Something went wrong. Try again later

Giant Bomb News

1698 Comments

From #1reasonwhy to #1reasontobe, and 1,600 Comments In-Between

Some thoughts on the fiery discussion prompted at Giant Bomb and elsewhere by a Twitter hashtag meant to raise awareness of sexism in the video game industry.

As with Mirror's Edge, the upcoming Tomb Raider revival was penned by Rhianna Pratchett, and tells the story of how Lara Croft came to be.
As with Mirror's Edge, the upcoming Tomb Raider revival was penned by Rhianna Pratchett, and tells the story of how Lara Croft came to be.

A tweet alone cannot change anything, but enough tweets can become a movement, a movement can raise awareness, and awareness can lead to action. That’s the potential power behind #1reasonwhy, a hashtag from this weekend encouraging women members of the games industry to speak up with stories of their own difficulties, and raise needed awareness about industry sexism.

#1reasonwhy is, by design, full of upsetting, troubling, and negative stories about what it’s like to be a woman that’s making video games in 2012, and games writer Rhianna Pratchett (the upcoming Tomb Raider reboot, Mirror’s Edge, Heavenly Sword) figured something more positive would be of use. Thus, the creation of #1reasontobe, a hashtag with reasons why women are part of the industry at this very moment, should continue to be part of the industry, and call attention to the many stories of strong, independent women succeeding in games--or trying.

Here are a few of their stories:

#1reasonwhy is important, but I’m creating #1reasontobe because I’d like female devs to share why they're in games & what they get from it.

— Rhianna Pratchett (@rhipratchett) November 27, 2012

So our children can see women succeeding in tech and games, and not know why it would ever be any different. #1reasontobe

— strange language (@neuralwiles) November 27, 2012

#1reasontobe Because of the jobs I've had in the past ~7 years, the ones where I create game-related things make me the most happy.

— Eve Walter (@MidnightRem) November 27, 2012

Because my daughter plays video games, she loves video games, and she needs role models who have come before her to be strong. #1reasontobe

— CK Burch (@ckburch) November 27, 2012

#1reasontobe Because when you find a game company who values everyone's opinion, you can just concentrate on making phenomenal games.

— Lindz (@lindzart) November 27, 2012

#1reasontobe - After years of work & careers which left me unfulfilled and outcast from so much, I've found a welcome & passionate home.

— Donna Prior (@_Danicia_) November 27, 2012

There is a growing diverse, queer culture that needs more voice, and games can give it to them. Now let us have it #1ReasonToBe

— Mattie Brice (@xMattieBrice) November 27, 2012

#1reasontobe Despite the bullshit, I am able to work constantly with amazing men and women who care about telling great stories

— Lillian Cohen-Moore (@lilyorit) November 27, 2012

#1reasontobe Because most men in the industry are accepting/inclusive/supportive. Don't let the bad apples dissuade you from going for it.

— LM Lockhart (@missdoomcookie) November 27, 2012

And #1reasontobe is that the only way to change things is to be part of the change. #wecandobetter

— Kathleen (@ninjaharlot) November 27, 2012

#1reasontobe When you get feedback from players that your game changed their life in some way, let them be the hero for once

— Tara J. Brannigan (@kindofstrange) November 27, 2012

#1reasontobe Cuz at their best, games push new boundaries in experience, and we're like 0.5% of the way to getting good at that. Define it!

— AngelosLH (@AngelosLH) November 27, 2012

#1ReasonToBe Because my presence here is changing the industry.

— Ceri Young (@Toughlovemuse) November 27, 2012

It’s good #1reasontobe exists. A problem isn’t solved without a solution, and #1reasontobe provides the disenchanted with glimmers of hope we can work towards a better environment. The next step is creating accessible avenues for people to make connections beyond Twitter, which #1reasonmentor aspires towards.

I haven’t done the math, but yesterday’s article about #1reasonwhy probably broke a comments record on Giant Bomb. I stopped reading the thread after it passed 500 or so comments, both because it’s pretty unwieldy in our current system, and I was roundly discouraged by some of the discussion.

Much of the response felt driven by a feeling that talking about #1reasonwhy, and thereby discussing problems women having in the games industry, suddenly means there are zero problems for men. Elevating the discussion of misogyny implies there is no misandry, or so the argument goes. I don’t buy that, and have trouble reasoning with people who continue to peddle it. Bringing up one very real problem does not invalidate other very real problems, but being so dismissive of the argument suggests you aren’t taking the original argument seriously, and instead want to discredit it because you don’t believe it has any merit in the first place. At least be honest.

I do not consider myself a feminist or particularly aligned with the feminist movement. I just know bullshit when I see it, and I'm tired of bullshit that involves the vapid, shallow arguments that crawl out of the comments section of every single website whenever this subject comes out. It feels like the same 50 people are just making dupe accounts across the Internet, and making sure to drown out any real conversation. Those people deserve a chance to be heard, and that includes the larger-than-you'd-think audience of women right here on Giant Bomb.

Maybe I’m just wading into an unwinnable argument, but I wanted to paste a comment that seemed emblematic of so much of the 1,600 comment (and still growing) thread.

