On Gaymers and Cons

[Orekoya]

But I am still absolutely against the idea that LGBT be told how to handle LGBT issues. I will do my best to try and be as diplomatic and civil about this as I possibly can, but the truth of the matter is that I'm completely convinced that LGBT people should be allowed to do whatever they feel is best without facing undue negativity from straight people who aren't affected at all by their actions.

I guess where we differ is that I don't agree with your stance on moral relativism. I'm an objectivist, and concern myself with discovering the objectively better (i.e. objectively less oppression in an objectively shorter time frame) option and encouraging people to pursue that. If a section of a community is acting in a way that appears to be hurting their cause I have no issues with bringing that to their attention. Maybe all they needed was that difference in perspective to be able to reassess their actions and come up with much more effective campaign. I think that's much more useful than standing back shouting "You go girl!" while they run themselves into the ground.

Given the previous pages worth of nonsane belligerent posts that proceeded this one, I doubt all that is being offered is a difference in perspective by the people posting against the gaymer con. Thank you at least for not being one of those, but I disagree with objectivism. I believe life is always subjective, it's why you live in the first perspective.

 

[secretsantaone]

Firstly, the comic is fucking stupid. You could easily add "I don't see why white people would want their own drinking fountains".

Regarding Gaymer-con, it seems counter-intuitive to intentionally segregate yourselves based on sexuality, especially when your sexuality has no bearing on videogames. Hell, unless you're with a partner nobody's going to know if you're gay or not anyway. If you want to create your own little hugbox then fine, but don't then complain that people treat you differently because you're gay.

I also think that homophobia in the gaming community is vastly over-stated. If you're offended by the word "******" being used online, you're probably looking into it too much. The person saying it just wants to offend you. They have no idea if you're gay or not, they've never met you. It just so happens that ****** is the perfect insult for them because if you're gay, you'll take it as a slur, and if you're straight, you'll take it as an insult to your masculinity.

 

[Guestyman]

Regarding Gaymer-con, it seems counter-intuitive to intentionally segregate yourselves based on sexuality, especially when your sexuality has no bearing on videogames. Hell, unless you're with a partner nobody's going to know if you're gay or not anyway. If you want to create your own little hugbox then fine, but don't then complain that people treat you differently because you're gay.

I also think that homophobia in the gaming community is vastly over-stated. If you're offended by the word "******" being used online, you're probably looking into it too much. The person saying it just wants to offend you. They have no idea if you're gay or not, they've never met you. It just so happens that ****** is the perfect insult for them because if you're gay, you'll take it as a slur, and if you're straight, you'll take it as an insult to your masculinity.

Having your own home turf is not the same thing as segregation as long as you venture off it sometimes, and let other people in. Both things happen with Gaymercon. It's. Not. Segregation.

As to your second paragraph, how on Earth is that an argument as to why gaming culture *isn't* atrociously homophobic? "Oh, these people think that the worst thing they can say about someone is that they're like you, but it's okay, because they don't *know* if you are or not!"

 

[secretsantaone]

Regarding Gaymer-con, it seems counter-intuitive to intentionally segregate yourselves based on sexuality, especially when your sexuality has no bearing on videogames. Hell, unless you're with a partner nobody's going to know if you're gay or not anyway. If you want to create your own little hugbox then fine, but don't then complain that people treat you differently because you're gay.

I also think that homophobia in the gaming community is vastly over-stated. If you're offended by the word "******" being used online, you're probably looking into it too much. The person saying it just wants to offend you. They have no idea if you're gay or not, they've never met you. It just so happens that ****** is the perfect insult for them because if you're gay, you'll take it as a slur, and if you're straight, you'll take it as an insult to your masculinity.

Having your own home turf is not the same thing as segregation as long as you venture off it sometimes, and let other people in. Both things happen with Gaymercon. It's. Not. Segregation.

