Kickstarter Video Project Attracts Misogynist Horde

[Schadrach]

Hate to divert the track from the discussion on circumcision and false rape accusation, but would anyone be interested if I did a video series about men and tropes in video games?

And no money needed, this stuff comes up for free.

Although I could follow in the footsteps of the great shouty woman and badmouth sucker punch for various baseless subjective arguments based on my own interpretations if that would net me more views.

I'd be all up for it. There's another group discussing much the same, over at http://www.indiegogo.com/misandryinvideogames?c=home . They are taking money, however they've already pledged to give every dollar not spent on the videos to charity, and anticipate spending none of it -- doing a pledge drive at all was basically to mock Anita.

Jim Sterling has even written an article about how horrible they are for wanting to discuss the topic at all.

 

[minuialear]

First of all, which version of the wage gap are you using?
Since I found several, some of them indicating, that, on a whole, women make 0.28cent for every 1$ men make.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763170.html last paragraph.

Other than that, I bow my head to you.
I wrote rashly, without thinking enough about what I had written.
Chapeau

Admittedly the number was used more as an example than as an actual number (I was in a rush), so feel free to call me out for that. I think the general consensus is that the average is 77 cents per male dollar when comparing exact same career and education (it varies wildly depending on industry, though). The number being a whole lot worse for black/latina women than for other women (much closer to the fake number I provided). I believe the low number cited in that last paragraph isn't an indication that they actually only earn 38 cents to every male dollar, but that over a long period of time, men are more likely to get raises or promotions to high-paying jobs than their female counterparts, and therefore are a lot more likely to earn a lot more money, even when taking pregnancy into account. Because maternity leave alone can't account for that drop.

And I pounced on that sentence mainly because all the people in this thread bringing up the "Men have issues too" argument as a reason to dismiss this video and the concerns it says it will comment upon are admittedly starting to drive me crazy.

Yes, men have problems. Yes, many of them are serious. But it is not appropriate to hi-jack a conversation about problems women face to discuss those, as though the problems men face are, as a whole, equally damaging to those faced by women, or as though women shouldn't be discussing problems they face unless they also want to discuss problems that the dominant sex faces. It's not only insensitive to suggest that one is equivalent to the other (certainly the issues that face men are important and do need to be addressed; but not as though they're the same problems that women face), but it's also more than a bit disconcerting that anyone would feel the need to turn a conversation about a minority demographic into a conversation about the dominant demographic; as if a conversation about the oppression of a demographic can never be complete without the dominant demographic maintaining some portion of the spotlight. I'm willing to bet money that everyone in this thread who complained about this woman focusing on women in games but not men, didn't also complain that she's not discussing transgender/transsexual or hermaphrodite representation in games (i.e., isn't talking about those who may not fit the gender binary). And yet people are crying for a need to keep the conversation "equal" by taking a supposedly more comprehensive look at the representation of characters in games? This seems a bit off.

The mere fact that so many people find it completely acceptable to interrupt a conversation about women in media to talk about men (i.e., the dominant sex) in media and dismiss a discussion that doesn't specifically delve into the latter, when a woman interrupting a conversation to speak specifically about women (i.e., one of the sexes that faces damaging discrimination as a whole on a regular basis) often causes a collective groan and in some instances a fair share of harassment and bullying (even when she starts a conversation rather than interrupting another conversation; see the comments for this video for examples) reveals a lot, I'd say.

 

[runic knight]

Thank you for the clarification.
I worry about this place sometimes.

Looking at how the comments have been going, I'd ;say this thread is still a hell of a lot better off then any youtube page that isn't religiously monitored and censored. Still, yeah, see an unpleasant path of discussion given the starting point but there was at least a logical path there...for the most part.

 

[runic knight]

--edit---
I know, double post. Thing acted up on me....

Anybody who thinks that men are descriminated against more than women, blacks, latinos, gays lesbians, transgender people, or even the elderly needs to spend more time in reality.

The one or two times where women get preferential treatment over men does not outweigh the massive advantage that men have every other time.

Who said they are discriminated against more? I don't think a single voice has spoken that, save you in an attempt to straw-man other people's arguments. The only thing being mentioned here is that discrimination affects everyone, in different ways, but it still does. The point being raised, near as I can see from everyone posting that concept, is that because discrimination affects everyone, it comes off as a little narrow viewed to concentrate on a single aspect of a single example of that discrimination and then play off every other sort.

If anyone is getting preferential treatment over another, that is a problem. It doesn't matter what gender. If you had any conviction to the idea of justice and equality, this should not have to be explained to you. Instead you come off as biased and, yes, sexist. No one has denied sexism does exist, that there are differences and differing amounts based on gender, or that it affects society and cultural views different. Instead all I have seen is a number of people promoting an idea of equality when discussion the issue at all, and you trying to make it a women's only issue. It isn't, it affects us all, and the sooner you let go of this notion you have that being white male and young is inherently blessed with advantage, the better.

Hell, you want to know what promotes far worse inequality then gender? Money. You can look and see such a greater extreme based on money then gender in a number of categories. does that mean that since the rich are more privileged they shouldn't be able to say anything on the matter? Because that comes off as what you are saying about gender...

-------------------------------------

Back to topic. I look at women's portrayal in games as a loud annoying cough. It is always there, sometimes faint, sometimes more prominent. Sometimes I forget about it until an unusually loud fit of it reminds me of it's presence. Video games have a bit of an illness, you know? But I know that things aren't always simple and that the cough itself is a symptom of a deeper problem. And it isn't limited to video games either. Movies, tv, comics, culture at large seems to have this cough.

Now, when I see people talking about the issue, I give pause and look. After all, sometimes you get used to a cough, or it comes and goes, or you just can't afford to have it fixed right then, like if you are American like me with our broken healthcare system. And as such, being reminded there is a problem is good. But what they are telling me is not quite right. Yes, there is a cough, I know that. But when they concentrate on female issues in video games, it seems like they are telling someone to fix the cough but nothing more. They are concentrating on the cough alone, like that is the single most important aspect. Being people are generally lazy, and that remains constant be it single people or groups working together to make video games, concentrating on that one issue, that one symptom might not be the right way to handle it. Yes, you might get change, and stop overtly sexist portrayals in games. Yes, you might stop that cough, but then what? Like taking a cough suppressant, it doesn't actually fix anything, it just quiets the symptom. And rather then game makers fixing the underlying issue, they will instead find a way to mask it. We already see various ways they do, from male/female replaceable characters, player made characters, or attempts to force depth or character artificially as they seem to be with the tomb raider game, equating trauma and exploit as character growth and depth.

But what if there is also a rash? It isn't as loud, it isn't as noticeable and is generally just accepted as normal now. When you concentrate solely on the cough, any attempt to get people to pay attention to another symptom, especially one deemed less important, or more controversial, it is blown off or ignored most of the time. Why worry about that slight rash when we got this hacking cough starting up again? This is all the more sad as both would be symptoms of the same illness, and illness itself vastly over looked when just covering up that annoying cough.

Now, when someone like the kickstarter presented her idea, I have to look at it in much the same light. Not only is it a narrowed view concentrating solely on a symptom (and being rather pointless in stating the obvious about it), but it provides excuse to not fix the underlying issue. Why should we keep working on it, we just addressed the cough, let us rest a little, you guys complain too much. And that is to say nothing of the sort who actively deny the other symptoms or deny them any importance.

