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.

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:Tbh neither can I. Its a stupid name. but the issues over nepotism, censorship and collusion that it exposed are serious.

lol, you mean the issue where a certain group of gamers went on a pathetic, sexist crusade instead of fact-checking claims that were easily disprovable just by spending five seconds on a search engine of your choice?



It exposed something, alright ... but I don't think it is what you think it is.

lol, nepotism...

The main things that particular controversy revealed were that Zoe Quinn's ex was a sad, lonely, bitter shell of a man, and that a lot of other men are quick to believe everything he says without fact checking any of it.

"Hearsay" people say-- unless a man says it about a woman, apparently.

Nice strawman, but that wasn't who I was referring to.

Not a strawman-- you never explicitly stated whom you were referring to. And that particular person was the obvious conclusion.

 Lynata wrote:

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:Tbh neither can I. Its a stupid name. but the issues over nepotism, censorship and collusion that it exposed are serious.

lol, you mean the issue where a certain group of gamers went on a pathetic, sexist crusade instead of fact-checking claims that were easily disprovable just by spending five seconds on a search engine of your choice?

It exposed something, alright ... but I don't think it is what you think it is.

He mentioned Depression Quest in a Rock Paper Shotgun article on the 8th of Jan, and a Kotaku article on the 31st of March. He didn't mention that he was a tester for 'powerful Twine darling Depression Quest' which is a bit of a conflict of interest.

But no, I don't think he ever formally reviewed it.

Someone making a quick reference of a game isn't really something to be gaking your pants over.

 Melissia wrote:
Not a strawman-- you never explicitly stated whom you were referring to. And that particular person was the obvious conclusion.

Well, assuming the most 'easily disputed' assertion for the purposes of refuting someone's argument is the very definition of a strawman, Melissia

The first thing that pops to mind when thinking of that topic is the original spat between Zoe Quinn and her ex. That's not a strawman to reference that.

 Melissia wrote:
The first thing that pops to mind when thinking of that topic is the original spat between Zoe Quinn and her ex. That's not a strawman to reference that.

Evidently, but he was not referring to that, so assuming he was is still a strawman argument.

 Melissia wrote:
Someone making a quick reference of a game isn't really something to be gaking your pants over.

Eh, it was a minor breach of ethics that wasn't addressed, people pulled the threads leading to more and more corruption, leading to this tangled web we're in today.

It's too late to flush the poo.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
leading to more and more corruption

Most of which ended up being also fake or minor issues, too.

Meanwhile, bigger issues have long been ignored, and are still ignored, by gamergate.

In favor of instead attacking women.

 Haemonculus wrote:
Evidently, but he was not referring to that, so assuming he was is still a strawman argument.

No it isn't. It just means he failed to make it clear what he was talking about.

 Melissia wrote:

 Haemonculus wrote:
Evidently, but he was not referring to that, so assuming he was is still a strawman argument.

No it isn't. It just means he failed to make it clear what he was talking about.

This could go on all day, Melissia He did not say what you thought he did, and he was, I believe, very clear. You could have sought clarification instead of just going for one thing given that you now think he was 'unclear'. Regardless of you disagreeing with me, it's still a strawman. But let's agree to disagree.

With regards,

Haemonculus


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
leading to more and more corruption

Most of which ended up being also fake or minor issues, too.

Meanwhile, bigger issues have long been ignored, and are still ignored, by gamergate.

In favor of instead attacking women.

Most GG posts/tweets have not been attacking women, and there is plenty of evidence to show that GG has its own review body to bring forward or highlight abuse of women and men by people purporting to be pro-GG. I note that you are ignoring this aspect. There's also mounting evidence that people neutral to the argument are just trolling both sides for 'LOLZ', but no one is discussing this.

Now, I think GG could have handled things better, but they are not the women-hating organisation you seem to desire them to be. There's plenty of evidence (see above) that shows the other side is engaging in less than professional behaviour (such as doxxing pro-GG members).

 Haemonculus wrote:
Most GG posts/tweets have not been attacking women

I dispute this. Most of them have been along those lines, or covering for people who are doing so.

 Haemonculus wrote:
and there is plenty of evidence to show that GG has its own review body to bring forward or highlight abuse

Citation needed; no such thing exists.

