|By PlatformPCPS4Xbox OnePS3Xbox 360Wii U3DSPS VitaAndroidiOSOther HardwareEditor's Choice||By LatestThe best and worst s : May Returns Mortal Kombat X Titan Souls MLB 15 The Show Pokémon Rumble World Etrian Mystery Dungeon Dyscourse Affordable Space Adventures Crimzon Clover World Ignition Wave 4 amiibo Shopping Attack the Light: Steven UniverseMore reviews||By GenreActionAdventureFightersFree-to-playMMOMusicPlatformShootersSportsRPGStrategyMore genres|
Feminist Frequency has a new video up, so let's break it down and see if any of this is fair criticism and commentary. One interesting fact about this video is that it has several gaming journalists reading their script instead of Anita this time, including 3 from IGN that I recognized, one from Polygon, the retired Adam Sessler, and Tim Schafer.
I'm skeptical that these benefits they are going to list are actually "invisible," so let's see how it goes. If they were actually invisible, it would be pretty tough to point them out.
1) "I can choose to remain completely oblivious or indifferent to the harassment that many women face in gaming."
I don't know if this is really a gender-based privilege at all, considering that anyone really has the ability to be indifferent about people they don't know. It's basically implying that men have no empathy for people that get harassed, and that women will automatically have more empathy. It's really not a strong point that I would have placed as my #1 at the top of the list. For example, anybody, regardless of their gender, that is not into gaming at all will likely be completely indifferent to this point. Anyone that primarily games on their tablets or phones, or plays offline games, or doesn't spend most of their time reading gaming websites is also indifferent to it. Anyone that doesn't go to conventions (the overwhelming majority of all gamers do not go) are indifferent to what goes on there.
Then even if you take the reverse perspective here and describe what it's like to be a male gamer today, you're not exactly given a pass to be indifferent to everything. All you have to look at is gamergate to see that people get harassed, banned from twitter or gaming websites, doxxed, or even threatened in real life if they don't have the right opinion. If you're a male gaming journalist, you're not allowed to be indifferent, you're heavily pressured to say the right thing. And the press is what creates the narrative for the hardcore gaming community's day to day discussion. So I really don't think this point is valid, for several different reasons.
2) "I am never told that video games and the surrounding culture is not intended for me because I'm male."
I would have maybe had some sympathy for this point if it was 1987. But it's 2014, and in something I like to refer to as "reality" - even my 65 real old aunts enjoy gaming on their phone, and asked me about what to get this thanksgiving. Even my 20 year old sorority girl coworkers enjoy playing candy crush and fighting for high scores with their friends. If you include all forms of gaming out there, including every type of casual game, women make up over 50% of gamers today. So this point really seems like a relic that doesn't apply in any meaningful way. Any kids being raised today are being raised by parents that played games growing up.
3) "I can publicly post my username, gamertag, or contact information online without having to fear being stalked or sexually harassed because of my gender."
This is a valid point. Harassment is not okay, it's not condoned by the gaming community collectively, it's moderated everywhere, and at conventions, and within the legal system. I have no problem condemning harassment.
Now watch as they basically repeat this same point to pad the list.
4) "I will never be asked to prove my gaming cred simply because of my gender."
This one, I don't have any sympathy for. Proving your gamer cred is part of how gamers socialize with everyone. Jonathan Holmes can post an article saying that a lightsaber crossguard was in No More Heroes first, and within minutes someone points out detailed Star Wars expanded Universe material using it first. That is what enthusiastic hobbyists do. That's literally almost all that they do, and they do it to everyone. When you get to know a new gamer, you are asking what they like to play, how much they know about games, and if you play any kind of competitive game, of course you are assessing how good they are.
I just don't see how this one matters, and it's never going to go away.
5) "If I enthusiastically express my fondness for videogames, no one will automatically assume I'm faking my interest just to get attention from other gamers."
It's not "automatic." People trying to assess someone's sincerity and honesty is never going to go away. When there's a heavy monetary incentive involved in talking about games and gaining publicity, people should be skeptical.
I know it's the new taboo thing to say there is no such thing as a fake gamer girl. But the politically incorrect reality is that it is true sometimes. I only say that because I literally watched a friend of ours do it on purpose. One of my best friends is a hardcore gamer, and she's a girl. If we're out at the bar or meeting new people, and it comes up that she plays games, it's an automatic point of connection and point of mutual interest for most of the guys she would be talking to. They find that attractive, and feel like it's easier to talk to her about things they like. So this other girl would watch this all the time at the bars, and started mentioning how she's all about NES games and was trying to work it in to flirt with guys. She never was into video games at all, and actually kind of talked shit on us both for liking them at various points. So yes, she was doing that for attention because a lot of guys like gaming, and want to share that with their significant other.