Games have a problem, one that needs to be looked into and really explore the underlying issue of what is causing it. Attacking a symptom may work, short time, but it doesn't really fix anything, and if you have noticed, often the attempts to mask that symptom is rather sad and backfires. I don't want sexism in gaming in any form, but I know that most of the sexism is the result of more then just a male mindset of some of the designers. It is, as lightly touched on by the kickstarter, related to tropes. But the tropes themselves are reflective of the sort of story telling and the culture the stories are told to and pulled from.

Now, you can concentrate on the female portrayal itself. Goad and prod and guide game designers into making females as equivalently represented as their male counterparts. Watch as they flail, fail, and occasionally succeed and hope the final result is something worthwhile. Myself? Rather then watch them start using more test groups to determine how certain characters will be taken by the public and watching as the stories get worse and worse as they sterilize them in order to be conscious of the female demographic, I would have them find the true cause of it, dig deeper and fix the issue at the source. I don't want all games to be male centered fantasy trips, but I don't think we should stop some from being made. Yet that might be how the treatment of the symptom is handled. And the underlying problem would still persists, if not worsen. No one wants to see a reoccurring illness, and I worry if not handled right, we will see just that.

 

[Spearmaster]

snip

Now I think im seeing the broader scope, If I may generalize and correct me if im wrong here, it seems that at the heart of the issue its not an issue of more women in games or even better women in games really or even how they are portrayed, its that the mostly male gaming superstructure is doing little or nothing to make women feel welcome as equal gamers, that a bridge needs to be gaped for women, not because men have to do it for them but that women are trying to reach halfway already and men, male run company s and male game designers need to be reaching out to them as equals to bridge the gap and have a better gaming environment for all.

Trying to do it from an our side your side standpoint will get us nowhere and the responsibility for the effort doesn't fall on men but rather those in charge and who have the power to make the changes needed for bridging this gap, which just happen to be men at this time.

On the topic of Lara Croft...I watched the trailer and it was quite disgusting, on the surface it seems to have a powerful woman who overcame horrible things to be a hero...but that's the problem, not only was it at the hand of men that she underwent the ordeal but it says to everyone that women can only achieve if they were brutalized and almost raped and their heroism is a by product of physical and psychological trauma which is completely absurd and could be seen as actually more damaging than DN:F because of the illusion and facade it creates. Women have no need of special situations or need to overcome insurmountable odds to be spectacular, only that they be human like the next person, man or woman.

 

[Schadrach]

Admittedly the number was used more as an example than as an actual number (I was in a rush), so feel free to call me out for that. I think the general consensus is that the average is 77 cents per male dollar when comparing exact same career and education (it varies wildly depending on industry, though). The number being a whole lot worse for black/latina women than for other women (much closer to the fake number I provided). I believe the low number cited in that last paragraph isn't an indication that they actually only earn 38 cents to every male dollar, but that over a long period of time, men are more likely to get raises or promotions to high-paying jobs than their female counterparts, and therefore are a lot more likely to earn a lot more money, even when taking pregnancy into account. Because maternity leave alone can't account for that drop.

In the United States, the gender pay gap is measured as the ratio of female to male median yearly earnings among full-time, year-round (FTYR) workers. The female-to-male earnings ratio was 0.77 in 2009, meaning that, in 2009, female FTYR workers earned 77% as much as male FTYR workers.

That is the source of the 77 cents number. It does not group by career or education. As you start comparing on other factors, the gap gets smaller and smaller, which is why the 77 cents number is so often used (as the goal of those persons is to make it as big a problem as possible).

Overtime is a big one. If I were to compare my total earnings to a theoretical woman who is in the same position and paid the same hourly rate (I say theoretical because we are a small business and I'm a one person department) but has the work habits of most of my female coworkers (that is to say, eschews non-mandatory overtime despite it being offered) she would make "73 cents on the dollar" merely due to differences in hours. I am typically working 50 hour weeks, while every female employee we have is typically working 40 hour weeks. Many of the production employees work even longer weeks than I do. The thing is, we're not unusual in that regard -- the vast majority of overtime is worked by men.

Differences in work history is another. Pregnancy is bad for a woman's career, because it means significant time off of work, which effects promotions (between missing opportunities to prove oneself and needing to get back up to speed), in much the same fashion as prolonged illness does. Whereas men in hourly positions tend to be chomping at the bit for more overtime when their wife/girlfriend is pregnant or has recently had a child, to soften the financial stress of, well, babies being expensive and the mother necessarily missing some work.

Single, childless women who entered the labor market in the 90s or later actually make more than similar men.

There have been studies that actually try to account for all other known factors, and depending on exactly how they weigh the various confounding variables, typically come up with with women earning between $0.93 and $1.07 per male dollar that can't be accounted for by known confounding variables, with ~$0.95-$0.98 being common.

I'm willing to bet money that everyone in this thread who complained about this woman focusing on women in games but not men, didn't also complain that she's not discussing transgender/transsexual or hermaphrodite representation in games (i.e., isn't talking about those who may not fit the gender binary). And yet people are crying for a need to keep the conversation "equal" by taking a supposedly more comprehensive look at the representation of characters in games? This seems a bit off.

We could talk about that if you like. There aren't a whole lot of transgender or intersex characters out there to even use as examples, that's for certain. There's Poison, and Kaine from Neir, and at that point I'm drawing a blank. Interestingly, the male presenting "monster" that Kaine's infected with is her gestalt, which has interesting implications once you think about it.

 

[minuialear]

Now I think im seeing the broader scope, If I may generalize and correct me if im wrong here, it seems that at the heart of the issue its not an issue of more women in games or even better women in games really or even how they are portrayed, its that the mostly male gaming superstructure is doing little or nothing to make women feel welcome as equal gamers, that a bridge needs to be gaped for women, not because men have to do it for them but that women are trying to reach halfway already and men, male run company s and male game designers need to be reaching out to them as equals to bridge the gap and have a better gaming environment for all.

There is definitely a "Things have always been this way and we shouldn't have to change just because someone tells us we should" mentality that seems prevalent in the broader gamer audience. It's frequently expressed whenever any minority demographic (ethnic, sexuality, gender, religious, etc) starts saying "You guys keep portraying us like this or not putting us in games at all and we don't like it." The exact same thing happens with race; when people complain about how racist black Final Fantasy characters can be, for example, the gaming community as a whole (not entirely, because there are obviously rational gamers) not only puts down the people saying it's a problem ("Barret's not racist; you're just oversensitive"), but they then take the responsibility they have in representing others in a fair and just light, and stick it on the minority ("If you don't like it, you do something to fix it; we shouldn't have to be politically-correct or cater to you, because we're fine with things as-is"). As if portraying minorities as normal people (or as normal as everyone else is portrayed, at least) rather than stereotyped monstrosities is catering to the minority and not just a smart and compassionate thing to do.

Which is further problematic because it's pretty hard to do anything about it when you're the demographic being oppressed or discriminated against by a demographic that doesn't seem overly concerned about the fact that it's doing so. Because even if you make those games, it's not like it changes the fact that the AAA games are still presenting your demographic terribly, that people still seem to think it's alright, and that now they justify the fact that they continue to do it with the fact that you just made a small indie game that featured positive female/black/gay/Muslim/etc characters, thus good minority characters exist, and thus we can stop worrying about how we represent them in games. Even the most resolute people of that minority are going to be a bit put off and discouraged by that.

Trying to do it from an our side your side standpoint will get us nowhere and the responsibility for the effort doesn't fall on men but rather those in charge and who have the power to make the changes needed for bridging this gap, which just happen to be men at this time.