No Caption Provided

I actually don’t have much of a problem with this comment, except for the fact that it was made at all. Video games, like any entertainment medium, are just a hobby to a vast majority of the audience, and their daily lives are filled with concerns vastly more important than the dynamics between men and women in the games industry. That is 100% okay, as there are plenty of things that I enjoy where I’ve done little-to-no research about whether I’m comfortable with all that’s happening behind-the-scenes. Still, you took the time to scroll to the bottom of this article, long after the achievement for a first post was possible, and post a comment that amounts to little more than trolling. There is no opinion here, and we’d all be better off if the discussion, positive or negative, didn’t include pointless derailment.

This isn’t all of you, obviously, and many of you made substantive arguments, even if I disagreed. I suppose the biggest problem I have is with the tone, the dismissiveness, the idea that none of this matters, and that if people only just spoke up at their jobs, engaged with sexual harassment laws (which is hardly the most pervasive issue), changed their attitude, this would just go away. “I have a solution, just grow some fucking balls,” was one comment that stuck out on page 20-something of the comments. There is a reason why it’s not easy to just “grow some fucking balls,” and it’s because of the response these subjects generate, and the seemingly futile nature of having this debate in a public forum. Not to mention that if you’re looking at the current layoff happy climate of the games industry, speaking up about this issue and possibly risking your job if it backfires doesn’t sound like the greatest idea ever.

If you were a woman at a game developer, would you want to speak up after reading that thread, or the countless others that sprouted up yesterday? Twitter is, at least, a place where you can do filtering and hear voices you regard.

“I’ve been watching the #1reasonwhy hashtag on Twitter with an anxious kind of understanding,” said games writer Katie Williams in a blog not long after #1reasonwhy started catching fire. “Like, part of me wants to jump right in and post a dozen of my own experiences, but I’ve also learned what happens if you say that shit publicly: you’re berated, blamed, dismissed. I’ve been there.”

She is not alone, and I don’t blame her for it.

I suspect there's an underlying fear involved in all of this, as well. "What does this mean for the games we love? What if we're okay with how games are made already? Don't ruin them!" Change, while painful, is often healthy, but I'm also realistic. I don't expect drastic change due to market realities--what sells well will continue to sell well, and that includes plenty of dudebro that, hey, I also enjoy playing! You know, even if the Entertainment Software Association does report that 47% of all game players are women. If there's better women representation in development, those people given a bigger voice, it's not going to make the video games you already enjoy go away. But maybe it means video game companies will be more willing to create games for a growing audience who play games because they love games but do not have characters that speak to them. It might not change publishers who release games with women protagonists but don't support them with marketing, but change happens slowly.

Again, it’s weird. I’m a guy, I’ve never had to deal with any of these problems. But I’m willing to admit where there’s smoke, there’s probably fire, and listening is helpful, informative. If you don’t want to listen, you don’t have to. No one is forcing you. Just stop shouting down others who want to.

As with last time, I'll leave you with my own contribution, this time for #1reasontobe.

#1reasontobe Because we need strong female role models, and more of them. It won't solve everything, but it's a start.

— Patrick Klepek (@patrickklepek) November 28, 2012
Patrick Klepek on Google+

1698 Comments

Avatar image for athleticshark
AthleticShark

1387

Forum Posts

298

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By AthleticShark

I like that I am a jerk for criticizing someone's opinion and providing actual evidence as to why it is flawed.

Avatar image for hailinel
Hailinel

25785

Forum Posts

219681

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 28

Edited By Hailinel

@jasondesante said:

honestly this is more important than double fine's amnesia fortnight because?.........there isn't an article about amnesia fortnight because?...........

You felt the need to whine about this because...?

Avatar image for thehumandove
TheHumanDove

2520

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By TheHumanDove

#livefreediehard

Avatar image for im_not_herbert
im_not_herbert

17

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By im_not_herbert

@patrickklepek,

Well I was going to play some Mass Effect tonight, but then I made the mistake of deciding to swing by GB real quick before I turned off the PC and turned on the Xbox. And I saw your damn article about some damn hashtag, and then I'm link-hopping to some blog by a woman game journalist and start reading her freakin' blog because it's damn awesome, and all of that leads me back here reading another damn article about hashtags and women game devs and now I totally don't have time to play Mass Effect tonight. Damn you, Patrick. Damn you for being such a thoughtful and responsible writer about *all* things game related. Damn you (all and straight to hell, BTW) for attempting to raise awareness about an all too prevalent and disturbing aspect of gaming that all too many gamers would like to just ignore. So, you know, damn you. Also,please keep on posting articles like this.

Avatar image for endurancefun
EnduranceFun

1116

Forum Posts

223

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By EnduranceFun

@HellBound said:

I like that I am a jerk for criticizing someone's opinion and providing actual evidence as to why it is flawed.

You provided no evidence, what? You were just attacking me and re-enforcing assumptions.

