GamerGate WTF?

[Andara Bledin]

I chose a soft science; she chose STEM. And she's never felt that her gender was any kind of hindrance in her work.

And, on the opposite side of the spectrum, I was subtly discouraged from taking higher math and had active roadblocks put into my path as early as 8th grade. I was prevented from taking a level of math that was on a part with my skill at the time and later faced outright sexism from a pig of a teacher with a foot fetish.

As always, the plural of anecdote is not data.

The reason I am asking this is: after the whole "Shirtgate" bullshit, I read quite a few blogs, Tweet and Tumblr posts from selfproclaimed feminists, bemoaning the lack of women in STEM/MINT fields, calling for women to storm these bastions of men, break male stranglehold on these professions.

Only... not a single one of these posts came from a woman actually holding a degree in a STEM field. Those I could identify (which, admittedly, wasn't possible for all the Twitter and Tumblr posts), held degrees in German Lit, Journalism, Communications, Politics, Gender Sciences... but not Physics, Mathematics, Engineering, IT.

Does it not occur to you that the reason that the people crying for more women to not give up their dreams in the face of covert and not so covert bias against women in STEM were all in "soft" sciences was because they actually wanted to get into STEM fields but were discouraged during their schooling?

By the time a woman is old enough to identify the issues with subtle sexism in education, it's typically a point in our lives that we've already dedicated a lot of time and effort towards another field or have obligations that we can't just set aside to pursue a field more to our interests.

I had many interests as a teen.

Writing. People asked if I was going to write romance. >_>
Court Reporter. Sure. That's like advanced typing, that's women's work.
Professional Flautist. Oh, well, you know all the famous flautists are men, right?
Engineer. You know, men are typically better at math than women. "But I'm the best in my class in math." Yeah, well, you just don't have smart classmates. >_<

I know that's the dictionary definition. I just don't believe that is what is actually practiced by feminists. Or can you point me to an example where feminism, as a movement, actually and intentionally did do "crap" for men?

How about changing the definition of rape to include men as possible victims?

Did you even know that until 2012, the FBI's definition of rape only counted if the victim was female? It was through the actions of Feminist Majority Foundation that the FBI was pressured into changing their outdated definition.

Do you know that NOW is spearheading the fight to ensure that FMLA applied equally for men as it does for women?

The list goes on. Mostly, men benefit as a side-effect of leveling the playing field, such as having occupations typically considered 'women's work' opened up when it was made possible for women to break into male-dominated fields. Men benefit from increased reproductive rights, more equitable custody rights (most men don't get custody because most men don't ask, which just reinforces the stereotype we're all fighting against), etc, etc, etc.

So, okay, I'll bite. Say my issue is the lack of a support structure (help lines, shelters) for male victims of domestic abuse. How will championing the cause of feminism help alleviate that?

This ties into the issue with the FBI's definition of rape. Men have trouble getting help with being the victims of abuse because of the stereotype that women are the weak ones and thus are the victims. This is patriarchy at it's worst - it isn't a conspiracy - it's an insidious social mindset that is propagated from one generation to the next via the use of ill-considered phrasing, disapproving looks, and gentle guidance of children into the mold that their parents and teachers were pushed into themselves as children.

The same patriarchy that guides women into literature and history is insisting that men are strong and powerful and thus cannot be the victims, even from other men. This is why insults against masculinity are so often inherently sexist. People get called "pussy," asked if they have a "mangina," told to "man up" or "grow a pair," or a host of insults that all do one thing: Enforce the idea that men are strong and powerful and that women are weak and powerless and that if you're womanlike in any fashion, you're not good enough to be a man.

This is all the same fight.

This is the issue that feminism is fighting against.

The claim that, somehow, men get the shaft when women are no longer seen as delicate flowers in need of protection and champions is a lie, propagated by those who don't want to see women on the same footing as themselves because they know, in their hearts, that they are inferior.

[Nekojin]

I didn't mean your job; sorry if I misstated that. I meant the field of education you chose.

To elaborate: I hold a Bachelor in Business, majored in Marketing and Finance. My girlfriend has a PHD in Medical IT (sort of an IT doctorate with a focus on medical applications). Of the two of us, she is the more technically oriented one, from discussing mathematical theories to the assembling of IKEA furniture.

I chose a soft science; she chose STEM. And she's never felt that her gender was any kind of hindrance in her work.

Well, first: Anecdote is not evidence. Your wife not having a problem as an IT person can come from several different possibilities. Perhaps she gets sexist/sexually inappropriate comments as much as any other woman, but has gotten so used to it that she doesn't notice it any more. Or perhaps because she's in Medical IT, her job is as chronically understaffed as any other Medical job, so people treat her respectfully. Without more data, the fact that your wife is doing just fine in IT is a null entry - not enough data.

