hedwards
I don't have a job. I'm about to get one though, and thanks to getting money from a rich uncle who redistributed his lottery money among his children, my cousins, my sister, and myself included I have been living the pretty well for myself. And that freaks me out a bit.

Also (and I know I've asked this before, but it bears repeating) if society values women more than men, why do men still make up the majority of world leaders and why do women still have to deal with people who want take away there right to abortions?

Shadowstalker16
Can statistics misrepresent what they're talking about? Of course but that's why there people who don't solely rely on statics, and use other sources to backup what there saying. You on the other hand keep saying it's a myth and all you have to prove your part is using websites who specialize in right-wing conspiracy theories, and the work of man who created a failed tech blog, and spends most of his time writing sensationalist, inaccurate articles for said websites. I think I'll trust the ones with the credentials.

Welcome! Who's this ryan you're talking about?

Welcome, just watch your step the mines hurt rep here & no one's immune

ryannaughton1138, the poster above you who I can't figure out if they are just really mislead or being this thick deliberately

Oh, I thought maybe there was something happening on twitter or somewhere...

as one who doesn't use twitter, when is there not something happening there?

This coming from someone who thinks that feminist are going to take there games away.

Oh BTW, I just found proof that SJWs really are destroying games:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w7ieYUBess
Because we all know that game was financial disaster.

The more I see from the anti-GG movement and from SJWs in general, the more I feel pushed to the right. I feel uncomfortable about it because I'm from a liberal family. But this kind of liberalism that we're seeing lately is so alien to me. We used to talk about freedom for all and an end to militarism and equal rights under the law and equal access to public resources, those kinds of things. I'm not sure what it's about anymore, but it doesn't seem like it's about that at all. It's like they're speaking a different language now, and you just can't reason with them.

A few examples off the top of my head:

-There was a protest at an Ivy League university recently about the lack of people of color in faculty positions. Specifically, black people. 9% of the faculty was black. But that's representative of the population. So I don't understand what exactly the message is supposed to be. Like, is over-representation now something we need to do and if so... why? What is the principle underlying that idea?

-There was another uni protest where the student group made a long list of demands for the uni President, one of which was that he write a public apology letter in which he admits to his white privilege. And I'm thinking, gee, this is weird, this is reminiscent of communist oaths or McCarthyism if you want to take it from the opposite angle.

-There's this thing now where if a white police officer engages with a non-white suspect, the encounter is assumed to be racially motivated. Such that, if the suspect were to get hurt, for example, then it's not just a police brutality inquiry, it's automatically concluded that this officer is racist. If people say something about what they witnessed (e.g. bystanders claiming that Michael Brown had his hands up when he was shot), well that will take off and there will be a media circus about it, and then we find out that those people were lying but no one's really sorry because whatever, white cop.

-Another recent uni protest comes to mind in which students flooded a library, disturbing those who were trying to study and they got in their faces, yelling. Someone started to cry and they screamed, "[expletive] your white tears!!!" and humiliated the person. And I'm like... this does not feel... right. I'm not trying to bash an entire movement based on the actions of a few but it's... not right. The administration then backed the aggressors. This was at Dartmouth.

Christina Hoff Sommers & Liana K aren't out to take the "fun" out of gaming BUT

It's not necessarily Feminists but rather the cultural authoritarians & also it not about the the games I already have, it's about future titles

you should really read "The End of Gamers" the last bit sell the point they don't want me involved as a gamer but would rather have me be a player (a much more "ma soggy knee" label)

I don't see these aggressive types that you mentioned as any sort of "liberal" even as they may attempt to hide behind that persona now. They act rather "illiberal" some may even have been liberals at one point. & these illiberal cultural authoritarians are basically "fighting" racism & sexism with more racism & sexism and that at best is a poor strategy.

Rusty_Gunn
I've the article and you know what, I'm ok with being a player. It's still got two syllables, it's got the er. I'm ok with player. Games are not niche anymore (although one could argue that Gamergate as niche). It's evolving, and evolution is important for any medium. You either adapt or you die out. And if games were still targeted only at there core, the industry would be dead in the water by now.

Pick up artist comfirmed (I still rather play games (Gamer) over "game" women (player) personally) :P

but the point I was trying to make was that if games are everyone then what's the point of boarding up that all-inclusive clubhouse. the "ONLY" people that club doesn't want are "posers"

First off, it's now very clear you are both an idiot AND a troll.

For example, I cited a study made by the CONSAD research group on behalf of the Department of Labor. You cited a feminist blogger who was clearly manipulating data to support her radical position.

Yet here you go claiming everyone here cites bad sources while yours are perfect.

I explained how women making only 77 cents on a dollar compared to men is deceptive because many women either don't work or work part-time so they can stay home with their families. You claim I said nothing you can understand. Are you retarded?

Apparently, you are too stupid to even read! Right in the forward written by the U.S. Department of Labor, let me quote....

"...the raw wage gap continues to be used in misleading ways to advance public policy agendas without fully explaining the reasons behind the gap. The purpose of this report is to identify the reasons that explain the wage gap in order to more fully inform policymakers and the public."

"There are observable differences in the attributes of men and women that account for most of the wage gap. 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. These variables include:

A greater percentage of women than men tend to work part-time. Part-time work tends to pay less than full-time work.

A greater percentage of women than men tend to leave the labor force for child birth, child care and elder care. Some of the wage gap is explained by the percentage of women who were not in the labor force during previous years, the age of women, and the number of children in the home.

Women, especially working mothers, tend to value “family friendly” workplace policies more than men. Some of the wage gap is explained by industry and occupation, particularly, the percentage of women who work in the industry and occupation.

Research also suggests that differences not incorporated into the model due to data limitations may account for part of the remaining gap. Specifically, CONSAD’s model and much of the literature, including the Bureau of Labor Statistics Highlights of Women’s Earnings, focus on wages rather than total compensation. Research indicates that women may value non-wage benefits more than men do, and as a result prefer to take a greater portion of their compensation in the form of health insurance and other fringe benefits. "

"Although additional research in this area is clearly needed, this study leads to the unambiguous
conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a
multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify
corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be
almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers."

Or we can believe Ryan the Troll and his link to a feminist blogger who clearly is trying to deceive the public as I've explained earlier...

Ryan, you don't know shit and all you are doing in this thread is being an ass.

This may help : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH0mPfR-K2U

And you still haven't proven there is one!!!! You are nothing but a TROLL! But that study does prove that anyone claiming the wage gap is 23% is stupid as heck.

Any good scientific paper will disclose any deficiencies which this study did. They will use the word "may" a lot but the end result was still scientifically significant. For some feminist who is clearly ignorant of scientific writing styles to dismiss it out of hand for qualifying its limitations is laughable. For the same feminist idiot to then cite worldwide figures and claim this somehow proves things are different in America (because she says so) is completely laughable. And for you to dismiss everything that was said in the paper out-of-hand is idiotic.

And if you'd learn to read, even your link shows that the 77% figure is FULL OF SHIT, like almost every one of your comments.