That's what grinds my gears the most about these two articles. The commenters coming in and lathering praise simply for writing an article about sexism. 'Oh these people in the comments I haven't read, they prove you're right!' It's as much about stroking their ego and making them feel good about themselves for supporting a noble cause, as it is about the issue. I'm sorry, but the lazy and hackneyed writing in these articles is simply an insult, to the readers and the website. There are so many objective flaws in both that have been pointed out ad nauseum, I could make my own list right now. Yet, for some, the fact it's about sexism is an excuse. Because it 'raises awareness.' Having two articles on it, the second partially reporting on itself, insults even further as it conflates the issue as both sexism in the industry and 'those sexist commenters.' Patrick should put down the crayon and allow serious thought on his work when it involves sensitive issues, or he'll continue to split the community and invite chagrin in the comment section.

Avatar image for evilkatarn
EvilKatarn

479

Forum Posts

245

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 2

Edited By EvilKatarn

Honestly I can't even understand how anyone could be against what @EnduranceFun has been trying to do here. None of us here are sexist swine. The only swine here are those who pop in to say something belittling to those who aren't automatically praising Patrick for writing a lazy oneoff article about this issue.

Avatar image for rasmoss
Rasmoss

580

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Rasmoss

@EvilKatarn said:

Honestly I can't even understand how anyone could be against what @EnduranceFun has been trying to do here. None of us here are sexist swine. The only swine here are those who pop in to say something belittling to those who aren't automatically praising Patrick for writing a lazy oneoff article about this issue.

Because the entire line of his argument, and yours, is a load of nonsense. It's people feeling butthurt by an issue that doesn't concern them, and then spending 1600 comments trying to obscure the fact that it was them who derailed the conversation in the first place.

Avatar image for gamefreak9
gamefreak9

2877

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Edited By gamefreak9

Feminists are why Masculine groups can't exist. Who's fighting for under representation of men in degrees? What about the mental health epidemic for kids(mostly prevalent in young boys)? I hate feminism, if your going to promote something, make sure its meritocracy, and not arbitrary physical features. Otherwise I might start the blue eyed group to fight for under representation of blue eyed people in gaming. Heck I might fight for tall people for being unrepresented... maybe the beautiful? Feminism is nonsense. Your body-parts don't matter. Women have the same legal rights as men do, probably even more since they receive more funding for health purposes, they can do w/e men can. Equal rights is here, what you are pushing for is unequal rights...towards women.

Although there is merit in making sure no discrimination occurs, the mere fact that this is against a specific type of discrimination is annoying. I think women on average don't play video games very much(those that are not on your phone or facebook), therefore I find it rational to assume first that she does not know very much about it, the same way that if I go to the store and see someone with a badge and their name on it, I assume they work there.

Avatar image for endurancefun
EnduranceFun

1116

Forum Posts

223

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By EnduranceFun

@Rasmoss said:

@EvilKatarn said:

Honestly I can't even understand how anyone could be against what @EnduranceFun has been trying to do here. None of us here are sexist swine. The only swine here are those who pop in to say something belittling to those who aren't automatically praising Patrick for writing a lazy oneoff article about this issue.

Because the entire line of his argument, and yours, is a load of nonsense. It's people feeling butthurt by an issue that doesn't concern them, and then spending 1600 comments trying to obscure the fact that it was them who derailed the conversation in the first place.

Nonsense? It doesn't concern us? What's with these insulting and abating arguments popping up now the article is dead. Comes off as those who failed to actually derail the conversation, now desperately trying to revise the comment section. And he calls me butthurt.

Avatar image for rasmoss
Rasmoss

580

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Rasmoss

You did not formulate the centre of conversation. You just took the massive derailment of the discussion and made sure it was all anybody could argue about for the last many hundred comments

There were two reasonable responses to the first article if you're a man: take the message of the twitter movement seriously and show support for the women, or you could be sceptical and shut up about it. Instead a ton of people raised a wholly unreasonable stink, escalating the argument, prompting the second article, and now here we are.

Avatar image for endurancefun
EnduranceFun

1116

Forum Posts

223

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By EnduranceFun

No, I did not formulate the centre of the conversation, I never claimed to. All I did was help to find a consensus with the mass of people also posting a lot in the thread, most of the intelligent ones being against the article. The stupidest posts are like the one you just made - although your one earlier psycho-analyzing my past posts was certainly a contender - where the person blindly dismisses thousands of comments, because it's so edgy to be an asshole like that.

'If you're a man' - what projection and delusion, some users think everyone has to agree with them.

Avatar image for rasmoss
Rasmoss

580

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Rasmoss
@EnduranceFun You can't just claim to have made a "consensus" just because some people have agreed with each other. And saying that "the most intelligent posts" have bern against the article is just laughable.

Either there is sexism in the industry or there is not. If there is, the twitter movement and patricks article were justified. If there is not, they werent, but noone on these boards can say for a fact that there isn't.

Therefore the only reasonable response if you're sceptical is to not say anything, since at worst you're making light of a serious problem .