Is that a majority of women? No. She's literally the only person in my life I've met who did that, but it did happen. Do I even think it's a bad thing? No. She's literally trying to be social and flirt with guys on points they are interested in, so I think it's probably the least offensive thing out there. However, would I want to go to this girl for the latest news on gaming, or opinions on gaming? No. The only time I can see this being problematic is if someone without any interest in games tries to use gaming for publicity, and ends up giving out bad information. If you're not an expert on games, just say that up front, and no one is going to care. Gamers deal with people every day who aren't experts on games - it's called their friends and family. Just don't be dishonest about it.
6) "I can look at practically any gaming website, show, or magazine, and see the voices of people of my own gender widely represented."
So, they're saying the gaming media is almost entirely made up of white men? This is a fact, so I agree.
7) "When I go to a gaming event or convention, I can be relatively certain that I won't be harassed, groped, or, catcalled, or propositioned by total strangers."
Same as point #3.
8) "I will never be asked, or expected to speak for all other gamers who share my gender."
This just simply isn't true. This whole video is basically speaking for all men. Generalizing both genders happens literally all the time. Most of feminist critique in gaming is actually the most guilty of presuming to speak for all women of their own accord, without anyone asking them. And they're not afraid to generalize all men either. This point is a complete fail.
9) "I can be sure that my gaming performance - good or bad - won't be attributed to, or reflect on my gender as a whole."
This is the same as point #8. People generalize the genders all the time. If there are lots of good male gamers, that is what is used to generalize the gender as a whole. If there are trolls online that harass people, that is used to generalize the gender as a whole. People generalize the gender as a whole literally all the time, for all kinds of things, including gaming performance, and many other more important things.
This isn't going away, and it happens to everyone.
10) "My gaming ability will never be called into question based on unrelated, natural, biological functions."
I literally don't know what this means. What biological functions are they talking about?
11) "I can be relatively sure my thoughts on videogames, won't be dismissed or attacked based solely on my tone of voice, even if I speak in an aggressive, obnoxious, crude, or flippant manner."
This is 100%, flat out false. See gamergate. See Jim Sterling 6 years ago. See Tim Robbins on Kotaku.
12) "I can openly say that my favorite games are casual, odd, artistic, or cute, without fear that my opinions will reinforce a stereotype that women are not real gamers."
It's not a stereotype that women, statistically prefer more casual games. They are the majority of mobile and facebook gamers, and they have preferences in genre as well. There are a lot of women who like more hardcore games too, but it's not the majority of women. It's one of those stereotypes that is based in fact.
Still though, it's never a good idea to generalize anyone, and I don't ever do that. Everyone's a unique person who has their own taste in things. If your biggest worry is "reinforcing a stereotype," I don't know if it's a big problem. What that is basically saying is that you are worried that your taste in gaming is the same as the majority of female gamers. Why are you worried? How about just be yourself and enjoy your casual, artisitc and cute games.
Does everyone enjoy casual, artistic, and cute games? No. Those people who don't like those kinds of games have a different opinion on what they like. They want to listen to the opinions of people that are like the same kind of media they're into. I don't see how this is a problem honestly.
13) "When purchasing most major videogames in a store, chances are I will not be asked if, or assumed to be buying it for a wife, daughter, or girlfriend."
This is the same as point #12. One time after work I went to wal-mart, and someone asked me if I knew where a product was. I realized that I had on a polo shirt that was blue, and they thought that maybe I worked there. I politely told them that I didn't work there, and went on with the rest of my day.
People in retail trying to sell you a product are not the bane of your existence. Honestly, I will just straight up call this one first world problems. How about instead focus on something important, like the way black people are treated in stores sometimes, as threatening suspects of shoplifting even after they buy the product.
Not to mention, let's just think for a minute about the proposition raised here. They are claiming that we will not be asked if we're buying it for a wife, daughter or girlfriend. Really now? Well, what about if you go buy imagine babies at Gamestop? What about if you go buy Barbie's Horse Riding Adventure? People at retail making basic assumptions is just the epitomy of a first world problem. Shop on Amazon then like I do. I hate going to Gamestop because they harass everyone about upselling and get up in your face about it, every single time. That's their job. That's how they're trained.
14) "The vast majority of game studios, past and present, have been led and populated by people of my own gender, and as such, most of their products have been specifically designed to cater to my demographic."
That is true, but you have to ask yourself why? Probably because they are businesses and they are catering to the demographic that was interested in paying for the content, developing it, and reading about it for decades. As that changes, you see the games changing too. It's really a non-issue in my opinion. EA and Microsoft aren't plotting to ignore women. They want to sell units to anyone who will show up with money. They are corporations. They are legally required to do just that. Film is definitely doing that now, and you can look at the demographics of theater turnout to see why.
15) "I can walk into any gaming store and see images of my gender widely represented as powerful heroes, dastardly villains, and non-playable characters alike."
