What is actually wrong with that though? Lots of groups focus purely on their own interests. What should they be doing?

They may have achieved their goals in the legal sense, discrimination against women tends to be illegal, they can vote, work, etc. There is still a fight in a social sense though. The way females are portrayed in the media say, by being photo-shopped into 'perfection' (happens to men too of course but in a different way). By being victims of crimes and how that’s perceived, far too many people will blame the victim when it comes to rape or sexual assaults. There are still massive imbalances in certain work places, sometimes as a result of an overtly masculine working practices, sometimes because young women themselves chose not to enter those professions. People still hold sexist attitudes, and use sexist language. Even in western countries woman can still be viewed as possessions. I'd say there are still goals to be achieved

I just don't think that is true. Yes there will always be elements who want more than might be deemed fair, and there will always be those pushing for equality where simple human biology makes it unlikely. But so many feminists fight for what they perceive as genuine inequality (even if you might disagree that its there), or try and uplift women past their self imposed limits.

I actually agree that forcing companies to hire or interview based on sex or ethnicity or whatever else is wrong. Positive discrimination is still discrimination. But then when you look at the jobs where these things apply, they are often dominated by very similar people. People tend to hire others who are similar to themselves, even if they don't know it, so how else can a woman break through into that world?

Well unless she actually did 'milk' the guy in the first place I'm not sure how he's not 50% responsible.


Just as we seem to be on the issue of sexism, I wanted to quote Piranjade's post in full. I'm assuming many of us arguing here are male, as such I do think its worth a read. Its post 944.

You cannot balance a scale by focusing only on one side. Men an women make about half the population each, so ignoring one side is a pretty big deal.

About your other points, I don't think they are valid. Women being photo-shopped all the time is nothing special. How many companies would use an image of a balding guy guy with a belly? In fact, anything and anyone is being photoshopped. But photoshopping women is bad?

Or same for example with violence, why is violence against women such a bad thing? I always thought violence against anyone was bad, but apparently violence against women is especially bad? WTF!?

I have never heard of people blaming rape victims. Unless you think one shouldn't have to be held responsible for winding up in the wrong bed after partying too hard. That's BS, if you get yourself wasted so much that you can't make good decisions anymore then that's your fault. And no, I'm not talking about people who were drugged with KO-drops, but that stuff can be proven. Of course trying to investigate rape allegations is made sexists by feminists. Don't believe me? Check out that girl who has been carrying a mattress around her campus, she accused her boyfriend of butt-raping her and when the people she reported to started asking about details she just refused to talk.

Of course there will always be some areas where not both genders can be served. Scientists researching uteral cancer will of course only focus on women and that makes sense.

To make a blatant analogy, there will always be more shoes for women than for men because the market is bigger and that's OK too. I don't run around screaming misandry at shoe designers because women's shoes take up an entire floor while men's shoes share the same floor as children's shoes, sports shoes and whatever else. That's stupid, if I wanted more shoes for men I would design them myself (or find people who would do that because I suck at designing).

Don't confuse sexism for being an asshole. Assholes will always look for a way to upset you; if you're a girl they'll say things like "tit or GTFO" or "make me a sandwich", if you're guy they'll call you a faggot and tell you how they slept with your mother. Do you really think those people have a deep seated hatred of women, or are they just socially incompetent? I'll let you decide which is worse.

No, feminism at its core is about achieving and promoting the equality of the sexes. As such, a feminist media critique focuses on the imbalance between the sexes in said media. I can understand if and why your personal prototypical feminist may be an old, loud, self-opinionated tax dodger writing for tabloids, but, no, that's not feminism. Far from it.

Lumping together opposing viewpoints and labeling them "feminist", "feminazi", "SJW" or "White Knight" is of absolutely zero use. They are now used in such an extremely broad way that the only thing they do mean is "persons to disagree with". That brings us nowhere in this debate.

I am a core gamer and have been for 25 years. I am also feminist in the actual sense of the word, have an actual interest in social justice, and have no problem to enter a debate and characterise myself as such.

Riiiight...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ie96N1fH14c

There was a really funny series of photoshopped feminists holding up signs where the text was replaced with thing a feminist would never say. That video is the next best thing I could find, the audio sucks, but the point stands. If you really believe in equality you should look for another brand for yourself, feminism is poisoned beyond repair and needs to to die. Though personally I don't think following basic reason like equality really needs a special brand.