Exactly.

On the topic of Lara Croft...I watched the trailer and it was quite disgusting, on the surface it seems to have a powerful woman who overcame horrible things to be a hero...but that's the problem, not only was it at the hand of men that she underwent the ordeal but it says to everyone that women can only achieve if they were brutalized and almost raped and their heroism is a by product of physical and psychological trauma which is completely absurd and could be seen as actually more damaging than DN:F because of the illusion and facade it creates. Women have no need of special situations or need to overcome insurmountable odds to be spectacular, only that they be human like the next person, man or woman.

Also exactly. And if it didn't feel like strong female leads were categorically being presented or revised as people who started out weak and had to face trauma to become heroic (or started as weak women who wanted to be strong to woo a guy; i.e., Samus), it wouldn't be as much of an issue, since it wouldn't feel like an industry-wide assertion that female characters must start out this way for their personalities to make sense. Because of course you can find examples of male characters becoming heroes to woo women or starting out weak and becoming strong characters; but there are also just as many (if not more) male characters who are heroic "just because" it's who they are, to the point where singular examples of men becoming heroes without having inherently heroic personalities don't seem to imply a broader assumption about how men become heroes.

That is the source of the 77 cents number. It does not group by career or education. As you start comparing on other factors, the gap gets smaller and smaller, which is why the 77 cents number is so often used (as the goal of those persons is to make it as big a problem as possible).

That depends on the factors that you compare and how you compare them, I would imagine.

If I were to compare my total earnings to a theoretical woman who is in the same position and paid the same hourly rate (I say theoretical because we are a small business and I'm a one person department) but has the work habits of most of my female coworkers (that is to say, eschews non-mandatory overtime despite it being offered) she would make "73 cents on the dollar" merely due to differences in hours. I am typically working 50 hour weeks, while every female employee we have is typically working 40 hour weeks. Many of the production employees work even longer weeks than I do. The thing is, we're not unusual in that regard -- the vast majority of overtime is worked by men.

Is this based on research as well or just personal experience? And is this comparing like jobs to like jobs? Because the women and men where I work spend equal amounts of time in the office (assuming we're talking about people in the same position; support people don't spend as much time as people doing the "main" work).

Differences in work history is another. Pregnancy is bad for a woman's career, because it means significant time off of work, which effects promotions (between missing opportunities to prove oneself and needing to get back up to speed), in much the same fashion as prolonged illness does. Whereas men in hourly positions tend to be chomping at the bit for more overtime when their wife/girlfriend is pregnant or has recently had a child, to soften the financial stress of, well, babies being expensive and the mother necessarily missing some work.

The fact that maternity leave isn't required to be provided (which allows the father to earn money while his wife can't because she's recovering from what can amount to a surgical procedure) likely has something to do with this as well.

Single, childless women who entered the labor market in the 90s or later actually make more than similar men.

As far as I can tell, this applies only to those who work in major metropolitan areas (i.e., New York, Atlanta, LA, etc). It's also because "For every two guys who graduate from college or get a higher degree, three women do." I.e., 50% more women are getting higher degrees than men, and therefore earn more. I.e., it's not necessarily that they're being paid more equally on average (or that they get paid more than men ever), it's that they start out better-educated on average, and since the jumps in salary from GED to Bachelors, Bachelors to Masters, and Masters to PhD are so big, the only way women wouldn't be paid more on average is if their salaries literally weren't changing when they got higher degrees (which thankfully isn't the case, but it paints a deceptive and, when you really think about it, a pretty depressing picture).

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html#ixzz1ySa0boeX

We could talk about that if you like. There aren't a whole lot of transgender or intersex characters out there to even use as examples, that's for certain. There's Poison, and Kaine from Neir, and at that point I'm drawing a blank. Interestingly, the male presenting "monster" that Kaine's infected with is her gestalt, which has interesting implications once you think about it.

I think you've missed my point, so I'll use an analogy.

Oftentimes, when black people are talking about how past racism accounts for a poor, lower class population of blacks today, people will interject to say, "But there are poor white people too; why are we only concerned with poor black people?" First of all, it's a discussion about black poverty; black people are not obligated to talk about white people when they are discussing their own poverty. Yes, there are poor white people and yes they don't all have super-awesome lives (though they are still better off than their black analogues, based on every research study out in the last few decades). But that is a discussion unrelated to black poverty (considering the reasons for it are completely different), and belongs elsewhere.

But secondly (and more to the point I raised in that paragraph you cited): if someone is so concerned with broadening the discussion to be not about just black people, but a broader discussion of poverty, then what about Latino poverty? Native American poverty? Etc? Why is it (mostly white) people say "Well we have problems too, so let's broaden the discussion to the point where it's not just about you" in response to a black person's discussion of black issues,, but they only think to expand the discussion to the point where it includes their (i.e., the dominant demographic's) perspective?

Does that seem as odd to you as it does to me? Have you seen as many examples of, say, Latino people interrupting a discussion about black poverty to say "This conversation doesn't include analysis of my problems, and it should"? How often do these (mostly white) commentators also say "Latinos are also poor; let's talk about them, whites, Native Americans, Asians...rather than just black people"? What is really behind their request to include their problems in the discussion?

 

[runic knight]

I wonder if the percentage affects things? Obviously there are more male characters then female. Given that being the case in conventional story telling, from which video games often draw plots from, that is not unexpected. Not saying it is right or fair, merely a matter of fact a the moment. But I digress. Now, lets say for an off the head number, the split is 30/70, with female protagonists as the 30. Now, of these characters, you have a small percentage that are worth a damn, while most the others are cardboard cut-out caricatures. The problem then comes into perspective a little, as lets say only 10% of either are any real quality. That would be, out of a hundred, 3 quality females for every 7 male characters, then a sea of crap on both sides. Of course it would give a bad initial image about female portrayal with a set up like that. There are fewer female protagonists and fewer still good ones.

That said, perhaps it is because too few are using female characters in games in general, that it decreases the chance of a good one. Less chances at bat meaning fewer hits, to put it another way. It is my idea that a portion of the problem is that there is an added level of criticism on female characters that decreases the appeal of using them in a story where gender is less important then the character themselves. Now, I am not saying this is the only issue when it comes to females, or minorities in general, not by a long shot, but I can't help but think there is a connection to some degree there. If you can choose between an aspect that will have extra scrutiny, and therefore more effort either defending the choice or making sure to not unintentionally offend, versus one without the extra baggage, people will tend to choose the easier path, for better or worse.

 

[Schadrach]

That is the source of the 77 cents number. It does not group by career or education. As you start comparing on other factors, the gap gets smaller and smaller, which is why the 77 cents number is so often used (as the goal of those persons is to make it as big a problem as possible).

That depends on the factors that you compare and how you compare them, I would imagine.

Yes, yes it does. As I mentioned in the post you quoted from, studies trying to do exactly that typically come up with numbers in the 0.93-1.07 range, depending on how they treat the confounding variables. 0.95-0.98 is typical of the results, or a 2-5% gap that can't be attributed to other known influences.

If I were to compare my total earnings to a theoretical woman who is in the same position and paid the same hourly rate (I say theoretical because we are a small business and I'm a one person department) but has the work habits of most of my female coworkers (that is to say, eschews non-mandatory overtime despite it being offered) she would make "73 cents on the dollar" merely due to differences in hours. I am typically working 50 hour weeks, while every female employee we have is typically working 40 hour weeks. Many of the production employees work even longer weeks than I do. The thing is, we're not unusual in that regard -- the vast majority of overtime is worked by men.