I can find images of both. It's not that hard. Hunger Games is in the theaters too. Tomb Raider, Final Fantasy, Resident Evil, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Portal, and on and on. It's definitely there, in major AAA series. It's not non-existant, no matter how much they seem to want it to be.
This really seems like a case of a privileged class ignoring reality. Yes, I am calling white women a privileged class in this case. I imagine that most other minority groups would be ecstatic with the kind of representation that women get in gaming, in terms of the quality of the characters, the quality of the series, and the frequency that they're included. I can count how many Arab characters there are worth mentioning in gaming on one hand. They even include NPCs on this point, which tips the list absurdly in favor in women.
Could there be more? Sure. Is it even a priority at this point worth mentioning, when you consider how little representation other minorities get? Honestly, I can't say it is. I just can't. There's already quite a bit of attention on this issue, and quite a bit of major games meeting this need already. Compare the outrage we saw about AC Unity not having a woman and compare it to the outrage we saw at AC Unity not having any Arabs.
There's no legal mandate at this point for what artists are supposed to create. There is no quota. They seem to be doing okay if you ask me.
16) "I will almost always have the option to play a character of my gender, as most protagonists or heroes will be male by default."
Hollywood and gaming have a bad habit of using the same style of character repeatedly. Agreed.
In this case though, there are alternatives out there. If people want to buy those and make them multi-million dollar series, you'll absolutely see more.
17) "I do not have to carefully navigate my engagement with online communities or gaming spaces in order to avoid or mitigate the possibility of being harassed because of my gender."
Same as point #3.
18) "I probably never think about hiding my real life gender online, username, my avatar choice, or about not using voice chat for fear of harassment for my being male."
Same as point #3.
19) "When I enter an online game, I can be relatively sure I won't be attacked or harassed, if and when my real life gender is made public."
Same as point #3.
20) "If I am trash talked or verbally berated while playing online, it will not be because I am male - nor will my gender be invoked as an insult."
Same as point #3.
21) "While playing online about people I don't know, I won't be interrogated about the size and shape of my real life body parts, nor will I pressured to share intimate details about my sex life for the pleasure of other players."
Same as point #3.
22) "Complete strangers generally do not send me unsolicited images of their genetalia or demand to see me naked on the basis of being a male gamer."
Same as point #3.
23) "In multi-player games, I can be pretty sure the conversations between other players will not focus on speculation about my attractiveness or sexual availability in real life."
Same as point #3.
24) "If I choose to point out sexism in gaming, my observations will not be seen as self-serving, and will therefore be seen as more credible and worthy of respect than my female counterparts, even if they are saying the exact same thing."
I just don't agree, at all. People are critical of ideas, not their gender. The guy writing this video literally has his own joke hashtag devoted to critizing him. #FullMcIntosh. You would think that might make him pause before regurgitating this point.
If anything, white men are pretty routinely demonized in these types of conversations and seem to have the opinions that are not being allowed on this topic. As a class, I see them generalized the most. For example, I am not a white man. Just stating that adds validity to my blog. That shows you the sad state of affairs we find ourselves in at the moment.
As far as whether or not your points are worthy of respect, I'm looking for two things. 1) logic, 2) evidence.
25) "Because this video was created by a straight white male, this checklist will likely be taken more seriously than if it had been written by virtually any female gamer."
This simply isn't true. Look at how well people responded to Arthur Gies rating down Bayonetta 2 at Polygon. Not to mention, Jonathan McIntosh writes ALL their videos. So why is he saying that this is going to be more well received than other videos he's written? If he thinks that's true, he could open up the comments on youtube and the ratings and we could objectively see instead of empty theory crafting.
Ending) "In order to make change, first we need to acknowledge the problem, and then we must take responsibility for it as a community, so we can actively work together with people of all genders to dismantle the parts of gaming culture that perpetuate these imbalances."
This is where they jump the shark completely. We've established one major problem on this list that I agree with. Women are often times harassed in unique ways during online games, or at conventions. Fair enough, I don't disagree. My girlfriend still plays online all the time, but she gets weird comments sometimes. If the goal here is to improve moderation of genuine harassment, I'm fully supportive.
What this video conveniently leaves out though is a description of what the parts of gaming culture are that they intend to dismantle? What are the parts that perpetuate harassment? If they're pointing to their previous videos that critique video game content, and are making the leap to saying that fictional content is turning people into harassers, she is leaving the field of science. That's where you put your sign post in the ground and stop and note the departure from evidence, from objective fact, from every scientific consensus we know of. That's where we note the rise in gaming happening at the same time that violent crime falls. That's where we note the rise in gaming at the same time that women's rights and economic standing keep improving. That's where we note the rise in gaming at the same time that gay rights have advanced with historic speed.