 Haemonculus wrote:
they are not the women-hating organisation you seem to desire them to be.

I don't desire them to be abusive. They are abusive, and I wish they'd fething stop.

But they aren't.

 Haemonculus wrote:
He did not say what you thought he did, and he was, I believe, very clear.

Yes. His post was very clearly referring to the original fight between exes. He then later stated that wasn't his intent, but never actually clarified waht he intent was.

His failure to make it clear what he really intended does not make responses to his post strawman posts. That you could go on all day doesn't change anything.

 Melissia wrote:

 Haemonculus wrote:
Most GG posts/tweets have not been attacking women

I dispute this. Most of them have been along those lines, or covering for people who are doing so.

 Haemonculus wrote:
and there is plenty of evidence to show that GG has its own review body to bring forward or highlight abuse

Citation needed; no such thing exists.

This pretty much answers everything in your post, Melissia.

http://nichegamer.net/2014/11/the-gamergate-harassment-patrol-is-a-success/


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

 Haemonculus wrote:
Most GG posts/tweets have not been attacking women

I dispute this. Most of them have been along those lines, or covering for people who are doing so.

Please read this article and come back to me: https://medium.com/message/72-hours-of-gamergate-e00513f7cf5d

 Haemonculus wrote:
http://nichegamer.net/2014/11/the-gamergate-harassment-patrol-is-a-success/

An unsourced, self-congratulatory article which provides no real examples and stinks of a circle jerk by someone who wants to make themselves feel better.

Yawn.

 Haemonculus wrote:
Please read this article and come back to me: https://medium.com/message/72-hours-of-gamergate-e00513f7cf5d

Did not dispute my assertions. Sadly, Twitter demanded that he take down his actual data.

As an aside, reading that article brings to mind the laughably ironic idea that people think that the Breitbart "journalist" Milo Yiannopoulos is some kind of hero when it comes to ethics in games journalism, as well as the sad fact that he's celebrated as a hero amongst many gamergaters. This is the guy that tweets stuff like "Few things are more embarrassing than grown men getting over-excited about video games." and "Unlike video game console launches, where the only ones "present" are pungent male beta bollock-scratchers and twelve-year-olds." If you want to see someone that hates gamers, you need only look towards people like him. And yet he's celebrated by gamergate, not derided by it.

Because men insulting gamers is okay or something, I guess. Then again, when Jack Thompson said he hated feminism, many of the tweets for pro-gamergate were defending him. Because apparently, a feminist talking about games without ever advocating a ban or any kind of censorship is bad, but a man saying he wants to ban a great number of games and censor the rest games is good. Or something.

Edit: Nevermind.

To try and head in the vague direction of the original topic, i think the 'problem' with the game (violence and criminal behaviours) has been distorted by a trendy buzzword being thrown around. Not everything in life that negatively impacts a female is misogyny. The original copy/post states:

"It's a game that encourages players to murder women for entertainment. The incentive is to commit sexual violence against women, then abuse or kill them to proceed or get 'health' points – and now Target are stocking it and promoting it for your Xmas stocking," the petition said.
"This misogynistic GTA V literally makes a game of bashing, killing and horrific violence against women."

Which is taken way out of context. If i were reading this for the first time and had no knowledge of the gta games, i might assume that it's a game purely about killing and/or raping women. It is not. A misogynist is a person who hates women. A criminal, however, is someone who breaks the law, and their targets may be male and/or female. This is a game about criminals, not misogynists. To put it in context of another sort of criminal, a drug dealer who sells to women is not a misogynist. How much damage will be done to the feminist cause by exploiting and abusing social attention?

I'd never heard of a SJW before this thread, but I'm starting to see the 'problem'. Playing the gender card is a double-edged sword because while it may be effective for knee-jerk reactions, some people do pay attention to when it gets misused. Then when an actual case of misogyny occurs, people who might otherwise have cared instead shrug their shoulders or worse, side with the offending party because they're sick of hearing how everything in life is nothing but misogyny. It's like the boy who cried wolf: It gets a lot of attention until people start to recognize the behaviour for what it is.

 Melissia wrote:
Most of which ended up being also fake or minor issues, too.

Meanwhile, bigger issues have long been ignored, and are still ignored, by gamergate.