Also, quite amusing, here is a male feminist trying to debunk female privileges. By confirming them. Makes sense. Not really.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Eyd1mvEC88&list=UU-yewGHQbNFpDrGM0diZOLA

I respect you don't think my other points are valid, that’s fair enough. With the issue of photo-shopped imagines, as I said, it happens to men too. And its just as much a problem for men. Men have body image issues, just like women, as a result of seeing unrealistic photo editing. Its not a solely female issue, but it is an issue feminists fight.

I didn't mention violence, though domestic violence against women is an issue, any kind of violence is bad. There is even a case that domestic violence is more of an issue for men because of the perceived social shame associated with it.

Some people use what a victim was wearing, how they were behaving (“sexually provocative”), how promiscuous they are, and yes how drunk they were as justifications for rape, or possibly more accurately excuses for why it wasn't rape. I've even heard people use a persons celebrity statues being used. Ok I accept the issue of drunk sex isn't clear cut, if both parties are drunk then who 'raped' who? If one is drunk and came on to the other who isn't, should the sober one take responsibility and decline sex? So yes there are grey areas, but when it comes down to being taken advantage of because you were drunk, to me at least that ones much more clear cut.

I'm not sure about the case of the girl carrying around the mattress, that isn't something I've heard about. I've looked, and can only find reference to someone who claims she was raped by a classmate, and is carrying around a mattress in protest at not being believed.



Sorry reposting that wasn't aimed at you (or anyone in particular). I just thought it was worth raising. I don't entirely agree with you, but I don't entirely disagree either. Its very difficult though to realise the amount of abuse a woman (in this case, could be anyone who is 'different' though) gets if you aren't one, if that makes sense.

While I agree that the vast majority of the time it requires 2 to tango and both parties should be equally responsible - the US does have issues. If a woman rapes a guy and she becomes pregnant because of said rape, the guy is still financially responsible for the child. I can't even find words for how horrifying that is. Happened in California where a woman slept with a child and got pregnant, and now the now adult former child has to pay money to his rapist. The double standard is appalling.

No idea what that video was about, but if "feminism is poisoned beyond repair", and by its advocators even, the very same is true about "gamergate" a thousand times more.

This is a battle of the labels and not about the issues. I don't give a shit who supposedly is feminist, gamer, "professional victim", Republican, Social Justice Warrior, etc.

In a video that supposedly is about sexism in video games, Sommers talks at length about violence in video games, then favors one study over another by claiming that not all video games are the video games that should be all important, only to prove that male gamers still constitute the largest percentage among core gamers (which has never been in dispute). That is the only part that deals with "studies".

On the basis of that and only that, she decides that video games aren't sexist. She then goes on misrepresent the critique voiced about some games in an extreme way - insinuating an agenda and prohibition ("they want the male video game culture to die", literally). In this debate, this kind of shit is just pouring fuel in the fire. During the last part of the video, she even adopts a "What's wrong with sexism if only men are addressed" stance, which makes it hard to not press the stop button and throw the monitor out the window.

And lastly, she shrugs off threats and insults made to Sarkeesian and Quinn as the act of "a few sociopaths". I really wonder what data she gathered. It's "a few thousand sociopaths" at the very least. And I don't need any statistics and shit to prove that, because I've been around when the whole fucking thing started.

"Tropes vs. Women" is definitely a flawed series, but at least Anita Sarkeesian knows halfway what she's talking about - and abstains from the personal insult to boot. I see nothing of the kind in that one Sommers video. As to the "scientific" nature of Sommers' opinion piece... sorry. I know my science. And that's not it.

*rofl*

Well, that's just like... your opinion, man... ;)

You really consider that some of the recent articles like those attacking Ubisoft for daring committing the crime of having a female hostage or for not offering the choice of having a playable female characters in Unity, were really done in a interest of creating a healthy debate ? same goes with all the "gamers are dead" articles...

It's not a "what's wrong with sexism if only men are addressed", but more "what's wrong with offer meeting demand".

It's not sexism it's marketing 101; if 90% (random number pulled out of nowhere) of the target market for FPS are young adult males, then it's "normal" that said games are made using "tropes" targeting their expected audience (and it's true for all mainstream media not just games). If tomorrow the target audience for FPS become young adult females then you can be 100% sure that the marketing department of the game developers will make sure the new FPS are made using tropes targeted toward females.

I think a good example of that could be Japanese Anime/Manga, most (i.e. not all) of the show/books are very targeted toward a specific audience, you have shows for young boys, full of fighting and action, those targeted to teens/young adults male with tons of fan-service, harem situation, and all sort of tropes/stereotype that would cause Sarkeesian or Leigh head to literally explode after less than a minutes of watching, but on the other side you have show targeted toward young girls or toward adult female featuring strong female characters and/or tons of mostly decorative good looking men.