The reason I am asking this is: after the whole "Shirtgate" bullshit, I read quite a few blogs, Tweet and Tumblr posts from selfproclaimed feminists, bemoaning the lack of women in STEM/MINT fields, calling for women to storm these bastions of men, break male stranglehold on these professions.

Only... not a single one of these posts came from a woman actually holding a degree in a STEM field. Those I could identify (which, admittedly, wasn't possible for all the Twitter and Tumblr posts), held degrees in German Lit, Journalism, Communications, Politics, Gender Sciences... but not Physics, Mathematics, Engineering, IT.

Not a single one of these people gave a rallying cry of, "Yes, I work as a woman in a STEM field! Join me, and let us show men that we can do it just as well as they can!" It was more like, "It's important for women to gain a greater share of STEM jobs! Some other women should really get on that!"

Is there a point to this rant? Yes. If not even women who believe in the importance of "more women in STEM" actually practice what they preach and study STEM fields - is it, then, so absolutely inconceivable that women, on average, actually aren't as interested in these fields as men, on average? Does it have to be a big conspiracy? Can it not just be diverging interests?

Do you really think it's easy for people to just trade professions on a whim, just because they view another profession is understaffed? The lack of women in STEM (24% in 2009, when the female section of the overall workforce was 48% - meaning half as many women in STEM as expected, all things being equivalent) starts from a young age, with girls being pushed away from interest in computers and technology.

And if I could be that woman working in STEM to help balance the numbers, I'd go for it - but I'm male, so I wouldn't be helping that in any case (and am already pursuing a STEM-related education, in any case).

And no, it can't "just be diverging interests." That's hand-waving away the problems that exist, both before pursuing higher education, and after joining that field.

I know that's the dictionary definition. I just don't believe that is what is actually practiced by feminists. Or can you point me to an example where feminism, as a movement, actually and intentionally did do "crap" for men?

This is a very odd question. To achieve equality, a group doesn't have to work for the benefit of everyone to end up benefiting everyone. Feminists, as a whole group, work on eliminating the imbalances against women that already exist. Ultimately, men will benefit indirectly.

While there are many different "camps" in feminism, the numbers who are trying to achieve female superiority are few in number, and more shrilly vocal as a result (in the same way that MRA folks are loud and obnoxious - small, ignored groups get louder in an attempt to be heard). If you honestly think that equality isn't the end goal, then you have definitely been listening to the wrong feminists... or the wrong feminist-haters, more likely.

And as for your challenge, yes, it's easy to point out that some feminist works benefit men. Just look at a few weeks back, when Ellen Pao banned negotiations for salary. Although her reason for doing so was to help women - as women historically get shafted in negotiation - the rule change wasn't written in such a way that it only benefited women. It was done across the board, for all employees, which gives the obvious end result that men who lack negotiation skills also benefited from the change (and women who had strong negotiation skills "lost," but generally to a smaller degree than men with strong negotiation skills).

So, okay, I'll bite. Say my issue is the lack of a support structure (help lines, shelters) for male victims of domestic abuse. How will championing the cause of feminism help alleviate that?

You're asking the wrong questions. I can't give you an answer that will suit you until you understand the problems enough to ask the right questions. Until then, you'll just view responses as being "evasive" or "not answering the question."

[Nekojin]

Side note: The whole "Why aren't feminists working for men's benefits?" really, really comes off as fundamentally failing to understand the problem. It's like asking gay rights people to work on straight people's problems, or insisting that black rights activists need to work on the plight of those poor caucasians.

[Gravekeeper]

Not a single one of these people gave a rallying cry of, "Yes, I work as a woman in a STEM field! Join me, and let us show men that we can do it just as well as they can!" It was more like, "It's important for women to gain a greater share of STEM jobs! Some other women should really get on that!"

I'm impressed you managed to miss all of the major hashtags related to the problem and being presented by, you know, female scientists. Many of which are still running on Twitter even now.

But don't let me get in the way of masking your personal opinion with terrible anecdotes. -.-

[Estil]

Side note: The whole "Why aren't feminists working for men's benefits?" really, really comes off as fundamentally failing to understand the problem. It's like asking gay rights people to work on straight people's problems, or insisting that black rights activists need to work on the plight of those poor caucasians.

Yeah I never did understand that line of thinking at all. I mean you have these special interest groups and such and they do typically clearly spell out their purpose on their website/brochures and the like. As for why any group doesn't do "other stuff"...I guess they figure there's other groups that do that? *shrugs*

[Canarr]

Wait, what? So unless we're in a STEM field we can't make commentary on how STEM is traditionally male and is hard for women to break into or women have been made to feel like they shouldn't try? Because, you know, I could've gone into a STEM field. I'm damn good at math. I *hate* doing it though. I loathed sitting in math class. Does that mean I shouldn't be concerned at the fact that a future daughter of mine may be given less chance at getting a good job simply because I preferred to study history and education?

