dripdroponmytiptop tries to explain to /r/gaming how "a thousand pissed-off nerds" made the Zoe Quinn drama into a gender issue. Unsurprisingly, /r/gaming does not receive this well. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
29 ups - 0 downs = 29 votes
95 comments submitted at 20:15:17 on Aug 21, 2014 by redpoemage
>instead of being used to point out where there is actually misogyny
That's the thing though, no one ever gets to point it out. Whenever there's any kind of legitimate concern, the majority of the community wigs the fuck out no matter how small it is. As I mentioned before, I play my share of video games, but I'm an older professional and I wouldn't consider myself a gamer. The gaming community is seen by most people as one of the least inclusive groups there is. It's practically a laughingstock.
I don't agree with that at all. There have been 0 serious attempts to point out sexism in gaming in the last 5 years. Gaming is no more exclusive than athletics or comics and the former has had decades to establish itself. Football is so far behind the curve that it was a national news story when an openly gay player played in the NFL. On the other hand there are players that are openly gay or bisexual playing in esports, hell there was (is?) a trans female starcraft player.
A great example of what should have happened in the gaming community: members should talk about and attempt to exclude people that were not accepting of Scarlett (the aforementioned trans woman).
A shit example of what actually does happen: feminist frequency blog posts by Sarkesian, doxing people in charge of a female game dev game jam and more.
> hell there was (is?) a trans female starcraft player.
A lot of internet feminists don’t consider trans women real women.
(My personal belief) Trans women (and men) are a larger issue in general because you have people that are so unwelcoming of trans people that they will purposefully use the incorrect pronoun to address them. Women thankfully do not usually have to deal with that level of toxicity.
Yep, it’s really unfortunate what a lot of trans-people have to go through. I honestly couldn’t imagine the amount of abuse and discrimination they must deal with on a daily basis.
Ironically, that’s why I hate a lot of SJW types. I legitimately believe in a lot of their causes, but, as a cis male, the fact that they’re so antagonistic and hostile to “outsiders” (and even other SJW groups—the fighting between the radfems and the lgbt movement would be funny if it wasn’t so infuriating), even those who are trying to offer their support, really tarnishes the movement as a whole, making it harder to attract the support of a lot of people who would otherwise support them and effect real change.
Yeah, these are the general replies one gets. "No there isn't! It's the feminist who are wrong!" Again, laughingstock.
Edited to add: First of all, you're painting the whole Scarlett thing in a pretty rosy, revisionist light. There was and still is an enormous amount of vitriol directed at her.
Also:
>There have been 0 serious attempts to point out sexism in gaming in the last 5 years.
How would you know? Do you read scholarly articles on the subject in fields like Communications, Media Studies, Women's Studies, Feminist Literary Criticism? Cause I do. It's not even a question in academia, that much of this stuff is inherently sexist in a lot of ways. But nobody wants to leave the bubble, just downvote and screech and waffle. It's funny, but sadly inevitable at this point. Watch as this comment ends up in the negatives.
I don't think it's fair to respond to a well thought out multi-paragraph answer with 'no you!' I know a lot about this issue it's one that is important to me and I was a TA for a genre study course on video games in college so I'm not just talking out of my ass (well I might be but at least slightly less than the average person).
I'm a literature prof with a specialization in genre study and narratology. I was being a bit flip, though. Do check the edited comment!
Please provide more evidence than "this is inherently sexist in a lot of ways" there is disturbingly little scholarship of merit on the subject and while I think that the amount of scholarship will change overtime it's not in a great place right now.
I don't blame feminism I consider myself a feminist (if pushed harder I say egalitarian because I believe that fiscal equality is of huge importance), but the people that are speaking up for feminism in the industry right now are not my voice.
Yes the ZQ issue is serious, but what is egregious isn't what she did sexually, but the way she reacted when it was outed and how she doxed not one but two groups of people. The biggest problem I have with sex is the game journo who violated one of the biggest rules of journalism.
The loudest voice in the room for feminism in gaming (again in the industry these are the voices most people will hear not scholarly ones) is Anita Sarkesian who takes a very militant and dismissive viewpoint which hamstrings her argument and hampers any real progress she could make.
Neither of these two voices speak for me nor would they speak for most progressive types that I know.
Who did Quinn dox? I haven't heard this claim before.
She claimed she was doxed by Wizardchan and counter doxed some members. These claims of her being doxed were later proven false (she's a public figure anyway so her info is readily available).
