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.

 Ashiraya wrote:


Attitudes like yours is exactly why I am so cautious. You have more passive-agressiveness stuffed into your post than in the average Sverigedemokraterna political manifesto.

You have to understand my background, though. To begin with, I am an avid gamer who grew up with games and who also has a wife who's into video games. We've gone through and beyond the "Video games create murderers!" thingy, which was debunked a long time ago, and the very same thing is happening right now again with "feminism". People jumping on a hypetrain to discriminate gamers all over the world.

Secondly, and that's what really upsets me, my wife's an actual feminist who puts so much dedication and effort into her job. Actual feminist work is terrible. It's a lot of paper work, working with national and international law, facing lots of resistance and, worst of all, prejudice. Prejudice that comes from "feminists" who do not have the slightest clue of what feminism actually means: female supremists, attention wooers and, we get to it, Anita who throw the word "feminism" around and drag it through the mud by poorly researching what they talk about, mispresenting information and downright offending a lot of people on purpose. Zoe Quinn also comes to my mind. Feminism nowadays is, sadly, often abused by a lot of people to hide under when they are getting flak. In this very thread, it's apparent as well where people cannot make a distinction between actual criticism of what a person (regardless of gender!) says and her gender - it is immediately assumed that every criticism towards a woman is misognistic. This "feminism" creates a LOT of negative prejudice and this is why I am so upset about this. Feminism, achieving actual changes that MATTER to women, is a huge chunk of annoying work that consumes a lot of your free time and money as well. It requires a lot of dedication and perseverance and I had my wife coming home crying out of desperation and frustration on more than one occasion. And it's those people who get to be the most vocal - those who achieve NOTHING but keep shouting "Wolf!" on the city plaza. They are a huge source of acual hatred against feminism and they undermine the work of the people they pretend to be.

Thirdly, I am hugely into statistics and science. And when people just seriously mess up with it, abuse it or misrepresent it...I gotta light the bat signal.

So...yes, as you correctly observed, my tone is less than friendly towards such people. They abuse the word feminism for money and attention. And that makes me bitter and downright angry. Seeing people happily jumping by those people's side just because it has a positive social connotation is saddening as well.

Just to give you some background why I am so upset about the entire case

I HIGHLY recommend getting in touch with your local feminist organizations, if there are any, after getting some info on them first. Test the waters etc. A lot of them really welcome public interest in their cause and it's awesome if you can get an actual conversation with feminists. It's eye-opening that despite (fortunately!) having gotten rid of patriarchies in the modern (Western) world, there still are everyday issues we often neglect - not because of us ignoring them at will, but because of us just carrying them on.

Fwiw, I am an activist for LGBT rights and I have been a dedicated gamer since the age of five or so.

You're not the only one with a background in this. But there's quite a difference between basic LGBT rights (which is what I am usually doing activism about - such as giving more rights to transpeople) and the absolute mess that is feminism in politics.

I really feel the need to stress that you should be respectful at all times, though, even against those you disagree with. Being upset only scares people away.

Especially since I think Anita makes a lot of good points that are completely overshadowed by accusations of deception, greed and general misrepresentation. Here on the forums she seems to be absolutely demonised, which I think is unfair against a person who does some good and some bad.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Fwiw, I am an activist for LGBT rights and I have been a dedicated gamer since the age of five or so.

You're not the only one with a background in this. But there's quite a difference between basic LGBT rights (which is what I am usually doing activism about - such as giving more rights to transpeople) and the absolute mess that is feminism in politics.

Realistically, I expect LGBT to face the same or similar problems in the future. They are getting closer (baby steps) to acceptance, just as feminism did a long time ago, but with society being more open in approaching them, it might not be too far away. Although I'd seperate LGB and T because LGB are ahead in terms of acceptance and lobby work.

Good to know that you're invested in it! Glad to see people actively standing up despite facing a rocky road.

What's annoying me is the school received the threat, nothing in the letter mentions gamergate, but somehow this is being tied into that. No mention of gamers or games at all.

 Crablezworth wrote:
What's annoying me is the school received the threat, nothing in the letter mentions gamergate, but somehow this is being tied into that. No mention of gamers or games at all.

Spoiler:

Well it's mostly being tied to games because most people only know Anita from games. Your right that this has nothing to do with games. (Maybe why it's not even on the games forum.)

You confuse me, Sigvatr. Sometimes, you give me the impression of being one of the most vile and toxic people here, and then sometimes you seem outright nice.

It's difficult to form an opinion on you.

 Crablezworth wrote:
What's annoying me is the school received the threat, nothing in the letter mentions gamergate, but somehow this is being tied into that. No mention of gamers or games at all.

Some folks (including folks working in mainstream media) believe GamerGate or whatever it is called is more about the poor treatment of women working in the video game industry than claims about corruption in video game journalism. It's not difficult to connect the two topics, common points being video games and misogyny.