Yes, that is EXACTLY what I meant. Also, only politicians should ever be allowed to comment on politics. That would certainly cut down on complaints about the government.

No, it's not what I meant. My point is: the fact that women do not make up half the number of people working in STEM fields is not necessarily proof that they are kept out through systematic (systemic?) prejudice. It may just be due to the fact that the field doesn't interest them. Like you.

Side note: The whole "Why aren't feminists working for men's benefits?" really, really comes off as fundamentally failing to understand the problem. It's like asking gay rights people to work on straight people's problems, or insisting that black rights activists need to work on the plight of those poor caucasians.

Yeah I never did understand that line of thinking at all. I mean you have these special interest groups and such and they do typically clearly spell out their purpose on their website/brochures and the like. As for why any group doesn't do "other stuff"...I guess they figure there's other groups that do that? *shrugs*

My question was in response to Andara's claim that most - or many - of men's problems in today's society could be solved by championing the cause of feminism. I doubt that, hence my question if that has ever worked in the past.

I'm impressed you managed to miss all of the major hashtags related to the problem and being presented by, you know, female scientists. Many of which are still running on Twitter even now.

But don't let me get in the way of masking your personal opinion with terrible anecdotes. -.-

I wasn't aware that I was "masking" anything. Yes, I am posting my personal opinion; does that require a disclaimer now?

If you're willing to give a few recommendations, I'll be interested in reading anecdotes not in line with my opinion. Or you can just continue snarking at me from the back of your high horse; whatever makes you feel better.

The lack of women in STEM (24% in 2009, when the female section of the overall workforce was 48% - meaning half as many women in STEM as expected, all things being equivalent) starts from a young age, with girls being pushed away from interest in computers and technology.

First: I appreciate the fact that you're willing to engage in discussion.

Second: Yes, I understand that anecdote is not the same as evidence. The fact that one person does not suffer discrimination is no indicator that discrimination against a group that person belongs to does not exist. And vice versa.

Third: the part I bolded in Nekojin's quote is exactly my point of contention: "all things being equivalent". I simply don't believe that all things are equivalent. Why should they be?

Yes, the rate of women in STEM fields is only 24%. Okay, that was in 2009; maybe it's 26% now, or 22, or 25. Doesn't really matter: the rate is way below the rate of women in the workforce. Only: what profession is split exactly 50:50? Or 52:48, for that matter?

What's the rate of women in construction? Sanitation? Mining? Piloting?
What's the rate of men in education? Nursing? Psychiatry? Pediatrics?

Men, on average, have different interests than women, on average. Nothing says that a woman can't be a great engineer, or a man can't be a great nurse. But nothing says they have to be, either.

This is a very odd question. To achieve equality, a group doesn't have to work for the benefit of everyone to end up benefiting everyone. Feminists, as a whole group, work on eliminating the imbalances against women that already exist. Ultimately, men will benefit indirectly.

While there are many different "camps" in feminism, the numbers who are trying to achieve female superiority are few in number, and more shrilly vocal as a result (in the same way that MRA folks are loud and obnoxious - small, ignored groups get louder in an attempt to be heard). If you honestly think that equality isn't the end goal, then you have definitely been listening to the wrong feminists... or the wrong feminist-haters, more likely.

Maybe. But if that's the case, then it's difficult to find the right ones. Careful - more anecdotes ahead!

After the Germanwings plane was crashed in France back in March, the magazine EMMA (run by old-time feminist Alice Schwarzer) posted an editorial on their website postulating that a women's quota for pilots of 50% would reduce the risk of another such catastrophe drastically - why? Because the male co-pilot intentionally crashed the plane, and only men commit spree killings such as these. More women = more safety! Never mind that intentional crashes are incredibly rare, or that only 20% of pilot applicants are women anyway - a quota will fix everything.

Another prominent German feminist is Anne Wizorek; one of the initiators of the #aufschrei. In her book on the topic, she states that she would gladly enter dialogue with men, provided they "learn to accept other sexual needs than their own exist". What kind of dialogue is that supposed to be? Yes, we can talk as equals, but only after you accept that I am right and you are a horrible person? Moreover, what view of men does someone need to have, in order to actually believe that men only ever care about their own needs, and not their partner's?

Now, there aren't foaming-at-the-mouth, fringe radfems. These are feminists who get invited to talkshows, who get books published, whose positions and opinions influence a lot of people. They're probably as mainstream as you can get.