As to your second paragraph, how on Earth is that an argument as to why gaming culture *isn't* atrociously homophobic? "Oh, these people think that the worst thing they can say about someone is that they're like you, but it's okay, because they don't *know* if you are or not!"

I'm using segregation in the sense of intentionally separating yourselves, which I would say you are doing by labelling yourself a "gay gamer", simply because you're bringing sexuality into an area that has nothing to do with it.

I'm saying that the reason they use ****** is simply because people get offended by it, not because of any deep-seated fear or hatred of homosexuals. If people found "flopsy-wopsy-ears" as offensive as ******, I dare say they would use that instead.

 

[The Material Sheep]

As a gay gamer I personally don't care. It's weird that there is a con for gay gamers but meh I suppose it's just a way to meet people with similar interests. I'd never go... but that's because I'm anti social person who hates crowds.

People will be dumb, and there really is no reason to hate on the convention. Just think its cool, or be ambivalent to its existence. The only reason you need to dislike something like this, is because you personally had an issue with how things were run there or if you had a bad experience of some sort. It's okay not to give a shit about, just don't take a crap on other people's good time.

 

[Darken12]

If someone invented "Man-Con, The manly geek convention" tomorrow, what would the social backlash be? Now take that backlash, flip its target & you're half way to seeing why that kind of active exclusionary consept is wrong.

Every regular con is straight male con (or "man-con").

Regarding Gaymer-con, it seems counter-intuitive to intentionally segregate yourselves based on sexuality, especially when your sexuality has no bearing on videogames.

Um, didn't we already have that? It was just called conventions.

As for this, I'll just quote myself:

How is it implied, and whats so diferent in Gaymercon, other then whats obvious? No, im curious.

Im not against it, if the advantage of making these are so big, but I feel like it makes it harder to get to equality if people keep separating themselves, though I know im probably just freakin naive.

We're gamers, so let's look at games. For games that have the option of making a character of any race, sexuality or gender, we have a disproportionate amount of "straight white male" as the default. See the Dragon Age:Origins trailer [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SuJ5T9sfAA], the Dragon Age II trailer [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlACgYHtWCI], the Mass Effect posters (I [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d9/Mass_Effect_poster.jpg], II [http://johnnybgamer.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/mass-effect-2-poster.jpg] and III [http://www.nzgameshop.com/product_images/posters/video_game_posters/mass_effect_3_iii_maxi_poster_raw.jpg]), and this is BioWare, who is arguably the most egalitarian and inclusive studio. It gets worse from there.

Then we have a comparison between Uncharted and Tomb Raider, two similar games with protagonists of opposite gender. Uncharted has a male lead. He's covered head to toe in practical clothing [http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120715091917/fantendo/images/7/71/NathanDrake.png]. Tomb Raider's female lead, on the other hand, has exposed legs, midriff, arms and cleavage [http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QWiwZvIq9hQ/TJuYM21bGsI/AAAAAAAAAe4/9MtjcqLtgwE/s1600/lara-croft-2.jpg]. Why? Because Lara Croft is meant to be a character for straight males to drool over, while Nathan Drake is a character for straight white males to project into. Lara Croft is a sexual fantasy, Nathan Drake is a power fantasy. Both are aimed at straight white males.

I could keep citing examples, but I think I've made my point. Most of the entertainment industry (of which games are only a sector) are catered to the straight white male demographic, not because they're a majority (if you put together all the women, non-white males and non-straight white males, you'd definitely outnumber the white straight males), but because they have the most amount of money and sociopolitical power. They're the safest and most lucrative demographic.

So as you can see, regular cons cater to that demographic as well, so I stand by my previous assertion: every con is straight male con. Probably straight white male con, but that's none of my business so I will leave it to someone better informed to speak about how racially inclusive cons usually are.

As for "is this a good thing or not", let me put it like this: it's none of your business. I know it sounds harsh and rude, but I can't think of a clearer way to get the message across. It's not something that's going to affect you, so while thinking about equality is very nice, you have no weight on this. Let LGBT people decide what's best for them. If we want our own con, let us have it. If we want more inclusion at regular cons, let us have it. If you really care about equality, listen to us and our problems instead of telling us what is and is not conducive to equality.