I don't think the undisclosed conflicts of interest are false. They're verifiable by Patreon with a bit of digging.

I also don't think they're minor, for a profession that relies on trust of the reader. Or any profession, really.

And what bigger issues have been ignored?

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
And what bigger issues have been ignored?

All that harassment! Duh!

Someone enjoys stirring the pot.

 Torga_DW wrote:


I'd never heard of a SJW before this thread, but I'm starting to see the 'problem'. Playing the gender card is a double-edged sword because while it may be effective for knee-jerk reactions, some people do pay attention to when it gets misused. Then when an actual case of misogyny occurs, people who might otherwise have cared instead shrug their shoulders or worse, side with the offending party because they're sick of hearing how everything in life is nothing but misogyny. It's like the boy who cried wolf: It gets a lot of attention until people start to recognize the behaviour for what it is.

Yeah exact same, I had never heard the term, or gave much thought to feminism in general until a few short months ago, something else interesting I have lerarned thanks to dakka, and then spent many hours reading as a result. It all makes interesting reading, and as always the truth, ever a fleeting harlot, lies somewhere between the two warring factions.

Loads of the gak the GG lot have said has been over the top, which is a shame, because loads of it is clearly a valid complaint. I saw actual footage of that Anita Sarkeesian actually saying she doesnt play or like video games, so unless she was taking part in a play during a drama class, she is clearly a cynical businesswoman with actually no interest in games. Why not simply point that out instead of jumping to conclusions, judging a young woman because of her hair, or accepting everything some ex-boyfriend said about his missus said as gospel? At the same time, there is definitely no reason for feminists to make out that any bloke who says "feminists piss me off" is some sort of nazi because as I pointed out last week, fething tens of millions of socially liberal women and men say the same thing, they have a fething image problem and it isn't going to vanish by constantly saying "Oh well go and educate yourself then"

Seriously that is all they ever say. If you ever see a woman or a man saying like "Oh I think this latest hubub is needlessly aggressive/storm in a teacup" they just get super aggressive if you are male, or say "I implore you to go and educate yourself better" if you are a woman. They never say "fair one, maybe we should try and pick our battles/words more carefully so we don't drive people into the "feminists are all militant wackos" camp. They say it to my missus all the time, they say it to every woman, no matter how well educated they happen to be. "Go and learn more about feminism then you will definitely agree with us" isn't going to make feminism more popular, not behaving almost as badly as the bad-tempered misogynists is.

Well, thats my take on it anyway, I still enjoy seeing it all unfold though.

I have a theory about the always irrational disgusting misogyny if you want to hear it, but as it centers around Islam, Christianity, and Judaism I had better keep that for PM lest I get banned from the last forum I actually find engaging and can still comment in.

 mattyrm wrote:
I saw actual footage of that Anita Sarkeesian actually saying she doesnt play or like video games, so unless she was taking part in a play during a drama class, she is clearly a cynical businesswoman with actually no interest in games.

Or she developed interest in video games afterwards, both as a feminist critic and as someone who enjoys playing them as a hobby.

Is that really so strange that you cannot accept it? I mean I don't find it odd at all. Hell, it wasn't until about a year ago that my mother was interested in video games at all. Now I can't seem to get her to stop playing her damn phone games, and she's starting to show interest in the 3ds and its games, too (she wants things she can take with her on her various errands or visits with friends or what have you).

 mattyrm wrote:
At the same time, there is definitely no reason for feminists to make out that any bloke who says "feminists piss me off" is some sort of nazi

That's usually not what happens, however.

 mattyrm wrote:
They never say "fair one, maybe we should try and pick our battles/words more carefully so we don't drive people into the "feminists are all militant wackos" camp.

Matty, have you actually not paid any attention whatsoever to our conversations?

Or hell, the fact that there are fights between feminists over things like this? As one explained, and similarly to how I explained it: "We all want to raise the status of women to the level of men, to feel safe and respected, and to have a fair and equal chance for all our opinions to be heard. Since the movement is all about choice and the ability to make our own decision that affect us, then it’s necessarily going to be a group fraught with differences. We’re all making our own choices. That’s the commonality. Trying to actively be allowed these choices is the movement. Butting heads along the way from time to time is the reality."

