GamerGate WTF?

[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. -.-

[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.

[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."

[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.

[Kheldarson]

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!"

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?

[Canarr]

First, my job (which is irrelevant, but I'll indulge) is holding multiple positions at a company at the upper end of small. I do several things that keep the company running, including order entry, accounts receivable, and data entry and management. I wear hats numbering only slightly fewer than the owner herself.

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.

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?

Otherwise, feminists have done "crap" for men. Feminism is, at it's heart, about equality, but with a focus on women's issues since women get such a shit deal in society.

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?

Also, I never called men's grievances whining. I said that, in comparison to the huge swathes of prejudice against which nearly every group that isn't male faces, piping up about mens' issues gives the appearance of whinging for the sake of feeling left out. Every issue over which men are given the shaft is actually related to bigotry against women, and the swiftest way to address those issues is to champion the cause of feminism.

If you really want to be taken seriously, the first step is to not make straw men out of the comments you are responding to.

Saying that someone "gives the appearance of whining" isn't that different to calling someone whining, I'd say. At least, not different enough to warrant calling that a strawman. But my apologies if I misread your words. That wasn't my intention.

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?

[Andara Bledin]

First, my job (which is irrelevant, but I'll indulge) is holding multiple positions at a company at the upper end of small. I do several things that keep the company running, including order entry, accounts receivable, and data entry and management. I wear hats numbering only slightly fewer than the owner herself.

Otherwise, feminists have done "crap" for men. Feminism is, at it's heart, about equality, but with a focus on women's issues since women get such a shit deal in society.

Also, I never called men's grievances whining. I said that, in comparison to the huge swathes of prejudice against which nearly every group that isn't male faces, piping up about mens' issues gives the appearance of whinging for the sake of feeling left out. Every issue over which men are given the shaft is actually related to bigotry against women, and the swiftest way to address those issues is to champion the cause of feminism.

If you really want to be taken seriously, the first step is to not make straw men out of the comments you are responding to.

[Canarr]

Andara, if you don't mind my asking: what is your chosen profession? I don't believe I've ever read that on here.

There are a very few issues where men are discriminated against, which is why the movement is viewed so poorly when compared to the overwhelming number of issues practically every other movement in action faces. The grievances are quite legitimate, but the scale is such that when brought up, they often give the appearance of "what about me?" whinging. Basically, they have it so good that when discussing ways to make things better for those who don't, white Christian males tend to feel left out.

At this juncture, and until such time as we don't have issues such as poor people dying of malnutrition in the best-fed nation on the planet, blacks being so overwhelmingly likely to be incarcerated or murdered by police, where atheists aren't viewed as untrustworthy and immoral for not having a faith (even Satanists are better regarded >_> ), and women stop being subconsciously encouraged to pursue family over career and soft sciences over STEM, men who really want to make a difference should gather under other banners with broader goals than family law, military requirement, and issues with sexism in welfare programs. All of those are merely symptoms of sexism against women and they would be best served by becoming feminists (oh, the irony).

Frankly spoken: I don't believe feminists will ever do crap for men. If even an intelligent, rational, well-read and (from what I can see) fairly moderate feminist like you classifies men's "quite legitimate" grievances as "whining", then I see no hope that feminism, as a movement, will ever take men's problems seriously, let alone do anything to solve or alleviate them.

[Andara Bledin]

In the US, being an MRA is typically a front for being sexist.

You still run into pockets of #notall$, but as with GG, it appears that legitimate members joined after the movement was started as a smokescreen.

There are a very few issues where men are discriminated against, which is why the movement is viewed so poorly when compared to the overwhelming number of issues practically every other movement in action faces. The grievances are quite legitimate, but the scale is such that when brought up, they often give the appearance of "what about me?" whinging. Basically, they have it so good that when discussing ways to make things better for those who don't, white Christian males tend to feel left out.

At this juncture, and until such time as we don't have issues such as poor people dying of malnutrition in the best-fed nation on the planet, blacks being so overwhelmingly likely to be incarcerated or murdered by police, where atheists aren't viewed as untrustworthy and immoral for not having a faith (even Satanists are better regarded >_> ), and women stop being subconsciously encouraged to pursue family over career and soft sciences over STEM, men who really want to make a difference should gather under other banners with broader goals than family law, military requirement, and issues with sexism in welfare programs. All of those are merely symptoms of sexism against women and they would be best served by becoming feminists (oh, the irony).