There is no proof that gaming content perpetuates any of these imbalances. Zero. Notice that Sommers in this video cites "researchers at UCLA," and shows a peer reviewed study. She cites another Texas A&M study showing once again, for the 1,000th time that violence and gaming are not linked in any kind of concrete way. She makes a simple claim, and then demonstrates the evidence for it in a reasoned way. In fact crime rates and the rise of gaming have an almost directly inverse relationship. Notice that she's a professor with a PhD in the field, with decades of experience in peer reviewing research, and lecturing on this topic.
Compare how she handles discussion of evidence to the author of this video. Compare how many times she has been in debates and discussions with people challenging her ideas compared to how many debates McIntosh and Sarkesian have allowed. Just look on youtube for yourself.
"Amazing" how those peer reviewed scientists arriving at a decades-long support of the claim that media doesn't directly correlate to violence in real life are in "denial." Luckily the press has decided to ignore scientists and side with a feminist on youtube trying to rally us all to "dismantle gaming" in vague, unspecific terms.
Harassment in real life is not related to gaming content according to science.
They are entirely separate things. If anyone tries to tell you otherwise, then you need to ask for a whole lot of proof before you turn your mind off and agree to let 25 people in a rapid-fire video think for you.
This parallels the saga of Jack Thompson extremely closely. Now look back up at what they claim is point #24. It's literally almost the exact opposite of what they claim when you look at Thompson vs. Sarkeesian. Thompson said this decades ago, and went to court over it and the press had a field day with this guy. Sarkeesian says it on youtube and now multiple members of the press are literally in their video! Does that tell you that when women raise points like this, it's automatically seen as LESS credible? Again, what is this based on? Literally nothing. Just pulled out of thin air to fit a predetermined narrative.
So we've analyzed the latest moral outrage video objectively and fairly, and where does that leave us? The exact same place we started. Everyone is against harassment already. Even gamergate has anti-harassment teams, and harassment in online gaming certainly pre-dates gamergate so that can't be the cause.
What specifically needs to be dismantled and why? What is the evidence supporting your claim? Still waiting ...
I thought this was a video that gamers familiar with the gender debates of the last several years would like to see; and need to see. This is a video from The Young Turks, a liberal, feminist-leaning online news site with multiple female staff members. In this video, they react to an article from Chris Plante, founding editor at Polygon, who now works at The Verge (Polygon's sister site).
Plante wrote an article at The Verge condemning one of the scientists responsible for landing a spacecraft on a speeding comet millions of miles away from earth. Plante condemns this poor scientist because he was wearing a shirt that Plante found in poor taste, and called the shirt sexist.
As you can see in the video, the scientist later apologizes and is fighting back tears.
The kicker is that the shirt was a gift from a female friend who makes the shirts.
I just wanted gamers, and especially gaming journalism editors and writers at Destructoid to see what a prominent liberal news site's reaction is to the same kind of feminism the gaming community has been subjected to for the last several years. If this shirt was reviewed by Polygon, I predict it would have gotten a 7.5.
"Look, every single group has ... extremists, fringe group that's somehow associated with it. And so ... I hate, I hate that this has taken on the feminist tag because this is not feminism okay? Real feminism focuses on gender equality."
- Anna Kasparian (TYT anchor) (3 minutes, 40 seconds)
I hope that everyone can listen to the diverse opinions of women on this issue without trying to erase their opinion. I'd hate to see someone as prominent as Anna Kasparian have to join #notyourshield just to try and prove she exists.
I finally found an article with the full interview up and got a chance to watch it. I was honestly pleasantly surprised by Colbert's questions and I think this was an interesting watch. This is the kind of questioning that I wished the gaming media was doing from the very beginning, and I think it's worth looking at this interview critically.
We can all agree it was a great PR victory for her just on visuals alone, but the actual content discussed doesn't seem to really back up many of her claims or positions. Even with this being a relatively softball interview, I think it's actually the most pushback and questioning I've ever seen her get ... ever. That is a sad statement on how little discussion has actually occured around her videos and her theories. It's sad that it took a comedian that is completely outside of gaming to be the first to do this in a mainstream way.
Anyway, let's look at some of the exchanges I chose to highlight. They also talk a bit more about harassment, and her Utah speaking event that got canceled. I think everyone but extremist trolls agrees that harassment is not okay, so I don't find it to be a particularly compelling topic to discuss since there's really not much to discuss. Report it to the authorities, which she did. Good. Okay, moving on to her actual ideas now -
I. Colbert: "It's a culture war, it's a sub-culture war."
Anita: "There is something going on, and what it is is women being harassed and threatened and terrorized -"
Colbert: "After you first attacked male gamers for enjoying looking at big-breasted women with tiny armor that barely covers their nipples. What is wrong with that? I like that. I like what that looks like. I'm a man baby!"
Anita: "Well -"
Colbert: "Newsflash, I like it."
Anita: "Well, one of the problems with that is that it actually reinforces this cultural myth that women are sexual objects and sexual playthings for male amusement. And, we're not."