And I read this stuff, and I think about how low, how wrong their opinion on men must be to believe what they say - and I can't help but think that, yes, we need activists for men's rights. Because these people, these feminists, will never give men a fair chance, will never truly accept men as equals. Because they don't believe that we are.

And, on the opposite side of the spectrum, I was subtly discouraged from taking higher math and had active roadblocks put into my path as early as 8th grade. I was prevented from taking a level of math that was on a part with my skill at the time and later faced outright sexism from a pig of a teacher with a foot fetish.

That... sounds disturbing.

As always, the plural of anecdote is not data.

I know. Just because it happens somewhere, doesn't mean that it happens everywhere.

Does it not occur to you that the reason that the people crying for more women to not give up their dreams in the face of covert and not so covert bias against women in STEM were all in "soft" sciences was because they actually wanted to get into STEM fields but were discouraged during their schooling?

Maybe. Or maybe STEM just didn't interest them.

How about changing the definition of rape to include men as possible victims?

Did you even know that until 2012, the FBI's definition of rape only counted if the victim was female? It was through the actions of Feminist Majority Foundation that the FBI was pressured into changing their outdated definition.

Do you know that NOW is spearheading the fight to ensure that FMLA applied equally for men as it does for women?

No, I didn't know that; thanks. Actually, paternity leave is something that's relatively new here (and presumably, due to feminist activity). Ten years or so ago, it basically never happend that fathers took leave after the birth. Nowadays, it's rather common, if only for a short period of time (one to three months, I'd say, anecdotically).

However, I *do* know that the CDC's rape definition still doesn't include "being made to penetrate" as rape. That's "other sexual violence".

The list goes on. Mostly, men benefit as a side-effect of leveling the playing field, such as having occupations typically considered 'women's work' opened up when it was made possible for women to break into male-dominated fields. Men benefit from increased reproductive rights, more equitable custody rights (most men don't get custody because most men don't ask, which just reinforces the stereotype we're all fighting against), etc, etc, etc.

"Increased reproductive rights"? What, exactly, is that?

More equitable custody rights - in Germany, it was men who pushed for unmarried fathers to have any kind of custody rights. Over the objection of feminists.

And... you're basically saying, if women don't get equal rights, it's Patriarchy; if men don't get equal rights, it's because they don't ask? "Hey, we would've given you equal rights! You just never said you wanted them!"

This ties into the issue with the FBI's definition of rape. Men have trouble getting help with being the victims of abuse because of the stereotype that women are the weak ones and thus are the victims. This is patriarchy at it's worst - it isn't a conspiracy - it's an insidious social mindset that is propagated from one generation to the next via the use of ill-considered phrasing, disapproving looks, and gentle guidance of children into the mold that their parents and teachers were pushed into themselves as children.

The same patriarchy that guides women into literature and history is insisting that men are strong and powerful and thus cannot be the victims, even from other men.

http://womenspost.ca/owner-of-shelte...ruin-ridicule/

Frankly, the one group that I've consistently seen painting women as victims and men as perpetrators: feminists.

[Gravekeeper]

I wasn't aware that I was "masking" anything. Yes, I am posting my personal opinion; does that require a disclaimer now?

It does if you're going to present it as fact, yes.

If you're willing to give a few recommendations, I'll be interested in reading anecdotes not in line with my opinion. Or you can just continue snarking at me from the back of your high horse; whatever makes you feel better.

Off the top of my head #ILookLikeAnEngineer, #distractinglysexy ( this one is particularly amusing ) and #thatothershirt to name a few of the current ones. Not to mention the blatantly obvious ones like #womeninstem, @WomeninSTEM, @womenofstem, @STEMWomen, @RealWomenofSTEM, @steminist, etc etc etc.

Like I said, I'm impressed you apparently spent enough time with social media to formulate your anecdotal viewpoint but missed all of this. ;p

[HYHYBT]

Men, on average, have different interests than women, on average.

Which is absolutely worthless on its own in this context. How much of that difference is because society teaches, implicitly and explicitly, almost continually from birth that boys like and do this but girls like and do that? Whatever it is, it's not going to be zero, and therefore that they do generally divide that way is not in the least a logical counter to the idea that the difference in careers results from sexism, or patriarchy, or whichever similar word you prefer.

[Andara Bledin]

Typically, the margin for error is greater than the difference in interests between the sexes.

In other words, only the outliers on the outer fringes are really all that much different, and the rest of us are part of a huge overlapping group completely unrelated to sex or gender.

It's also worth noting that in the areas where men and women actually differ in brain function, it typically ends up only making a difference in methodology as opposed to actual output; on the whole, both sexes are equally competent in most situations.