Is this based on research as well or just personal experience? And is this comparing like jobs to like jobs? Because the women and men where I work spend equal amounts of time in the office (assuming we're talking about people in the same position; support people don't spend as much time as people doing the "main" work).

There is research showing that men work a large majority of overtime (and that is certainly the case at my workplace as well).

The *example* was based on me positing another theoretical individual who was paid at the same hourly rate I was, but opted not to take available non-mandatory overtime. Literally the "no overtime vs average overtime" gap at my workplace has one earning "73 cents on the dollar". It's a side effect of the number not being based on pay rates but on total earnings, and overtime being paid at an increased rate. A demonstration of the concept and how much difference it can make fairly quickly, nothing more.

Differences in work history is another. Pregnancy is bad for a woman's career, because it means significant time off of work, which effects promotions (between missing opportunities to prove oneself and needing to get back up to speed), in much the same fashion as prolonged illness does. Whereas men in hourly positions tend to be chomping at the bit for more overtime when their wife/girlfriend is pregnant or has recently had a child, to soften the financial stress of, well, babies being expensive and the mother necessarily missing some work.

The fact that maternity leave isn't required to be provided (which allows the father to earn money while his wife can't because she's recovering from what can amount to a surgical procedure) likely has something to do with this as well.

Even if maternity leave is provided, a childbirth is going to delay a woman's career by delaying promotion, maternity leave not being required exacerbates that.

We could talk about that if you like. There aren't a whole lot of transgender or intersex characters out there to even use as examples, that's for certain. There's Poison, and Kaine from Neir, and at that point I'm drawing a blank. Interestingly, the male presenting "monster" that Kaine's infected with is her gestalt, which has interesting implications once you think about it.

I think you've missed my point, so I'll use an analogy.

Oftentimes, when black people are talking about how past racism accounts for a poor, lower class population of blacks today, people will interject to say, "But there are poor white people too; why are we only concerned with poor black people?" First of all, it's a discussion about black poverty; black people are not obligated to talk about white people when they are discussing their own poverty. Yes, there are poor white people and yes they don't all have super-awesome lives (though they are still better off than their black analogues, based on every research study out in the last few decades). But that is a discussion unrelated to black poverty (considering the reasons for it are completely different), and belongs elsewhere.

But secondly (and more to the point I raised in that paragraph you cited): if someone is so concerned with broadening the discussion to be not about just black people, but a broader discussion of poverty, then what about Latino poverty? Native American poverty? Etc? Why is it (mostly white) people say "Well we have problems too, so let's broaden the discussion to the point where it's not just about you" in response to a black person's discussion of black issues,, but they only think to expand the discussion to the point where it includes their (i.e., the dominant demographic's) perspective?

Does that seem as odd to you as it does to me? Have you seen as many examples of, say, Latino people interrupting a discussion about black poverty to say "This conversation doesn't include analysis of my problems, and it should"? How often do these (mostly white) commentators also say "Latinos are also poor; let's talk about them, whites, Native Americans, Asians...rather than just black people"? What is really behind their request to include their problems in the discussion?

I think you missed my point, which was, "Since you brought it up, sure let's talk about that. It's certainly a related topic, and since the ball's in my court, I guess I'll start." As opposed to "How dare you bring up that there is evidence counter to my statement, or that maybe an issue isn't as gendered as I am letting on? OMG MISOGYNIST MANSPLAINERS DERAIL EVERYTHING!!1!oneone!"

It's worth noting per your later example that no one is claiming that the problem simply doesn't apply to Latinos at all despite evidence suggesting otherwise. Or in this case "video game character writing is terrible all around, pretending it's female specific isn't helpful." That she intentionally trolled 4chan so she could get "proof" of how misogynist the "gamer community" is (not that 4chan only has one response to being poked at, or anything) to play the victim card (ironically painting herself as a damsel in distress to get more funding to say how terrible the concept of a damsel in distress is =p) doesn't help opinions of her either.

 

[minuialear]

That is the source of the 77 cents number. It does not group by career or education. As you start comparing on other factors, the gap gets smaller and smaller, which is why the 77 cents number is so often used (as the goal of those persons is to make it as big a problem as possible).

That depends on the factors that you compare and how you compare them, I would imagine.

Yes, yes it does. As I mentioned in the post you quoted from, studies trying to do exactly that typically come up with numbers in the 0.93-1.07 range, depending on how they treat the confounding variables. 0.95-0.98 is typical of the results, or a 2-5% gap that can't be attributed to other known influences.

Do you have such a study on hand?

If I were to compare my total earnings to a theoretical woman who is in the same position and paid the same hourly rate (I say theoretical because we are a small business and I'm a one person department) but has the work habits of most of my female coworkers (that is to say, eschews non-mandatory overtime despite it being offered) she would make "73 cents on the dollar" merely due to differences in hours. I am typically working 50 hour weeks, while every female employee we have is typically working 40 hour weeks. Many of the production employees work even longer weeks than I do. The thing is, we're not unusual in that regard -- the vast majority of overtime is worked by men.

Is this based on research as well or just personal experience? And is this comparing like jobs to like jobs? Because the women and men where I work spend equal amounts of time in the office (assuming we're talking about people in the same position; support people don't spend as much time as people doing the "main" work).

There is research showing that men work a large majority of overtime (and that is certainly the case at my workplace as well).

The *example* was based on me positing another theoretical individual who was paid at the same hourly rate I was, but opted not to take available non-mandatory overtime. Literally the "no overtime vs average overtime" gap at my workplace has one earning "73 cents on the dollar". It's a side effect of the number not being based on pay rates but on total earnings, and overtime being paid at an increased rate. A demonstration of the concept and how much difference it can make fairly quickly, nothing more.

Do you have examples of the research (my response to this one was more of a blatant request for it than for the first point)?

Differences in work history is another. Pregnancy is bad for a woman's career, because it means significant time off of work, which effects promotions (between missing opportunities to prove oneself and needing to get back up to speed), in much the same fashion as prolonged illness does. Whereas men in hourly positions tend to be chomping at the bit for more overtime when their wife/girlfriend is pregnant or has recently had a child, to soften the financial stress of, well, babies being expensive and the mother necessarily missing some work.

The fact that maternity leave isn't required to be provided (which allows the father to earn money while his wife can't because she's recovering from what can amount to a surgical procedure) likely has something to do with this as well.

Even if maternity leave is provided, a childbirth is going to delay a woman's career by delaying promotion, maternity leave not being required exacerbates that.

Unless the woman stays home longer than three months to deal with the child, it shouldn't (in theory) account for a significant delay in promotion, and (in theory) shouldn't account for a statistically significant dip in pay compared to similar male co-workers. It'd be interesting see how much time women take off, on average (when I have time I'll look that up and revisit this).

I think you missed my point, which was, "Since you brought it up, sure let's talk about that. It's certainly a related topic, and since the ball's in my court, I guess I'll start."

Well I did mention at least once that discussions about a specific demographic should stick to that demographic (i.e., anyone who wants to expand the conversation or speak about another demographic should start a new conversation rather than subverting the current one for that purpose), so at least part of my point was still lost.

As opposed to "How dare you bring up that there is evidence counter to my statement, or that maybe an issue isn't as gendered as I am letting on? OMG MISOGYNIST MANSPLAINERS DERAIL EVERYTHING!!1!oneone!"

