Serious question here. Who are you that somehow has the right to decide who is a feminist or not? Can you comment on why a majority of women aren't feminists because of how the 3rd Wave acts?

Can you even explain to me what this whole idea about putting women in glass cages like their porcelain dolls is about too? Seriously, Shirtgate, the bitching about Gamergate, it basically reinforces this insanely old notion (And by insanely old, it's about 200 years old), that women are extremely delicate and fragile, which is extremely false, period.

Oh, and what the fuck is this privilege thing, because I keep getting a fucking snobby ass answer that basically says 'if you have to ask what it is, you have it', and guess what, that says jack and shit and simply serves as nothing except for someone to try to elevate themselves as a class above me. I'm getting a bit sick of THAT malarkey.

I feel theatrical.

More likely, Zoe had the 'artist' under 'probation', despite his apologizing and deleting the offensive comic months ago. When she learned, from checking his tweet in her monthly round of confirming 'offensive douches' are in their 'proper places' (or cos a 'groupie' told her), that the 'moustache twirling villain' Brad Wardell, notorious 'robber baron' and desecrator of 'virtuous virginals' had suggested to her 'indentured moral servant' that he send his resume, she either: a) jealously wanted to keep her 'boy toy' all to herself b) assumed this guy's masterwork was the comic depicting her, and decided to prevent its distribution, cos only 'embedded journalists' (or publishers) get to sample them goods (or her percent cut hadn't been offered) c) offered another example of 'jumping the shark', or is it 'humping the hack', by evaluating the guy's artistic talent based on her own, therefore assuming the job was 'in the bag' as per the applicant's 'genius'.

Something like that, surely.

Apropos, anyone read the Chris Rock interview about universities being too conservative and how comedy is being squeezed by easily offended 'squares'?

Shit man... an actual serious post after I just went full into lalaland? How inconvenient...

Anyway, I'd say you're actually quite classical. Only they would say the Aesthetic could be more objectively determined, but they would agree with you on the primacy of the Aesthetic over the social, philosophical, or whatever else. A huge reaction against modern art was that it was ugly right?

I'm far from an expert, but I do tend to privilege more objective craftmanship, over some undefinable aesthetic judgement. Hence to me, there is always some element of communication, of expression, which is better or worse achieved based on the craftmanship of the artist. I wouldn't judge the artistic merit based on my agreement with the message though, in fact, if a media with a message I disagree with logically, is capable of affecting me and expressing its point despite that, that's in its favor, and I suspect the value of a work tha ressonates with me.

Something that ressonates I'd say I like anyway, then to rank them more objectively is where I'd consider adjusting for the message I perceive or am otherwise aware of.

Anyway, all that because I'm longwinded. But your use of the word subversive is interesting, particularly if I would interpret it in a sense that you don't want your art to express its meaning in an honest or apparent way. Care to comment?

No, what I mean is that art often subverts expectations, which makes it practically impossible to contain in a tidy definition.

I don't necessarily mean that there's no objective ground when it comes to artistic critique, just that I think foundational questions like "what is art," or "what makes good art," or things like that, have to at some point rely on the unquantifiable.

Thanks for this dude. You may be an ideological enemy ;) but the link inside of this link, to a fairly old Escapist series of interviews that I had missed is a fracking goldmine - yup, I just created that, got to admit it makes sense instead of freaking, heh.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/features/12383-Game-Developer-GamerGate-Interviews-Shed-Light-on-Women-in-Games

I also checked the link pointing to how this was controversial, so now there's no timeline, two interviews were memory holed and it seems the Brianna Wu thing happened fairly soon after, which is why I probly missed it. Also, your link was a great example of how gaming is trying to remain apolitical, though pulled in two directions by the two sides in this whole brouhaha.

I'll post particularly juicy quotes as I read'em. Consider me a friendly curation service, focusing on insightful or comic. ;)

#1 Brad Wardell

In my opinion, neither item should have gotten coverage. [He's comparing his court case with the non-stories on Zoe]
The Zoe Quinn incident could have been handled as a wider article about concerns of bias in gaming journalism or something. But I wouldn't expect Kotaku to cover either. We're not public figures in the traditional sense and we don't run publicly traded companies. There's no "public good" being served here.
But if you're going to cover one, you better damn cover the other in a similar way.
...
I honestly feel very bad for her. No one deserves the crap she's gone through. [Bet he's changed his mind somewhat now she's gone after him directly]

Most journalists have immense integrity. The problem is that there are bad actors in gaming journalism just like there are bad actors in gaming.