There was a metastudy along with new data from 2013 that found that except for the edges of the graph, you couldn't reliable determine a person's sex from their answers to a questionnaire designed to tease out where men and women differ, psychologically. The results were that we just don't. It's a myth perpetuated by generation after generation of people pushing stereotypes over complex thought.

Ultimately, we're all individuals of the human race, and separating us sexually for reasons other than basic physiology (primary sexual characteristics, typical hormone levels, etc) is a fool's errand and only leads to continuing social issues for both sexes.

[Shangri-laschild]

Maybe. Or maybe STEM just didn't interest them.

My technology teacher outright lied to me and steered me away from engineering and automotive interests. He actively did it to the point where sadly I believed the things I was being told about the automotive field by the man who taught automotive classes. Sadly I didn't notice till later that he was not doing the same for the males in the class. I found out that he did the same thing to my sister. I heavily regret it and wish I hadn't listened to him but I also know that ignoring him would have meant having to deal with 4 years of him trying to push me away from all of that because he taught all of the classes. I'm only now getting the chance to look back into that sort of thing and that's really only because I get a free class each semester because of working at a college. If it weren't for that, I still wouldn't have the opportunity. There is plenty of opposition and usually by the time women get to the point of college, it's done enough damage to steer them away from STEM jobs or make it incredibly difficult for them to manage that route.

[Nekojin]

No, it's not what I meant. My point is: the fact that women do not make up half the number of people working in STEM fields is not necessarily proof that they are kept out through systematic (systemic?) prejudice. It may just be due to the fact that the field doesn't interest them. Like you.

Okay... if there's a difference in men and women that isn't one that's developed from sexist social behavior that justifiably shows why women "don't have an interest in" STEM. What's different from your wife than other women?

My question was in response to Andara's claim that most - or many - of men's problems in today's society could be solved by championing the cause of feminism. I doubt that, hence my question if that has ever worked in the past.

That's because you have yet to realize that most problems that you're seeing are ultimately caused by sexism against women to start with. That they are now affecting men is what we call the Law of Unexpected Consequences.

For example, men have a hard time getting custodial rights in divorce (being the "primary" parent, that is). This is because our society has spent centuries saying that child-raising is a "woman's job" and we still have judges and lawyers who think that women are inherently better than men at raising children - when that's an utter load of unfounded crap.

Anecdotally, my mother, a retired Family Law attorney, spent much of her career championing men's rights in the courtroom, and I believe that she had an impact not only for the clients she represented, but also got some judges and even opposing attorneys thinking less along the "women get the kids because they're automatically better at it" train of thought.

Why did she do it? One, it was the right thing to do. Two, it benefits the women as well. If you have a family where the man is the bread-winner, the income-producer, and the woman is the stay-at-home family manager - mother, wife, cook, etc. - who should have the children? The person who is already generating enough income to take care of them, or the person who doesn't have any job prospects and will suddenly need to find a source of income?

"Okay," you ask, "but how is that good for the woman?" - That's a good question, but the answer should be obvious - no longer saddled with the daily maintenance and upkeep of a child, she would be more able to get education, training, and job hunting than if she got the child.

Third: the part I bolded in Nekojin's quote is exactly my point of contention: "all things being equivalent". I simply don't believe that all things are equivalent. Why should they be?

You (or anyone) have yet to come up with a coherent reason why women shouldn't have an interest in STEM jobs. Well, a reason that doesn't trace back to sexism, anyway.

Yes, the rate of women in STEM fields is only 24%. Okay, that was in 2009; maybe it's 26% now, or 22, or 25. Doesn't really matter: the rate is way below the rate of women in the workforce. Only: what profession is split exactly 50:50? Or 52:48, for that matter?

This is what we call a strawman argument. I'm not saying that it has to be exactly 50/50, just that it should be somewhere in the ballpark of "even."

What's the rate of women in construction? Sanitation? Mining? Piloting?
What's the rate of men in education? Nursing? Psychiatry? Pediatrics?

Irrelevant, and differences in these can be attributed to historical sexism from the society saying, "these are women's jobs, these are men's jobs." What, if anything, do you think is the reason why a woman can't be a competent pilot?

Men, on average, have different interests than women, on average. Nothing says that a woman can't be a great engineer, or a man can't be a great nurse. But nothing says they have to be, either.

Another strawman. Nobody is dictating for anyone to join any specific profession. But we have an underlying problem in society that is quietly pushing people in one direction or another that has nothing to do with that person's competence. See the examples from Andara and Shangri-Laschild about their schooling - that happens everywhere, just not always so aggressively and obviously.