I thought this was actually a pretty interesting exchange, because Colbert is basically arguing that heterosexual male fantasies are entirely normal, healthy parts of male sexuality. "News flash, I like it." He's arguing that there is nothing wrong with games that are purposely made to cater to male sexual fantasies, because sexual fantasies are healthy, normal parts of what it means to be a human being.
Anita says that male sexual fantasies are "problems." They reinforce a cultural myth that women are sexual objects. I just don't find that compelling at all. What is the evidence for that statement? Is there even a way that anyone could scientifically prove that? It just sounds like an idea that is plucked out of the air and can't be proven. I could just as easily say that violent fantasy games reinforce a cultural myth that murder is fun and death has no consequences. But that doesn't prove true in reality. Violent crime continues to decline nationwide in the US at the same time that violent gaming rises.
I just find her whole message here to be anti-inclusive, anti-sex, and anti-tolerance. I'm all for supporting any and everyone's sexual expression whether it's LGBTQ or anyone else. That also includes my support for heterosexuality. How can we casually demonize someone's sexuality, or sexual art? Many men are attracted to women, and like to spend their money on fantasy games where they can interact with women they are attracted to. Would anyone feel comfortable calling a game allowing gay men to explore their sexuality a "problem?" No they wouldn't, and they shouldn't. But the same goes for heterosexuality as well, which is being unfairly demonized here.
II. Colbert: "We're saving them. Damsels in distress. I'm saving the princess, am I supposed to let the princess die? Is that what you want? That's kinda harsh, that's kinda hostile."
Anita: "Well maybe the princess shouldn't be a damsel and she could save herself."
Colbert: "They've got games where - [interrupted by crowd]."
This seems like a very unconvincing comeback from her that doesn't persuade me in any way that the damsel trope is problematic. As Colbert argues here, most games portray a story of trying to save someone you love, someone that is more important to you than anyone, someone you are willing to risk death to save. Is that really a story about objectification? Sometimes it may be in extremely simplified NES games that barely even have the capability to tell a story. But sometimes, it's a game merely about selfless heroism and risking your personal safety to save someone. That is a positive message, and she doesn't really have any criticism of that here at all.
Maybe the princess shouldn't be a damsel? Sure, that's fine for some games, and those games exist already and continue to be made. Colbert said it right here himself. Anita even says it later in the video. So if those games exist, and will continue to be made, why demonize a story about selfless heroism in other games?
III. Colbert: "By criticizing these, male fantasy games, male objectification of women games -"
Anita: "Some of them that would be an accurate description"
Colbert: "So, give me some names, name some names."
Anita: "Well, in the work that I do, I look at hundreds of examples of videogames that -"
Colbert: "So, can you think of 3?" Can you think of 3?"
Anita: "I can, but I think it's a bigger issue to talk about the industry as a whole and how it perpetuates these ideas of sexism and mysogyny as opposed to just Grand Theft Auto example."
I thought this section was also pretty convincing, since she basically fully runs from repeated, focused questioning here, and simply refuses to answer his question. Instead, she wants to discuss how the entire industry, collectively perpetuates sexism and mysogyny. I just don't think that's really true. The entire industry doesn't perpetuate hatred of women. If it did, why are 48% of gamers female? It just doesn't make sense. How would any prove her claim scientifically? Can it even be proven scientifically? It doesn't fit with reality.
IV. Anita: "Women are perceived as threatening because we are asking for games to be more inclusive."
Colbert: "Why not just have a separate game? Have separate but equal games."
Anita: "Well, we do have lots of different kinds of games that -"
Colbert: "So, what are you complaining about?"
Anita: "That's one of the things that I think is happening here is that, we have this wide range of games that - we're seeing mobile games, we're seeing indie games, we're seeing this influx of different kinds of games, and that's what gamergate is responding to. They're actually responding to the fact that we're saying that gaming can no longer be this little boy's club anymore. There are many of us women who have been playing games our whole lives, and so they're lashing out because we're challenging the status quo of gaming as a male dominated space."
Colbert uses charged language here that harkens back to segregated schools and it gets a laugh from the audience. But his actual question and premise here are perfectly valid. Lots of content is segregated across gender lines, simply because they have different intrests. Men don't call Ellen and Oprah sexist because the talk shows don't have enough action segments in them. They just find something else to watch; seperate but equal TV shows. That's basically what Colbert is advocating for here; and he's asking if she's even comfortable allowing games made specifically for men to even exist. In response to that, she basically says that gaming can no longer be a "little boy's club." Does that mean that no games purposely made to appeal to men can exist? It doesn't really mean anything specific because it's just a catch phrase. If 48% of gamers are women, if games where women are the heroes exist, if diverse indie games exist, why would anyone call it a little boy's club? She basically entirely dodges his question here, which is saying that not every single game will be designed to appeal to every person. Some games will, and some games will be designed for a more specific audience. If she agreed to this obvious, non-confrontational point, she would have little reason to demonize games or criticize the industry.