That threat letter is pretty chilling btw.

 Manchu wrote:
That threat letter is pretty chilling btw.

It is. I sure would not go have the speech anyway with such a threat, when I know there may be observers with concealed guns.

 Ashiraya wrote:
I sure would not go have the speech anyway with such a threat, when I know there may be observers with concealed guns.

I rather agree. And all this because a woman made some YT videos about games. Well, that plus the intersection of deeply entrenched misogynistic beliefs and sociopathy.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Fwiw, I am an activist for LGBT rights and I have been a dedicated gamer since the age of five or so.

(which is what I am usually doing activism about - such as giving more rights to transpeople)

Exalted purely for the fact that it'd be nice to be able to go to a doctor without being made to feel completely awful and/or being denied outright. I'm trans and do a lot of the advocating and activism stuff too for it, but I'm not entirely hopeful that much will change during my time.

How on earth is this thread still going on. Was there anything new discovered?

Given that the thread is run as hairsplitting 101 by Manchu here's why the threat is technically not a misogynistic threat.

The author aims his anger and threats specifically at feminist, not women in general. Feminist as a group includes both men and women (although it is a female majority). Misogyny by definition is directed specifically at women, if you also direct that same threat to include male feminist that are attending then it is no longer a misogynistic attack.

Not saying that it isn't a deliberate and nasty threat against a Feminist group, but going by it's strict wording it's not technically aimed at women exclusively and includes anyone who attends (males as well).


Not once in the email does the author use the word women, females, or girls, the threat is specifically cited as being directly towards feminist. It's a threat towards people following a social and political ideal, not a gender.

 stanman wrote:
hairsplitting 101 by Manchu

I'm afraid you don't qualify for anything 101 by Manchu considering this is your idea of a clever argument:

 stanman wrote:
The author aims his anger and threats specifically at feminist, not women in general. Feminist as a group includes both men and women (although it is a female majority). Misogyny by definition is directed specifically at women, if you also direct that same threat to include male feminist that are attending then it is no longer a misogynistic attack.

Why do you think the threat is directed toward feminists? I'll save you some time and effort: because they are feminists.

Males can be included in a group of Feminist Yes, or No?

Watch one of her lecture videos, when they show the audience do you see a large portion of the audience being male? Yes or No?

Yes, of course men can be feminists.

If an attack occurs against a male feminist it's misogyny?

It's an attack on a person who affiliates themselves with a political or ideological group. I think that'd venture more into a hate crime area.

 stanman wrote:
If an attack occurs against a male feminist it's misogyny?

It certainly can be: for example, if it is motivated by the attempt to silence feminism.

When I look at online definitions I don't see any references to misogyny that include "male feminist". All references of hatred, violence, sexualization, or other negativity in the definition is strictly defined as towards women. Care you clarify where your definition of misogyny is from and where exactly it includes males as a victim?


As you've pointed out repeatedly it's best to be technically correct when discussing things.



(I think it's extremely petty and hateful that somebody would make these threats, or act in such a manner, but as defined in a traditional sense I don't see it as being strictly misogynistic).

So...your argument is that making violent threats against agents promoting feminism is not attack against women? Because feminism is just the a moment for equality for women. Not dominance. Just the right be treated equal. And attacking something as simple as that seems...off.

Man, and the funny thing is that Feminist Frequency is in no way radical feminism. Her critiques are pretty minor. But the level of vitriol spat back at her has done more to hurt the image of gamers than any of her criticism. And yet people continue to blame her instead of looking inward

Misogyny is hatred towards women.
If you were a particularly extremist misogynist you may attempt to try and stop any women's rights efforts by committing violent acts towards the men who are a part of the movement which would damage efforts towards women's rights... supposedly but that's how it could be perceived as a misogynist attack though traditionally i don't think it'd qualify.

Misogyny includes direct and indirect opposition to the idea of women having equal status in society and efforts toward that end (i.e., feminism). It is not simply any instance of prejudice, hatred, or violence toward a person who happens to be a woman. Rather, it is prejudice, hatred, and violence towards people because they are women and/or because they advocate improved social status for women. Misogyny can be and is directed at both men and women. As I have explained numerous times ITT, misogyny is bad for women and for men.

The threat in this instance is clearly misogynistic. Indeed, it could be the textbook example of misogyny. The language is explicitly sexist. The narrative is that feminism has destroyed society at large and ruined the prospective killer's life particularly, specifically by emasculating men. The ultimate antagonists and principal target are all women. Their victims are men generally, the prospective killer specifically, and masculinity itself. The prospective killer envisions himself as the victim and his victims as bringing their murders onto themselves. The prospective killer also puts his narrative and his threats into the historical context of a previous mass murder motivated by hatred of women and feminism and identifies the killer in that case as a hero.

I think this thread has run its natural course