After the Germanwings plane was crashed in France back in March, the magazine EMMA (run by old-time feminist Alice Schwarzer) posted an editorial on their website postulating that a women's quota for pilots of 50% would reduce the risk of another such catastrophe drastically - why? Because the male co-pilot intentionally crashed the plane, and only men commit spree killings such as these. More women = more safety! Never mind that intentional crashes are incredibly rare, or that only 20% of pilot applicants are women anyway - a quota will fix everything.

This indirectly touches on one of the sexist tropes that may not actually be sexist - the idea of women being non-violent compared to men. That could be social programming (like most sexism), but that could also be a result, in whole or in part, from the general height/size difference of men vs. women.

The theory is that children (gender irrelevant) only tend to be aggressive and/or violent when they're likely to be the victor. Ones that are taller/larger are more able to dominate physically. Boys and girls grow at different rates; boys tend to grow faster until the 8-13 age range, when girls get a growth spurt that makes them go past boys. Then it flips again, and boys sprout again. So the two ages where they are rewarded for physical behavior (pre-school/early school, and high school where sports becomes very important), boys are in a better position to be rewarded, and therefore become more physical, which in some becomes more violent/aggressive.

Note that this is a theory, not a concrete fact. But it could be that this is part of the reason why we have the social "awareness" that boys are much more likely to rough-house. Then again, it could also be (in whole or in part) that socially, we accept physical/violent behavior more from boys. Or both of those, and some other factors that we're not yet aware of.

Another prominent German feminist is Anne Wizorek; one of the initiators of the #aufschrei. In her book on the topic, she states that she would gladly enter dialogue with men, provided they "learn to accept other sexual needs than their own exist". What kind of dialogue is that supposed to be? Yes, we can talk as equals, but only after you accept that I am right and you are a horrible person? Moreover, what view of men does someone need to have, in order to actually believe that men only ever care about their own needs, and not their partner's?

Wow, that's an incredible way to misrepresent someone else's statement. What's wrong with learning that other people's sexual needs exist? Your partner wants something from sex that may not be exactly what you want. How is this even a surprise?

I'm baffled how you interpret that as "I'm right and you're horrible."

Now, there aren't foaming-at-the-mouth, fringe radfems. These are feminists who get invited to talkshows, who get books published, whose positions and opinions influence a lot of people. They're probably as mainstream as you can get.

They're a loud fringe, so they get some press because the media likes to look at the things that AREN'T the boring, every-day world that everyone sees. That doesn't mean that their beliefs are somehow suddenly going to flip the world around to where women are rulers and men are slaves.

And I read this stuff, and I think about how low, how wrong their opinion on men must be to believe what they say - and I can't help but think that, yes, we need activists for men's rights. Because these people, these feminists, will never give men a fair chance, will never truly accept men as equals. Because they don't believe that we are.

Congratulations, now you know what it feels like to be female. They go into that every day, with society making books and movies and everything where men are the default state.

Think for a moment. How many cereal characters (to pick something at random) can you name?

Now that you've listed them... how many that you were able to think of are female?

Maybe. Or maybe STEM just didn't interest them.

And you have no interest in the reasons behind why STEM doesn't interest them? You just assume, "It's the way girls are, nothing more?" Humanity is more complex than that. Every deviation from the norm has a reason. In this case, it's not that they're not interested in STEM, it's that many cultures (sub-cultures, in some cases) still push the idea that women's only purpose is to have kids and take care of their family (a 24-hour on-call job, mind you) while the man's job is to earn money in a job, and they get all the free time to indulge in expensive hobbies like remote control cars, video games, computer management.

- - - - -

And while we're talking about women's jobs, there's a lot more job markets that have both men and women, but women get the short end of the stick. Look, for example, at food service (across the board!). Wait staff (waiters/waitresses), chefs, and caterers. Low-end ones (home cooking, for the "chef" angle) are dominated by women, but upper-scale ones are dominated by men. Most of the big-name chefs are male. Upscale restaurants have more waiters than waitresses, while low-end restaurants like Denny's are more likely to be populated with more waitresses than waiters.

And it goes on... and on... and on... It's getting better, but there's still a long way to go.

[ZedOmega]

Before I begin this rant, I'm going to admit right out of the gate that I've been involved in this mess since The Zoe Post, and will confess to a neutral-to-pro-GG lean at this juncture. The neutral portion of this is from the belief that the games industry itself still has room for development (and as I typed that out, I realized the pun and I'm leaving it in there) and support women in game development, and pro because for them to even have a shot at this, gaming journalism still needs quite a bit of renovation. At this point, the industry is so tight-knit that it's either join the circle or pray you get by on word-of-mouth alone.

Now that that's out of the way...