95% of our Start8 (not a game but a piece of software every Windows 8 user should have) are men. If a universal utility is overwhelmingly used by men, there's no scenario where core gaming is going to do better at attracting women.

In the past decade, since the rise of social media, almost every game developer who participates online has seen a friend or colleague wrongly smeared by these so-called "social justice warriors". ...
The problem with attacking people is that eventually you create a constituency of opposition.

Gamers want everyone to play games. [I know I do...]

That said, this crap [death threats] does happen more often to women than men because the crazies tend to be men who have existing psychological issues with women. But these crazies aren't representative of any side.

I am quite certain that there is no wide-ranging "corruption" in gaming media. But just because it's not systematic doesn't mean that editors don't need to adapt their editorial policies to the post-advertising meltdown world to keep activist writers and freelancers from using their sites inappropriately.

Before the advertising crash some years ago, these freelancers wouldn't have made the cut. But when the advertising revenue dried up, a lot of veteran journalists were forced out leaving a vacuum of content that is now being filled by people with an agenda.
...
Here's another thought experiment: In what other industry would an unvetted, early 20s Communications Major making YouTube videos be considered an authority on...well anything? ...

Developers are changing their PR based on the gamers growing distrust.
I didn't even know about this issue until last Spring ... So I'm looking at the marketing plan and a huge chunk of the effort was in approaching and supporting YouTube "Let's Play" people.
Being the snob I am, I said "What the heck is going on? Why is half our time allotted to YouTube stuff? I get all my gaming info from Rock Paper Shotgun. ..."
They tell me that, for whatever reason, gamers are making their purchasing decisions based on the recommendations and opinions of "Let's Play" regulars and Twitch posters. Let me emphasize that: They're not making a judgment call on the media, they're simply going to where the gamers go. That's their job. So I go home and ask my 17 year old gaming son about this and he says "Well yeah, because I can see the game in action. There's no one between me and the game." [Ding ding ding ding ding :)]

Fairness, objectivity and neutrality in game reviews is, of course, a myth. Reviews are a form of editorial and therefore the review score should depend on the criteria of the game magazine. Historically, the mission of the game magazine is to be the advocate of the gamer -- their readership. So in this case, the "fair" review is the one that tells its readers whether it's a good game for them. If I'm running a feminist magazine, then a fair review might be a 1 out of 5. If I'm running a magazine that literally has the word "shotgun" in it, I would imagine a fair review would be based on whether they think their readers would like it.


#2 Greg Costikyan

[On Gamers are Dead] It was a well-written argument, offered by Leigh Alexander, one of the most interesting journalists writing about games. I disagreed with it, not because I thought the line of argument was incorrect, but because I do not define "gamer" so narrowly. I also think that in some ways, the article failed to understand the diversity of the medium and of the people who love it; what has actually happened, in the commercial digital industry, is that for the first time since the mid-90s, it's possible for games that do not aim to be million-seller blockbusters to find an audience, through digital distribution, and that the diversity of games that we once had has been renewed and recaptured.

[On Gamergate] Fundamentally, it is about a kind of reactionary conservatism: a desire to preserve games "as they are," lacking any knowledge that games "as they are" is a temporary historical moment, and the games were not "as they are" as little as fifteen years ago, and will not be "as they are" fifteen years from now.

Are we talking indies? The primary concern is to get noticed AT ALL. [Personal connections would seem to help huh? :)]

My daughter, now in her 20s, is a kick-ass gamer. There were times when, exploring a new AAA title, I came, as a middle-aged gamer who did not grow up on action games, to a boss I couldn't defeat, and would hand her the controller, saying "Five bucks to get me past this boss." She did it with alacrity. But she's told me how she had to constantly prove her gamer cred to others, just because she was a girl; and bought and played Halo assiduously, because being good at the game was, to some she'd met, the only credential that would move her from "a gamer's girlfriend" to "okay, you actually are a gamer." This is bullshit. Being a gamer is no one's exclusive property.
The fact that millions of middle-aged women play Farmville or Candy Crush isn't a threat; it's a demonstration of the power of games, that we have won, that now everyone plays games, and that's great. We shouldn't be excluding others; we should be welcoming them into the fold, and looking forward to a future of an amazingly diverse palate of games that appeal to every taste.

Why did Brad follow his twitter then?

Is there something morally suspect in following this particular person? Or is it the timing? :) Do we have screencaps showing they slept together? :) I know, someone saw Brad give the guy a briefcase full of money a day after the cartoon with Zoe was posted! Corruption!