She also doxed one of the guys in charge of rebel game jam which I believe is like a group coding session where devs pitch ideas and the game jam people code it. She said the female game dev jam was hurtful to women because the dev got 10% of the take and 90% went to the coders. The issue with this is that the jam was intended for devs that were without a team of coders and with no coders you have no game.
> The loudest voice in the room for feminism in gaming (again in the industry these are the voices most people will hear not scholarly ones) is Anita Sarkesian.
No it isn't. Sarkesian did mediocre academic work but cashed in by presenting it to the gaming public and the public as a whole. She's not taken seriously in academic circles, not because her opinions are dismissed, but because they're so incredibly surface. She says things everyone already knows, but the gaming community gets whipped into a fervor because it has no context for itself outside of itself. They paint her as some sort of feminist demon because it's easy to do that. Anything more would require an amount of introspection.
>Please provide more evidence than "this is inherently sexist in a lot of ways" there is disturbingly little scholarship of merit on the subject
I found 9 articles in my in two of my university's databases at a cursory glance. I can't be fucked to link them because surely someone will find a problem with it, but I guess I will if you're really that keyed in.
However, that not really the issue. Asking me to provide articles on sexism in gaming is like asking a physicist to provide articles on gravity being a phenomenon, or asking a historian to provide articles that assert that the Civil War happened.
You're right in one respect, though: there is a dearth of scholarly work on video games. But this is simply because no one takes them seriously. Not as texts, because no video game so far has done much to elicit much interest, and not in the context of cultural media because it's like shooting in a barrel.
I firmly believe that video games will one day be considered art and studied as such, and also as cultural texts. But make no bones about it -- it will be in spite of gamers, and not because of them.
Edit: typos and such. I'm tired.
Since you're tired I'm going to try and be brief. I did a quick google scholar search on video games and sexism. My first result was a study on aggression and children and the second paper referred to games depicting women as "sex objets" and the most recent good article was from 2007 which is ancient when you are talking about technology.
Good scholarship isn't there yet and so in the meantime people will look to industry voices. The industry voices are far below sub-par.
Quick Edit: The scholarship doesn't even necessarily agree on this point so it's not just some bubble. One paper talks about how women are objectified the next says that women and men have near equal representation in games.
Sigh.
>quick google scholar
There's your first problem. You did a quick google scholar search, the hallmark of the undergraduate. Do a full lit review, that'd be substantial. It'd be a lot of goddamn work, but at least then we could start having a conversation.
Anyhow, here's some random shit just poking around. I don't think I can link stuff because not everyone is going to have access to scholarly databases, but I can provide you with the bibliographic entires. Remember, this is a cursory search -- I don't claim to stand %100 behind the thesis of every article:
Fox, Jesse, and Wai Yen Tang. "Sexism in online video games: The role of conformity to masculine norms and social dominance orientation." Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014): 314+. Academic OneFile. Web. 21 Aug. 2014. (abstract).
Junge, Inger. "Women not allowed in tech-no-geek & gaming culture." Sister Namibia 25.2 (2013): 4+. Academic OneFile. Web. 21 Aug. 2014.
Sasman, Laura. "Why do male gamers hate Anita Sarkeesian?" Sister Namibia 25.2 (2013): 8. Academic OneFile. Web. 21 Aug. 2014.
Munoz, Yupanqui J., and Charbel N. El-Hani. "The student with a thousand faces: from the ethics in video games to becoming a citizen." Cultural Studies of Science Education 7.4 (2012): 909+. Academic OneFile. Web. 21 Aug. 2014.
Bailenson, Jeremy N., and Jesse Fox. "Virtual Virgins and Vamps: The Effects of Exposure to Female Characters' Sexualized Appearance and Gaze in an Immersive Virtual Environment." Sex Roles: A Journal of Research 61.3-4 (2009): 147+. Academic OneFile. Web. 21 Aug. 2014.
"Featuring females; feminist analyses of media." Reference & Research Book News Nov. 2005. Academic OneFile. Web. 21 Aug. 2014.
A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius -- on Sexism in the Video Games Industry. By: Peckham, Matt, Time.com, 12/3/2013
Hypermasculinity & Dickwolves: The Contentious Role of Women in the New Gaming Public. Salter, Anastasia; Blodgett, Bridget. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. Jul2012, Vol. 56 Issue 3, p401-416. 16p. DOI: 10.1080/08838151.2012.705199.
“I Am Shocked, Shocked!” Explorations of Taboos in Digital Gameplay. Bertozzi, Elena. Conference Papers -- International Communication Association. 2006 Annual Meeting, p1-22. 22p.