V. Colbert: "What about the accusations of collusion between gamers, designers and journalists? Do you understand how important it is? We are talking about ethics in G-A-M-I-N-G J-O-U-R-N-A-L-I-S-M. Do you understand how huge that is? I mean, what if there was no ethics in Hollywood journalism? If we can't trust Entertainment Tonight or TMZ where would we be? Is that what you want for gamer journalism?"
Anita: "I think that that is a sort of compelling way to reframe the fact that this is actually attacks on women. Ethics in journalism is not what's happening, in any way. It's actually men going after women in really hostile, aggressive ways. That's what gamergate is about. It's about, like, terrorizing women for being involved in this industry, being involved in this hobby."
Colbert's question here is basically saying, "of course gaming journalism is corrupt, just like Hollywood. It will always be corrupt." He is probably right here as well. But what does that actually say? That says that there is of course going to be corruption, and so of course the claims of ethical issues in gaming journalism deserve more serious attention because they almost surely exist due to its inherent sensationalist attitude and conflict of interest built in as a consumer press. Gamers complaining about the press has been a consistent theme for years, and it does exist. Just ask any game journalist and they'll tell you that a lot of their audience is hostile, and suspicious of them.
But Anita basically dodges that point completely and goes out of her way to really eggregiously mischaracterize the whole gamergate movement with broad, generalized strokes. It's really a very bad answer that tries to blatantly simplify, demonize, and marginalize a diverse and complex collective of people and complaints.
VI. Colbert: "As a man am I allowed to be a feminist?"
Anita: "Well, do you believe that women should have equal rights to men and that we should fight for those rights?"
Anita: "Great, then you're a feminist."
He asked if he was "allowed to be a feminist." The answer is yes. He didn't ask what a feminist is. Feminism is something you self-identify with, you don't label people as feminists against their will if they don't want to be included. This is something that feminists have a huge problem with, because huge numbers of people (including large percentages of women), purposely go out of their way to not label themselves as feminists even when directly asked. For example, I of course think that women should have equal rights to men and that we should all fight for that equality. But I'm not a feminist, no matter how badly she wants me to be. Feminism is not that simplistic, and it includes numerous sub-ideologies that have various beliefs and views about all kinds of things that go well beyond this purposely reductionist definition. She basically ends the interview on a misleading cannard that is parroted online very frequently.
A better question to ask would be, why in the world are so many people purposely against calling themselves feminists? That would require some self-reflection, and honest acknowledgment of their faults to determine though, so instead they will just use the broadest, most benign definition possible to label others as feminists after they go out of their way to disassociate themselves from the movement.
Ouch. And this relatively softball interview represents the most criticism she has ever had in an interview.
I've been reading about Gamergate and gender / political issues in gaming since the beginning, but for the most part, I've largely done so from the outside looking in. I don't have a twitter account, and the precise number of tweets I've sent in my life is exactly zero. But looking from the outside in on this most recent explosion of gender debate and harassment, I think I've finally found a working a thesis that explains what is happening in a way that makes sense to me.
Gamergate is a response to political disenfranchisement. The political process is controlled social chaos. That is how modern societies take differing views and peacefully negotiate a middle-ground in terms of policy, law, and the values we hold as a society. Journalism has always been a key aspect of politics (enshrined in the first amendment), and most political philosophers believe that without a free press, it is impossible to have an informed public, and therefore impossible to have any kind of a meaningful democracy.
It's in everyone's best interests to bring as many people as possible into the political process. The actual process of political debate is largely peaceful and non-violent. But when people are shut out of the government, or shut out of the press; when people feel that they have no peaceful means to express themselves and be heard, that is where we see small pockets of desperate people take up extremism, revolution, and protest. These are political actions you take when you no longer belong to a functioning political system.
I. the iraq war
As most of you know, a few journalists have infamously compared Gamergate to ISIS.
This was likely just a crude way of saying that GG is "the worst thing in the world." But if you actually think about this in terms of political disenfranchisement, I actually can see a few similarities that I think are worth thinking about seriously.
Drawing this parallel is controversial, so I want to first list my source; the fantastic documentary from PBS' Frontline series, "Losing Iraq." If you haven't watched it, I recommend doing so, as it really does a fantastic job of explaining the key political mistakes made after the beginning of the occupation.
The first road side bomb in Iraq was the very next day after the Baathists (Sunnis) were shut out of the Iraqi government. It wasn't when the US invaded, or during the first few weeks of the occupation. It's now referred to as "Order #1," Ambassador Paul Bremmor's first major order after arriving to Iraq; and it is now seen as the largest tactical bluder in the entire Iraq War.