[Canarr]

One: MRAs and GG are not the same thing, and are not necessarily "in bed" together. And while MRAs have the same basic problem as feminists - the vocal, batshit insane minority gets most of the publicity - lumping them in with the toxic sludge of GG seems wrong to me. Many MRAs are sensible and sane enough, with legitimate grievances. Admittedly, that goes for Germany; can't say what it's like in the US or Canada.

Two: while MRAs and GG supporters may seem to be everywhere, they do not have the public forums that self-proclaimed SJWs and radfems seem to enjoy. Campaigning for fathers' rights definitely doesn't get you as many talkshow appearances and book sales as starting feminist hashtags does. Again, in Germany.

[Rageaholic]

^

Yeah, the more I analyze it, the less the arguments from the "sane" GG side hold water. Extreme SJWs are annoying, but I'm not convinced they have much influence because no one outside their clique takes them seriously (though their cult like behavior is pretty scary none the less). MRAs and GG supporters, on the other hand, are everywhere.

[Andara Bledin]

Those failed campaigns are a sign of just how fringe those people are. They do not represent many of those who are in support of feminism, and typically get upbraided for their zealotry by those of us with more rational interests. They mostly stay under their rocks, though, which is why you typically find them in their own echo chambers with sporadic outbreaks in Facebook and news article comment sections and rarely ever see them in the news.

GG, on the other hand, is made up of a huge number of virulent and aggressive assholes who go out of their way to be seen and have an affect on those they decry. They don't confine themselves to the underbelly of 8chan (having been banned from 4chan for being too excessive - that should give people an idea of how awful GG really is) and comments sections; they actively go out in search of outrage to agitate over and make personal and potentially physical attacks against those they believe have wronged them. They organize harassment campaigns and bully people online, dox them, swat them, send them threats in the mail... This is the standard MO for GG... You'll be hard-pressed to find more than one or two isolated examples of the same happening from the other side of the aisle.

The trouble is that GG isn't fringe; it's the diseased underbelly of the boys' club of gaming that's threatened by the fact that people are letting girls into their clubhouse. They used to be able to claim mastery in that one, narrow field, and now they're going back to just being the losers they are, and they can't handle that and are lashing out over it. This is the force behind people organizing behind a guy getting back at his (ex) girlfriend for deciding she liked someone else more. This is the force behind organized harassment campaigns against gaming-media personalities. This is the force behind bomb threats at airports that unsympathetic reporters are flying through. This is the force behind the publishing of addresses and pictures of peoples' families online in the attempt to blackmail their detractors into silence.

They're losers in every way and they are using their own self-loathing as fuel to feed the flames of their aggression.

Anyone who adopts their call-sign needs to think really hard about who, exactly, they're aligning themselves with. Any reasonable campaign can find a flag that isn't so tainted and mired in it's own ugly filth.

[Rageaholic]

Oh, and btw this same author recently interviewed Jack Thompson in a respectful and in-depth manner without being a complete asshole about it. He even asked him about Sarkeesian:



So, not only does he dismiss her rape threats, murder threats, bomb threats, etc, he even calls her "honey". Response from author? Not a damn thing. The author is completely fine and professional with Thompson ( he has a dick after all ) but he loses his shit over a handful of tweets from Sarkeensian?

Riiiight. Completely unbiased. -.-

Okay, that's a pretty big fail on their part. It doesn't surprise me considering an article on Breitbart said the same thing about Thompson. If you're going to flame Sarkeesian for hating on games, then Jack Thompson should be fair game. Wonder what political spectrum they're on.

As for the SJWs, it's mostly tumblr users, though they're popping up in other places. They take offense at the drop of a hat and are extremely hostile to anyone with an even slightly different opinion. In other words, they're like if fundies adopted a straw version of liberalism. The comments section in this article has some good examples of this (comparing video games to slavery and players of the games to Elliot Rodger). While they are not taken too seriously, there has been some failed campaigns cropping up (remember banbossy a year ago?) that are very SJWish in nature.

[Gravekeeper]

Their response was beyond disproportionate and after having viewed the chat logs...

