[Loki Laufeyson]

has everyone seen zoe quinn's awesome irc screenshots trump card yet?

[misadventurous]

why i was just coming here to link that!!

[schroeder]

[Schwere Viper]

So, everyone involved is a dickhead, and all the harassment, ostracizing and collective bile was for nothing.

How progressive.
_________________
HeavyViper@Twitter ~~~ HeavyViper@Soundcloud
Blog: Machines That Sing

[Mr. Mechanical]

That was awesome.
_________________

[Mr. Mechanical]

[misadventurous]

It's the main concept of Jujutsu, using the opponent's strength and momentum against them

[Joachim]

I don't really understand the response that some people are having to the release of the chatlogs, where they seem to be under the impression that now all of the "gamers are over" and "gamers are dead" talk is invalidated, or even that both sides are now "at fault" in some capacity. The release of the chat-logs does nothing to invalidate that -- I mean, I sincerely doubt all the people involved in this particular stunt weren't gamers in some capacity, and it's not as if this an isolated incident. Stuff like this happens with relative frequency, it's indicative of a larger pattern of behavior. That's also assuming the only meaningful criticism was of the way people were behaving after/during this debacle rather than a larger shift in the conditions surrounding gaming as a whole. (meaning even if that were the case, it'd be more about the way everyone responded rather than why it happened to begin with)
_________________

[Dark Age Iron Savior]

I would love to be the fly on the wall in a sit-down meeting of game developer/publisher employees trying to figure out what the hell is going on and if it has any potential impact on them at all.

[mauve]

my experience is that almost everyone i know who plays games who is not on twitter doesn't know what the hell is going on and doesn't really care.
_________________
twit

[EnDevero]

Twitter gamers are a different breed.

[John Mc.]

Hey I meant to come back in here like a day after my last post and mention that I had watched the videos, and then things happened.

So I have, and it only reiterated my concern that this is well worn territory, and not really news to anyone who has been paying attetion to games since games. I worry the anger crept up because there are those who don't want to admit to some more regressive aspects of gaming; it has rattled the insulated world. However, I would have hoped that broader issues would be considered. For example, the topic that violence against women is demeaning and opportunistic could be wrote large, in the violence against anyone is demeaning and opportunistic. It reminds me of that interview with some of the GTA staff: "You aren't supposed to kill anyone" if I recall correctly.

A conjecture might be that it is violence itself in gaming is under a microscope, and certain groups don't want to figuratively surrender their war porn. It's the immature position that violence in gaming is harmless that needs to be examined, I think, and gamers need to be more aware of the affect stirred (or manipulated) by scenes of pointless violence (which in games and against women, it tends to be). It just isn't necessary. Anyone remember the high-res decapatation from that Assassin's Creed trailer? The collective "ungh?" I think it's getting harder to ignore, and focusing on the place in gaming where that violence tends to be the most senseless and ruthless may be providing uncomfortable realizations about some their hobby. Ignorance may in fact be bliss.

If you are like me (and you likely aren't) after playing The Line and the thought crossing my mind "Oh God, I'm killing people!", and feeling some sense of existential anxiety at that, has left me disinterested in playing any more war-sim dude-bro kind of games. Those who are insightful will learn from the message of a game in and of itself, and it would seem that those who are not will continue to shoot dudes on XBL. Anita's message, while not wrong, will not get anyone to think about what they play, because those who can already have. It's the worst kind of preaching to the choir, in that it only riles the base rather than winning converts, and alienates those who disagree (or can't see the reality of things). That's what I was worried about before, and reality has seemed to bear them out.

I mean, how can anyone criticise with fair objectivity Anita's videos without being assailed by her voluminous supporters? The castigation they weild is not the same as the super-violent temper tantrums of the children they poke, but it's still potent. For example, I feel that many of Anita's claims could be easily referenced in media psychology, and have been examined before, but little research (and so, credit) has been afforded the field. I plan to look into this! I also want to write about The Line from the position of a mental health care provider and my experience with the reports of PTSD (and how stunningly right they got most of it).