"There are two reasons were wanted to keep the Baathist party intact. One, they were the only folks that had experience running the government. Number 2, the Sunnis needed to have a voice. And, if you don't give people a voice, they have relatively few options. [...] What history tells us is that the next option is violence." - Col. Thomas M. Gross (Office for Humanitarian Assistance) (15:00 min)
Transitioning from this severely serious example to discussion of gamergate is admittedly silly in just how vast the disparity is in terms of consequence, and severity. But what we're discussing is uprising, revolt, and if we can learn anything about the crowd psychology of political revolts. There are parallels worth noting.
II. The gaming press
For several years now, we've seen a surge of feminist-focused gaming stories on all the large gaming websites. Most of the major gaming websites are run from coastal cities in the US, made up almost completely of liberal, white male journalists. The infusion of an explicity political agenda into gaming journalism is the turning point. For several years now, that political discussion has consisted entirely of only one very narrow band of politics. All other political expressions and ideas have been systematically shut out from all mainstream exposure. Commenters expressing alternative views have been heavily moderated, whether it is on the gaming websites themselves, or the total lack of comments allowed on Anita Sarkeesian videos. The consistent theme has been to push one small slice of political ideology onto a large and politically diverse readership, and to silence and marginalize any opposing voices.
After years of this escalating tension, Leigh Alexander declares war on anyone outside of her narrow political spectrum, and declares that they are "dead." This was so extreme, that even with no representation over the last several years, I think most readers still expected to see dissenting views represented in a response article. That response article never came. What followed instead was a media blitz, and a wholesale endorsement of that declaration of war. Anyone outside of the accepted narrow political spectrum was not given a voice, and they were now under siege. Comments were censored, forum threads were crushed, dissenting articles never materialized at all.
You all may be aware of the existence of the "Gaming Journalist Professionals" google mailing list. It's a semi-secret, private list of email correspondence between gaming journalists from almost all the major sites. That list has been leaked by a whistleblower, along with several extended email conversations. In one of these leaked emails, we can see that even allowing a forum thread on The Escapist was seen as a threat that had to be systematically crushed. Journalists from completely different websites were secretely pressuring the Editor in Chief of The Escapist to crush a forum thread on his site. I think we can agree that political diversity was being systematically crushed.
III. political desperation, revolt
With no peaceful alternatives left to express their political views, small subsets of gamers have turned to extremism of varying degrees; some appropriate, and some inappropriate. Why? Because they were shut out of the political system, and their voices were systematically crushed.
You see an unfortunate, and dangerously threatening subset of these disenfranchised people take up violent reactionary behavior not unlike that first roadside bomb in Iraq in terms of the psychology of it at least. They tweet harassing behavior and make shockingly violent threats that have gotten the police justifiably involved. These people have escalated to the use of force, and have to be shut down by law enforcement. We can see how political disenfranchisement leads to a predictable backlash, but that doesn't justify violence or threats.
We also see people emailing advertisers in what is the gaming journalism equivalent of a BSD (Boycott, Divest, Sanction) political protest; like we've seen against South Africa's apartheid regime, or more recently, Israel. That's a perfectly valid form of political protest for someone that is marginalized and systematically excluded from political representation. What else should they do? They have no other options.
Understanding the psychology of political representation helps us understand how misguided "gaming journalism" at large has been; and how badly they've misunderstood what is actually happening here. The solution to this extreme tension is political representation. The solution is to give these people a stake in the political system because if they participate in politics, then they have a peaceful stress release valve. They have a way to have their voices heard, and they have no reason whatsoever to move to more extreme measures to express themselves. The solution is to include their viewpoints in more articles, and to increase their political representation. The solution is for the press to stop being driven by narrow ideological agendas and activism, and to start representing diverse political viewpoints and include more voices in the discussion.
Just like in Iraq, the solution is not merely a matter of involving the military. The solution is political. It is convincing people that they have a voice in their government, and that it represents them. The press is a critical part of how people interact with each other and with their government, and if if a society does not have a free and fair press, it makes democratic representation impossible. The last thing we need is a #stopgamergate movement that marginalizes these people even more and limits their political expression. The solution is more inclusion and more diverse representation of political views.
The current climate in political gaming discussion is equivalent to having not just one bised station that is a liberal version of Fox News; but rather having every single major station be a liberal version of Fox News. And I'm a liberal, but I still want a free press that represents multiple political views, and not an agenda driven press that shuts out any dissenting political ideas. It was journalists who decided to include politics several years ago. Their mistake was in thinking that once they opened that door that they could only include politics they liked and have no one react to that. Everything we know about history tells us otherwise.