Instead you, as i've shown, and many others came from a viewpoint that the article was antagonizing all males and generally shifting the focus away from the potentially serious issue being discussed and onto the less important question of whether gb could have done things differently

You then proceded to attack anyone taking exception to this shift of focus, claiming they were being against free discussion and seeking consensus, on a part of the issue that were never the focus in the first place.
Avatar image for endurancefun
EnduranceFun

1116

Forum Posts

223

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By EnduranceFun

@Rasmoss said:

@EnduranceFun You then proceded to attack anyone taking exception to this shift of focus

And here folks we see the true reason for the petty grudge this user has.

I upset you simply for putting my view forward and wanting it heard. I don't care how loudly you shout that your opinion is the correct one, this thread has indeed had the most long and thought-out posts criticise the article, the ones that don't criticise the article tend to be short, 'you go girl,' sort of posts, or replies to the aforementioned, basically just telling them to stop having an opinion. You have brought up nothing new in your post, just restated what some people have said since the beginning, 'DON'T COMMENT IN MY COMMENT SECTION.' Yet again you bring up a post I made, what five days ago, as if it's relevant, and pretending that we didn't just have over three-thousand posts of discourse. You can't reset on an argument just because you failed to shout down the opposition.

Avatar image for deactivated-5e49e9175da37
deactivated-5e49e9175da37

10812

Forum Posts

782

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 14

@Rasmoss said:

Instead you, as i've shown, and many others came from a viewpoint that the article was antagonizing all males and generally shifting the focus away from the potentially serious issue being discussed

Because it does antagonize all males. It does not antagonize all misogynists, it antagonizes all males. For the actions of criminals who happen to be black, no politician would ever dare say "blacks can do better". For the actions of violent terrorists, no person would ever dare say "Muslims can do better". Even rational, peaceful Muslims would not say "we can do better" because they do not believe they should be lumped in with violent murderers. Because they're not guilty of violent murders. Patrick has inarguably placed guilt for the actions of sexists on the whole of the male gender, both misogynists and everyone else. There is nothing egalitarian or even equitable about that. That is pure sexism.

I will say, on both sides of the issue, I wish we would stop thinking of it as a zero-sum game. More games targeted towards women does not mean less targeted towards men. That's what market growth is about. If the female market has been underutilized, if it's as viable on its own terms without the 'traditional male' demographic, you can create wholly original games and sell to it. Look at film, or books, or toys. Girl-focused Harlequin romance novels didn't prevent boy-focused action comics from existing. Shonen manga and shojo manga exist alongside each other, not in direct antagonistic war. I think this is a problem on both sides; stereotypical male gamers fear that they're going to lose the games and the freedom of expression they enjoy, and censors such as Anita Sarkeesian give them all the firepower they need by deliberately stating that they want to change games until they're suitable for them, rather than creating their own. For everyone else, the zero-sum game only limits what we can do.

However, the real problem is that no company wants to grow a market; they want to exploit markets that exist. It profits Capcom or Ubisoft none to 'grow' a market of disabled gamers, and then have Activision or Square or whomever to swoop in and sell to the exact market the former companies spent time and money building. That's going to be the challenge. We are seeing something like it in the 'midcore' tier; games that fit as less extreme hardcore games, or deep and more complex casual games.

Avatar image for rasmoss
Rasmoss

580

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Rasmoss
@Brodehouse

@Rasmoss said:

Instead you, as i've shown, and many others came from a viewpoint that the article was antagonizing all males and generally shifting the focus away from the potentially serious issue being discussed

Because it does antagonize all males. It does not antagonize all misogynists, it antagonizes all males. For the actions of criminals who happen to be black, no politician would ever dare say "blacks can do better". For the actions of violent terrorists, no person would ever dare say "Muslims can do better". Even rational, peaceful Muslims would not say "we can do better" because they do not believe they should be lumped in with violent murderers. Because they're not guilty of violent murders. Patrick has inarguably placed guilt for the actions of sexists on the whole of the male gender, both misogynists and everyone else. There is nothing egalitarian or even equitable about that. That is pure sexism.

I will say, on both sides of the issue, I wish we would stop thinking of it as a zero-sum game. More games targeted towards women does not mean less targeted towards men. That's what market growth is about. If the female market has been underutilized, if it's as viable on its own terms without the 'traditional male' demographic, you can create wholly original games and sell to it. Look at film, or books, or toys. Girl-focused Harlequin romance novels didn't prevent boy-focused action comics from existing. Shonen manga and shojo manga exist alongside each other, not in direct antagonistic war. I think this is a problem on both sides; stereotypical male gamers fear that they're going to lose the games and the freedom of expression they enjoy, and censors such as Anita Sarkeesian give them all the firepower they need by deliberately stating that they want to change games until they're suitable for them, rather than creating their own. For everyone else, the zero-sum game only limits what we can do.

@Brodehouse

Patrick was clearly speaking as a male member of the games industry. Still, I agree it's a bit of a silly statement, but that does not excuse making it the focus of discussion, completely ignoring the underlying, more serious issue.
Avatar image for pekoe212
pekoe212

536

Forum Posts

9

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By pekoe212

@illmatic19: This wasn't an investigative report but a "hey, this is happening right now" alert, as I saw it. And I am glad Patrick posted it here or I would have been unaware of it. I'm assuming you're a male since you are so dismissive of this topic, but complaining in your workplace is not the only, and sometimes is an ineffective, solution. There is also the need for community and being able to speak out and SHARE your experiences with other women. Talking about it relieves so much of a feeling of aloneness, and starts to identify issues and possible solutions to problems, rather than leaving individuals feeling powerless, confused and afraid to say anything. It starts discussion, without discussion nothing changes. If you don't understand why this is important then I can't explain it to you. You obviously can't put yourself in other people's shoes.