Like I said, I agree with what Anita is positing. However, I think the issue is deeper than just women in games, though it does flaunt on the surface of said greater issues, and so is easier to describe and analyze. I would hope in debate we could honestly assail questions of sexual exploitation, violence, etc in games, but the audiance just doesn't seem ready yet. That's a shame, but it is the reality of the situation.

[diplo]

[parker]

[evnvnv]

[capgamer]

[parker]

sounds like the same reasoning the leads people to saying dumb uselessly distracting shit that completely misses the point like "all racism is bad, the word cracker is just as bad as the n word, what about this white kid who got shot by a cop, etc."
_________________

[diplo]

[Brooks]

I'm reminded of the last ella guro blogpost (which is fucking superb) which tries to locate some of the sources of all the gamer-rage in a manner more even handed than I could remotely attempt, and some of them certainly seem to run 'beneath' gender. But insofar as the most negative expressions of those seem to threaten and marginalise women the most, well - if you're seriously ill, you don't shun or brush aside pain relief merely because 'it's just a symptom of X'

[Ronnoc]

Ella guro really was too good for us

[Ronk]

yeah those two ella guro essays were really some of the best writing i've seen on this horrible nightmare
_________________

[Corinth]

But she clearly has an eager audience - her Kickstarter was funded quickly and over-fully. There are more inclusive, diverse, feminist actors and goings-on in games now than maybe ever before. We don't have to wait for permission from Internet Dudes on Reddit or 4chan or Youtube comments or wherever to make queer games or complain about sexism or promote varied casts. The fact that some backwards MRA-ass chuckleheads aren't ready, and are prone to kicking up misogynist shitfits, is not a reason for people who want to have this conversation not to have this conversation.

[a pair of gators]

i think tropes v women isn't going to change the minds of awful gamer slime but i've seen devs cite its criticism and respond that they need to do better (most recently Volition, the Saint's Row folks.) my more optimistic side hopes that her message reaches those that are perpetuating this imagery out of ignorance more than malice, causing them to self-examine their biases and why they feel like including sexist imagery in their work.

also john earlier you were asking about who the moderate voice in the discussion is, and asked it if it was sarkeesian. she kind of is! which makes the "omg radical feminists taking my games" response to her so baffling. also i get that you're trying to come into this from attempting to suss out whether this is a "two extreme sides" thing or a "one extreme and one lucid" thing. i know you're coming from a position of good faith, but a lot of antifeminist concern trolls often take that angle as a means of undermining and/or derailing the progressive side of the discussion. you might find you're riling people and not intending to.

similarly, questioning the pervasiveness as violence-as-solution-to-conflict in nearly every genre of gaming is a really good discussion that should be had, but bringing it up in the context of a discussion about violence against women (especially if the person bringing it up is a man) can also read as derailing.

also yeah, thirding ella guro's takes on this, she's hella insightful (as always)

[John Mc.]

Indeed! I find it disappointing, though, that there is castigation aimed at those who do agree with the message but have some qualms about the presentation. The level of defendedness I feel when I read this stuff, as someone who agrees, makes me realize where some of the reactive anger about the Internet may be sourced. That's my question in all this! Where is the rage fomenting? It seems a little too simple that this is all from the recitation of some facts that most gamers could honestly care less about (alas!). This could be easily ignored by those who didn't realize the use of female stereotypes was so prevalent in gaming, because when it is so obvious what would the videos change? This is striking some kind of chord, and I can't really see what it is! I like Brooks' comment, speaking of this Ella Guro and her consideration that there is more to gamer rage than gender is a line I seem to be following too. I mean why figuratively draw the line in the sand here?