Personally I consider that as a working example of "diversity" (even if some groups are more represented than others); by having each audience have "products" targeted for them, not by trying to shame the creators into making politically correct stuff that would try to please everybody.

You are playing with semantics here, even if there is 10'000 out of 1'000'000 gamers then it's still "a few" in comparison, if you have been around, as you said, you should know how the Internet work by now: post a youtube video in which you say that "bronies are freaky and shouldn't watch little girls show (DISCLAIMER: it's just a random example not my personal opinion.) and I am 99% sure you will end up soon after with insults and death threats.

That's how the Internet works sadly, make a "polarizing" post/video/tweet about something and you will end up with some douche insulting you or threatening to kill you and/or most of your family. But luckily 99% of the time they only represent a tiny fraction of the group they pretend to "defend".

What Sarkeesian video does is mostly takes scenes, often out of context, often forgetting all the others scenes in the games that might contradict her argument, and bend them them, a little or a lot to make them fit into her pre-made tropes boxes. There is not really that much more to be learn from her video than you wouldn't have learned by reading tvtropes.

Pffft. Her videos are simmering with condescension and spite, just under the surface. It's difficult to describe but the style of her presentation is as hate worthy as her hypocrisy.

Oh wow, yeah, the "gamers are dead" articles... wait, what was the topic again? Ah, right: How I consider Sommers to not be very helpful in a debate that has left the path of health long ago.

I didn't particularly condone giving Ubisoft shit for creating four male white protagonists in a row; but every shit they got for explaining that they didn't incorporate a female character because it would have been "too costly" they actually deserved. ;)

As you go on to explain in detail, it's run of the mill video game marketing people who think that gamers "demand" the same story in all their games, misogynist stereotypes up the wazoo and lots of scantily clad women as background decoration and domination fantasy. I certainly do not demand that stuff. Do you?

If less developers and less marketing people are making those broad and clearly derogatory assumptions about gamers, it means that the art is given a chance to grow up - and develop with more freedom than with these kinds of topical constraints.

That is quite obviously an impossibility – and contradicts the notion that only the misogynist tropes would please the young male white gamer demographic. As to political correctness, that's an empty phrase I never understood, because it doesn't come into play here. Violence and strong language are obviously not 'politically correct' in most countries, yet you don't hear press and gamer critics protest much. Actually, the same goes for TEH most politically incorrect thing in the US, eroticism. Yes, eroticism. What Sarkeesian would call "authentic consensual intimacy". Which no one is threatening to take away in games as well.

Finally, someone understands the internet. Go and tell that to thunderfoot and several other persons who still think that Sarkeesian must have made those death threats up. I'd still argue that the sheer number of hateful comments that I found under the first TvW video far, far, far exceeded any shit storm I have ever seen under any youtube video ever. It's not unreasonable to draw the line here and say: the youtube community may produce the worst comments of any larger discussion forum on the internet, but those parts of the youtube community which also belong to the gamer community routinely exhibit the most hateful and unreasonable behaviour of the entire lot. Sure, just a vocal sample, sure. But with this kind of backlash, we're not just dealing with a fraction of a percent ready to engage in this kind of harrassment.

That's a misconception I often encounter. I have yet to find a good example of what it should actually mean. If a misogynist trope is clearly evident in one scene, it can not easily be "mended" by another scene that doesn't have the trope. Remember, this series is not about dismissing entire games for scenes which might be sexist. It's about dismissing those scenes only. What she "cherry picks" is the stuff that actually concerns her topic.

Ahhh, no, that is working out vice versa. The data comes first, then the boxes are made. Which is clearly evident from some of her earlier trope within a trope within a trope efforts (damsel in distress - girl in the fridge - euthanasia trope) and from the background decoration trope, which I haven't heard being addressed in this way before. And the TV tropes site doesn't even seem to deal with any of that stuff.

Well, if you call something worthy of hate, you better damn well be able to reasonably describe why. I have more than a few quarrels with Sarkeesian's "style of presentation", but here I can't help you.

"...but some things are just not there!", he said, "Some flexibility in interpretation is possible, but you can't, like... I don't know - interpret stoic theory to be behind Britney Spears' lyrics."
A week later the student came back to him with a few pages of text in hand. He tried. Not only that - it was a damn good job, and with some quotes you'd be hard pressed to disagree with his reasoning. It was convincing stuff; well put, well researched. It remains one of my favorite anecdotes.