Also,

I also think that homophobia in the gaming community is vastly over-stated. If you're offended by the word "******" being used online, you're probably looking into it too much. The person saying it just wants to offend you. They have no idea if you're gay or not, they've never met you. It just so happens that ****** is the perfect insult for them because if you're gay, you'll take it as a slur, and if you're straight, you'll take it as an insult to your masculinity.

The part where "being gay is an insult to your masculinity" is actually homophobia. The part where being LGBT is an insult is homophobia (and transphobia, and biphobia), and it's pervasive in gamer culture. You can't tell us that gamer culture is this paradise of equality and we have no reason to make our own con and in the same breath admit that gamer culture sees being LGBT as an insult.

 

[secretsantaone]

Every regular con is straight male con (or "man-con").

No it's not? The point is anyone can turn up as long as their interested in videogames. Sexuality has nothing to do with it, just because most people are straight doesn't mean everyone has to be.

As for this, I'll just quote myself...

So most modern videogames are targeted towards the largest consumer base with the most money (18-25 year old straight males)?

Oh mercy me, sound the alarm because this shit's groundbreaking. Who'd have thought businesses who's products cost millions to develop would want to target a large demographic with money rather than risk appealing to smaller demographics?

If you're going so far as to classify yourself as a gamer you like videogames despite this, because it's not going to change as long as videogames cost so much. We all have a hobby that we enjoy, it seems a shame to go bringing in sexuality to divide us up when it's not relevant.

Also,

I also think that homophobia in the gaming community is vastly over-stated. If you're offended by the word "******" being used online, you're probably looking into it too much. The person saying it just wants to offend you. They have no idea if you're gay or not, they've never met you. It just so happens that ****** is the perfect insult for them because if you're gay, you'll take it as a slur, and if you're straight, you'll take it as an insult to your masculinity.

The part where "being gay is an insult to your masculinity" is actually homophobia. The part where being LGBT is an insult is homophobia (and transphobia, and biphobia), and it's pervasive in gamer culture. You can't tell us that gamer culture is this paradise of equality and we have no reason to make our own con and in the same breath admit that gamer culture sees being LGBT as an insult.

Wow thanks for telling me what I really mean buddy, I might have been able to speak for myself there.

Of course straight men being called gay is an insult to masculinity, the straight male role is intrinsically linked to their relationship with females. Implying that they don't have sex with females is essentially an insult to their virility. Also, the word "******" has also taken on the connotations of being weak, further undermining the traditional male role as the strong head of a family.

Like I said, they only say ****** to cause offense. If you're offended by the word, chances are they're gonna keep using it.

Not to mention how the word ****** has evolved into a much more general pejorative term than just meaning gay.

 

[Guestyman]

I'm using segregation in the sense of intentionally separating yourselves, which I would say you are doing by labelling yourself a "gay gamer", simply because you're bringing sexuality into an area that has nothing to do with it.

I'm saying that the reason they use ****** is simply because people get offended by it, not because of any deep-seated fear or hatred of homosexuals. If people found "flopsy-wopsy-ears" as offensive as ******, I dare say they would use that instead.

You can't honestly believe that *we're* the ones who are bringing sexuality into this. Gaymercon is the *result* not the *cause* of gay people being isolated within gaming culture. I would like nothing better than for my sexuality not to be an issue with wider gaming culture but wider gaming culture doesn't give us that luxury.

If you're so concerned about people bringing sexuality into an area that has nothing to do with it, don't tell me. I don't want my sexuality brought into it. Tell it to the straight people who decided my sexuality was such a hot button issue that they made me feel unsafe in my own subculture. Tell the idiotic bigots on livechat and at cons that my sexuality shouldn't be brought into gaming. Gaymercon *Wouldn't need to exist* if people didn't keep on bringing other people's sexuality into places where it needn't be discussed.