Avatar image for athleticshark
AthleticShark

1387

Forum Posts

298

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By AthleticShark

@Rasmoss said:

@EvilKatarn said:

Honestly I can't even understand how anyone could be against what @EnduranceFun has been trying to do here. None of us here are sexist swine. The only swine here are those who pop in to say something belittling to those who aren't automatically praising Patrick for writing a lazy oneoff article about this issue.

Because the entire line of his argument, and yours, is a load of nonsense. It's people feeling butthurt by an issue that doesn't concern them, and then spending 1600 comments trying to obscure the fact that it was them who derailed the conversation in the first place.

Everything but that middle part is 100% true. I think I get what you are saying, but this issue concerns everyone. People just get all defensive when you put a serious issue in their face and say "What are you gonna do about it". Some people can't take responsibility. This article was about gaining awareness for an ongoing issue and what people are doing to spread it. Others came in and made it seem like it was a whole fucking report and research experiment on the issue, then wildly demand "answers" because they have their own personal agenda and don't give a shit what anyone else says. They try to defend their idiocy and left field claims by obscuring what really is being said and happening and then attacking someone else and saying they are the culprit.

Avatar image for athleticshark
AthleticShark

1387

Forum Posts

298

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By AthleticShark

@Brodehouse said:

@Rasmoss said:

Instead you, as i've shown, and many others came from a viewpoint that the article was antagonizing all males and generally shifting the focus away from the potentially serious issue being discussed

Because it does antagonize all males. It does not antagonize all misogynists, it antagonizes all males. For the actions of criminals who happen to be black, no politician would ever dare say "blacks can do better". For the actions of violent terrorists, no person would ever dare say "Muslims can do better". Even rational, peaceful Muslims would not say "we can do better" because they do not believe they should be lumped in with violent murderers. Because they're not guilty of violent murders. Patrick has inarguably placed guilt for the actions of sexists on the whole of the male gender, both misogynists and everyone else. There is nothing egalitarian or even equitable about that. That is pure sexism.

I truly believe you are taking the comment out of context or you are guilt ridden because of an act you may have done that would be deemed sexism. To say Patrick was antagonizing all Males is laughable. Seriously? Get off your high horse. We can do better.

We has a human species, as a species that can actually make and commit change. You are just looking for a reason to get mad so that way you can ramble on and divert the issue to less important ones.

Avatar image for endurancefun
EnduranceFun

1116

Forum Posts

223

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By EnduranceFun

If this were just about the hashtag movement it wouldn't have turned sour.

The problem is Patrick fails to strike the right tone. On one hand he's talking about workplace discrimination, but he forces into the article random bits about video games et al. Basically, the horrendously misplaced Lara Croft and Faith focus that permeates the headers in both articles. Lara Croft is widely derided as a damsel in distress, yet Patrick praises her and calls Faith 'memorable,' while taking the time to note that this is a female writer. This implies male writers can't write female characters as well, even though Patrick has no evidence for this, and the fact both characters are actually not very well liked just makes him seem wrong.

On top of this he has the jab at the DoA DLC, and the jab at AmericanNinja plus much of the community in the second article. Instead of focusing on the Twitter campaign, he lets his two pieces of writing become diluted by half-heartedly picking a battle with gaming in general, or at least it would seem that way to a reader. The article is still a 'news' piece despite having this vague sense of a feminist opinion blog where he's bitching about an unrelated topic concerning characters in video games. I would imagine it's quite insulting as a woman in the work force who has been abused, that some guy compares your plight to the g-strings in Dead or Alive, and as if that is remotely contentious, like DoA having fan service is somehow harmful? Total bullshit.

This is why many people are saying, yo Patrick, try writing a long and substantive article on feminist or sexist issues in gaming overall, but do not intersperse every remotely connected article with little jabs that are especially in this second article, inflammatory toward the larger gaming community. To me, it comes off as preachy when Patrick tries to touch on these issues seemingly whenever he can. As if it wasn't obvious I have nothing against women seeking equality in the work place, but it's not an issue that should be conflated with [what one user called] a 'sophomoric,' amateur analysis from a political perspective.

If Patrick wants to write an opinion piece on gaming that doesn't have heavy supporting evidence, he can make a blog. If he wants to report on the news, he should keep to himself his largely irrelevant opinions as they conflate the issue. If he wants to write a bigger piece on feminist or sexist issues in gaming overall, he should write an editorial. It reeks of unprofessionalism to try meshing elements from all three types into one bloated and confused article that only angers the community. This is why some commenters feel Patrick can in fact do better.