First, let's talk about the aforementioned Zoe Post. To do so, I present this video from The Rageaholic (NSFW: language) (the YouTuber, not the CS/Fratching forum member). Razörfist raises some very good points, namely that if the post was supposed to expose corruption in gaming journalism (which admittely led to the discovery that Nathan Grayson is in the credits for Depression Quest, a fact that he still has yet to disclaim in any of his articles, even retroactively. I still have yet to see more than just positive mentions coming from Grayson, I'll admit flat-out, but I also have yet to see how a five-chapter-long diatribe that's 95% 'my girlfriend is a total fucking nutjob' and 5% 'be wary of the guys she slept with because they're in the gaming industry' equals 'everyone get that bitch!' because of a small legion of jackasses trying to be lolsoedgy.

Secondly, the whole harassment thing? Most of the active participants of GamerGate that I've seen take measures to report said harassment. One name that immediately springs to mind when it comes to the whole 'GamerGate is a bunch of misogynistic harassers!' claim is Mateus Prado Sousa, a journalist for a Brazilian publication called Celebrinando. Sousa had been endlessly sending everything from vulgar pictures to flat-out death threats to prominent anti-GamerGate voice Anita Sarkeesian (and as far as she goes, my own personal bone to pick is more with her writer, Jonathan McIntosh, than with the woman herself). When the influx of harassment from Sousa was first brought to our attention, I'd seen more GamerGate supporters not only report his account on sight, but also managed to track down who exactly it was and pass the information along to both the FBI and the Brazilian federal police. All I saw from its most vocal opponents was 'See?! See?! GG is sending her death threats!' and nothing else. And that's not even taking into account some of the harassment that supporters of the movement have gotten...

http://gamergateharassment.tumblr.com/ (note: has not been updated since November of last year)
https://archive.is/76xR6
https://i.imgur.com/2o6lNXc.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKnL5UIIYZw (NSFW: language)

...as well as neutrals...

https://archive.is/VqhOT
https://archive.is/z48vP
https://archive.is/xq4yW

And even another anti-GamerGate voice if they so much as make contact with either a supporter or neutral.

http://thespectacularspider-girl.tum...e-with-wardell
https://tweetsave.com/claire_schumann

Yet GamerGate is colletively HYRDA for some reason.

[Gravekeeper]

Razörfist raises some very good points, namely that if the post was supposed to expose corruption in gaming journalism (which admittely led to the discovery that Nathan Grayson is in the credits for Depression Quest, a fact that he still has yet to disclaim in any of his articles, even retroactively.

He's thanked in the credits, yeah. But he never wrote about Quinn after they began a relationship ( and didn't write much about her work prior ). He's never reviewed her game. The game is also free so thats all pretty moot anyhow.

Plus the guy in that video is also kind of a douche with a bone to pick with Gawker media.

Secondly, the whole harassment thing? Most of the active participants of GamerGate that I've seen take measures to report said harassment.

Nope. You will not win this one. If you can't figure out why GG is basically HYDRA at this point you have not been paying remotely enough attention. It started as HYDRA. It was never anything but HYDRA. The Ethics In Gaming Journalism(tm) thing was a retroactive claim to try and legitimize their assholery.

It began as a 4chan op and its completely manufactured. Even the argument you are presenting is an intentional ploy you fell for. Intentionally creating examples of "See! We're against harassment too!" to point to as "evidence" was a calculated part of the operation and one of its core methods. This was all essentially organized by a bunch of misogynistic shitdicks that wanted to fuck with "Social Justice Warriors" and create chaos and infighting. Even the "spontaneous" hashtags on Twitter such as #notyourshield were calculated moves.

It was never anything but pure unmitigated misogynistic assholery and continuing to try and defend it is doing exactly what they wanted you to do all along. It is indefensible. Please stop. It does not reflect well on you.

[Andara Bledin]

You know, Gk, I was kind of hoping you'd really dismantle that post...

But then I realized that it's the same exact manufactured bullshit that's come up time and time again and been debunked, exposed, disabused, and shown for the utter delusional poppycock that it is probably half a dozen times in this thread alone.

So, yeah, you shouldn't have to write out a full rebuttal for every GGWK that crawls out of the woodwork and can't be arsed to actually read the thread to see where each of the talking points has been shown to be utter horseshit.

If someone wants to tackle issues with gaming journalism, they won't be caught dead anywhere near GG. If they're sticking with GG, then their pet issue has nothing to do with gaming journalism.

[ZedOmega]

He's thanked in the credits, yeah. But he never wrote about Quinn after they began a relationship ( and didn't write much about her work prior ). He's never reviewed her game. The game is also free so thats all pretty moot anyhow.

He never wrote about Quinn after they started dating?

http://tmi.kotaku.com/the-indie-game...ell-1555599284

Plus the guy in that video is also kind of a douche with a bone to pick with Gawker media.