Video Game Characters and the Socialization of Gender Roles: Young People’s Perceptions Mirror Sexist Media Depictions. Angelini, James R.; MacArthur, Paul J.; Billings, Andrew C. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. Apr2012, Vol. 56 Issue 2, p261-279. 19p. 4 Charts. DOI: 10.1080/08838151.2012.678515.
Gendered Avatars. Hou, Chia-I. Conference Papers -- International Communication Association. 2010 Annual Meeting, p1. 0p.
Blame it on the boys.Hume, Emily. Advertising Age. 2/8/1993, Vol. 64 Issue 6, pS-6-S-6. 2/5p. 2 Black and White Photographs.
Game over: dames making games bridges the gender digital divide. Natalie Zina Walschots. This Magazine. 47.4 (January-February 2014) p39.
So that took about 10 minutes. I didn't get at all far into the university's holdings.
Still, there are two major problems with this:
First, a random-ass search isn't a particularly good way to understand the scope of academic research on a particular subject. You need to go deeper. I found ten in ten minutes, but that doesn't mean much. You've been to college, you should know that.
Second, as I've already said, there aren't a lot of people writing about video games because it's seen as too easy to mount a critical argument in a feminist context. Fish in a barrel, once again.
Edit to your edit: First off, nice ninja edit backing off on the quality of Google Scholar. I seen the original friend! You and me know even if no one else does!
Second, I thought the point of all this was that there is no scholarship? I never claimed all the scholarship is in agreement (though it mostly is).
Edit to your edit: First off, nice ninja edit backing off on the quality of Google Scholar. I seen the original! And so did you. Even if no one else did. For shame.
Second, I thought all this was about there being no scholarship on the subject? I never said all the scholarship is in total agreement (though it mostly is). That's not ever the case.
Grand edit: I was being as ass in my first version of this post, but you can probably see how it's completely unreasonable to ask someone to mount a full lit review just to prove you wrong in a conversation on reddit. There exists a strong bias for radical left viewpoints to the point where the horseshoe effects tstarts to exert itself. If it's considered so easy to write an article about why games are sexist why doesn't anyone write one about why they aren't? The reason is because that viewpoint is not encouraged as heavily and that's the reason you can have a hack like Sarkesian rise to fame in the first place.
Really understanding gaming would probably require a pretty broad skill-set, I doubt there's many people studying music with no background as a musician. And I know a few people who studied film, they at least had an understanding of each role in how films are made.
Like, shit, I listen to jazz and can't really understand how a certain bass line is groundbreaking the same way my buddy who's a bass player with a degree in jazz. I recently saw a PhD project in statistical machine learning developing adaptive NPCs with Bioware as a partner, who would be able to explain why that system is groundbreaking without being proficient in higher level maths? The same could be said about the hardware in early video game systems and computer engineering, or music, etc.
Edit: I missed a "can't" and it kind of changed the tone of the sentence...
I don't think you'd necessarily need math for anything more than statistics, but you'd want to have someone that's been around video games for a long time like most of the serious film scholarship comes out of people that have seen a ton of movies. That generation of scholars is still fostering so what you have right now is either A) not that great as it comes from undergrads B) not that great because it comes from the uninformed or C) not that great because it comes from biased reactionaries.
Want to provide some verification of that? /r/AMA doesn't let people make that kind of claim without at least some evidence someone is who they claim. Hell, /r/gonewild requires more than just saying "yep this is me."
As a (purported) professor, you of all people should be aware that making sweeping claims without a lick of evidence is bad form.
No thanks, getting doxxed once is enough for me. And by TheRedPill no less! I was poetlaurehate, if anyone remembers.
Oh, we're talking about sweeping claims now, eh? I'm explaining the academic landscape in which I interact as a professional. You're making sweeping claims as member of the gaming community, which suggests an inherent bias. Interacting with gamers here is a kind of bizarre hobby of mine. You refuse to admit even the smallest problem with your community. My friends and colleagues poke fun at me about it. It's like talking to a brick wall.
> I'm explaining the academic landscape in which I interact as a professional
With citation neither to academia nor your own credentials. Well argued, Professor. I suppose it's fitting that one whose entire field of expertise is in fiction should base their worldview on the same. It'd be a bit nicer if the fiction you were working off of wasn't of your own making, though.
It'd be a bit like G.R.R Martin drawing conclusions about the human condition based on what characters in Game of Thrones did.
>You're making sweeping claims as member of the gaming community, which suggests an inherent bias
As opposed to the person making sweeping claims about the gaming community based on (her?) research into what feminist writers have said about the gaming community?