That comes back to the affect being slinged back and forth. envenv, my comment was actually that this is deeper than women in games, and that with it being closer to the surface and perhaps easier to examine. There is nothing there to insinuate that I am missing the proverbial forest for the trees; diabetes is a deep and systemic problem (to borrow Brooks' metaphor), but one can't ignore the festering, gangernous leg it has destroyed and left to rot. You have to cut that leg off, and fix the more apparent issue before you can work on the deeper issue. Or, you can work on both at the same time. You can't ignore the systemic issue in all this, though, as you still have another leg (representations of minorities, LGBT, etc). Naturally, diabetes can kill you from complications; that's in my mind, too. Your cleaving of my statement and implying that shame should be associated with "demeaning and trivializing" the issue is an ad hominem attack. You are angry about this, but are lashing out at your supporters or those living in a slight shade of gray. I worry about that lockstep, us-or-them, almost dogmatic kind of thinking, and fear it is one of the weaknesses of a philosophy-based approach!

diplo! You are right that I have not commented on my concerns, though the last sentence should give some insight. Of course, it may be entirely invalid; I appreciate something of a philosophy/psychology fight on the Internet that just goes round and round, and such thoughts may be of little value when, from a philosophical aspect, her reasoning quite sound! And, just to reiterate some prior points, there is no comparison between death threats and general consternation from people on the Internet; there is no excuse for violence, but receiving death threats doesn't mean you are free to assail third parties or mild critics. Not everyone who disagrees with you wants you dead, and criticism doesn't imply support for such nonsense! One should be angry, and likely afraid, but we have police for a reason; for those so threatened, the response to each sentiment is measured by orders of magnitude. Once again, this seems like a distraction, perhaps because I do not universally agree. There is an implication that I am not a supporter and a part of the problem, which angers me a little. I imagine this wrote large, and I start to see where some of the anger arises from!

Like, why do I feel so defensive right now? I didn't do anything! I think she's right! The subtle aggression by those who fully support Anita (I fear) may be alienating those who live even a toe into the gray, only codifying the us-and-them dyad that is of little use. It gives those who don't want to be introspective or change a proverbial out, allowing them to read the friction from the correct group as a means to escape or find contempt. The means, that being philosophy, always have the out of "being someone's opinion," even if that isn't the case at all (like this one). The idea should be to gain as many supporters as possible, and all I see are both sides building walls with those giant spike things on the ground in front of them.

And then what happens? Surgeons argue with internists, neither getting anywhere. Leg situation doesn't get fixed. Illness worsens, patient dies.

I'm rather fond of the patient! I want it to get better!

Also, Anita is under no obligation to anyone aside from her supporters. Nowhere do I ask for her to do more in-depth analysis, as this is what her supporters have paid her to assay. I could see this fitting into a much larger puzzle of What's Wrong with Video Games. But, it does feel a symptom of something more, though I feel that problem isn't a particularly simple one to diagnose and fix.

[Corinth]

[schroeder]

[John Mc.]

Ah, hello! I'm on an iPad so quoting is a pain, just out there to start!

I do not follow the first paragraph. I do not know what metacommentary is. Neither does my spell check!

Following from there, "misogyny" as a term seems to be utilized liberally. To my understanding, it is literally a hatred of women. Perhaps it is the perspective of my own experience, but "hatred" as a mindset requires not only dislike but a rageful mindset. It is dedicated anger, and that does not happen as often as one might think. I work with a troubled, ignored and marginalized population (the mentally ill), and even within this true hatred is something of an outlier for my experience. Is it really the case that everyone who is getting incensed by this truly hates women? Is it the thought that is hateful, then? There is a not uncomplicated sum of complexes I would have to see to find a true hatred of a gender, and I worry that the use of the term so much in the last few weeks is deluding the potency that such a term should carry. That's not to say it does not exist. I just don't think it's everyone else, either in identity or thought.

So perhaps it is naive to assume that it is little more than misogyny, as true hatred is quite a bit of emotional work. I can't see many in the gaming community as feeling so strongly. As someone who has seen true hatred, and you'll feel it when you find it, I feel my perception may be perhaps more conservative in using the term.