Or maybe Brad follows just about anyone. Oh shit, did I just slut shame him? I need some reeducation...

Asking why X followed Y on twitter is like asking why Johnnie went to Charlie's bday party. Is this kindergarten recess?
How do you expect us to know why someone follows someone else? Do you see us asking why someone, just for a random example, slept with this person instead of that?

Sorry mate, my mindreading rays are in the mechanic for another week...




#3 Royale [some anonymous dev - some funny stuff in this one :)]

Life is toxic. Wear a rubber.

It's not that there are only five journalists with integrity in the games industry, it's that there aren't even five journalists in the games industry. It's not like Dana Priest writes for Gamasutra - let's all calm down here people - it's not really games "journalism."

Can a system that rests on a foundation of frivolity really be considered "corrupt?"

Speaking as a developer, my primary concern vis a vis the game press is in receiving favorable coverage: I want it; I need it; I would even trade sexual favors to get it.

Source:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/features/12383-Game-Developer-GamerGate-Interviews-Shed-Light-on-Women-in-Games

fixed TY :)

http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2oah82/a_female_perspective_on_the_whole_gta_v_situation/

http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2oadbf/lady_video_game_fan_here_my_2_cents/

Also, interesting question, any opinions about GTA V getting pulled from multiple retailers? I'm really curious about that one.
Now, I want to play a quick Game real fast. I'm going to describe two characters one after another. I'm going to do one now, and the other in a bit, if you respond to the first please respond to the second as well.

Imagine a female character who is weak, socially awkward, cowardly, kind of a nerd, and generally the last person you'd think of to even call cabin boy on a pirate ship, let alone captain one. She's abused, verbally and physically, mistreated, shunned, hated, and generally made to feel unwanted.

Now, that's the description, please be completely honest with me about what your reaction is and what you think others might react to the same.

I don't decide. I have an opinion. One that's shared by many feminists and academics. Plus, she acts like a troll.

I would guess that the majority of women don't call themselves feminists because of a patriarchal culture that demonizes and strawmans feminist advocates. What do you mean by how "the 3rd wave acts?" Who do most women know as feminists? Do you think they hate Tiny Fay or Emma Watson?


It sounds like something in your own head. I have no idea who you think is trying to put women in glass cages.

Pretty simple really, it's that certain people grow up and experience the world with a privileged that others don't. For example here in the US the majority of drug offenders are white and yet the majority of prisoners from drug offences are black. A white person or other such class of person with privilege will not notice or experience that kind of disparity in justice unless they make an effort to learn about it. It's something that occurs anywhere a class of people in the majority are not subject to the same scrutiny or standards of behavior that other classes are. A Brazilian in northern England will attract more police attention that say, TotalBiscuit, but TotalBiscuit doesn't notice or consider the disparity.

It's only shared by so many of them because anyone you disagree with you don't consider a feminist. Circular logic leading to an echo chamber...

You just don't like Christina Huff Sommers because she values truth over her ideology. Apparently it is wrong for anyone to fact check claims of other feminists. To me, doing so makes me value her opinion more and value the opinion of those repeating the misinformation less.

Yeah, it's not a deep question really and it's the same. The answer to why someone would sleep with someone else is because they like them. Why would someone follow someone else and get their feed on their twitter page? Can I assume you agree that they probably like them? I hope I can assume that little. That's all I'm asking you, no need for hysterics. Bradley liked the guys work. I'd say publicly. That's all that's needed to demonstrate at the least a lack of genteel manners when dictating your work environment.
Well she certainly could tell you a thing or two about cherry picking.

Several? I'm not sure thats true but it is not surprising to me, that as a feminist who is outspoken anti-GG, people would assume it is because of misogyny. I'm happy for you to go through all my previous posts to find one where I have described GG as misogynistic (I have certainly asserted that there are members of GG who are, just as there are anti-GGers who are), there would probably be one you could find somewhere.

There are many reasons I am anti-GG. One of the main reasons I am anti-GG is because, whilst I agree with the part that is actually about ethics in journalism, I don't agree with the part that suggests writers (or others) should not be allowed to hold or express views which would be described as SJW-like. I think they should be free to write what they wish.

You can have that opinion, but I don't think suggesting that people who are paid to give their opinion on things (like whether a particular game is good) should be subjective is really an ethical concern. Its complaint about style.

I think suggesting people who read those articles are being indoctrinated, is a tad jingoistic. It interests me that people will say, for example, depictions of violence in video games do not influence gamers, but reading will indoctrinate the kids into becoming feminazis. For heaven's sake, somebody think of the children!!!!! I'm not sure one can hold both views.