Thanks for the laugh. The problem is, citing man pecs in a discussion on how women are portrayed in games, isn't "evidence counter to {Kickstarter girl's} statement," which is "women aren't portrayed fairly in games." Had she said "All women in games are terrible and all men in games are awesome" you'd have a leg to stand on, but that wasn't the case. In terms of "maybe an issue isn't as gendered as I am letting on," this stance clearly ignores the intent and thinking behind how various demographics are portrayed, and paints the entire conversation in an over-simplified "Well things aren't exactly the way I personally want either, so the issue is the same" light, which is disingenuous to the discussion.

Regardless of whether men personally feel like they want to engage in power fantasies, or regardless of whether they actually appreciate the chisled man pecs, the fact is male characters are made like this to attempt to appeal to men (i.e., the perceived target demographic, even though women are starting to play games as a whole more than men). Developers make these characters because they think this is what men want. They very obviously aren't made this way to appeal to women (even if they do appeal to many women; certainly there are women who find them sexy).

On the other side of that, regardless of whether women personally feel objectified by the slutty costumes or they actually find them empowering, it's clear that for the most part, these characters are not intended to appeal to women, are not intended to serve as sexual or power fantasies for women, etc. They are also meant to appeal to men. And again, even if there are men who also find them disgusting or don't find them attractive or appealing (such men, of course, exist), and even if there are women who want these characters in their games (such women, of course, exist), the fact of the matter is that developers are still making them because they think this is what men want.

(And for the sake of inclusiveness, considering most trans and hermaphrodite characters I've seen tend to be portrayed as traps or similar sexual roles that clearly don't seem to be meant to appeal to those groups of people, the same issue arises.)

So we have this dynamic where men are depicted one way in order to appeal to a male demographic, and everyone else is also depicted one way in order to appeal to a male demographic. If one can't see a problem with that that does cause the issue to be pretty gendered, then said person is probably beyond help at this point.

Which isn't to say one can never portray a female character in a manner that is meant to appeal to men, etc; but when all female characters that people complain about tend to share that quality, it shows us something.

THAT's why it's "derailing" the conversation; because it's missing the entire point of the conversation.

It's worth noting per your later example that no one is claiming that the problem simply doesn't apply to Latinos at all despite evidence suggesting otherwise. Or in this case "video game character writing is terrible all around, pretending it's female specific isn't helpful."

The problem (which is explained in greater detail by other people on the internet) is that it's another example of a majority demographic (who either doesn't understand or care about the problem) trying to both downplay the significance of the problem, while adding themselves into the conversation. It's a subtle but common thing people in power positions (not necessarily just in terms of race/sex/etc, but also just in general) do to assert "Hey, I have a problem that on the surface seems exactly the same as yours and I'm fine, so let's stop talking about your problem" and more often than not it is accompanied by a degree of "me me me" that can only be achieved by being in a position of power for so long you don't even remember ever getting there.

That she intentionally trolled 4chan so she could get "proof" of how misogynist the "gamer community" is (not that 4chan only has one response to being poked at, or anything) to play the victim card (ironically painting herself as a damsel in distress to get more funding to say how terrible the concept of a damsel in distress is =p) doesn't help opinions of her either.

Even assuming she purposefully put the link there so that she'd get bad comments...it's not like posting a link requires everyone to send her death and rape threats. People on 4chan, if there really was no issue, wouldn't have responded so poorly, and her scheme to look like a damsel in distress (she's not exactly asking anyone to "save" her, so I think your label's wrong) would have fallen flat on its face, because it would have proved that there really is no need for her videos, because everyone is already able and willing to hold intellectual discussions about the topic. In other words, her motives (you assume they were sinister, I'll remain neutral), neither excuse nor change the fact that people were so bigoted and hateful that they felt the need to post over-the-top-terrible comments in reaction to her video; which in fact proved her point that women aren't being viewed fairly, when it was so easy to pull these people out of the woodwork for a project about women, but there are dozens of other projects asking for more to make other videos, or are asking for money for arguably less important topics, who have not gotten and likely would never get that kind of response from 4chan (or Youtube or anywhere else, for that matter). Regardless of how she made the point, she proved she has a point (and we can debate whether her point is valid or not once we have the videos to actually critique).

 

[runic knight]

Even assuming she purposefully put the link there so that she'd get bad comments...it's not like posting a link requires everyone to send her death and rape threats. People on 4chan, if there really was no issue, wouldn't have responded so poorly, and her scheme to look like a damsel in distress (she's not exactly asking anyone to "save" her, so I think your label's wrong) would have fallen flat on its face, because it would have proved that there really is no need for her videos, because everyone is already able and willing to hold intellectual discussions about the topic. In other words, her motives (you assume they were sinister, I'll remain neutral), neither excuse nor change the fact that people were so bigoted and hateful that they felt the need to post over-the-top-terrible comments in reaction to her video; which in fact proved her point that women aren't being viewed fairly, when it was so easy to pull these people out of the woodwork for a project about women, but there are dozens of other projects asking for more to make other videos, or are asking for money for arguably less important topics, who have not gotten and likely would never get that kind of response from 4chan (or Youtube or anywhere else, for that matter). Regardless of how she made the point, she proved she has a point (and we can debate whether her point is valid or not once we have the videos to actually critique).

Well, this is disingenuous reasoning. Seriously. Your answer is that by the fact she created a controversy by poking volatile self righteous assholes, it shows gamers aren't responsible enough to have a real discussion on the topic? What sort of half-assed logic is that? Even more so when the community here, a far better representation of gamers rather then anonymous asshats jumping on a hate bandwagon, has been having the discussion from a variety of stances and opinions relating to the topic.

Honestly, lets apply this to other such hot topics? Religion? Well, neither side can discuss it since we have the likes of the Westburo baptist or the occasional militant atheist. How about politics? Pick a side, you can find a high number of brain dead asshats on both side of the isle.

The problem with this reasoning, with this topic in general, is the way it is set up. It is nothing but a confirmation bias. You get asshats? Means there is a problem with gamers. You get people discussing the topic more in depth? Means the is depth enough to justify the topic, therefore there is a problem. You do see how this logic, when applied to any other topic looks ridiculous, right? How you can support whatever stance you want with it? Hell, you want a better parallel, lets use race. Go out, find some militant nutters on the web, be they nazi's, black panther-esc, whatever. Then post you're asking for money to do a video series on the plight of the people they seem to hate. Then through up your youtube channel and watch as the comment spam rolls in. Take a screen shot of the vile and hatred and tell me it is really that different then the sort she got.

Now, before you start, this is not trying to derail the conversation at this point, this is me trying to express the problems of logic in how the argument is being presented.

This topic of sexism and video games has some merit, though I think it is better concentrated on the whys of it and underlying issues. Trying to point to examples of asshats being asshats after posting in the asshat's home to entice them to being asshats in public is only evidence of one thing: There are asshats on the internet, something NO ONE needs to be told about.

Trying to present her case as someone special or unique in it's justification of her position is, flat out, sexist. It comes off as condescending, both dismissive of the reality of the net, and the countless other hot-button issues because of the asshats that lurk with strong opinion and intolerant attitudes behind veils of anonymity, and like you are making a special case for her, because of her gender, defining a sexist ideal that her plight is somehow worth rallying against more then others, that what happens to her is somehow different enough and worse enough to merit a special consideration. In short, it looks like that side of the argument wants to be treated different because of gender.