Feminism is not a monolith, nor is it dogma. Just look at the fights between anti-pornography feminism vs sex-positive feminism. Or liberal vs radical feminism. Or the fights about what femininity is and if it should be embraced. edit: Or the disputes over how important it is to consider race when talking about feminism, or sexuality, or gender identity. There's still arguments over whether or not transwomen should be included under feminism at all, which I find sad (I think all women should be included). Or Labor Feminism's focus on economic equality as a harbinger of all other types of equality.

It's like on one hand people try to claim "feminism is a bad movement because you guys fight all the time" then another guy comes up and says "feminism is a bad movement because you guys are all the same"...

Offtopic:



On topic (ish):

 mattyrm wrote:
there is definitely no reason for feminists to make out that any bloke who says "feminists piss me off" is some sort of nazi

While true, I still can't see how so many oppose feminism. Feminism, in its very core rather than what any extremists go on about, wants to work towards equality. To me, saying 'I oppose feminism' sounds dangerously close to 'I don't like equality'. While it's true that you can want equality but go about it in a different method, this rarely seems to be the case and it seems more to be people mentally spamming HBMC's signature quote completely without sarcasm.

Edit: Removed a paragraph that might be interpreted as offensive.

I think most of the people who say they oppose feminism are basing their view off the more radical side; you know the extremely vocal side that aren't looking for true feminism ('equality' or more accurately, equity) and rather women being placed higher than men. Seriously, I don't think anyone likes those types.

I may be completely wrong in my view, though.

Of course, saying "Feminists piss me off" isn't the same as "Feth Feminism, I oppose it!", just that in their experience a majority of [vocal] feminists are annoying, which to be fair on the internet many are annoying; though that's true for every group on the internet.

Yeah, but what's the point of even saying that? I doubt anyone here is advocating oppression of men, so it seems needlessly redundant and vague to proclaim one's opposition to something no one is going to contest, and it only risks people interpreting it as opposition of mainstream feminism.

I don't say 'Muslims piss me off' just because there's really vocal groups of Muslims who'd want me dead.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Offtopic:

Spoiler:

 Melissia wrote:
It's like on one hand people try to claim "feminism is a bad movement because you guys fight all the time" then another guy comes up and says "feminism is a bad movement because you guys are all the same"...

When I saw this it reminded me of something else I have seen, such as in the CEO thread:

People saying it's okay to have 90%+ of all CEOs/nation leaders/what have you be men, because men have more testosterone, which means they take more risks, which supposedly is good for leadership. Ssssssure. But then, when statistics on violence come in, men turn out to be more likely to be subject to assault, and when it's suggested that this may again be due to men taking more risks and leaning towards physical rather than verbal/passive-aggressive aggression (thus getting themselves into dangerous situations much more frequently) then they fiercely deny it and say it's due to... uhh.... misandry?

On topic (ish):

 mattyrm wrote:
there is definitely no reason for feminists to make out that any bloke who says "feminists piss me off" is some sort of nazi

While true, I still can't see how so many oppose feminism. Feminism, in its very core rather than what any extremists go on about, wants to work towards equality. To me, saying 'I oppose feminism' sounds dangerously close to 'I don't like equality'. While it's true that you can want equality but go about it in a different method, this rarely seems to be the case and it seems more to be people mentally spamming HBMC's signature quote completely without sarcasm.

Edit: Removed a paragraph that might be interpreted as offensive.

What do you think of when you hear the term furry, brony, 4channer, and the sorts? Furry? Some annoying freak that's shoving their fetish down your throat. Brony? Some weirdo that likes a show WAY too much and won't stop talking about it and they are probably getting into that porn, 4channer, literally the cancer of the internet absolutely disgusting (basically /b/ and /pol/). What about people that fight and work for equality? The "SJW", I put it in quotes because the term doesn't really mean much but the stereotype is real, a group of people that stand on soapboxes preaching of lies and generally being rather nasty people that will go on to explain that being super fat isn't bad and that persecuting them is wrong. Feminism? What is more memorable? The feminists that are reasonable or the nutcases screaming about the death of men and how any vaginal sex is rape. It's flamboyant, the minority is loud, and it's in the internet where anybody with a crazy extreme attitude can yell it at the top of their lungs. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if humans generally are predisposed to look at the negatives far more than the positive traits in groups. Heck, look at the X-Box, PS, PC, Nintendo(?) wars, it's just a bunch of people screaming over which is best and calling each other stereotypes. Then there's things like popular people where some of them will have problems handling with large audiences despite the fact that the vast majority of people will praise them yet the few that post vitriol will slowly break their mind. Pewdiepie, I'll be honest I don't care for his videos, has a massive group of people that don't like him despite the fact that the only real big reason is because he's popular and that some of the people that watch his show are obnoxious. Question is, how many of those people obnoxiously post and spam it? Probably a small few.