I agree that this isn't anything new! I'm just wondering why everyone is so vocal all of the sudden. Is this perhaps a reckoning of sorts? Both sides seem firmly seated on their respective high horses. You are right that I don't know what it's like to be a woman or LGBT, nor would I ever presume to. I can stand with you against such bigotry, but not from the same position. Some of the tension perhaps is that you want me to, but I can't for those very reasons. Should I apologize for that? I feel that groups me with them, which is not a comfortable place for me.

I am quite an emotional person; one has to be to find success in my line of work. I seek understanding and acceptance of my feelings, which is not easy or swift. I would be inclined to say that I am more in touch with my emotions than 90% of other people due to my training (and the dark arts so taught), so I can say that when I do see anger and summarily am concerned about judgement, I speak with personal and professional experience.

You will note that I did not mention GamerGate, as I'm not honestly sure what the hell is going on there. They're like the Tea Party of the gaming community; angry about... something! Uh... corruption! Sex! Or something! It's bad comedy at best, and not constructive to our discussion here. Neither did I mention this Zoe stuff, as the corruption charges were trumped up in the least, and so not news. The infidelity was a non-story, and the grasp that many GamerGate folks have taken seems only to weaken their position. The people who are making threats or thoroughly invested in the GamerGate position are not the intended target for Anita's concerns anyway; they do not wish to listen.

So why do I keep writing about this? Well, I see parallels between both positions, and so long as fury drives both (righteous or no), then the other side will see only antagonism. Please don't try to say I'm equating the two; I can only clarify that I'm not so many times! The goal here is to win hearts and minds, and that is difficult to do with a rageful affect. That affect can be contagious, but only insofar as it foments similar, more instinctual sensations. Many may join in righteous indignation, or in reactive anxiety find outlet in the shared fear that drives this anger against women. We must point out issues and embolden gamers as the means to fix it; it is very hard to fix anything when one is acting angrily. That isn't to say that people should not be angry! You can't stop feelings, and it would be silly to ask one to. But that energy can be diverted to great aims, and make for real change. Sitting around and speaking of the misogyny that is everywhere is every bit the armchair quarterbacking of which I am so accused. There's no point in weakening their argument because they don't really have one. Why not instead focus on strengthening ours?

For example, I am doing some cursory exploration to see what research has been done in media psychology on the influence of media on gender attitudes. I've already done some extensive reading on gaming, cognitions and behaviors, but not quite this in particular. Will the results be shocking? No. However, evidence-based and peer-reviewed data may be better accepted by the more concrete-minded, and makes the entire argument less susceptible to subjectivity fallacies. Less susceptible, but not entirely invulnerable; we still have an evolution "debate" after all.

None of will matter if my input is dismissed outright because I feel the argument has some holes that need patching (researched evidence being the big one; it's out there I'm sure of it!). The last paragraph is telling; "feminists" and "misogynists." "Us" and "them." The more I note this subtext the more I worry that no true scotsman can have a toe wading in a little gray. I don't mean to derail the context; it is the word choice I find most telling. I worry that is what this really is becoming and as someone who has seen the problem for some time, I want to change as many minds as possible. I want "us" to be "most everyone." Will that actually happen? No. But the rational voice will win more minds on the basis of facts, and more hearts on the basis of inclusion, something women and minorities in gaming and now fighting for more vocally. It doesn't matter who is the surgeon and who is the internist; the patient is still dying. I want him or her to live.

That, and metaphors have never been my strong suit!

Also, an equally viable question (I just considered) is why I don't feel so upset about this. I seem to be the outlier in all this. I shall ponder this!

[Levi]

are you fucking kidding me

[Corinth]

[The King]

By reading the Merriam-Webster definition and running with it you've accidentally positioned yourself somewhat close to the especially vile defense of misogyny 'he can't hate women he sleeps with them'. Which is at times used as an earnest defense by people who've blatantly misunderstood the concept. As Corinth already pointed out, this is akin to someone suggesting a person can't be homophobic if they aren't shaking in fear at the sight of gay people.