And if you can't see why casual use of "******" as a slur within a group betrays a culture of homophobia within that group then there's really no hope for this discussion going forward.

 

[Guestyman]

Not to mention how the word ****** has evolved into a much more general pejorative term than just meaning gay.

No. It hasn't. And this argument actually makes me angry. The word ******, or the use of "Gay" as an insult doesn't occur because the words have magically changed their meaning to just mean bad without also meaning homosexual. The use of "Gay" or "******" is an insult because it is performing the following logical chain.

You = homosexual
homosexual = bad
thereby through the transitive property:
you = bad

it's not because the etymological meaning of the word has magically changed so that Gay and ****** are just synonyms for "Bad thing" independent of their other 'homosexual' meaning. If it was just the word and not it's homosexual meaning it wouldn't have uniformly happened to every homosexual slurs at the same time.

Or to put it another way: Look at the words that everyone routinely claims have evolved into general pejoratives:

Fag, queer, gay, cocksucker

Do you notice what they all have in common? Do you really think it's just a coincidence that they ALL happened to be used in this way? Because that stretches the bounds of credulity for me. And to you too, I suspect. You're well spoken and can form good arguments. You seem intelligent. Therefore I respect you too much to think you actually believe that utter tripe.

 

[Darken12]

No it's not? The point is anyone can turn up as long as their interested in videogames. Sexuality has nothing to do with it, just because most people are straight doesn't mean everyone has to be.

And nobody is going to bar straight people from going to Gaymer X. Anybody can turn up so long as they're interested in videogames. The difference is that in a regular con, the focus and aim of the industry is the straight male audience. That's what's different in a gaymer con.

So most modern videogames are targeted towards the largest consumer base with the most money (18-25 year old straight males)?

Oh mercy me, sound the alarm because this shit's groundbreaking. Who'd have thought businesses who's products cost millions to develop would want to target a large demographic with money rather than risk appealing to smaller demographics?

And by producing a gaymer con, we can show the industry that we're a viable demographic with plenty of disposable money. If we go to regular cons and keep quiet, the industry is never going to realise that they can make plenty of money off other demographics too.

If you're going so far as to classify yourself as a gamer you like videogames despite this, because it's not going to change as long as videogames cost so much. We all have a hobby that we enjoy, it seems a shame to go bringing in sexuality to divide us up when it's not relevant.

Firstly, it can change if there's enough money on the table to tempt the industry. And the industry is never going to know if that money is available if we don't stand up and tell them.

Secondly, of course it's a shame for you, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the industry from your perspective, you're constantly being catered to. It's extremely easy for the rich person to say that they don't see what's wrong with the economy when they're untouched by the problems lower classes complain about.

Wow thanks for telling me what I really mean buddy, I might have been able to speak for myself there.

Of course straight men being called gay is an insult to masculinity, the straight male role is intrinsically linked to their relationship with females. Implying that they don't have sex with females is essentially an insult to their virility. Also, the word "******" has also taken on the connotations of being weak, further undermining the traditional male role as the strong head of a family.

Like I said, they only say ****** to cause offense. If you're offended by the word, chances are they're gonna keep using it.

Not to mention how the word ****** has evolved into a much more general pejorative term than just meaning gay.

Okay. I am going to rein in the massive amount of rage I feel at you right now for attempting to justify why it's okay for straight people to take being LGBT as an insult. I am going to calm down and explain things to you in the most civilised way I'm able.