I think the vast majority of video game writers are not journalists. The majority don't report the news, they are paid to write opinion pieces. A number of them are paid to write entertaining articles. That's not to suggest they have no ethical obligations at all, but it is a little more…. nuanced.

You can have whatever opinion you like, but I don't think it is consistent to say on the one hand, nobody should be forced to host a discussion, and yet if someone does not host a discussion they are repressive, intolerant and unethical - unless you are suggesting there is nothing wrong with being repressive, intolerant or unethical and that kind of behaviour should not be discouraged.

Some examples: #gg'ers are bad at understanding what journalistic ethics is, what the role of game writers is, the importance of giving writers the freedom to write whatever they wish and, to a certain extent, understanding what really motivates people.

Look at my initial post when I jokingly said GG was bad in the same way the 76ers were bad. In what way do you think I was suggesting the 76ers are morally bad? Do you think the 76ers are misogynists? I you think I was using bad in a moral sense, why do you think I mentioned the 76ers?

You want to talk about cherry picking? We point out how Brad Wardall was mischaracterized by Zoe and company in their timeline. You choose to ignore the truth and argue "Why did he follow the artist on Twitter?" As if that proves anything.or changes the timeline.

Every time we counter your arguments, you fail to acknowledge anything and change the subject.

And then you are complaining about straw mans and cherry picking. Who is the one picking and choosing?

But aren't you using it as a strawman? I mean the whole Patriachy idea is a giant strawman when you take a moment to really look at it. I even talked with a friend who made the same comment, although she used a lot more colorful language then I did. She even stated the problem with feminism right now are the people who use the Patriachy as a tool to blame men or go on a power trip. I argue that it's an excuse for failure, that some people haven't allowed themselves that extra space for failure, but that's just me, and I'll be the first to admit that I'm a little off in the head.

Then please, give your opinion on this, I'm quite interested. Is it sexist, horrible, what?

Imagine a female character who is weak, socially awkward, cowardly, kind of a nerd, and generally the last person you'd think of to even call cabin boy on a pirate ship, let alone captain one. She's abused, verbally and physically, mistreated, shunned, hated, and generally made to feel unwanted.

Ok, I'm going to be blunt, it sounds like a lot of BS. It's a lot of focusing on the negative as insurmountable obstacles instead of challenges that everyone has during life. It feels like it's a blanket thing instead of looking at the particulars of a person.

Let's take the Drug Prisoners thing. Well, if it's such a problem, how much has been donated to programs to keep these people off drugs? What about volunteers for Drug Rehab? I admit that drugs are a difficult challenge but it's not impossible, it just requires people who want to help solve the issue individually. And what gets donated to fund anti-drug crime units? What kind of drugs are we talking about? I assume it's far beyond simply marijuana. Millions of kids go hungry but I don't ever seem to hear about that beyond what's on TV

People learn about problems as they go through life, and no one can experience every problem, meet every person. It's not privilege, it's simply the fact that you don't notice most people, it's only those you do that you start to see the whole picture. It gets turned though from individual people to large stereotypes with the stuff that I've seen about privilege. There's a LOT of it from class, but you don't hear much about that, the privilege of being able to say whatever you want without worrying about a HR department stepping in, the ability to label your critics, the ability to talk about privilege and lecture people is also a big one.

The Brazillian thing doesn't particularly work, since you could make the argument that TotalBiscuit would attract attention in Brazil. You should see how the Japanese react to outsiders, they get attention from the police too. And that's not even talking about the individual stuff.

Quick story, I had an uncle who had Cerebral Palsy, couldn't talk, couldn't really move around as well as anyone else, had to take vapor medicine 3 times a day, was in the hospital so much they implanted something in his chest for IV connections. He lived at least 2-3x longer then doctors thought he would. But you know what? He worked, he went every weekday to work, came home every afternoon. He went out for bowling once a week. I remember him spending the summer sitting on the ladder of the pool, beer in one hand, water gun in the other having a blast. He had a lot of challenges, but he seemed to love life, he seemed to love being with his family. It's touching, it's something I learned a lot from once I got out of my teenage years, although he was gone before that. Having problems isn't something to run from or complain about, it's just another challenge on the path of life, there will be plenty and some will be a lot harder then others. I don't agree with treating anyone different then anyone else, but part of that is that I don't agree with this privilege idea, because every privilege comes with a difficulty, every positive a flaw, it's just a matter of what YOU see out of life, that's what you get.