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.

 Slarg232 wrote:
Am I the only guy/gal/frog in existence that will help out other players as much as possible and typically runs into people who do the same?

I subconsciously assume people on the internet are guys until proven otherwise in most games (Which is bad, I know, but it's my experience and I am bad) but it does not really matter to me. I try treat both genders equally, even if I am sure I subconsciously fail on some level.

I think everyone does, but on the same level, most people I run into when starting a game typically give me.... crap gear, but better than what I have. Random people, too.

And I'm running around with names like Slarg the Slaughterer or Brother Meynard or similar.

Or Bismarsh Vandorfingly.

 Ashiraya wrote:
...This may be anecdotal, but my experiences are your polar opposites. Let's just say there's a reason I came to DakkaDakka as 'BrotherHaraldus', and it is not a coincidence that I usually stay off the voice chat in games.

I played a game of Strife with voice chat, there was a girl (I guess), and nobody made any comment on it. Well, granted, she already knew two other members of the party, and I was one of the two other outsiders.
Also asked one of them afterward if he thought I was a man or a woman, and apparently people only mistook my gender on the phone, not on voice chat .

 Ashiraya wrote:
Given money etc. by pretending to be a girl does seem worrying too. It's not like harassment, but stop a moment and think 'Why are these guys doing you favours?'

I would guess the same reason that make most men be more friendly with a beautiful girl than with Average Joe/Jane even if they have no intention to actually date her, I think. It is stupid, but it comes so naturally…

 Slarg232 wrote:
I think everyone does, but on the same level, most people I run into when starting a game typically give me.... crap gear, but better than what I have. Random people, too.

I had one guy on Path of Exile giving me his very good gear because he had just died in a hardcore league and would not care at all about playing in Normal. That was really cool of him. I also help sometime people asking for TP to gateways on chat.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Precisely!

For some stuff, context is relevant. For other stuff, it is not.

Definition: Context - the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.

Context is always relevant. Without it, nothing makes sense, specifically English with its double meanings and spellings (there, their, they're).

For my “People wearing red clothes in movies”, you agreed that giving the context of every movie was not relevant.

 Slarg232 wrote:
Am I the only guy/gal/frog in existence that will help out other players as much as possible and typically runs into people who do the same?

Most of the time I try to take a lead role in CS:GO if I see the team isn't showing an cohesion. This is often met with a feth you or otherwise I'm just ignored. However, when people listen we always win the pubs.

I used to be a lot friendlier in pubs, after 13 years of online gaming (give or take) I've become somewhat more rude and cynical to the general pub player, though I do still often offer advice only to be met with scum.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


I've been abused in all manner of ways online . I've been called Gay and (ironically) homophobic , a pussy, racist, sexist, a Tory toff (again ironic, considering I'm on minimum wage), extremist, a right wing nazi, a left wing communist when I challenge right wing Nazis...

So yeah, men are no strangers to online abuse.

I never asserted that men are never harassed. I know you are, and I certainly don't like it.

My question was to which extent men are harassed compared to women.

I am seeing some pretty strong trends to the latter recieving more harassment, to which I ask, why could this be?

The symptoms of wider social issues and inter-sex tension that are by no means unique to Video Gaming?

Partly a backlash against what they perceive to be a hostile Feminist assault on their values, interests and "sphere of influence"?

For instance, you gotta admit that Anita Sarkeesian conducts herself in a belligerent and adversarial way when it comes to male gamers - describing gaming as "an old boys club", a "patriarchy", calling Gamers in general "Misogynist"? She presents herself as an outsider, condemning video gaming as a "male sphere of influence" and makes it her self confessed mission to break it down and change it to suit her agenda and preconceptions. People perceive her as dishonest and motivated by greed. Oh, and shes also a hypocrite. Didn't she once promote a "Murder fantasy story" written by one of her fans/supporters, with the subject of the story being a male Executive of a video game Developer?


When divisive and belligerent figures like Sarkeesian are perceived to be representative of Feminism in general, a hostile backlash is inevitable.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


I've been abused in all manner of ways online . I've been called Gay and (ironically) homophobic , a pussy, racist, sexist, a Tory toff (again ironic, considering I'm on minimum wage), extremist, a right wing nazi, a left wing communist when I challenge right wing Nazis...

So yeah, men are no strangers to online abuse.

I never asserted that men are never harassed. I know you are, and I certainly don't like it.

My question was to which extent men are harassed compared to women.

I am seeing some pretty strong trends to the latter recieving more harassment, to which I ask, why could this be?

The symptoms of wider social issues and inter-sex tension that are by no means unique to Video Gaming?

Partly a backlash against what they perceive to be a hostile Feminist assault on their values, interests and "sphere of influence"?

