Gender Inequality in Vid Games industry

[Guts]

I just KNEW there had to be some media/socialjusticewarrior/feminazi/lesbian/space alien conspiracy.

It's the only rational explanation for the hatred of men these people feel.

In lighter news:

[BigDeadFreak]

Nice that this heated discussion hasn't become the disaster that it would have at many other places.

Here, here! I think this place has always been one of the nicest places on the internet and this discussion proves it. On any other site this would have degenerated into abuse and insults but for some reason it's different here, which is great. I've always wondered why this is (apart from the fact that we're all super amazing, of course)? I think a lack of post counts helps but other than that, i don't know. Anyway, I digress.

Lyris, I won't quote the whole of your last post but I couldn't agree with you more. Some of the most aggressive people I've ever met have been feminists who have flown into a rage at the merest critique of any of their ideas. Like you, I completely support equality and don't expect feminists to give up their struggles to help men. However, when they refuse to even listen to men and view any attempt by men to draw attention to male problems as some kind of patriarchal conspiracy, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

I think the argument that asking women to consider men's problems is like telling Martin Luther King to devote his time to helping white people is slightly ridiculous. Many of the metrics used to determine that black people have a raw deal in our society also show that men do too. More likely to be arrested, sent to prison, suffer police brutality, be the victims of violent crime, be murdered, suffer from ill health, die young, less likely to go to university and perform worse at school. All of these things apply to black people and to men. In some cases, such as prison, race is actually a bit of a misnomer as white men are far more likely to be sent to prison that black women. Of course, many of the problems black people have do not apply to men and some apply to women but the lines a blurred. If it is perfectly understandable that black people should want to fight against this injustice (and of course it is) then why is it such a surprise that men should want to as well? (By the way, I'm not saying that men suffer the same amount of social injustice as black people do, and have in the past.)

There are only 24 hours in a day and none of us can devote our time to all the worthy causes out there. If men, women, black people, white people, etc want to help the group that they feel most affinity with then I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is when that turns into hostility towards other groups. My personal experience of feminists is that they are mainly hostile towards any man who attempts to discus male problems. This comes from people I have met and articles I have read on feminists websites and left leaning news papers such as The Guardian and The Independent. I know they are not all like this but how can I support a movement that is openly hostile towards me and other men? I could understand if I was asking them to all shut up and get back in the kitchen but that's far from what I'm saying.

It saddens me that feminism is often such a divisive and confrontational ideology. I think that a lot of the problems men and women suffer from are two sides of the same coin and that the best way to solve them is to work together. I understand that there are many sexist men out there who do terrible things to women but we are not all like that. I can't see why so many feminists are so opposed to the idea of working alongside men in order to address the problems that we all face. What harm could it do?

[Dogg Thang]

Some of the most aggressive people I've ever met have been feminists who have flown into a rage at the merest critique of any of their ideas.

Linkable examples? Curious to know of any hitting the level of these: http://femfreq.tumblr.com/post/96569...n-how-this-has

I can't see why so many feminists are so opposed to the idea of working alongside men in order to address the problems that we all face.

Again, examples that relate to the issues at hand? Has Anita Sarkeesian, for example, rejected men? I may have missed that so link me if I have.

The rest of your post has been well covered but I'm interested to see these points backed up in context.


Edit: Oh, in other news since we last talked about this, Jenn Frank wrote a Guardian article (http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...in-video-games) and has since been harassed out of the industry. Nice work, guys.

[BigDeadFreak]

I'm not being facetious but I can't really link to people I've met and I've never met people you've linked to. What I mean is that I've met people from many different backgrounds who hold a wide variety of opinions on all sorts of issues. I've talked with people who support the BNP as well as people who are passionate about black civil rights; atheists and Muslims (just to name a few examples). I've agreed with some of what they've said and disagreed with others but I've always managed to have civilised conversations with people. The one exception to this is feminism where, in many cases, it's not even been possible to agree to disagree with some of them. Of course this is just a small sample size based on people I've met but those have been my experiences nonetheless.

Its not just the extremists, it's the general blinkered understanding of gender issues. Everything gender related is seen as the patriarchal subjugation of women but there is far more to it than that. I have never read an article written by a feminist on gender in video games that shows any understanding of men's issues. Men have experiences that women generally don't have and vice versa. The best way for us to understand gender is to talk to and listen to one another, not to view each other with suspicion and fear. If I meet feminists I listen to their views but I don't see feminists doing the same to men. I think it's to everyones detriment.

Just to pick out one example, Sarkeesian talks about how female characters are weak, disempowered damsels in distress while male characters have to power to take control of their own destinies and save themselves rather than waiting to be saved. I completely agree with this and fully understand the negative impact this has on women. However, it also has a negative impact on men as we are pressured into living up to impossible levels of masculinity. This leads to problems such as street violence, steroid abuse and depression to name a few. Maybe women have it worse, maybe men do. I don't think it really matters and a lot of it is quite subjective. The point is that the paradigm of women as victims and men as their patriarchal subjugators only works if you ignore all male suffering and female advantage. Once you start to look at gender holistically it starts to look far more complicated than that. I don't see feminists trying to do that, they all seem to be presenting the same, one dimensional view of gender. As such, they are rejecting everything apart from this version of reality.