Welcome to the internet where everything has to have excrement slung at them in a world of pillows! Sure the pillows are comfy but you have excrement on you.

Also Strawman and all the other things like Red Herrings. Trust me, on the internet we've all used it before and probably on this one argument we've used it a few times

As per opposition to feminism, it's probably a mixture of seeing the vocal minority along with a certain perception. What am I getting out of it? If somebody starts talking about how they are privileged, it's often going to make people get irritated especially if they aren't (poverty and whatever other factors might be included). Then there's the other things. Some people just feel that feminism, by the nature of the term is inherently just for women so they'll retort that it's not about equallity. Heck, I've seen a lot of people that would agree with the big things like equality but don't want to call themself a feminist but instead an equalist. They say basically we're all getting screwed over and it'd be nice to make it where sex, either way, won't screw you over in any way and race/sexuality/blahblahblah won't.

People tend to judge a group by its absurdly extreme but rather loud extremist edges (and it's debatable whether to call those crazies feminists at all - I, personally, don't), sure. It is explainable, but that does not make it acceptable. Complaining on SJWs and throwing up horror stories about what 'feminazis' will do to you makes it incredibly cheap and easy to dismiss mainstream feminism, and seeing how quickly ' reasonably criticising feminism' becomes infested with hatred is jarring to say the least.

Even '''''''''''''''''harmless fun'''''''''''''''''' like this

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
And what bigger issues have been ignored?

All that harassment! Duh!

is doing nothing but aggravating others, while also lending a(n unintentional?) highfive to the andronazis.

IOW, ridiculing is not worth it.

Btw GG had the exact same problem.

 Melissia wrote:
Is that really so strange that you cannot accept it? I mean I don't find it odd at all. Hell, it wasn't until about a year ago that my mother was interested in video games at all. Now I can't seem to get her to stop playing her damn phone games, and she's starting to show interest in the 3ds and its games, too (she wants things she can take with her on her various errands or visits with friends or what have you).

No Mel that is perfectly fine, everybody can change their mind. I take umbrage with her because Ive seen things with her on news and TV interviews where she is called a "lifelong gamer" and when you combine the two I get pissed off.

First impressions count and she is firmly in the "motivational speaker" category in my book thanks to that, she never botherd to tell anybody that she only recently developed an interest in the hobby. Maybe I am being unfair but I'm too old and stuck in my ways to change now.

 Melissia wrote:
That's usually not what happens, however.

Fair enough, but you are answering as yourself, it does happen, just most women don't do it. Both sides have extremists that make the rest look bad.

 Melissia wrote:
Matty, have you actually not paid any attention whatsoever to our conversations? Or hell, the fact that there are fights between feminists over things like this?

Obviously I have! The fact that feminism isn't a dogma is the very reason why I can say the above and it actually make sense. For example, you always debate with me because you feel I often make controversial statements about feminism that you inherently lean towards disputing, but its for the same reason that I can say that some very public and very vocal feminists do indeed give the movement a bad rep. Its leading on from what our last back and forth was about. Some women (and occasionally men!) do drive people into the "feminists are wackos" camp and it is those people I am talking about. It makes sense precisely because there isn't a "grand feminist" to give the movement direction. Seriously you always pull me as if I haven't been listening because you are projecting your own personal behavior (pleasant, not man hating, openly discussed well thought out feminism) with "feminism" in the same breath you are telling me that I am not listening because clearly feminism has nobody like that!