Avatar image for deactivated-5e49e9175da37
deactivated-5e49e9175da37

10812

Forum Posts

782

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 14

@HellBound said:

@Brodehouse said:

@Rasmoss said:

Instead you, as i've shown, and many others came from a viewpoint that the article was antagonizing all males and generally shifting the focus away from the potentially serious issue being discussed

Because it does antagonize all males. It does not antagonize all misogynists, it antagonizes all males. For the actions of criminals who happen to be black, no politician would ever dare say "blacks can do better". For the actions of violent terrorists, no person would ever dare say "Muslims can do better". Even rational, peaceful Muslims would not say "we can do better" because they do not believe they should be lumped in with violent murderers. Because they're not guilty of violent murders. Patrick has inarguably placed guilt for the actions of sexists on the whole of the male gender, both misogynists and everyone else. There is nothing egalitarian or even equitable about that. That is pure sexism.

I truly believe you are taking the comment out of context or you are guilt ridden because of an act you may have done that would be deemed sexism. To say Patrick was antagonizing all Males is laughable. Seriously? Get off your high horse. We can do better.

We has a human species, as a species that can actually make and commit change. You are just looking for a reason to get mad so that way you can ramble on and divert the issue to less important ones.

... Pardon me? Do you know the first fucking thing about me, that you believe yourself righteous enough to accuse anyone who has an opinion you don't like of guilt or wrongdoing? To a complete stranger, based on the fact that you don't like that they took offense to being generalized by a news article? Since when is that considered egalitarianism? Dissatisfaction about being generalized is the entire crux of this hashtag movement. What an ass you've made of yourself.

To say Patrick is antagonizing and generalizing all males as sexists and misogynists? He did. It's grammar school sentence construction. What's the subject, who does "we" represent here? Sexists, or males? Patrick is not a sexist, at least he claims not to be (though I consider infantilization of grown women to be sexism, let's focus on the sentence here). So he can't be referring to sexism. He must be referring to his maleness, the one thing that, barring surgery, he has no control over. Who else could he possibly be talking about? Now, "can do better". This isn't a complete sentence, but the topic at hand, the tweets in question are mostly sexist generalizations in the workplace. In order to 'do better' at anything, it has to be assumed that you are doing wrong in the first place, you can only correct things that are at fault. So the predicate is "make sexist generalizations in the workplace, and must correct it." Men make sexist generalizations in the workplace, and must correct it. It's not sexists we're scolding in today's fit of hand-wringing, it's men. There is no other way to construe it, and it's offensive to every man who isn't a sexist to be generalized and associated with men who are merely because we share gender. It would be unacceptable of any other social group in history.

It's even more sexist to assume that any man who dares defend himself from generalizations and sexism is "guilt ridden" on some level. Do you do this same thing on the street, if you saw a man defend himself from an attack, would you assume that on some level, he must have deserved it? Shameful, absolutely shameful.

Avatar image for athleticshark
AthleticShark

1387

Forum Posts

298

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By AthleticShark

@Brodehouse said:

@HellBound said:

@Brodehouse said:

@Rasmoss said:

Instead you, as i've shown, and many others came from a viewpoint that the article was antagonizing all males and generally shifting the focus away from the potentially serious issue being discussed

Because it does antagonize all males. It does not antagonize all misogynists, it antagonizes all males. For the actions of criminals who happen to be black, no politician would ever dare say "blacks can do better". For the actions of violent terrorists, no person would ever dare say "Muslims can do better". Even rational, peaceful Muslims would not say "we can do better" because they do not believe they should be lumped in with violent murderers. Because they're not guilty of violent murders. Patrick has inarguably placed guilt for the actions of sexists on the whole of the male gender, both misogynists and everyone else. There is nothing egalitarian or even equitable about that. That is pure sexism.

I truly believe you are taking the comment out of context or you are guilt ridden because of an act you may have done that would be deemed sexism. To say Patrick was antagonizing all Males is laughable. Seriously? Get off your high horse. We can do better.

We has a human species, as a species that can actually make and commit change. You are just looking for a reason to get mad so that way you can ramble on and divert the issue to less important ones.

... Pardon me? Do you know the first fucking thing about me, that you believe yourself righteous enough to accuse anyone who has an opinion you don't like of guilt or wrongdoing? To a complete stranger, based on the fact that you don't like that they took offense to being generalized by a news article? Since when is that considered egalitarianism? Dissatisfaction about being generalized is the entire crux of this hashtag movement. What an ass you've made of yourself.

To say Patrick is antagonizing and generalizing all males as sexists and misogynists? He did. It's grammar school sentence construction. What's the subject, who does "we" represent here? Sexists, or males? Patrick is not a sexist, at least he claims not to be (though I consider infantilization of grown women to be sexism, let's focus on the sentence here). So he can't be referring to sexism. He must be referring to his maleness, the one thing that, barring surgery, he has no control over. Who else could he possibly be talking about? Now, "can do better". This isn't a complete sentence, but the topic at hand, the tweets in question are mostly sexist generalizations in the workplace. In order to 'do better' at anything, it has to be assumed that you are doing wrong in the first place, you can only correct things that are at fault. So the predicate is "make sexist generalizations in the workplace, and must correct it." Men make sexist generalizations in the workplace, and must correct it. It's not sexists we're scolding in today's fit of hand-wringing, it's men. There is no other way to construe it, and it's offensive to every man who isn't a sexist to be generalized and associated with men who are merely because we share gender. It would be unacceptable of any other social group in history.