Sorry for getting completely off topic, I give sidetracked by nostalgia. As a disclaimer - the artist might've been different, likewise the school of philosophy, but the idea was the same. As long as you're an intellectual MacGyver, you can make an point out of the theoretical equivalents of paperclips. You don't need to be right, you just need to be convincing - people have been convinced of more evidently false things...

I see that others have replied to you Vainamoinen, but I'll think it appropriate to give my take on this. I have placed your comments in italics.

In a video that supposedly is about sexism in video games, Sommers talks at length about violence in video games, then favors one study over another by claiming that not all video games are the video games that should be all important, only to prove that male gamers still constitute the largest percentage among core gamers (which has never been in dispute). That is the only part that deals with "studies".

Sommers has every right to dismiss one study or source of data over another as long as she explains using critical analysis why - which she did. This is extremely common in academia (indeed many academic papers do this in their literature reviews), and is in fact a key use of critical analysis - she analysed more than one source of data and explained why one was more relevant than the other. She also refers to studies at the very least once more in the video - the study being a 'classic' study that dismisses views regarding gaming media influence.

Sommers talks at length about violence in computer games as a way of demonstrating two very important points - that game content does not affect user behaviour as some claim and that products are produced to match the tastes of their intended market and that such behaviour is not sexist. She then starts relating this to claims of games having influence over a user's behaviour and whether there is sexism in video games, then demonstrates using women orientated product examples that making products to suit a market that has a strong gender leaning is not sexist, but an acknowledgement that men and women have different needs and wants. "What's wrong with sexism if only men are addressed" assumes that sexism is present - yet it's simple market forces and basic human traits at stake. Having different needs and desires, and catering to them, is not sexist.

On the basis of that and only that, she decides that video games aren't sexist. She then goes on misrepresent the critique voiced about some games in an extreme way - insinuating an agenda and prohibition ("they want the male video game culture to die", literally). In this debate, this kind of shit is just pouring fuel in the fire. During the last part of the video, she even adopts a "What's wrong with sexism if only men are addressed" stance, which makes it hard to not press the stop button and throw the monitor out the window.

On the basis of researching the same things that many others have (which she also states in her video), she has come to the same conclusions as many people have come to - that there are women and groups who don't want to add to what is already in gaming to perhaps create a balance, but instead take over what is already present and use it to further their own ideology. This is obvious, from the now exposed journalist dialogue to various comments and blogs publicly giving this stance. "What's wrong with sexism if only men are addressed" is not the stance she adopts - the stance is 'there is nothing wrong with making products that cater to different genders', and indeed demonstrates products that target women as examples.

And lastly, she shrugs off threats and insults made to Sarkeesian and Quinn as the act of "a few sociopaths". I really wonder what data she gathered. It's "a few thousand sociopaths" at the very least. And I don't need any statistics and shit to prove that, because I've been around when the whole fucking thing started.

"Tropes vs. Women" is definitely a flawed series, but at least Anita Sarkeesian knows halfway what she's talking about - and abstains from the personal insult to boot. I see nothing of the kind in that one Sommers video. As to the "scientific" nature of Sommers' opinion piece... sorry. I know my science. And that's not it

I also find it interesting that you state that you 'know your science' and yet the previous paragraph you dismiss Sommers' supposed assertion of the scale of harassment and counter with ''It's "a few thousand sociopaths" at the very least. And I don't need any statistics and shit to prove that, because I've been around when the whole fucking thing started.' I cannot pretend to be perfect, but backing up your claim of the scale of harassment with 'And I don't need any statistics and shit to prove that, because I've been around when the whole fucking thing started' is abysmal and about as unscientific as you can get.

Even worse, unlike as your claim, Sommers didn't even refer to the harassment as being the work of a 'few sociopaths' - she stated that there are millions of gamers, including a few sociopaths, and that we do not know that all the harassment came from gamers. Indeed, she doesn't refer to any number or even a ballpark figure in regard to this. Twisting comments to suit is again completely unscientific.

I stand by my comments - Sommers produced a piece of critical analysis that has rightly been lauded for its objectivity and sensible findings that naturally stem from proper analysis. I am happy to engage in sensible debate, but comments such as 'And I don't need any statistics and shit to prove that, because I've been around when the whole fucking thing started.' are not the sort of comments that make me think that sensible discourse is being conducted.

Thank you, I just spent a couple hundred edits working that out!