For instance, you gotta admit that Anita Sarkeesian conducts herself in a belligerent and adversarial way when it comes to male gamers - describing gaming as "an old boys club", a "patriarchy", calling Gamers in general "Misogynist"? She presents herself as an outsider, condemning video gaming as a "male sphere of influence" and makes it her self confessed mission to break it down and change it to suit her agenda and preconceptions. People perceive her as dishonest and motivated by greed. Oh, and shes also a hypocrite. Didn't she once promote a "Murder fantasy story" written by one of her fans/supporters, with the subject of the story being a male Executive of a video game Developer?


When divisive and belligerent figures like Sarkeesian are perceived to be representative of Feminism in general, a hostile backlash is inevitable.

Does Anita Sarkeesian's actions explain the result I too often see when a woman enters voice chat?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
The symptoms of wider social issues and inter-sex tension that are by no means unique to Video Gaming?

That it is not unique to video gaming does not mean it is not relevant here. You can argue that focus should be shifted to the wider issues, but it's not like internet dickery is a lie and sexist remarks are just illusions. And as long as that is the case, protests will continue to be at least somewhat relevant.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
The symptoms of wider social issues and inter-sex tension that are by no means unique to Video Gaming?

Well this is about the video game industry and the people who play games so it shouldn't be that hard to understand why this about the manifestation of those things within video gaming.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Partly a backlash against what they perceive to be a hostile Feminist assault on their values, interests and "sphere of influence"?

Part of the problem is the assumption of hostility, which isn't on there, but imagined by some. Taking a critical look at something isn't the same as attacking it or being hostile.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
For instance, you gotta admit that Anita Sarkeesian conducts herself in a belligerent and adversarial way when it comes to male gamers - describing gaming as "an old boys club", a "patriarchy"

I don't think people will 'admit' to something that is either patently false or, at the least, is very subjective. I've seen the videos from her and the those arguing against her and the only ones I would describer as hostile, toxic, or flat out full of gak are the the detractors. I don't agree with her videos, but I also didn't agree with everything my professors told me either but I didn't label them as a fraud, belligerent, or adversarial. I don't care if people disagree with her points the problem is that to often it isn't about her points but about her.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
calling Gamers in general "Misogynist"?

I've seen the videos and she never refers to all gamers as misogynists.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
She presents herself as an outsider

No, she presents herself as a feminist commentator. Even in the videos she says one can still enjoy games, says she has enjoyed games, and also still be critical of elements of the games and industry. She is also not even close to the first person to be critical of the game industry and how it treats/views/presents females.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
condemning video gaming as a "male sphere of influence" and makes it her self confessed mission to break it down and change it to suit her agenda and preconceptions.

She wants to try and make people think about how women are potrayed in the industry and in games. Not seeing the horror in it.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
People perceive her as dishonest and motivated by greed.

And that perception is still just as much gak now as it was before. The dishonesty seems to be coming from those willingly believing falsheoods.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Oh, and shes also a hypocrite. Didn't she once promote a "Murder fantasy story" written by one of her fans/supporters, with the subject of the story being a male Executive of a video game Developer?

If you are going to throw around an accusation like that the least you can do is also back it up, otherwise it just seems like "internet lie I believed".

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
When divisive and belligerent figures like Sarkeesian are perceived to be representative of Feminism in general, a hostile backlash is inevitable.

The divisive, belligerent figures I am seeing, even in this thread, are not coming from Quinn or Sarkeesian, but the people willing to believe lies and manufacture motivations that are doing the most harm to gaming, not some random critic.

If you are going to throw around an accusation like that the least you can do is also back it up, otherwise it just seems like "internet lie I believed".

http://femfreq.tumblr.com/post/58161053721/spider-man-recruits-the-help-of-anita-sarkeesian-to

That was funny.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

If you are going to throw around an accusation like that the least you can do is also back it up, otherwise it just seems like "internet lie I believed".

http://femfreq.tumblr.com/post/58161053721/spider-man-recruits-the-help-of-anita-sarkeesian-to

“That’s for Aliens: Colonial Marines.”

Worth.

 LordofHats wrote:
Worth.

Indeed, but it still doesn't seem to qualify showing hypocrisy, unless you are unfamiliar with her or just have such a hate on you can see things that aren't there.

 Ahtman wrote:


Indeed, but it still doesn't seem to qualify showing hypocrisy, unless you are unfamiliar with her or just have such a hate on you can see things that aren't there.

I can still enjoy a genuinely funny story. That punchline is brilliant

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
She presents herself as an outsider, condemning video gaming as a "male sphere of influence" and makes it her self confessed mission to break it down and change it to suit her agenda and preconceptions.