Because lord knows that the Andrea Dworkins of the world have never said anything silly in their analysis of a social phenomenon in order to further preconceived worldviews.
>My friends and colleagues poke fun at me about it
So your argument is that you're right because people tell you that you're so right that you shouldn't have to explain that you're right?
You sure proved me wrong. How's about I round up some guys who will say you're wrong and we call it even? Or should I take your word that your colleagues have some expertise, too?
>With citation neither to academia nor your own credentials.
One more time! I'm not giving you personal information.
>I suppose it's fitting that one whose entire field of expertise is in fiction
That's a fiercely ignorant statement. I'm sort of impressed.
>As opposed to the person making sweeping claims about the gaming community based on (her?) research into what feminist writers have said about the gaming community?
Splendid use of of the accusatory 'her'! I am in fact a virile man! Oh my stars, how can I make such arguments with a peener?!
Also, I'm the one who provided a bunch of articles. Some from feminists contexts, some not. Are you afraid of the feminists? Don't be! Mostly the ones I know are interested in examining texts from a feminist perspective. They don't go on the internet much because it's not worth it.
>Because lord knows that the Andrea Dworkins of the world..
If you're knowledge of Feminist criticism is limited to Dworkin, than...I don't know. You have a very narrow, sort of cliche perspective? Yeah, that's the one.
>So your argument is that you're right because people tell you that you're so right that you shouldn't have to explain that you're right?
I have no idea what you're getting at here.
>How's about I round up some guys who will say you're wrong and we call it even?
Yes, please do! That would actually make for an interesting conversation! Let me know when you get them together, I'd genuinely like to participate. From the outside looking in, I'm sure everyone seems like a bully. The truth is we don't care enough to bully you. The narrative of the feminist attack on gaming is just...you know...embiggening? You've got somebody to fight! That always makes a man feel better about things.
>One more time! I'm not giving you personal information.
One more time! In absence of evidence of your credentials, there is no reason to take your claims of expertise on faith. You occupy about the same space as anyone else commenting on SRD: just some person out there.
>Splendid use of of the accusatory 'her'! I am in fact a virile man! Oh my stars, how can I make such arguments with a peener?!
I was attempting politeness by not making assumption vis-a-vis your sex, nor by using male pronouns as default. Way to take a bit of appeasement as mean.
>Some from feminists contexts, some not
When your third article is about Anita Sarkeesian (and why those meanie head boys don't like her), and four of your first five come from clearly feminist sources (Sister Namibia sure sounds unbiased), the claims of neutrality and expertise wear a bit thin.
Especially since, for someone who does reading in this field with some regularity, you can't point to any whose thesis you do support 100% or which you are willing to stand behind empirically. And those that do have data use ill-defined things like the "Videogame Sexist Scale". Oy.
>Mostly the ones I know are interested in examining texts from a feminist perspective
You're kidding! Feminists are interested in examining things from a preconceived perspective. My god, it's almost like they come to conclusions that fit into those judgments. Perhaps "pre-judgement." There must be a word for that. Or, you know, a bunch.
>If you're knowledge of Feminist criticism is limited to Dworkin, than...I don't know. You have a very narrow, sort of cliche perspective? Yeah, that's the one.
Again, "your", Professor. And, no, my knowledge of feminist literature goes beyond that. But if your entire argument is "feminist academics said this, therefore it is fact", you're relying on the credibility of feminist academia.
Which doesn't have an untarnished record. Or a good record. Or a passably competent record.
>The truth is we don't care enough to bully you. The narrative of the feminist attack on gaming is just...you know...embiggening?
This coming from the person citing an article about just how mean those boys who play video games are to poor widdle Ms. Sarkeesian? Oy.
>That always makes a man feel better about things.
For someone sensitive about gender being brought up in this discussion you're surprisingly quick to bring up gender.
>How would you know? Do you read scholarly articles on the subject in fields like Communications, Media Studies, Women's Studies, Feminist Literary Criticism? Cause I do
You're an older professional who spends (her?) time reading scholarly articles in a number of social science fields? Either that means you're an academic (making your claims to be an uninvolved and disinterested professional suspect), you're lying about the amount of time you spend researching in social justice fields, or you spend an inordinate amount of time reading feminist literature.
NB: Anita Sarkeesian is not a valid source of academia.
NB(2): If you're going to claim something as so true in academia as to be beyond question, perhaps you could cite one of the innumerable sources that you apparently read for funsies.