It's even more sexist to assume that any man who dares defend himself from generalizations and sexism is "guilt ridden" on some level. Do you do this same thing on the street, if you saw a man defend himself from an attack, would you assume that on some level, he must have deserved it? Shameful, absolutely shameful.

This whole statement is based around the fact of YOUR belief that his statement was antagonizing. It has nothing to do with "knowing anything about you". I am taking a statement you said and giving my opinion on why I believe it is wrong. Like certain other people in this thread, you take that statement, and instead of truly refuting it or saying why it was wrong or why you truly believe that, you apply insults to various people because they don't agree with you. You then make absurd correlations to help prove a defend a point that you are making up.

"To say Patrick is antagonizing and generalizing all males as sexists and misogynists? He did. It's grammar school sentence construction." You make an opinion appear as fact.

"In order to 'do better' at anything, it has to be assumed that you are doing wrong in the first place, you can only correct things that are at fault." This is not true at all and just another example of taking something out of context for the sake of having a reason to be angry and carry a pitchfork. You don't have to do something wrong to do better. I am getting a B in my psych class. I am not doing anything wrong, but I know I can do better. Or in relation to this topic; I am not doing anything wrong in terms of sexism. I don't talk badly to women etc. etc., but I do nothing to stop it. I don't speak about it or raise awareness myself. I CAN DO BETTER, but I am not doing anything wrong.

I can see how the term "Better" could be associated with "you are doing something wrong", but barely (and that might only be because of how many times it has been repeated in this thread). You are looking for a bone to pick and miss the issue entirely. You take offense to something many others did not take offense to, and in your eyes it seems they must be blind idiot fanboys then.

"Do you do this same thing on the street, if you saw a man defend himself from an attack, would you assume that on some level, he must have deserved it? Shameful, absolutely shameful." This statement is just you trying to force a similarity between two unsimilar actions and ideas. Instead of saying "Could he have done better" it should be "Could I have done better to help this man". That is the correlation you SHOULD have been trying to make because this whole article is about SELF REFLECTION.

We can do better, but some people would rather avoid that issue completely and say why it is hurtful antagonizing. This is why change is so fucking hard. People make absurd correlations and avoid the real issues because they can't handle it.

You are offended? Boo-hoo. Cry me a river. Get a fucking band-aid. You can do better then to just sit here and whine.

I would like to quote what Jeff said a few pages back

"It's sad to see some of you people get so furious over the basic idea of equality, as if that's something that should be argued about instead of just being implicitly understood. I mean, did you grow up with mothers that were constantly putting cigarettes out on your arms or something?

Or are you just currently growing up as an outsider and feel the need to lash out whenever anyone claims that there are groups of people out there that somehow have it even worse than you do? I was like you once. I was angry all the time. As I grew up I cooled down and gained a little perspective on the world. I hope, for your sakes, that you have a similar experience and get out of your weird, little bubble, at least for a little while. It gets oppressively ignorant in there".

Avatar image for athleticshark
AthleticShark

1387

Forum Posts

298

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By AthleticShark

@Shtinky said:

@TheFrostedGamer said:

Patrick's Logic:

It's okay to offend people with casual racism. No articles pertaining to this.

It's okay to play video games where the antagonist is always someone other than America, because that's healthy for the young american mind, as well as our relationships with those abroad.

It's okay to play violent video games which downplay how serious violence really is, like Call of Duty, Halo, Fighting Games, etc.

It's okay to swear a lot on podcasts and in his articles (because swearing doesn't offend anyone ever for any reason).

It's okay to work with people everyday who think nothing like you and don't uphold any of your morals, as long as you need a paycheck and the pay is good.

It's okay that heterosexuals are mistreated by homosexuals, and males are mistreated by females. Not gonna see any articles relating to that. Keep moving.

But as soon as a gay person gets offended while playing a violent videogame with other humans (who were BORN with a violent, competitive nature), then it's time for an article. Because that's edgey, noble, important, challenging the system, etc.

But as soon as a female, who may or may not have deserved it based on her own biases and half-stories, gets mistreated by someone, somewhere half-related to the development of videogames, its time for Patrick to become the noble, exalted third party and write an article "challenging the system".

Patrick, you sir are thee biggest hypocrite to ever grace the pages of a website. Jeff and Ryan should feel bad for allowing you to RUIN what once was.

I should not even bother, the fact you can't even formulate your own opinion is deterring enough.

I would like to address the last sentence. Jeff and Ryan should feel bad huh? Interesting that Jeff (at least from what I gather out of this post) supports this whole thing

"It's sad to see some of you people get so furious over the basic idea of equality, as if that's something that should be argued about instead of just being implicitly understood. I mean, did you grow up with mothers that were constantly putting cigarettes out on your arms or something?