Here is a more detailed definition

[Ratoslov]

[Adilegian]

[diplo]

I don't doubt John's sincerity and I actually don't know why that's a talking point (not directed at you, Adi -- just in general, as a thing that might be and is being talked about), since it's a kind of intentionality debate.

Sorta don't know what involvement to have with the conversation right now. The only thing I was going to respond to in John's last post (seemingly that he thinks "misogyny" or bigotry is identified by overt belligerence) has already been touched upon. Responding to John's posts has been difficult for me because I find it hard to extract more-than-vague content from them (they have criticisms and suggestions, but I've been struggling to pinpoint either) -- which is weird, since they're among the longest posts in this thread, so maybe I'm ignorant to the text's specifics or have unreasonable expectations.

[Ronk]

there's a good chance that this thread might be the most measured discourse of this discussion on the entire Internet
_________________

[Glam Grimfire]

from going all over the internet when i wrote my blog post, i'd say probably!
_________________

##SKELETON PARTY (new article as of 04/26/14)Grim

[John Mc.]

Thanks for that, Adi! My words were not finding the best way to express this. I do still feel this is a complex problem, but it is true that I keep company that wouldn't be described as misogynist. So, I've never really been inundated with it. I am a straight white male, but also one who works with mental illness, social anxiety, and violence violence violence everyday. That doesn't make threatening someone else's life any less horrid, but I have certain boundaries up against that stuff because if I didn't this job would eat me alive. Maybe that's why some think I'm being insensitive.

As to why I write so much; it's a flow of thought that doesn't really need to be there! I think if I understood the situation well (and I don't), then I could discuss it concisely. I'll work against doing that in the future. I'm really not trying to offend anyone, and I fear my attempts at levity were seen as sarcasm. I will listen for a while and try to learn, instead!

[Adilegian]

I'm going to forefront this paragraph out of context as preface for Megapost.

Corinth, I invite correction if I've misunderstood the specifics of the current situation. Hell, I invite correction generally. I hope this has shown a sincere effort to engage a situation that matters very much beyond the building blocks of metacommentary.

That's part of the purpose here, and I hope that anything I have to write on the matter proves valuable.

[Adilegian]

Part two, wherein I write about videogames on a videogame message board.

My wife chooses her videogames based on the variety and nature of women's characterization in those games. Likewise, I often choose my videogames based on the variety and nature of men's characterization in those games. I'm not entirely consistent in this (because consistency is less interesting than curiosity depending on circumstances), but it's significant part of my selection process.

To make that meaningful, I think it's necessary to talk about the games that provide some relief from Bald Space Marine. I think it's also necessary to talk about the problems of gender representation embedded even within games that tweak and explore different masculinities. I'm going to do both here.

It's worth noting that I can never choose a non-problematic game. For example, I value Catherine because it addresses male commitment anxieties through a character whose masculinity is more passive than active. He's not a manchild, but he's at odds with what's expected of him, as a man, both professionally and in his relationships. However, Vincent's masculinity is portrayed against a background of (largely bewildering) gender assumptions about the natures of men and women, along with a trans character who serves as a joke to offset the "men are like X and women are like Y" way that the game portrays gender. These detract from the game and make it outright offensive to some, and for good reason. I still found the sympathetic portrayal of an "alternative masculinity" important enough to catch my interest.

Metal Gear is likewise problematic. It explores masculinity through deeply interwoven relationships between men that run a gamut of textures, from cooperative to competitive (and even cooperative/competitive as in the relationships between Solid Snake and Gray Fox or Naked Snake and Young Ocelot), from violent to erotic. Metal Gear's greatest subtext is the love that men can have for other men, whether as brothers or lovers (or both). Unfortunately, as Rei has documented in her essays, this subtext occurs against a background of women characters who are stereotyped for the purpose of forefronting those masculine relationships. This does force up the question whether the masculinities explored in MGS are compatible with the equality and justice striven for outside the games' fiction. (I think they are, but that's a whole other piece of writing.) I find the same problematic value in the Yakuza series as well, for many of the same reasons.