 

[Schadrach]

Do you have such a study on hand?

Googled "adjust wage gape for confounding variables", and the first result was http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf , from the summary and conclusion section thereof (page 35, if you'd like to read it yourself):

As a result, it has not been possible to develop reliable estimates of the total percentage of the raw gender wage gap for which all of the factors that have been separately found to contribute to the gap collectively account. In this study, an attempt has been made to use data from a large cross-sectional database, the Outgoing Rotation Group files of the 2007 CPS, to construct variables that satisfactorily characterize factors whose effects have previously been estimated only using longitudinal data, so that reliable estimates of those effects can be derived in an analysis of the cross-sectional data. Specifically, variables have been developed to represent career interruption among workers with specific gender, age, and number of children. Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent.

Didn't bother to go further, though there are other studies to the same general effect.

Do you have examples of the research (my response to this one was more of a blatant request for it than for the first point)?

Again, Googled, returned first result: http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/themas/arbeid-sociale-zekerheid/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2011/2011-3521-wm.htm shows more men working overtime than women, and men tending to work longer overtime when doing so.

Unless the woman stays home longer than three months to deal with the child, it shouldn't (in theory) account for a significant delay in promotion, and (in theory) shouldn't account for a statistically significant dip in pay compared to similar male co-workers. It'd be interesting see how much time women take off, on average (when I have time I'll look that up and revisit this).

If you miss less than three months of work at a time, it shouldn't have a significant effect on your career? That's interesting to know. It would be interesting to have that data, though. One of the major things that negatively effects a woman's lifetime earnings is having children and the number of children had, and is noted as a major factor in the study linked above.

Regardless of whether men personally feel like they want to engage in power fantasies, or regardless of whether they actually appreciate the chisled man pecs, the fact is male characters are made like this to attempt to appeal to men (i.e., the perceived target demographic, even though women are starting to play games as a whole more than men).

Are they? The last numbers I'd seen on that said women were a large minority, 40-odd percent, but I don't have it handy.

Even assuming she purposefully put the link there so that she'd get bad comments...it's not like posting a link requires everyone to send her death and rape threats. People on 4chan, if there really was no issue, wouldn't have responded so poorly, and her scheme to look like a damsel in distress (she's not exactly asking anyone to "save" her, so I think your label's wrong) would have fallen flat on its face, because it would have proved that there really is no need for her videos, because everyone is already able and willing to hold intellectual discussions about the topic.

She didn't just "put the link there", she spammed the hell out of 4chan (there are screenshots with several therads for the video on screen at once, and more than one such screenshot). 4chan isn't known for it's emotional range, either: It has 3 settings, 1. Making memes, 2. Laughing at memes, 3. BOUNDLESS DESTRUCTIVE RAGE. It essentially doesn't matter who you are or what you stand for with them. It's rather like grabbing a hornet's nest, shaking it, breaking it in half, shoving it down your pants, and acting like being stung is proof of an underlying problem with everywhere outside.

These are also the same people who dressed like Death Eaters so they could run around Half-Blood Prince release parties shouting that "Snape Kills Dumbledore." Who compromise people's facebook accounts to cover them in homosexual porn and call in death threats if they can get your number. They literally do things that piss off/scare people to piss off/scare them because that's what they get their kicks from. The most "good" they've ever been in relation to anything were the Anonymous Scientology protests (which doubled as a test of whether or not they could get large scale coordinated RL actions to happen).

In other words, her motives (you assume they were sinister, I'll remain neutral), neither excuse nor change the fact that people were so bigoted and hateful that they felt the need to post over-the-top-terrible comments in reaction to her video; which in fact proved her point that women aren't being viewed fairly, when it was so easy to pull these people out of the woodwork for a project about women, but there are dozens of other projects asking for more to make other videos, or are asking for money for arguably less important topics, who have not gotten and likely would never get that kind of response from 4chan (or Youtube or anywhere else, for that matter). Regardless of how she made the point, she proved she has a point (and we can debate whether her point is valid or not once we have the videos to actually critique).

The timing of it is very unusual if her motives were neutral. She waited until near the end of her kickstarter campaign to put the video up on YouTube, stirred a hornet's nest (and she's internet savvy enough to *know* exactly where agitating 4chan leads) (also, either she started the spamflood herself, or someone watching her video feed closely did, because the 4chan spam started immediately on video upload). She knew they would come, because 4chan *always* attacks anything that irritates them in the slightest. That left plenty of time to scrape up some examples of the kinds of horror that 4chan unleashes (her most immediately noticeable trait was "female" so that's where the attacks were targeted, again standard 4chan response), post it on her blog showing all the unfounded attacks against her and how it's proof that the "gamer community" is terrible, get on game news sites (the only part of this she couldn't reliably predict in any detail) and make bank off of white knights and (to use Shakesville's imagery) teaspooners.

http://www.kicktraq.com/projects/566429325/tropes-vs-women-in-video-games/

Which is, by the way, a very unusual pattern of funding for a KS campaign, if you compare to other wildly successful ones. Typically small spikes when limited content awards and new stretch goals come out, and a big one on the last day (from people who were one the fence and got the reminder email).

Also, sorry for taking so long to reply, between work and the Secret World ARG thing, I've not been quick about it (ALL GLORY TO THE PAPER WALL *twitch*).

 

[Sovht]

Wow. Talk about one sided journalism. For a rational view of why people are against this that isn't just picking youtube comments, which are vile on every subject under the sun, and calling it news, here:

So... he talks about documentaries needing to be unbiased, and then goes on to be incredibly biased himself. Wonderful. A lot of the things he said seems to be opinion based, like how 'everyone already understands this subject already.' I highly doubt this is true. That's not to say he doesn't make valid points, just that those points seem to be masked by pure hate for the kickstarter. And I wouldn't call that video very rational either considering it's mainly just him bitching about things he doesn't like.

Um, he isn't doing a documentary?
[snip...]

Sarkeesian is not doing a documentary either. Her project is "a 5-video series (now expanded to 12 videos) entitled Tropes vs Women in Video Games, exploring female character stereotypes" (from the Kickstarter description). In fact, the word "documentary" doesn't even exist on the project home page. See for yourself: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/566429325/tropes-vs-women-in-video-games

The "Stupid Shitty Kickstarter Documentaries" video wrongly labels Sarkeesian's project as a documentary and then proceeds to criticize her for not living up to the creator's vision of the documentary genre. This is a glaring, laughable failure. He shot his own high horse; it's pretty hard to take anything he says seriously after that.

Back to the article. Although Grey only mentioned the YouTube comments in his story, Sarkeesian also recieved rape and death threats through her website and deeply depressing (if perhaps predictable) vandalism to her Wikipedia page. This story is not simply about YouTube comments.

For those who don't think this is news, Wired, Forbes, Guardian, and other news outlets disagree. Of course, looking at the project page on Kickstarter or FeministFrequency (http://www.feministfrequency.com/ ) would have gotten you this all information in a much more timely fashion.

And for those who aren't sure why we should care about this kind of harassment, Jay Smooth explains it pretty well: http://vimeo.com/44117178

I realize I'm a bit late to this party but I had to say something about that video's fabricated objection because it seemed like no one else had (I looked).

 

[Therumancer]

there is literally zero good that can come from anything that she claims to represent, since the issue she is "addressing" doesn't exist

Wait.

I am trying to think of characters I can play that are flat-chested women.

Actually, any female characters at all that have boobs smaller than a D-cup.

