GamerGate WTF?

[Nekojin]

*sigh* Okay, I'll take a swing here.

I'm a Moderator on another site - a site that focuses on tech and politics, among other things. I don't normally mention that here, because it's rarely actually relevant. It is here.

Thanks to being on the Moderation staff of that site, I get an email every time anyone reports a post anywhere on the site. I ignore most of it, since I'm only a moderator for one subforum, not the whole site, but I do still see it - and as a result, I see and notice when there's a sudden flood of reports on something.

GamerGate was... something we haven't ever seen before. We had more reports in a single day after each new GamerGate article was posted than we normally have in a month across the entire site. And some patterns emerged immediately.

1.) The vast majority of the people who were actually breaking the site's posting rules were new posters coming in to argue the pro-GG side. We found out later that they were being called in from other locations - mostly from Kotaku In Action.

2.) For all that GamerGate is supposedly about "ethics in journalism," you couldn't tell it by the posts. For every single post that complained about anything even remotely related to ethics in journalism - usually mentioning Nathan Grayson in passing - there were pages of people arguing about Zoe Quinn, or Anita Sarkeesian, or Brianna Wu.

3.) At first, most of the people on both sides had no idea who Nathan Grayson was - even the pro-GG posters didn't know his name anywhere near as well as they knew Quinn or Sarkeesian. Once it became clear that the very fact that they only knew the non-journalists' names made it clear that they weren't actually there about the journalism, they started using his name more regularly, but still was a drop in the bucket to how often Quinn was mentioned.

Do you want to know how GamerGate really happened? Read the Wikipedia entry, or the RationalWiki timeline that make it clear what it's all about. And if you really want a squick-fest in seeing the true colors (har har) of GamerGate, go look up the history of the GamerGate "mascot," Vivian James...

It should carry some weight that none of the Moderators or Staff of the site I Mod for is in support of the GamerGate "side." We've all seen it, and most of us have been having to deal with it from the very start. The smokescreen came too late for us not to see it all.

[Gravekeeper]

Unless there's something showing that Grayson and Quinn started dating in April, my own timeline is accurate as far as I can tell. And she was involved in the events the article reported on.

Unless there's something showing they started dating in March prior to the article its also meaningless. Plus the article, again, has nothing to do with Quinn specifically. Its not about Quinn anymore than its about JonTron. Its about a failed reality TV show.

The source of the claim about Grayson and Quinn was her asshole ex, remember. Who actively participated in the genesis of Gamergate on 4chan and IRC. That you're concerned with the "slut shaming" of O'Donnell but seemingly fine using the slut shaming of Quinn as a relevant source is interesting.

Right. 'Satire.'

Yes. Satire. You do know who Colbert is right? That's kind of the entire point of the show. An out of context quote from the show on a Twitter account Colbert does not own or oversee hardly an activist movement makes.

So the fact that she had a drunken tryst while trying to present herself as being celibate is apt enough reason to run a smear piece because she's a hypocrite? Even her opponents said it was a low blow.

and if the genders were reversed, it would be a complete none issue.

I'm here on my own volition arguing. Trying to make it seem like I'm following orders is honestly hilarious.

Thats not what I said nor how the op worked so you can curtail that line of "argument."

A single Storify written by someone who admitted they were anti-GamerGate right off the bat. Yyyyyeah.

One of many and its using posts and IRC logs. Shooting the messenger doesn't negate the facts of the matter.

Really. That's the route you're going to take with this discussion. Villainize everyone supporting it because 'they're all evil and they're lying to themselves if they say otherwise'.

The well was never not poisoned. Its also so far beyond poisoned now that trying in any way to cling to the label is pointless and reflects poorly. If you really have legitimate issues with ethics in gaming journalism or whatever the fuck, get the hell away from the label of GG. It will poison any argument you try to present.

You never thought to ask me why I got involved in this, did you?

No, because how you got involved is irrelevant.

You can make all the assumptions you want about how the movement started, what its goal is, who its targets are, who its leaders are, whatever.

I'm not making assumptions. There is a clear data trial of all of this.

If you want to think that I'm a bad guy because a bunch of fuckboys in an IRC channel want to make a dev's life even more of a living hell, then you really don't know a fucking thing about me or why I got involved in this.

Finding a reason to act personally offended changes absolutely nothing and does not bolster your position in any way shape or form. But I congratulate you on successfully making this about yourself.

And by the way, this is me talking and not some prefabricated script some imaginary leaders told me to recite over and over again.

If you can't even follow this thread I find your assertions about knowing the true nature of GG rather dubious. -.-

The well is poison. Stop drinking.

[ZedOmega]

That was before, check your timeline. -.-

Its also the only article he ever wrote for Kotaku that involved Quinn and its not exactly ABOUT Quinn now is it?

Unless there's something showing that Grayson and Quinn started dating in April, my own timeline is accurate as far as I can tell. And she was involved in the events the article reported on.

No breach there, though. /s

And have you seen the fallout from said incident? I believe they lost what, two editors over the first one and nearly imploded under backlash from the readership. As for Hogan, he talked about his dick enough on his own then denied the existence of the tape repeatedly until it was published as evidence. Same thing happened with Crack Mayor. He threatened to sue Gawker for saying there was tape of him smoking crack and guess what turned up?

Nothing whatsoever because the issue with 'Crack Mayor' was on how many different outlets at the time?

You mean this article thats actually pretty on point and demonstrates that you, like Park, don't get satire? >.>

Right. 'Satire.'

You may also wish to read this one.