Oh lord. There is no source that says "Sarkeesian is not a valid source." Why is that, do you think? Why would someone write an article about someone who isn't taken seriously?
Edit: I got sick of waiting. The answer is because only gamers think she's important.
Well, golly. You waited a whole 20 minutes before getting all huffy about my lack of response?
Here's hoping you aren't trying to teach via Socratic method.
Ah, I've got a short attention span. And I don't teach rhetoric. That's for tight assholes who can't shore up an argument without referring to a method that's more than two thousand years old. We could go the Platonic route, though, and you could just concoct a fictional version of me and then argue against my stupid claims.
Anyhow, any response to the actual content of my comment?
>We could go the Platonic route, though, and you could just concoct a fictional version of me and then argue against my stupid claims.
I don't need to make a fictional version of you with stupid claims. I have the real thing right here.
>any response to the actual content of my comment?
The part where you made unverified claims about what the literature says, or the part where you simply repeated the claim without any evidence either (a) that such academic research exists, or (b) that such academic research (if it exists) is empirically valid?
I'll respond to content when you provide some.
Okay. I provided a number of sources in a different comment. They were cursory and kind of scatter-shot, but what's one to do with ten minutes?
I guess that takes care of (a). As for (b), I guess you're going to have to do some publishing of your own. The onus of "empirically valid" -- whatever the fuck that means; I don't have my sexism-measurin' stick handy -- is on you, I'm afraid. These articles are published in peer-reviewed journals. We can talk about the veracity and inherit bias of these journals, but that'd take some actual thought. I'm happy to have that conversation though!
>Sasman, Laura. "Why do male gamers hate Anita Sarkeesian?"
Whoa there, cowboy.
You were telling me just two posts ago that only gamers talk about Anita Sarkeesian. It's almost like you found a group of feminist writers who are writing based on preconceptions of gaming, to further their own ideological beliefs rather than on the basis of anything empirical.
Whereas the multi-billion dollar entertainment industry is just so concerned about what academics think is important?
That's a strange point to make. The multi-billion dollar entertainment industry is completely unconcerned with what academics think. I wouldn't claim otherwise.
When there's a legitimate concern, plenty of people in the gaming community are willing to accept it as a concern. The fact that people call Zoe Quinn a bitch is not a concern. The fact that Penny Arcade made a joke about dickwolves is not a concern. The fact that Dragon's Crown has some truly unrealistic character models is not a concern.
Perhaps if people weren't so quick to make everything into a DEFCON 1 panic situation people wouldn't push back when there actually is legitimate criticism to be made.
Incidentally, I'm an older professional, and I'd be willing to go C.V for C.V with you. Your statement about what "most people" believe is without basis.
Google the confirmation bias.
CV dick-waving contest? I think i'm alright, friend. I think you're credibility is measured enough in your dismissiveness.
"Your", not "you're". Professor.
Let's capitalize the word "I", especially when it comes at the beginning of a sentence, shall we? I'm guessing that a Professor of Literature would dock some points for that.
You invoked your professional bona fides, and your professorship. If you don't want to make stuff into a pissing contest about who has the more impressive C.V, don't treat "I'm a professional" as proof of your credibility.
1 & 2: Wow, really? Yes, sometimes there are typos. That's very substantial. I am bent over and brought low.
And 3: Believe what you like.
Well argued.
Thank goodness you're not a Professor of logic or philosophy.
Though, I'm willing to guess the sentence should cut off the last four words.
Yes. Good work. You've thoroughly destroyed me via typos and...what, buttsex jokes i guess? Oh look, that last 'i' isn't capitalized! Jeez, show some mercy!
I'm not sure where I brought up anal sex. But considering the total content of your comments is "I'm right because I'm right", something scatological makes sense.
Ah, I thought it was the "bent over" bit. I wasn't quite clear on the "cut off the last four words" thing. Also, I still don't know what "i'm right because i'm right" part means. That people, especially academics, outside of the gaming community see it as inherently sexist? I'm not even sure what I could dredge up to support that. I mean, I did list a bunch of random-ass articles about it, but I guess there's also the whole "you're always bitching about women" thing. People don't write about exactly that, you know?
>I still don't know what "i'm right because i'm right" part means.
You've repeatedly made two claims: (1) everyone agrees gaming is sexist, (2) your colleagues tell you how right you are and how silly it is to discuss this with anyone outside of the echo chamber of feminist academia.
Neither is proof in and of itself. In addition to the confirmation bias of the first, there's the inherently subjective analysis of the second.
[deleted]
Please keep it civil. Personal attacks are not permitted. Your comment has been removed