Like I told you, look at the figures, feminism has a really bad name. We have had this same discussion plenty of times, and I feel we are constantly going over the same ground. You think nothing is wrong because you are projecting, nothing would be wrong if every feminist was like you, but they arent, bad news sells, and the really loud, really obnoxious women get plenty of press and make both women and men go "bloody feminists!"

Its like that last article I showed you, animal rights (another fine and just cause) are the same, they suffer from really bad press thanks to the nutters.

As always, you keep saying everything is fine, and I keep saying it isn't. It doesn't mean we disagree about feminism, It means we disagree about what action to take, because I firmly believe that life is essentially a popularity contest, and the general public have less interest in educating themselves about things than they do in watching their house burn down. Both of those things combined make me think that the movement that means so much to you, and quite a lot to me, is hamstringing itself and I find it baffling that so many women are happy to just leave their response as "educate yourself"

 Ashiraya wrote:
Yeah, but what's the point of even saying that? I doubt anyone here is advocating oppression of men, so it seems needlessly redundant and vague to proclaim one's opposition to something no one is going to contest, and it only risks people interpreting it as opposition of mainstream feminism.

There may not be much point in saying it, but what Im saying is that some of the stuff that a random bloke, who certainly isn't going to sit on the internet and learn about feminism, sees on the news while he has his dinner is going to make him say that, and this is what I think needs addressing. Sticking your fingers in your ears to the criticism that people level at feminism isn't going to win the movement any popularity contests. To the layman, feminism isnt a sensible but ultimately very large movement with numerous different demographics and an entirely just and sensible goal, its a load of mad women in comfortable shoes who loathe men and spend their days demanding that the Oxford English dictionary change the spelling of women to wimmin, picketing shops that sell FHM, or chastising children that build snowmen.

My point, as always, is that you have to engage these ignorant people, not just write them off as wackos yourself, or say "educate yourself" because they wont bother.

 Ashiraya wrote:
I don't say 'Muslims piss me off' just because there's really vocal groups of Muslims who'd want me dead.

A fair point, and a relevant one. If we find a Muslim bloke living in Birmingham has started to lean towards extremism what do we do? Do we go "meh, educate yourself" and leave it at that, or do we actually take the time to reach out, look at our own behavior, and try and engage the guy?

Like all movements, feminsm has extremists too, and they get too much air time while all the moderates say "We aren't like that"

Just like moderate Muslims, who marched in their tens of millions when cartoons were published but didn't put half as much effort into slamming ISIS, moderate feminists need their own voices to be better heard.

 Melissia wrote:
Is that really so strange that you cannot accept it? I mean I don't find it odd at all. Hell, it wasn't until about a year ago that my mother was interested in video games at all. Now I can't seem to get her to stop playing her damn phone games, and she's starting to show interest in the 3ds and its games, too (she wants things she can take with her on her various errands or visits with friends or what have you).

No Mel that is perfectly fine, everybody can change their mind. I take umbrage with her because Ive seen things with her on news and TV interviews where she is called a "lifelong gamer" and when you combine the two I get pissed off.

First impressions count and she is firmly in the "motivational speaker" category in my book thanks to that, she never botherd to tell anybody that she only recently developed an interest in the hobby. Maybe I am being unfair but I'm too old and stuck in my ways to change now.

 Melissia wrote:
That's usually not what happens, however.

Fair enough, but you are answering as yourself, it does happen, just most women don't do it. Both sides have extremists that make the rest look bad.

 Melissia wrote:
Matty, have you actually not paid any attention whatsoever to our conversations? Or hell, the fact that there are fights between feminists over things like this?

Obviously I have! The fact that feminism isn't a dogma is the very reason why I can say the above and it actually make sense. For example, you always debate with me because you feel I often make controversial statements about feminism that you inherently lean towards disputing, but its for the same reason that I can say that some very public and very vocal feminists do indeed give the movement a bad rep. Its leading on from what our last back and forth was about. Some women (and occasionally men!) do drive people into the "feminists are wackos" camp and it is those people I am talking about. It makes sense precisely because there isn't a "grand feminist" to give the movement direction. Seriously you always pull me as if I haven't been listening because you are projecting your own personal behavior (pleasant, not man hating, openly discussed well thought out feminism) as "feminism" in the same breath you are telling me that it a very large and very diverse group.