So the fact that she had a drunken tryst while trying to present herself as being celibate is apt enough reason to run a smear piece because she's a hypocrite? Even her opponents said it was a low blow.

Knowingly or unknowingly, yes. But at this point there is no excuse for being in the unknowingly category.

There's also no excuse for claiming that the actions that're being decried are perfectly fine when it's your own side doing them. Doxxing supporters? Trying to get them fired from their jobs? Calling a bomb threat into a bar where a meetup was going to happen in Washington, DC? Meh, they deserve it, right?

Except that's exactly what they did. And it worked. You're here arguing after all, aren't you?

I'm here on my own volition arguing. Trying to make it seem like I'm following orders is honestly hilarious.

You actually believe it was a grassroots movement?

https://storify.com/davidsgallant/th...s-of-gamergate

A single Storify written by someone who admitted they were anti-GamerGate right off the bat. Yyyyyeah.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAJYmrKR8WE

No, I am going by the 4chan posts, 3000+ pages of IRC logs, etc. The attempt to make it appear a moral crusade over legitimate ethical concerns was a retroactive action. If you drank that Koolaid, you have my sympathy, but you are trying to represent a terrible thing created by terrible human beings.

By your own logic, I should be anti-feminist because Valerie Solanis and TERFs are associated with them.

No, an association fallacy would be if it really was a well intentioned grass roots movement with only a few fringe assholes claiming to be part of it and I was treating it like they were all fringe assholes. When its actually the opposite.

If you want to hang out in the KKK's Klubhouse(tm) that's your prerogative. But don't stand there and try and claim its only a few guys in the back that burn crosses and the rest just have legitimate issues with affirmative action.

Really. That's the route you're going to take with this discussion. Villainize everyone supporting it because 'they're all evil and they're lying to themselves if they say otherwise'. Never mind the fact that there's enough information to attract the SPJ's attention, it's all a group of villains because one guy had a beef with his ex-girlfriend and he needed a personal army.

You never thought to ask me why I got involved in this, did you? It only took a couple of weeks before the Quinn/Gjoni thing was pushed aside once August 28th hit. And judging from the tone of your reply in its entirety, you didn't even read my post on The Escapist's megathread, did you?

Now, I'm extremely loath to pick a side in all this because one side or the other is immediately going to vilify me, but I'm going to sum up what I feel about this whole thing:

Those of us who are the most involved in this are involved emotionally, and we need to back up and wait for the smoke to clear.

Seriously, we're taking a torches-and-pitchforks stance regarding a woman who, even though she's been shown to be manipulative and a liar, really is a small fish in the grand scheme of things, and the more prominent actors in this movie are way too emotionally invested in this to make a solid judgment call. Modern news outlets do this all the time, and the only thing that really happened overall is that the media personalities have been shown to take a 'worthy opponent' stance (Bill O'Reilly v. Jon Stewart is a great example of this), while their fanbases are the ones doing all the angry shouting at each other.

Whether or not journalistic integrity is being called into question is another matter entirely with this because of the emotional investment. Even Tito admits that the Quinn story was run without fact-checking, which is almost guaranteeing that his thoughts on the matter are purely heart-driven instead of fact-driven, and that's a luxury a respectable journalist has to surrender for the most part.

Let's all just back up, wait for the shitstorm to die down, then look at this with clear heads.

But nope, I've gotta be one of Gjoni's infantry if I'm calling for everyone to calm down, right? That makes perfect sense. "Let the smoke clear" was just my overlords' way of saying "DRIVE THEM OUT!"

You can make all the assumptions you want about how the movement started, what its goal is, who its targets are, who its leaders are, whatever. If you want to think that I'm a bad guy because a bunch of fuckboys in an IRC channel want to make a dev's life even more of a living hell, then you really don't know a fucking thing about me or why I got involved in this.

And by the way, this is me talking and not some prefabricated script some imaginary leaders told me to recite over and over again.

[Gravekeeper]

He never wrote about Quinn after they started dating?

That was before, check your timeline. -.-

Its also the only article he ever wrote for Kotaku that involved Quinn and its not exactly ABOUT Quinn now is it?

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'.

And have you seen the fallout from said incident? I believe they lost what, two editors over the first one and nearly imploded under backlash from the readership. As for Hogan, he talked about his dick enough on his own then denied the existence of the tape repeatedly until it was published as evidence. Same thing happened with Crack Mayor. He threatened to sue Gawker for saying there was tape of him smoking crack and guess what turned up?

You mean this article thats actually pretty on point and demonstrates that you, like Park, don't get satire? >.>

You may also wish to read this one.

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

Knowingly or unknowingly, yes. But at this point there is no excuse for being in the unknowingly category.

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.

Except that's exactly what they did. And it worked. You're here arguing after all, aren't you?

How, exactly, is a grassroots consumer revolt an organization?

You actually believe it was a grassroots movement?

https://storify.com/davidsgallant/th...s-of-gamergate

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.

No, I am going by the 4chan posts, 3000+ pages of IRC logs, etc. The attempt to make it appear a moral crusade over legitimate ethical concerns was a retroactive action. If you drank that Koolaid, you have my sympathy, but you are trying to represent a terrible thing created by terrible human beings.

That's association fallacy and I've seen more than enough of that on either side of this issue.

No, an association fallacy would be if it really was a well intentioned grass roots movement with only a few fringe assholes claiming to be part of it and I was treating it like they were all fringe assholes. When its actually the opposite.

If you want to hang out in the KKK's Klubhouse(tm) that's your prerogative. But don't stand there and try and claim its only a few guys in the back that burn crosses and the rest just have legitimate issues with affirmative action.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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*