I'd didn't see it before, but now it is SO OBVIOUS! She is clearly an evil genius!

I can see how it works: first; make a bunch of youtube videos, then angry gronyards start slinging abuse, then rainbow unicorns ride in from the west to the tune of Ride of the Valkyries, trampling the gronyards with magic hoves, then gaming executives respond by growing wings and clucking like chickens. This in turn allows a legion of robo-feminists to remove their flesh faces, seize control of the development companies, and turn them over to Sarkeesian, allowing her to make an endless stream of point-and-click adventures with female protagonists. Ruining Gaming Forever!

Pure Evil Genius! How could we have not seen it before!

. . .

 Pendix wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
She presents herself as an outsider, condemning video gaming as a "male sphere of influence" and makes it her self confessed mission to break it down and change it to suit her agenda and preconceptions.

I'd didn't see it before, but now it is SO OBVIOUS! She is clearly an evil genius!

I can see how it works: first; make a bunch of youtube videos, then angry gronyards start slinging abuse, then rainbow unicorns ride in from the west to the tune of Ride of the Valkyries, trampling the gronyards with magic hoves, then gaming executives respond by growing wings and clucking like chickens. This in turn allows a legion of robo-feminists to remove their flesh faces, seize control of the development companies, and turn them over to Sarkeesian, allowing her to make an endless stream of point-and-click adventures with female protagonists. Ruining Gaming Forever!

Pure Evil Genius! How could we have not seen it before!

. . .

Spot on mate.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Spot on mate.

For Clarity: I was parodying the position, not agreeing with it.

 Pendix wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Spot on mate.

For Clarity: I was parodying the position, not agreeing with it.

Still spot on.

 Pendix wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
She presents herself as an outsider, condemning video gaming as a "male sphere of influence" and makes it her self confessed mission to break it down and change it to suit her agenda and preconceptions.

I'd didn't see it before, but now it is SO OBVIOUS! She is clearly an evil genius!

I can see how it works: first; make a bunch of youtube videos, then angry gronyards start slinging abuse, then rainbow unicorns ride in from the west to the tune of Ride of the Valkyries, trampling the gronyards with magic hoves, then gaming executives respond by growing wings and clucking like chickens. This in turn allows a legion of robo-feminists to remove their flesh faces, seize control of the development companies, and turn them over to Sarkeesian, allowing her to make an endless stream of point-and-click adventures with female protagonists. Ruining Gaming Forever!

Pure Evil Genius! How could we have not seen it before!

. . .

I think the point is, look at Sark and then look at Dodger;

Sark is absolutely coming at this from the angle of "This is a boys only club that I want in on". We don't even know if she genuinely wants in on it due to past interviews stating she hates video games. This is all assuming you take what she's saying at 100% face value, and not some con as others have put forth.

Dodger on the other hand is inclusive, having a channel that talks about video games as "Our favorite medium", has a video podcast with TB and others, and has half a million subscribers.

Draw your own conclusions from that.

 Ashiraya wrote:

Does Anita Sarkeesian's actions explain the result I too often see when a woman enters voice chat?

The way I see it, almost the ideal response to that situation would be.

Female Gamer A: "Hi"
Random B: *Random stream of Abuse directed towards A* (Because, John Gabriel's G.I.F.T.)
Random C + D: "Dude, not cool"
Random E: *Continues killing dudes, because they don't have a mike.
>Random B: *Shuts up, because he's not got an audience*
>> Good time is had by all, except Random B, who quits in a huff because he's got the lowest score, as noone is helping him.

As opposed to the current situation, I imagine would be more like.

Female Gamer A: "Hi"
Random B: *Random stream of Abuse* (Because, John Gabriel's G.I.F.T.)
Random C: "Hah, awesome! Rock on, Random B! You da'man."
Random D: Awkward silence.
Random E: *Continues killing dudes, because they don't have a mike.*
>Random B+C: Continues to prove the G.I.F.T.
>> Female gamer A quits, never to play again.


Although, you have probably have the rarer situations, that probably aren't helpful in the grand scheme of things

Female Gamer A: "Hi"
Random B: *Random stream of Abuse* (Because, John Gabriel's G.I.F.T.)
'White Knight': *Assorted White Knight-ey things, that seem kinda creepy.* Followed by a Howard Walowitz pick-up line.
Random D: *Launches tirade at 'White Knight' because he's now feeling directly offended.
Random E: *Silently quits game, because weird.*
> Game degenerates with Random B and 'White Knight' arguing and trolling is fun.


----------

How off base am I?

It seems to me, that a lot of the dissonance could be that some male gamers feel insulted and become defensive, as they feel they are assumed to be Type B. However, its Type C in the second example that needs to be convinced and, I think its the Type D's that are probably the best resource to do it.