Can't play them on World of Warcraft. Can't play them on Rock Band. Heck, I think the only place I can play girls without big boobs is when the characters are childlike or cartoony (and sometimes even the kids are sexed up, see e.g. 15-year-old Rikku from Final Fantasy X).

But let's get back to your argument:

how would you try and shut her down if you were of a mind to do so? You can say you wouldn't engage in E-intimidation, but at the same time it's not like there are any other recourses.

So, when someone says something you don't like, or engages in a study attempting to prove a position you disagree with, the proper response is to gag them? What the hell, man?

Let's try this: All the people in the world get to say things, and some of them will be right and a lot of them will be wrong. And you can choose which ones you listen to. But you don't have any right to go around deciding which ones OTHER PEOPLE get to listen to. Let alone deciding which ones other people give their money to.

I mean, clearly enough people disagree with your premise (they think this issue exists and is worth discussing) that they managed to raise all the money she needed in, what, 24 hours?

You ever hear the quote "I may disagree with what you're saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it?" Or here's one I read the other day: "We can have intellectual individualism and the rich cultural diversities that we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes."

People are free to differ. No one should be praising people for shutting them up.

Sorry about delay in response, I've been busy and for some reason the Escapist was locking up the last few days.

Also for the record there are plenty of women who come in below a D-cup in video games, heck some games like STO, Saint's Row, and others even give you sliders. Two that come to mind right off the bat are Final Fantasy characters, Rikku (one of the most enduringly popular), and Garnet/Dagger. Lina Inverse has gotten several "Slayers" games in Japan as well, and that's just off the top of my head.

Do not misunderstand my point here either, there is a differance between not giving someone a platform, and gagging them. Crackpots have the right to rant and rave, but that does not mean they should be elevated to a position of being able to do it in front of millions of people.

Yes, our vlogger has managed to meet her goal, I do not consider that a good thing (obviously) nor do those who set out to try and stop her, in this case they happened to fail.

 

[minuialear]

Just as a general inquiry, is there a reason why you skip parts of my posts and only respond to other parts? Particularly, I'm referring to when I responded to your "women are starting to earn more than men" comment and 90% of the response to your strawman argument.

I'm also going to have to be rather slow on the replies, so no worries.

Googled "adjust wage gape for confounding variables", and the first result was http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf , from the summary and conclusion section thereof (page 35, if you'd like to read it yourself):

As a result, it has not been possible to develop reliable estimates of the total percentage of the raw gender wage gap for which all of the factors that have been separately found to contribute to the gap collectively account. In this study, an attempt has been made to use data from a large cross-sectional database, the Outgoing Rotation Group files of the 2007 CPS, to construct variables that satisfactorily characterize factors whose effects have previously been estimated only using longitudinal data, so that reliable estimates of those effects can be derived in an analysis of the cross-sectional data. Specifically, variables have been developed to represent career interruption among workers with specific gender, age, and number of children. Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent.

Didn't bother to go further, though there are other studies to the same general effect.

Still working through this one; will probably have to get back to you on it.

Again, Googled, returned first result: http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/themas/arbeid-sociale-zekerheid/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2011/2011-3521-wm.htm shows more men working overtime than women, and men tending to work longer overtime when doing so.

Are you from the Netherlands? Have we been arguing about wage equality within two different countries this entire time?

If you miss less than three months of work at a time, it shouldn't have a significant effect on your career? That's interesting to know. It would be interesting to have that data, though. One of the major things that negatively effects a woman's lifetime earnings is having children and the number of children had, and is noted as a major factor in the study linked above.

It might set you back that many months (maybe add an extra month), but I can't see any fair situation where missing three months of work (or less) would cause someone to be set back a year or more in terms of promotion. So indeed, that could be part of the problem (maybe it's worth also comparing this to disability time off, to see if it's a gendered issue).

Are they? The last numbers I'd seen on that said women were a large minority, 40-odd percent, but I don't have it handy.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2014821/Women-play-games-just-men--prefer-gaming-sex-survey-reveals.html

http://venturebeat.com/2011/02/22/do-women-play-more-games-than-men/

The gap is closing fairly quickly.

She didn't just "put the link there", she spammed the hell out of 4chan (there are screenshots with several therads for the video on screen at once, and more than one such screenshot).4chan isn't known for it's emotional range, either: It has 3 settings, 1. Making memes, 2. Laughing at memes, 3. BOUNDLESS DESTRUCTIVE RAGE. It essentially doesn't matter who you are or what you stand for with them. It's rather like grabbing a hornet's nest, shaking it, breaking it in half, shoving it down your pants, and acting like being stung is proof of an underlying problem with everywhere outside.

Do you have proof that she's the one who did all the spamming? I can just as easily see someone on 4chan putting it up on 4chan "for the lulz" as I can see her doing it to get a bunch of people to rape-threat her.

Also I wanna point out the comments posted in (what I assume is) her blog (i.e., the ones I'm referring to, at least) are from YouTube; while YouTube isn't known for its great userbase either, posting something on YouTube isn't quite the same thing and doesn't automatically illicit negative responses just for the sake of negativity (as is the case on 4chan a lot). YouTube people who post terrible things usually do so because they are, in fact, terrible people.

The timing of it is very unusual if her motives were neutral. She waited until near the end of her kickstarter campaign to put the video up on YouTube, stirred a hornet's nest (and she's internet savvy enough to *know* exactly where agitating 4chan leads) (also, either she started the spamflood herself, or someone watching her video feed closely did, because the 4chan spam started immediately on video upload).

...

It didn't sound like she had a whole lot of money before the video went up, so maybe it was a last-minute effort to get to her target? Maybe she never did a Kickstarter before so she didn't get how it worked (or she assumed she was awesome enough to get the money without the extra video)? Maybe she put it up somewhere else before, it didn't get a lot of views, so she put it up on YouTube? Maybe she just sucks at timing? There are plenty of scenarios we can draw from it.

I mean, your theory is possible, I'll give you that. Especially if we assume she's an incredibly sinister person (which is possible; I can't say I've seen enough of her stuff to say for a fact that she isn't).

On the other hand...

Well, this is disingenuous reasoning. Seriously. Your answer is that by the fact she created a controversy by poking volatile self righteous assholes, it shows gamers aren't responsible enough to have a real discussion on the topic?

Er, not quite. My answer is that by showing that there are people (not just on 4chan; the video started on YouTube, remember?) who would rather threaten her physically than allow her to say her piece (regardless of whether her piece is worth saying), it was demonstrated that there's still a very vocal and large division of the gaming community that's flat-out oppressive or boys-club-y to women, and that there's another large division of the gaming community that evidently never noticed how bad this other division was but is trying to rationalize their insanity. I.e., it shows that there are a lot of gamers who do in fact need some education on the topic, either because they're still bigoted idiots or because they aren't bigoted idiots, but they (whether because they misunderstand the problem or for other reasons) feel the need to justify portions of the bigoted idiots's behavior for some reason. Either way, effective dialogue (and by "effective" I mean "can actually cause some people to change some stuff") can't really be had until at least the second group is brought up to speed.

The rest of your post is pretty long and I'm not even sure if it's worth me going through it, considering I assume it all works off of this.