Like I told you, look at the all the polls about it, and to the general public feminism has a really bad name. We have had this same discussion plenty of times, and I feel we are constantly going over the same ground. You think nothing is wrong because you are projecting your own behavior onto a super diverse group and saying nothing needs to be done. Well nothing would be need to be done if every feminist was like you, but they aren't, bad news sells, and the really loud, really obnoxious women get plenty of press and make both women and men go "bloody feminists!"

Its like that last article I showed you, animal rights (another fine and just cause) are the same, they suffer from really bad press thanks to the nutters.

As always, you keep saying everything is fine, and I keep saying it isn't. It doesn't mean we disagree about feminism, It means we disagree about what action to take, because I firmly believe that life is essentially a popularity contest, and the general public have less interest in educating themselves about things than they do in watching their house burn down. Both of those things combined make me think that the movement that means so much to you, and quite a lot to me, is hamstringing itself and I find it baffling that so many women are happy to just leave their response as "educate yourself"

 Ashiraya wrote:
Yeah, but what's the point of even saying that? I doubt anyone here is advocating oppression of men, so it seems needlessly redundant and vague to proclaim one's opposition to something no one is going to contest, and it only risks people interpreting it as opposition of mainstream feminism.

There may not be much point in saying it, but what Im saying is that some of the stuff that a random bloke, who certainly isn't going to sit on the internet and learn about feminism, sees on the news while he has his dinner is going to make him say that, and this is what I think needs addressing. Sticking your fingers in your ears to the criticism that people level at feminism isn't going to win the movement any popularity contests. To the layman, feminism isnt a sensible but ultimately very large movement with numerous different demographics and an entirely just and sensible goal, its a load of mad women in comfortable shoes who loathe men and spend their days demanding that the Oxford English dictionary change the spelling of women to wimmin, picketing shops that sell FHM, or chastising children that build snowmen.

My point, as always, is that you have to engage these ignorant people, not just write them off as wackos yourself, or say "educate yourself" because they wont bother.

 Ashiraya wrote:
I don't say 'Muslims piss me off' just because there's really vocal groups of Muslims who'd want me dead.

A fair point, and a relevant one. If we find a Muslim bloke living in Birmingham has started to lean towards extremism what do we do? Do we go "meh, educate yourself" and leave it at that, or do we actually take the time to reach out, look at our own behavior, and try and engage the guy?

Like all movements, feminsm has extremists too, and they get too much air time while all the moderates say "We aren't like that"

Just like moderate Muslims, who marched in their tens of millions when cartoons were published but didn't put half as much effort into slamming ISIS, moderate feminists need their own voices to be better heard.

 mattyrm wrote:
No Mel that is perfectly fine, everybody can change their mind. I take umbrage with her because Ive seen things with her on news and TV interviews where she is called a "lifelong gamer" and when you combine the two I get pissed off.

Which may not have been her doing.

 mattyrm wrote:
First impressions count and she is firmly in the "motivational speaker" category in my book thanks to that, she never botherd to tell anybody that she only recently developed an interest in the hobby. Maybe I am being unfair but I'm too old and stuck in my ways to change now.

My first impression of her was of her first Tropes vs Women video. I found she did just fine, and sounded like someone whom had actually played games and done some research on games as well.

 mattyrm wrote:
Both sides have extremists that make the rest look bad.

As I keep repeating, false centrism doesn't add up to wisdom. Saying "both sides are bad" is pretty much invariably an excuse to do nothing and accept the status quo.

 mattyrm wrote:
The fact that feminism isn't a dogma is the very reason why I can say the above and it actually make sense.

No, it doesn't make sense. Feminists DO argue overwhat battles to pick. All the time.

 mattyrm wrote:
Seriously you always pull me as if I haven't been listening because you are projecting

Not projecting. This is from actual experience with dealing with my fellow feminists, including on various places that I have linked to you directly as reference, such as LoveJoyFeminism.

 mattyrm wrote:
to the general public feminism has a really bad name

I haven't ever denied this.

 mattyrm wrote:
You think nothing is wrong

No, I think that your solution is not acceptable. Just because I don't think your solution is acceptable (nor that it'd work in the first place) doesn't mean that I accept there's no problem at all.

And I've said that to you more than once now