However, it might need to be done a little more delicately otherwise, there's a risk of turning Type D's into Cs if they feel threatened...

Bleh, that was a ramble and a half

 Slarg232 wrote:

 Pendix wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
She presents herself as an outsider, condemning video gaming as a "male sphere of influence" and makes it her self confessed mission to break it down and change it to suit her agenda and preconceptions.

I'd didn't see it before, but now it is SO OBVIOUS! She is clearly an evil genius!

I can see how it works: first; make a bunch of youtube videos, then angry gronyards start slinging abuse, then rainbow unicorns ride in from the west to the tune of Ride of the Valkyries, trampling the gronyards with magic hoves, then gaming executives respond by growing wings and clucking like chickens. This in turn allows a legion of robo-feminists to remove their flesh faces, seize control of the development companies, and turn them over to Sarkeesian, allowing her to make an endless stream of point-and-click adventures with female protagonists. Ruining Gaming Forever!

Pure Evil Genius! How could we have not seen it before!

. . .

I think the point is, look at Sark and then look at Dodger;

Sark is absolutely coming at this from the angle of "This is a boys only club that I want in on". We don't even know if she genuinely wants in on it due to past interviews stating she hates video games. This is all assuming you take what she's saying at 100% face value, and not some con as others have put forth.

Dodger on the other hand is inclusive, having a channel that talks about video games as "Our favorite medium", has a video podcast with TB and others, and has half a million subscribers.

Draw your own conclusions from that.

Oh yeah, Dodger's awesome. She's done more for female gamers than Anita Sarkeesian ever will.

 Slarg232 wrote:
We don't even know if she genuinely wants in on it due to past interviews stating she hates video games.

People seem to keep on saying this as if it's been widely documented and there's mountains of proof, but the only evidence for that I've seen to back it up is a single video taken four years ago where she says 'I'm not a gamer, I had to learn a lot about games for this'.

Is there any other evidence to support the constant statements that she hates games? Because saying you've not played games before, but have learnt a lot about them four years ago doesn't preclude her having liked what she learnt and decided to become a gamer. it just means that four years ago she didn't play video games. I know plenty of people who have gone from not playing games to ridiculously heavily invested into games and gaming culture in less than a year, let alone four, so I really don't understand why that one piece of video is supposed to invalidate the possibility of her ever being a gamer.

 Goliath wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:
We don't even know if she genuinely wants in on it due to past interviews stating she hates video games.

People seem to keep on saying this as if it's been widely documented and there's mountains of proof, but the only evidence for that I've seen to back it up is a single video taken four years ago where she says 'I'm not a gamer, I had to learn a lot about games for this'.

Is there any other evidence to support the constant statements that she hates games? Because saying you've not played games before, but have learnt a lot about them four years ago doesn't preclude her having liked what she learnt and decided to become a gamer. it just means that four years ago she didn't play video games. I know plenty of people who have gone from not playing games to ridiculously heavily invested into games and gaming culture in less than a year, let alone four, so I really don't understand why that one piece of video is supposed to invalidate the possibility of her ever being a gamer.

Watch the whole video, she tells the media she has a passion for games and has had a passion for gamers her entire life, and constantly uses that one picture. So saying she isn't a fan of gaming, and not a fan of any shoot em up games then follows that up her "too many dicks on the dance floor" video about the male domination in gaming.

Plus there is this:

And on and on and on and on and on...

And then we get crazy crap like this.

Except for now that its been leaked (If it's true), they just won't go through with it.

Oh cool, a "I got told this was gonna happen".

So, if it happens then she's (admittedly) horrrible.
If it doesn't, she was going to do it, but heard it had been leaked and decided not to.

edit: also, this is somehow going to bring an end to the term "gamer"? I'm fairly sure that everyone that doesn't care about this whole thing [read: pretty much everyone] will still refer to themselves and others as gamers.

Also also, do the people making these videos purposefully try to make their voices as infuriating to listen to as possible? I just couldn't watch that, the guy's voice was painful to listen to.

Or neither, because it's unlikely to actually be true.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Or neither, because it's unlikely to actually be true.

Yeah. That's a crazy scam even by internet scam artists standards

I can believe pretty rotten things about people but that one is a bit too far fetched

Alternatively, they go through with it anyway, as fanatic supporters won't check facts, it causes an uproar among sensible people, and she racks in the moolah/publicity.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Or neither, because it's unlikely to actually be true.

Oh, I know that. It's ridiculous to the point of a Tom Clancy novel. My point was that for whoever made that post, there will be only two outcomes: she goes through with it (unlikely), or she doesn't go through with it (and therefore must have heard about it and cancelled, but she definitely was going to for realz guys)