While I do understand why you think that there's an intrinsic connection between straightness (in males) and virility, that's a sociocultural fabrication. If you look at it from a detached, neutral way, the two concepts are unrelated. Heterosexuality is a type of sexual attraction; and virility (or masculinity) is a collection of traits we assign to a gender, some of which are biological, but most of which are cultural. Those traits are absolutely malleable; and they're largely arbitrary, particularly in modern times. The biological components of masculinity (muscle mass, body hair, height and so on) have been proven, time and again, to be completely independent from sexual attraction. This is self-evident as well, given the amount of big, burly, hairy gay men. The cultural traits (mannerisms, fashion and so on) change from culture to culture and are obviously not linked with sexual attraction (or else all cultures would share the same desirable traits for masculinity). So if neither the biological nor the cultural traits assigned to masculinity are related to sexual attraction, we can conclude that heterosexuality in males has nothing to do with their virility.

The best argument you can make is that it's a cultural trait, something that society arbitrarily decides is associated with masculinity, such as ties or sports, which is a very weak justification for accepting homophobia, as this means that being gay should be as inconsequential in one's view of masculinity as refusing to wear ties or having no interest in sports. But even then, this is summarily disproved by any gay man who does check every box in the list of masculine traits, and the straight man who checks almost none.

Now, onto this new definition of weakness, I am simply going to point out that your implication is that gay men are somehow inferior or incapable of taking on the traditional male role of being a strong head of the family (which is quickly disproved by any gay men at the head of a family, of which there are many around the world).

-

As an aside, the sheer amount of willpower I needed to complete this post without launching into an angry tirade of obscenities has been truly awe-inspiring. I consider it a personal milestone achieved.

 

[Guestyman]

As an aside, the sheer amount of willpower I needed to complete this post without launching into an angry tirade of obscenities has been truly awe-inspiring. I consider it a personal milestone achieved.

I think it's actually a wider thing with progressive causes that we are so afraid of losing our temper. Maybe if we did launch into a tirade of obscenities once in a while instead of being so polite all the time people would see that it's not just a mild-mannered intellectual exercise. This is our lives we're talking about.

That said, I very much respect your ability to not fly off the deep end. The amount of obscenities I had to delete and find milder ways of saying is quite impressive to me too. I don't think I'm going to be able to show your restraint from here on out, though. I respect it, and I think you're awesome, but this is getting ridiculous.

 

[Darken12]

I think it's actually a wider thing with progressive causes that we are so afraid of losing our temper. Maybe if we did launch into a tirade of obscenities once in a while instead of being so polite all the time people would see that it's not just a mild-mannered intellectual exercise. This is our lives we're talking about.

That said, I very much respect your ability to not fly off the deep end. The amount of obscenities I had to delete and find milder ways of saying is quite impressive to me too. I don't think I'm going to be able to show your restraint from here on out, though. I respect it, and I think you're awesome, but this is getting ridiculous.

Thanks. I think that if I tried letting go right now, I wouldn't be able to articulate words; it'd be just one long, strangled scream of pure, concentrated rage as I punched the floor over and over. Then they'd have to take me to the ER for broken hand bones. It's happened before. It was very inconvenient.

I think the problem with progressive causes is that when we point out hate crimes, hate speech, slurs or pervading discrimination, the answers we always get are either "You can't blame us all for one asshole!" (which is true, admittedly, but the non-assholes aren't doing that much to help us either) or "Grow a thicker skin! We all have to take crap for one reason or another!" (which is bullshit, because "someone else is suffering too" doesn't mean that we should hamper each other's attempts to make things better; that's what the kyriarchy wants!).

We can't have one con. One. Fucking. Con.

EDIT: I should also take a moment to appreciate everyone else who's staying civil on this, on both sides of the issue. At least one person sincerely appreciates your restrain, because they know how hard it is.

 

[Anti-American Eagle]

The last panel, what has been seen cannot be unseen. Also yeah I kinda agree but what would make the gaymer con any different than a regualr gaming convention? Can't we all just get along?

 

[Darken12]

The last panel, what has been seen cannot be unseen. Also yeah I kinda agree but what would make the gaymer con any different than a regualr gaming convention? Can't we all just get along?

I'll field this one.

As for this, I'll just quote myself:

How is it implied, and whats so diferent in Gaymercon, other then whats obvious? No, im curious.