Look at the rest of the playlist that video belongs to; it ain't just Gawker Media he's got a bone to pick with. The fact that the first video in The Rageaholic's 'The Downfall of Gaming Journalism' series was dated May of 2013 should've been an indication of that.

Plus, this is the same Gawker Media that seems to think it's okay to out a gay man, publish a washed-up pro wrestler's sex tape and refuse to take it down, slut-shamed a political candidate under the pretense that 'it was in the best interest of our readers', and wrote up a piece for their Deadspin site in response to the #CancelColbert movement that can be summarized as 'make Suey Park look hysterical, oh, and let's give it an inflammatory headline because humor lol'.

Nope. You will not win this one. If you can't figure out why GG is basically HYDRA at this point you have not been paying remotely enough attention. It started as HYDRA. It was never anything but HYDRA. The Ethics In Gaming Journalism(tm) thing was a retroactive claim to try and legitimize their assholery.

You're implying that every GamerGate supporter to date is complicit in everything bad that's happened to its detractors.

It began as a 4chan op and its completely manufactured.

It started as a series of discussions on 4chan that were being closed as fast as they appeared. What you're thinking of is the #burgersandfries IRC channel, and even then, it started as a channel to discuss the events and devolved into the shit show everyone's claiming it's been since the channel was opened.

That just leaves the implication that 4chan was the only place discussing this, when in reality, other forums were beginning to talk about the issue also. I ended up on The Escapist's forums with my own thoughts on the entire matter. Bear in mind that The Escapist's EIC, Greg Tito, was anti-GamerGate and being pressured by his colleagues to shut the discussion down early. This is the same Greg Tito who chose to run a story back in 2013 where Quinn had claimed she was being harassed by members of Wizardchan, and the only info they had at the time was a pair of screenshot posts and little else.

Even the argument you are presenting is an intentional ploy you fell for. Intentionally creating examples of "See! We're against harassment too!" to point to as "evidence" was a calculated part of the operation and one of its core methods.

"You guys go issue those threats to the people on this list! The rest of us will sweep in and denounce them! That should get us some good PR!"

That does sound kind of silly. The idea that someone actually thought that up in a brainstorming session, I mean, not the actual denouncements themselves.

This was all essentially organized by a bunch of misogynistic shitdicks that wanted to fuck with "Social Justice Warriors" and create chaos and infighting. Even the "spontaneous" hashtags on Twitter such as #notyourshield were calculated moves.

How, exactly, is a grassroots consumer revolt an organization? We don't exactly have a headquarters; the closest things anyone can say we have to that are a subreddit or two and a couple of threads here and there on other forum sites. Plus, 'misogynistic shitdicks'? You realize that those are the kinds of people preventing this shit from ending anytime soon on both sides of the issue, right?

I'm glad you put 'spontaneous' in quotes when talking about #NotYourShield, though. Given the fact that GG's most irrational opponents were using the very same tactics against the female and nonwhite supporters in our number that they themselves were receiving one minute, then claiming 'we're doing this for women/minorities' the next, it took a bit of time before someone finally had enough and coined it. It was less of a calculated move and more of a 'okay, that is fucking enough' move.

It was never anything but pure unmitigated misogynistic assholery and continuing to try and defend it is doing exactly what they wanted you to do all along. It is indefensible. Please stop. It does not reflect well on you.

Let's address the elephant in the room as far as that paragraph goes before anything else: the fact that you're claiming it's been nothing but 'misogynistic assholery' only proves that you're going by what you've read about, not what you've witnessed or taken part in. You could very easily remedy that by going onto Twitter (you don't even need to log in to do that) and searching for the #GamerGate hashtag there. Then you could see what's really going on. Spoiler warning: if you do see actual misogyny, you'll probably have seen it buried under talk about journalists or the same accusations of misogyny you're leveling right now.

Secondly, explain who 'they' are. I haven't been on 4chan since this mess started, so it can't be them. I don't use IRC, so it can't be the #burgersandfries channel if it's even still around. Hell, most of what I've been doing on Twitter over the past few months is watch the hashtag for signal boosts. I imagine it's the same for a lot more supporters, seeing as how the movement is all independent actors with maybe a few people that could be seen as leaders if you squint.

And finally, "It is indefensible. Please stop. It does not reflect well on you." I could immediately turn that around and counterpoint that by asking if you really, really believe one member of a movement buys into the same line of thinking. I know there's some unbearable assholes in this movement. I don't bother interacting with them because they're unbearable assholes. I also know that not every member of a political party, religious group or subculture is defined by their most extreme members despite what loudmouths say about them. That's association fallacy and I've seen more than enough of that on either side of this issue.