I was listening to the inFamous Second Son OST today in the car, and I was again struck by just how great it really is. This is really of the most refereshing and unique OSTs I've heard in quite some time. It starts with two premises: capture the feel of 1990s - present Seattle rock, and convert that into an appropriate OST. So, it's not as straight ahead as most rock. It's more ambient, a little bit more muted and suited for the background , especially being an open world game. But, that unexpectedly ends up giving it a really original and refreshing sound. Finally, they combine electronics work with it, which I always love to hear in combination with rock. The final product is equal parts relaxing, and rock out, which is pretty unique - dark ambience, punctuated with playful rock. I can't recommend it enough for curious music fans. It's one of the only western OSTs I've enjoyed listening to front to back without skipping songs.
"Second Son" is built for the cinematic intro, and takes me back to that introduction with the skyline and the speeding car as the tension builds up, and it has an awesome melody on guitar. "The Vandal King" is almost like bluesy southern rock, and maintains a really laid back feel and just has nice warm tones. "Speed of Light" is super original, almost combining street drumming style with rock guitar and electronic vocal samples. I can't say I've heard anything quite like this, and it's awesome. One of my favorite songs. "Conflict Resolution" is just a solid song, similar to Vandal King with some bluesy rock. They turn up the heat a little bit and have a more pronounced, rocking chorus. "The Bio-Terrorist" is one of the best songs on the OST, with a super catchy build up and rock out line that I've listened to probably 100x and it never gets old. "Cumulonimbus" is the song that hit me the most in the car today, and it's just a really kick ass mixture of dark ambient electronics with rock that I'm in love with. "Martial Law" has a very cool intro, mixing electronics, drumming, and light bass before the guitar kicks in. The drum sound is interesting, and reminds me a bit of street drumming. "Freedom and Security" is one of the main melodic lines in the game, and it's stuck with me ever since I played it. "Serial Tagger" is also a personal favorite, and really is one of the more complete songs as a stand alone piece of music, and perfectly demonstrates this interesting intersection between OST, electronics, and bluesy/warm rock. I really love this one. "owning the Future" is one of the main boss fight rock tracks. It's fantastic, and despite being one of the heavier songs, has a great melodic line. "Smoke and Mirrors" is the big climax rock track for the game, adn it's one of the best. "Alibi" is one of the more relaxed tracks, but I love it. Really uses some interesting effects on the strings, and mixes it with rock drumming.
These are just my favorite ones. They're all pretty good. 22 tracks in total. Not only great to listen to alone, but really captures the feel of the city for the game.
"Phil Fish absolutely fulfilled his side of this bargain, with a big chunk of the web fulfilling the other side. It’s tempting to say that Fish tells it like it is, if ‘tells like it is’ wasn’t a euphemism for ‘is a mad bigot with no off-switch’. Phil Fish isn’t a mad bigot; only the most perspective-challenged self-identified fans of Japanese games would accuse him of being a bigot, which is admittedly still at least 50 per cent of self-identified fans of Japanese games."
"Phil Fish isn’t a mad [sexist]; only the most perspective-challenged self-identified fans of [games made by women] would accuse him of being a [sexist], which is admittedly still at least 50 per cent of self-identified fans of [games made by women]."
"They suck. I'm sorry, you guys need to get with the times. Make better interfaces and better technology. We're totally kicking your ass."
"They suck. I'm sorry, you [girls] need to get with the times. Make better interfaces and better technology. We're totally kicking your ass."
"Orientalism" is a way of seeing that imagines, emphasizes, exaggerates and distorts differences of Arab peoples and cultures as compared to that of Europe and the U.S. It often involves seeing Arab culture as exotic, backward, uncivilized, and at times dangerous. Edward W. Said, in his groundbreaking book, Orientalism, defined it as the acceptance in the West of "the basic distinction between East and West as the starting point for elaborate theories, epics, novels, social descriptions, and political accounts concerning the Orient, its people, customs, 'mind,' destiny and so on."
According to Said, Orientalism dates from the period of European Enlightenment and colonization of the Arab World. Orientalism provided a rationalization for European colonialism based on a self-serving history in which "the West" constructed "the East" as extremely different and inferior, and therefore in need of Western intervention or "rescue."
"We're so used to seeing developers' public personas through a mesh of corporate hierarchy and external comms policy that seeing someone filtered through the mesh of being a sarcastic real-life person is frightening and confusing. And following this weekend's announcement, it looks as though those meshes were there for a reason; the corporate mesh deflects and absorbs abuse, deforming and ricocheting off to one side like a bullet on kevlar, whereas Phil Fish's normal person mesh just lets everything through unhindered, to grim cumulative effect."
The game industry needs more people like Phil Fish, and it’ll be all the poorer for his absence if he’s really gone. The internet isn’t short of people saying things are rubbish, in the same way that there’s probably enough creepy artwork of characters from Mass Effect already, and Sonic-themed erotic fiction is so oversubscribed as to be on a one-in-one-out system. But there are precious few people in Phil Fish’s position who are willing or capable of stirring up such debate, and almost none who are as entertaining. You might hate him, but he made Fez – and as such, he’s probably better than you."