 

[runic knight]

Er, not quite. My answer is that by showing that there are people (not just on 4chan; the video started on YouTube, remember?) who would rather threaten her physically than allow her to say her piece (regardless of whether her piece is worth saying), it was demonstrated that there's still a very vocal and large division of the gaming community that's flat-out oppressive or boys-club-y to women, and that there's another large division of the gaming community that evidently never noticed how bad this other division was but is trying to rationalize their insanity. I.e., it shows that there are a lot of gamers who do in fact need some education on the topic, either because they're still bigoted idiots or because they aren't bigoted idiots, but they (whether because they misunderstand the problem or for other reasons) feel the need to justify portions of the bigoted idiots's behavior for some reason. Either way, effective dialogue (and by "effective" I mean "can actually cause some people to change some stuff") can't really be had until at least the second group is brought up to speed.

The rest of your post is pretty long and I'm not even sure if it's worth me going through it, considering I assume it all works off of this.

You should have read it. If only because I am wordy and tend to try to explain what I mean and why I think that, rather then just my opinion in my own words. Helps in expressing what I am trying to say better then assuming you'll understand.


Now, again, you make the same mistake. A "very vocal and large division of the gaming community" is a disingenuous claim. You're basing this off the reaction to her, that were also reactions to her kicking over the bee's nest. By linking to her youtube video to 4chan.

I find it hard to word right, but please, let me try. As said in my last post, this is only evidence of assholes on the web, nothing more. You can not claim every poster was some sort of deep gamer arguing because of how it affected their hobby, yet your claim of divisions is based in that unspoken assertion. I wonder how many were just trolls, or boys-club-y jerks opposing it because it was a women. You are attributing the reaction to a combination of properties of those who make it up. Males+gamer. While there is a rationality to this (the topic is about gender + games after all), this is flawed. Part may be because of gamers, part may be because of sexist assholes who don't actually play and part may be a mix of the two. Hell, some might have been trolls just being jerks jumping on the hate bandwagon, as is kinda common with 4chan from what news has shown. You present it like the wall of hate was a knee jerk reaction from male gamers upset, when it could well have been a wave of backlash from a collective of groups. That is deceptive, and you, like her, come off as disingenuous when presenting it as such.

The way it comes off as you presenting is there is divisions of groups of gamers, from the ones who as against women like this, the oblivious ones and then the ones who aren't. The ones who are against women railed against her, the ones who are oblivious are defending the reaction, and the rest supported her. That is just bull though.

The 4chan thing suggests, possibly highly so, that not all the vile reaction was merely male gamers reacting to her idea. Trolls post hate for the sake of it, and I have seen reaction from self righteous male groups slamming feminists on issues solely for being feminists, with no connection or reason beyond their hate towards them. Suggesting it was naught but male gamer's reaction is a claim not proven, and now questioned. And if not proven, it makes your claims of divisions in the gaming community along those lines as, well, kinda unfounded.


There is also the aspect that people can be dicks regardless of playing games. It is a hobby, and how much does one have to play to be claimed part of the community? Hardcore MoH fiends or even casual play of the Sims? If it is too broad, then of course you will find bigots in the mix. But at that point, saying that there are divisions on an issue of gender representation comes off as trying to find an excuse to justify the claim. If I cast a big enough net, I can find what I am looking for, but it doesn't really back up the claims made about it and comes off as intellectually dishonest. If it is too narrow though, you run the risk of having to back up why it is narrowed like that, and weird aspects of data will mess up the argument there. You know, the idea of only mainstream games when "casual" games have often made boatloads more money, or where indie games apply.

Gamers are a diverse people. You get people of all genders and all walks of life and yes, all political and philosophical tastes and notions. And even more, they might have tastes similar despite being wildly different personality wise. I keep getting this vibe that you are assuming there is a segment of male gamers who are sexist. The problem is, that really, there are just some sexists who play video games. Same as there is a segment of feminists who play games. Games are a hobby and pass time. They don't differentiate who plays them or why, and beyond game makers trying to garnish more sales through whatever ploy for attention, they just seem an interactive story telling medium. One could argue the same way you have about literature, and how there is a division in readers between those who are sexist, those who are oblivious and those who are not. Or movies, about how there is a division in movie goers between those who are sexist, those who are oblivious and those who are not.

We all know there are nutters, assholes, racists, sexists and crazies in a part of the audience for all story telling mediums. Hell, they are present in society itself. So, is there a division between your three categories there as well? Sure you could say so, but to what effect? At that point, it shows that such distinctions really don't mean a damn thing. They never did here either.

In the end you have the reactions of a load of asshats as evidence of your claim. Unfortunately, you are not looking at a cross section of the gaming community, even one half-assed taken with a measure of scientific procedure or understanding of restraint of bias, you are looking ta a wall of comments on a youtube channel that was spammed all over 4chan as though they represent something more then they are just to back up your assertion. As I said before, I can do the same thing on any topic of religion, politics or whatever else where people take enough interest.


I will agree there is issues with gender tropes in gaming. But there is a lot of issues in gaming as a whole and a lot of underlying causes to them as well, connected many together. And even while I think it is stupid to concentrate on a single symptom of the problem in gaming today like she has, I don't mind this topic, so long as it is actually presented right. This seems off though. Like an argument not fully formed or fleshed out and being pointed at for relevance. This was a spectacle and generalization and is worthless for a real discussion.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

35 pages? Really? I'm not overly fond of the woman but devoting 35 pages to the subject seems ridiculous.

 

[marche45]

35 pages? Really? I'm not overly fond of the woman but devoting 35 pages to the subject seems ridiculous.

The posts in this thread weren't just about the kickstarter.

 

[minuialear]

Alright, I skimmed the whole thing this time, but I think the only paragraph worth responding directly to is this one, considering the rest of the post feels like a repeat of it:

As said in my last post, this is only evidence of assholes on the web, nothing more. You can not claim every poster was some sort of deep gamer arguing because of how it affected their hobby, yet your claim of divisions is based in that unspoken assertion. I wonder how many were just trolls, or boys-club-y jerks opposing it because it was a women. You are attributing the reaction to a combination of properties of those who make it up. Males+gamer. While there is a rationality to this (the topic is about gender + games after all), this is flawed. Part may be because of gamers, part may be because of sexist assholes who don't actually play and part may be a mix of the two. Hell, some might have been trolls just being jerks jumping on the hate bandwagon, as is kinda common with 4chan from what news has shown. You present it like the wall of hate was a knee jerk reaction from male gamers upset, when it could well have been a wave of backlash from a collective of groups. That is deceptive, and you, like her, come off as disingenuous when presenting it as such.

I never claimed "every poster was some sort of deep gamer." Clearly not every single person targeting that girl was a gamer. But the ones who were (and, arguably, the majority were) demonstrated something poignant about the state of current gaming culture; namely, that while there are gamers who have moved past the sexism and the justifying subtle sexism, there are plenty that haven't yet. This is only magnified when looking at discussions on actual gaming forums (and for the sake of making sure the argument isn't made again: I'm aware not everyone in a gaming forum is necessarily a gamer; that's besides the point).

Let's be honest: sure, a lot of the people posting could know absolutely nothing about games and could have just commented for the sake of trolling, keeping up the "patriarchy," etc; but it's just as likely (based on the nature of many of the comments) that a majority were in fact knee-jerk reactions from gamers. Getting upset over the fact that I didn't explicitly name every other type of person who might have spewed hate is frankly missing the point and the result of a myopic look at the overall message. Rather than get defensive, try looking at the big picture and debating its merits/lack thereof instead?

 

[likalaruku]

If you're basically saying that if the Youtube comments section were a real place, it would be one of the slummiest ghettos on earth, I'm not about to disagree.