have consequences and responsible individuals bear the burden of their choices, irresponsible individuals complain about it.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
For reference, Dakka has 120,000 members. 0.6% of them would be 720. That's a lot of threats.

According to GamerGate's home base, /r/KotakuInAction, they just celebrated 95,000 subscribers. A few months ago, I remember them celebrating 65,000 subscribers. A few years ago, it was 30,000. About the time Sarkeesian supposedly received this harassment, GamerGate was a few thousand people. Regardless, the point was that GamerGate could not be said to have harassed her as a community if a fraction of a fraction of a percent did it.

When I pissed off Penny Arcade in 2003, I got about 100-200 nasty emails a day for months, including death threats and some very inappropriate content (my favorite was a graphic comic of me getting impaled in my eyesocket by my very own, rather large and detailed penis). I'm not sure that there is really that big a difference between 100 nasty emails a day and a thousand - either way, you end up building filters or using a secondary email for personal use and just delete everything without actually reading it.

 kestral wrote:

 Kiggler wrote:

 kestral wrote:
If .6% of some thousands of people were sending me threatening messages, I'd be pretty pissed off.

If I was getting that many threatening messages I would look back on what I said or did to piss so many people off and see what I did wrong. I would also try to have a discussion with them on why they feel that way. Try to be a decent human being and try to understand their side.

Really? Kudos to you then. Your attitude is perhaps unique. Personally, I'd assume that anyone making threats over the internet is either a Jerk, a coward, or most likely both. I certainly wouldn't be like "Hey, dude who threatened to rape/kill me or whatever, I'm sorry if I made you mad. I can see the problem lies with me. Can we talk about this? I'll try to to better." Though that would probably put an end to the issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm not that saintly, I suspect very, very few are.

That's the issue. People refuse to talk it out and just assume anyone who disagrees with them is a nazi. If people were more open and discuss the problems together a lot more could be solved in today's world. Instead people live in their bubble and assume everyone else is the problem. I really hope my attitude isn't unique. I don't see anything being accomplished if we keep shutting people out. I want to believe most people are better then that.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm pretty sure systemic sexual harassment ended at least 40 years ago. It's not like you can just slap you secretary on the ass, or bend her over the desk like in the Mad Men days. Nowadays, you do that, you get fired and go to jail.

OTOH, in India, I understand that the multi-day gang rape and brutal murder of women is just a fact of life there, without the slightest consequences.

It's the literal difference between "I'm being repressed!" and the violence inherent in the system.

Sexual harassment still happens here. It's still a problem where my wife works, and people have gone to jail for things they've done. I just don't think it gets much press outside of smallfry like OC Weekly.

On a similar note, she used to participate on message boards for fanfiction and crochet and things like that, and she had to stop due to the dick pics and threats she received.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kiggler wrote:

 kestral wrote:
If .6% of some thousands of people were sending me threatening messages, I'd be pretty pissed off.

If I was getting that many threatening messages I would look back on what I said or did to piss so many people off and see what I did wrong. I would also try to have a discussion with them on why they feel that way. Try to be a decent human being and try to understand their side.

Yeah, threat victims shouldn't be so provocative. that MLK should really have stepped back to rethink things .

No group is perfect, and every group will have donkey caves. We've been told not to judge other groups because of the actions of a few (Antifa, BLM). Yet way more that .6% of them were looting, vandalising, and assaulting.

Also, I'd like to know the definition of "harassment" the FBI used. Obviously death threats count. If they also counted the "you're stupid and you suck" messages, I'd say that's a low bar to set.

Sexual Harassment solved 40 years ago in the States?! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Dude. Do you get news where you live? Like...that's almost cute, it's so naive.

He specifically reference institutionalized, systemic sexual harassment. I'm not sure if I agree totally but it's a very different thing.

I don't think all sexual harassment, ever will ever be eliminated as long as human beings work with each other.

 plastictrees wrote:

Spoiler:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

 plastictrees wrote:

On her particular behaviour mentioned above, harassing someone to the point that they react and 'look crazy' is hardly a new technique. Women encounter it literally every day in the workplace. The fact that it continues to work on 'neutral observers' is the only shocking part.

I sometimes wonder in horror what is the everyday life in US and Canada, if this is what women encounter literally every day? around here it would be considered extremely abnormal and at the very best extremely inappropriate.

I saw the video, I get it, lashing out hysterically against Sargon (who was just there?) and then denying him the microphone to reply back is an extremely effective, if not extremely disingenuous and inappropriate tactic to frame an opponent and have only your opinion be heard, but have such things be used in everyday life? this is a political confrontation tactic used to frame an opponent in a public confrontation, normal people do not use and cannot use such elaborate tactics when debating or are in open confrontation with each other, if nothing else they cannot deny their adversary to speak up.

This isn't the place for this particular thread so I won't respond after this.
Women reacting to repeated inappropriate behaviour in the workplace and then being called hysterical (oh look) or forced to endure conflict resolution programs with their abuser(s) is a daily occurrence and hardly limited to Canada and the US.
You are trying to frame the poor little men's rights activist as the victim so I'm confident in making some assumptions about your definition of harassment.

I am deeply sorry but I truly and honestly do not understand what you say here, there might be some communication or cultural barrier in place, please feel free to explain me in PM if you so desire.

Thanks

ITT, people fail to recognize the keyboard *systemic*, or they fail to understand what it means.

*Systemic* sexual harassment basically does not exist in the United States, and hasn't been for decades. Title IX alone is proof of that.

If anyone is going to disagree, then you need to step up with evidence where such harassment is broadly condoned.

Individual acts are not systemic, especially if their becoming public would result in consequences to the harasser. The very fact of those consequences is, again, evidence that systemic sexual harassment is no longer an issue

The solution only works if it's broadly enforced. It's not. You can google your own evidence though. I'm just here to poke fun at bigots. I know I'm not going to convince anyone over the internet--but I can certainly laugh at folks.