The chat logs of its inception are....yeah. -.-

but even if their journalism ethics is just a cover, it could be a case of Jerkass has a point Especially if so many other sites were banning people just for disagreeing on video games. That does not at all justify the doxing and harassment, but it does explain why people were pissed off.

But its not though. No reputable source, journalist or researcher has been able to find any factual basis to their claims ( which have all been debunked ). GG also attacked any journalists or researchers that attempted to speak with them. Even their donations to Fine Young Capitalists was an organized PR move to try and make themselves look better.

They also have pretty much exclusively attacked women and indie developers. Not the large corporations they allege are the root of all this evil.

To be fair, a lot of those SJWs are batshit crazy. They see sexism and discrimination in everything. That's likely why Anita is not well liked.

Citation needed. Anita is not well liked by them because she is a woman. Simple as that. Same with Quinn, Wu and everyone else they threatened to rape and kill because "ethics in journalism".

They have both made insane generalizations regarding gamers and are both very outspoken about violent games. I'll give Sarkeesian credit in that she's not trying to pass laws, but she's taken more seriously than Thompson.

Again, citation needed. What "insane generalizations" has Sarkeesian made and how are they on par with Thompson's lunacy? Where is she being taken so seriously as to threaten the white male gamer ego?

Did anyone ever threaten to murder and rape Thompson en mass? -.-

Doesn't matter what the tone of the article is. She's still full of shit.

The tone matters quite a bit given that it reveals a pretty nasty bias. Which should make you question its assertions. I mean, she "launches an attack" by making a one off comment on Twitter about her disappointment? It then goes on to make the awful "Feminism means equality for both genders" strawman. Before spirally off into basically the same bullshit claims GG has been making all along. I also don't see where she "slut shamed" booth babes.

Oh, and btw this same author recently interviewed Jack Thompson in a respectful and in-depth manner without being a complete asshole about it. He even asked him about Sarkeesian:

I got disbarred and my life threatened repeatedly. When she gets the front window of her house shot at like I did, then I’ll listen to her whining a bit more. The pioneers take the arrows, honey. Deal with it.

So, not only does he dismiss her rape threats, murder threats, bomb threats, etc, he even calls her "honey". Response from author? Not a damn thing. The author is completely fine and professional with Thompson ( he has a dick after all ) but he loses his shit over a handful of tweets from Sarkeensian?

Riiiight. Completely unbiased. -.-

Of course I did. I'm the one who started the thread in the first place.

I should have been a little more specific there as I was thinking about the chat logs.

[Rageaholic]

The problem is they don't have a "side". Their stated mission was retroactively added to their original intent and at no point have they ever stopped conducting themselves as psychopathic misogynists. GG is the "Extremists" and anyone actually trying to be reasonable under the GG banner needs to get the hell away from it.

Their response was beyond disproportionate and after having viewed the chat logs...



but even if their journalism ethics is just a cover, it could be a case of Jerkass has a point Especially if so many other sites were banning people just for disagreeing on video games. That does not at all justify the doxing and harassment, but it does explain why people were pissed off.

No. They are most definitely misogynistic and they refer to "moral crusaders" as "Social Justice Warriors" and it has nothing to do with painting gamers as violent psychopaths and everything to do with encroaching on their sacred rights as white male gamers with icky things like vaginas, gays and black people.

Sarkeesian does not have any "influence". She just has a vagina. If she were a he, you literally would have never have heard of him.

To be fair, a lot of those SJWs are batshit crazy. They see sexism and discrimination in everything. That's likely why Anita is not well liked.

Not even a remotely valid or accurate comparison

They have both made insane generalizations regarding gamers and are both very outspoken about violent games. I'll give Sarkeesian credit in that she's not trying to pass laws, but she's taken more seriously than Thompson.

Did you even read that link? >.>

It was "pulled from the shelves" because it was an R-18 rated game being sold in Target in Australia that wasn't properly labelled about its contents.

I skimmed through it.



Sounds like the game distributors effed up pretty bad.

....Did you even read that one either? Its total bullshit. The tone of the first paragraph alone should have clued you in as to what you were reading

Doesn't matter what the tone of the article is. She's still full of shit.

C) Did you read none of this thread before posting? >.>

Of course I did. I'm the one who started the thread in the first place.