Im not against it, if the advantage of making these are so big, but I feel like it makes it harder to get to equality if people keep separating themselves, though I know im probably just freakin naive.

We're gamers, so let's look at games. For games that have the option of making a character of any race, sexuality or gender, we have a disproportionate amount of "straight white male" as the default. See the Dragon Age:Origins trailer [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SuJ5T9sfAA], the Dragon Age II trailer [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlACgYHtWCI], the Mass Effect posters (I [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d9/Mass_Effect_poster.jpg], II [http://johnnybgamer.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/mass-effect-2-poster.jpg] and III [http://www.nzgameshop.com/product_images/posters/video_game_posters/mass_effect_3_iii_maxi_poster_raw.jpg]), and this is BioWare, who is arguably the most egalitarian and inclusive studio. It gets worse from there.

Then we have a comparison between Uncharted and Tomb Raider, two similar games with protagonists of opposite gender. Uncharted has a male lead. He's covered head to toe in practical clothing [http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120715091917/fantendo/images/7/71/NathanDrake.png]. Tomb Raider's female lead, on the other hand, has exposed legs, midriff, arms and cleavage [http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QWiwZvIq9hQ/TJuYM21bGsI/AAAAAAAAAe4/9MtjcqLtgwE/s1600/lara-croft-2.jpg]. Why? Because Lara Croft is meant to be a character for straight males to drool over, while Nathan Drake is a character for straight white males to project into. Lara Croft is a sexual fantasy, Nathan Drake is a power fantasy. Both are aimed at straight white males.

I could keep citing examples, but I think I've made my point. Most of the entertainment industry (of which games are only a sector) are catered to the straight white male demographic, not because they're a majority (if you put together all the women, non-white males and non-straight white males, you'd definitely outnumber the white straight males), but because they have the most amount of money and sociopolitical power. They're the safest and most lucrative demographic.

So as you can see, regular cons cater to that demographic as well, so I stand by my previous assertion: every con is straight male con. Probably straight white male con, but that's none of my business so I will leave it to someone better informed to speak about how racially inclusive cons usually are.

As for "is this a good thing or not", let me put it like this: it's none of your business. I know it sounds harsh and rude, but I can't think of a clearer way to get the message across. It's not something that's going to affect you, so while thinking about equality is very nice, you have no weight on this. Let LGBT people decide what's best for them. If we want our own con, let us have it. If we want more inclusion at regular cons, let us have it. If you really care about equality, listen to us and our problems instead of telling us what is and is not conducive to equality.

Captcha: al rapone. Ugh. Your puns are terrible, captcha.

 

[Darken12]

Exactly. This idea that the world is made for hetrosexual white males is just silly & that extends to conventions too. Every convention is not Man-Con & thats the thing. Coming up with a con specifically for gay gamers almost as silly as coming up with a convention for atheist gamers.

What does my lack of belief in a god claim have to do with gaming? What does ones sexuality have to do with gaming?

Its just silly pandering & worse yet, its exclusionary practices essentially generates an us versus them mentality, that is just not healthy: either for inidivduals or for the community in general.

I literally posted plenty of examples of why the entertainment industry is aimed at straight white males in the post above you. Even straight people in this very thread have acknowledged this fact.

Sexuality has to do with gaming because of a secret I'm going to let you in on: sex sells. Shocking, I know. It would surprise you to know that sexuality pervades every aspect of the entertainment industry (and especially in products aimed at young adults). And if you take a look at how sexuality is portrayed in games, you'll see they're predominantly done with a straight white male focus. Most male leads are sensibly (and properly) clothed and any attractiveness they might have is downplayed. They're also usually white and any romantic relationships they have (from casual flirting or hookups to spouses) are almost universally of the opposite gender. Women, on the other hand, are portrayed in revealing clothing, their attractiveness is highly emphasised and they're rarely developed beyond eyecandy or secondary roles.

If you want to start digging up examples, I assure you, we'll be here all night.