When I read The Daily Mail I read endless stories of how Muslims are going to kill us all!!!!!11!!!!1! Never one article asking what Muslims themselves think, never one article trying to understand Islamic fundamentalism just incessant fear mongering. When I read The Guardian I get a more progressive approach. It's not just an endless list of bad things done by Muslims and a call to bomb their countries but an attempt to understand the real causes of it and to bring people together. Sadly, I see far more Daily Mail than Guardian in feminism. Endless examples of female disadvantage and male privilege and a call to fight the patriarchy. No subtlety, no attempt at understanding and no interest in extending the olive branch. I have no problem with Anita Saarkesian and agree with much of what she has said but feminism never seems to go beyond the level of observing women's problems and stating that they are caused by men. It's such a simplistic understanding that only ever seems to result in endless arguments as no one is attempting to see things from the other person's point of view.

[Dogg Thang]

Okay, but you can understand how I come with a certain level of skepticism when you talk about feminist hostility when we can't find examples, certainly won't find them in gaming and yet see an intense level of vitriol from males against feminists, right? It's the pot calling a snowflake black, to modify an old phrase.

You are absolutely right that depictions of males have an effect and men face body issues and masculinity issue and much more and that's all part of the skewed lack of balance we have right now. That comes part and parcel with the whole context and actually considering the representation of gender in media will help this. Sure, Saarkesian doesn't cover men much in her videos on representation of women (of course) but if you truly believe male depiction is an issue, you're on the same side and should be embracing this discussion and anyone, male or female, who highlights problems in gender representation.

But you've also got to consider the context. People talk about balance like Sarkeesian should be covering men (you seem to be saying that yourself) and how she has an agenda (she does of course) and how she only covers examples where women are depicted poorly (kind of the point of her videos). Gaming IS male-dominated. It is dominated by men among those who make games and dominated by men in games. Men don't need better representation right now. Yes, there are issues like you mention and those are valid but women, in spite of being over 50% of the population, absolutely need representation and advocates and you want them to cover men? Really? And in a climate where those who cover these topics are getting harassed to a horrific level?

If you genuinely believe your "why can't we all just get along?" sentiment at the end of your first post, support these women. Join them. Make things better and push for better depictions of women and, yes, men too.

[BigDeadFreak]

Why do you think we see such hostility from men towards women?

[Dogg Thang]

Most likely just male gamer feels threatened, male gamer acts out. It's not all that different to the rejection that occurs when someone might suggest a mobile player is a gamer or when there is an article saying some games might have a negative effect or when someone says Nintendo messed up the WiiU. There is a protective gamer bubble and people act out to various degrees when they see that as threatened. Often one of the main threats is simply the suggestion of change. But here we have an underlying level of sexism thrown into the mix, mild in some cases, very serious in others. Not everyone of course but undeniably here in a big way. And so male sexist gamer feels threatened, male sexist gamer gets hostile.

[Golgo]

In these recent cases I think there's also an 'organized' element going at every statement by women, almost as if this is itself a kind of game to score and be proud of. Following up on the Jenn Frank thing I found this link (http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/0...rove-them-out/), and there's a tweet reported in there by some neanderthal to his mates that goes: "Dante@AlrightAnonFollow@subtleblend @jennatar @xMattieBrice The dominos are falling. We're winning. It's brilliant."

Anyway, BigDeadFreak's avatar is making me feel inferior and depressed. Gonna inject get some steroids and put YMCA on full blast.

[Dogg Thang]

Zoe Quinn was seemingly in IRC chat rooms, then tweeted a lot about it with screenshots and documented the whole thing on Storify here: https://storify.com/strictmachine/gameovergate

Makes for pretty hideous reading.

Edit: the fallout from this on Twitter is pretty hilarious. I've never seen so people scrambling desperately to insist they aren't sexist, misogynists or harassers. And a lot of 'GamerGate will never die', like they're in some damaged cult or something.

[Deuteros]

Curiously, I saw this image while reading a discussion on the regional-pricing of games.

[Dogg Thang]

There is a point there, no doubt but "access" can be argued without actually being real. The poor have "access" to the same universities. Not our fault if they can't afford them. So when it comes to people equality is a better goal, as lofty as it is. Also, when it comes to rights (as opposed to pricing), equality does not mean sameness in the most basic sense. You can have completely different cultures and celebrate the uniqueness of those cultures yet still expect that one does not get all the privileges. When it comes to people, that's equality.

Edit: Been thinking about this more and I wonder, when it comes to people, if the opposite of the sentiment is true. That we must push for equality before equity has meaning? When a culture is dominated by one group, it's rarely enough to open the doors to other groups and say "come on in" because the culture is still dominated by one group. Hence the need for things like affirmative action in places. In order for equity to actually have any meaning beyond just being a nice thing to say, the culture must be changed and that requires more equality. Interesting thought. Thanks for posting the pic.

[Guts]

Hey Dogg. You're a father right?

Do you dress your children in a non-gender-specific attire when they leave the house, for example?

[Dogg Thang]

I dress them in Ewok costumes.

[Deuteros]

Guts, chalk that one down as a 'yes', will you?

Equality, taken at its face value, sounds fundamentally good, though it can be used to favour those in more privileged positions under a facade of fairness. For instance, in Russia, personal income tax is a flat 13% for everyone. While everyone is taxed equally, the very rich are clearly favoured.

There's a quote, frequently misattributed to Benjamin Franklin, that goes "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner". That would be equality unreigned, disregarding that even an equalitarian system such as democracy can be ill-meaning if the basic "one man, one vote" principle wasn't kept in check by further safeguards put in place to protect the disadvantaged and promote equity.

[Dogg Thang]

Yep, totally agree with the sentiment of what you're saying. Not sure the language in the pic is spot on though. Two wolves vs one lamb isn't equality and it is a situation where one beast/one vote could be said to be equal opportunity for all and therein lies a problem. But yes, I'm in complete agreement with the point I think you're making.