It's important to note that there's always a possible Bald Space Marine interpretation of any of the playable characters in a game that presents masculinity alongside violence. My interest in Harry Mason from Silent Hill and my interest in Joel from The Last of Us overlap heavily as presentations of what nurturing and protection can look like in the context of fatherhood; however, between the two, Joel can more readily serve players the role of Bald Space Marine, despite bearing none of those traits, because he is a powerful man whereas Harry is much more desperate, lacking control over his environment and even sometimes his aim.

Each game balances the tension in fatherhood between a child's freedom versus the need to control. Joel has to establish control over Ellie, and much of his story involves his learning how and when to relinquish control. His Big Decision occurs within that tension. Harry tries to establish control over Cheryl simply by finding her, though the only way to do so is by establishing control over the environment himself, not through individual encounters (such as Joel engages) but through much more general, magical means of erasing occult symbols. (Not that he knows this.)

Joel's control is immediate and physical; Harry's control is distant and abstract, which can be broadened (I think) into the psychological impact that parents have on children which establish a kind of control, whether you want to call it "inhibitions" or "moral sensibility" or whatever.

Both can be extrapolated into the kinds of authority that might appear in a father-child relationship... though, in each instance, the dynamic is specifically a father-daughter relationship. As in MGS, I think that assigning each father a daughter doesn't primarily highlight the "daughterness" of either Ellie or Cheryl (though, of course, their "daughterness" can be examined). Joel's reference to Sarah and then Ellie as "baby girl" gets straight to the effect of the narrative choice. Whether by conscious design or not, the effect of making each child female emphasizes the masculine identities of the father characters. Oppose this choice with how most games portray a father/son relationship in terms of competition, and you've opened up the problem of whether (or why) these attributes of fatherhood are incidentally gendered as a conditioned response to daughters rather than sons.

I won't get into more games because I think that that should suffice to indicate the kind of alternative representations of masculinity that are more rare because of the marketed, promoted persona of Bald Space Marine. The gender-fundamentalism represented by almost every instance of the modern MRA that I've personally encountered is an obstacle to seeing more flexible explorations of masculinity in videogames -- what masculinity is, who performs it, why it matters, and how its subjectivity relates to other subjectivities.

To take the point further in that direction (and hopefully connect it to the broader discussion about greater diversity in representations in videogames), even though these masculinities diverge from Bald Space Marine, they still have appeared in a period of videogame storytelling operating much more on patriarchal assumptions of whose stories are worth telling and how those stories should be told. I think that we're moving out of this phase, and I think that men who are gamers stand to benefit from this because we will be more free from the assumption of objectivity, turning us into subjects. (You would never know that we're subjects because the ubiquity of white male main characters implies a false universality.)

The reactionary elements that I've identified as fundamentalist (which I think overlaps in meaning with Ella's description of "right-wing conservative" elements in gaming, though I wouldn't use those words exactly) don't see subjectivity as a gift but, rather, as a threat. In truth, the damage has already been done. They're already subjects, and their points of view are conditioned by their desperate attempts to retain the identification of a hamstrung "masculinity" with the social power to own objectivity.

It's the same with all fundamentalisms: their reactions are proof of their loss/losing. The only open question is how cruel and obnoxious their inability to cope will make life for those whose subjectivities are gaining strength as represented voices (women, LGBTQ).
_________________

[Corinth]

I that's all really good, although I feel like you perhaps provide more nuance to the "early MRA" stuff than they themselves have generated or would defend. Your description of How This Happened seems very insightful, but I'd generally suggest that this is less an MRA operation (even in the wide sense you set up ahead of time - I think your specific characterization winds up letting a lot of cultural momentum off the hook and slightly obfuscates the breadth of the problem) and more the expression and culmination of general sexism/conservatism (as in resistance to change)/fear of the Other.

Those are both really fantastic posts, though I didn't mean to set myself up as any kind of arbiter or involved actor in terms of this specific situation.

[schroeder]

That's approaching the heroic, Adi.

[Ronnoc]

I would also like to say that I enjoyed reading that.