HGiles: The really big goals of feminism - voting, owning property and not being it - are met. Much like the big goals of the civil rights movement - voting, equal protection by law - were met. But there are still huge issues.

HGiles: And GGers definitely broke the bounds of decency first with stalking and doxxing.

That's the real problem of GG. Of course people who are attacked and threatened will react badly. GGers started that mess, and now it's very hard to have a genuine discourse. GGers tainted the whole issue of games journalism with misogyny and irrational hatred. The whole issue is set back.

HGiles: Welcome to democracy. The big issues will rise to the top because more people will care about them. :)

For one thing, there's growing awareness of the really troubling levels of sexual assault and old boys clubs in some professions.

Jonesy89: You mean the group that wants critics to not talk about certain things in their reviews under the guise of asking for them to be more objective, despite still wanting the critic to talk about highly subjective things like fun? Just saying, they aren't exactly doing a bang up job of making themselves look like one of their main stated goals is to silence critics on particular subjects. True, some opponents of GG aren't endearing themselves to me on that front either, but I have less sympathy for that kind of behavior when it is one of the main tenets of the movement of a group.

MaGo72: http://www.staresattheworld.com/2014/11/catch-22-feminism/

Just out of interest a "neo-reactionary" monarchist is somebody whose politicial view/ideology is, that monarchism as a ruling politicial system in a state would be the one to go for aswell as returning to "old" values?

Furthermore the term "neo-reactionary" is quite new for me, I know the term reactionary which has been used quite differently to describe certain politicial movements/groups in a given country at a given time. From what I could look up, it seems the term for itself coins something like a "radical conversative". David Aurini the author of the above text says from himself, that he is a neo-reactionary monarchist. When you consider those glasses of a perspective on the world, the text makes sense - although I do not share his view.

I think one question which has never been asked or adressed in all those articles is, what is the kind of equality feminism is going for?

The feminist movement has reached quite a lot of it's initial goals. When I look at those articles and their views which came up in the GG discussion, it seems more to me that "equality" in front of the law, equal treatment of women in our existing western societies is no longer the main goal. It seems to me the main goal is the extinction of gender and associated characteristics as a social, cultural construct. One could argue that this is direct implication of a cultural alignment of genders because the associated traits with one gender are not directly comparable with the other role, but the question which I ask myself is: Such a change would encompass giving up/normalizing the traits and characteristics of both genders, while when I look at the proponents and authors of certain articles it sounds more like aiming for "privilege". The reason for this in my opinion is, that the proposed change is not really a matter of this or that gender role, it is a change which touches our culture in its roots and views on society, the moral and ethical values aswell. And with the "We do it, it is ok, but it is not ok when you do it "- argumentation you hit a wall.

Jonesy89: You mean the ones that the FBI (last I heard) was trying to find because noone knows who they are, thus requiring them to be tracked by law enforcement in order to be charged?

HGiles: It is a bad situation. But why shouldn't women go to parties? Getting drunk in public isn't a good idea for anyone, but guys do it all the time without worrying about being raped. The idea that women drinking means they somehow contributed to another person assaulting them is a part of the problem. The blame is 100% on the person who decided to assault a human being, not on the person who wanted to have a fun evening, however foolish their choice of fun might be.

HGiles: I think we're on the same page here, really.

StingingVelvet: Pretty much. I think realizing how the world is and taking precautions is something we should teach our daughters. That's the point of mentioning the prevention aspect women can keep in mind. It's not about "blame" really, it's about awareness.