Or are you just currently growing up as an outsider and feel the need to lash out whenever anyone claims that there are groups of people out there that somehow have it even worse than you do? I was like you once. I was angry all the time. As I grew up I cooled down and gained a little perspective on the world. I hope, for your sakes, that you have a similar experience and get out of your weird, little bubble, at least for a little while. It gets oppressively ignorant in there."

Avatar image for endurancefun
EnduranceFun

1116

Forum Posts

223

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By EnduranceFun

@HellBound said:

this whole article is about SELF REFLECTION.

The fuck has that got to do with the news? You openly admit this article is personalised, and therefore conflates the issue as a news story, but agree anyway and pretend this is a victory. This is the fucking point of the people you have mindlessly argued against for hours. Do you not understand what journalistic integrity is, or the effects of improper reporting? It is pants-on-head retarded to consider random opinionated garble about 'doing better' in an unrelated article, fair and impartial.

Just to get away from sexism here... imagine if Patrick reported on THQ's financial collapse. The header image, though, is a picture of EA headquarters, the caption is "EA, run by a competent businessman." Throughout the article, totally irrelevantly, he states that "THQ should do better," without any point or reason.

Not that I expect you to understand. This is merely so that people don't assume your post is anything more than an angry rambling user who can't accept the slightest of compromises in an argument. You'll be arguing against a wall I'm afraid, as I'll never agree with your liberal as fuck interpretation of this article and how it's at all appropriate considering the circumstances.

Avatar image for athleticshark
AthleticShark

1387

Forum Posts

298

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By AthleticShark

@EnduranceFun said:

@HellBound said:

this whole article is about SELF REFLECTION.

The fuck has that got to do with the news? You openly admit this article is personalised, and therefore conflates the issue as a news story, but agree anyway and pretend this is a victory. This is the fucking point of the people you have mindlessly argued against for hours. Do you not understand what journalistic integrity is, or the effects of improper reporting? It is pants-on-head retarded to consider random opinionated garble about 'doing better' in an unrelated article, fair and impartial.

Just to get away from sexism here... imagine if Patrick reported on THQ's financial collapse. The header image, though, is a picture of EA headquarters, the caption is "THQ should do better." Throughout the article, totally irrelevantly, he states that "THQ was run by morons," without giving any source.

Not that I expect you to understand. This is merely so that people don't assume your post is anything more than an angry rambling user who can't accept slight compromise in an argument. You'll be arguing against a wall I'm afraid, as I'll never agree with your liberal as fuck interpretation of this article and how it's at all appropriate considering the circumstances.

If you ever want anyone to take your views and claims seriously, not just here, but in life in general, don't do what you just did there at the end. You lose all credibility. Even if I was a liberal, I would not let it dictate what I say or what I believe. Sadly most of politics is that way now, where people lean one way therefore "I must have to agree with this". Even if I am taking a liberal interpretation, you are also making an interpretation so that argument really does not make sense. If you are trying to make fun or discredit me because of my liberalism, that is pretty hilarious.

Avatar image for endurancefun
EnduranceFun

1116

Forum Posts

223

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By EnduranceFun

@HellBound said:

If you ever want anyone to take your views and claims seriously, not just here, but in life in general, don't do what you just did there at the end. You lose all credibility. Even if I was a liberal, I would not let it dictate what I say or what I believe. Sadly most of politics is that way now, where people lean one way therefore "I must have to agree with this". Even if I am taking a liberal interpretation, you are also making an interpretation so that argument really does not make sense. If you are trying to make fun or discredit me because of my liberalism, that is pretty hilarious.

I thought it was obvious I was using the adjective definition of liberal, not as an improper noun. The fuck?

And the rest of this post equally is nonsense.

Avatar image for athleticshark
AthleticShark

1387

Forum Posts

298

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By AthleticShark

@EnduranceFun said:

@HellBound said:

If you ever want anyone to take your views and claims seriously, not just here, but in life in general, don't do what you just did there at the end. You lose all credibility. Even if I was a liberal, I would not let it dictate what I say or what I believe. Sadly most of politics is that way now, where people lean one way therefore "I must have to agree with this". Even if I am taking a liberal interpretation, you are also making an interpretation so that argument really does not make sense. If you are trying to make fun or discredit me because of my liberalism, that is pretty hilarious.

I thought it was obvious I was using the adjective definition of liberal, not as an improper noun. The fuck?

And the rest of this post equally is nonsense.

This was the response I was hoping for. Thank you.

Avatar image for endurancefun
EnduranceFun

1116

Forum Posts

223

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By EnduranceFun

@HellBound said:

This was the response I was hoping for. Thank you.

You wanted me to point out your glaring misinterpretation on the basis of basic grammar?

Somehow, I really doubt this is true.

The sentence would work to the same effect if you instead used the word 'loose.' This is not hard to grasp.

Avatar image for zomgfruitbunnies
Zomgfruitbunnies

1298

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Zomgfruitbunnies

@HellBound: Trying too hard.

@EnduranceFun: You're not going to get anywhere with him. Walk away and pursue a more worthwhile discussion.

Avatar image for thehumandove
TheHumanDove

2520

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By TheHumanDove

I'm just glad Patrick stopped after this article. Hopefully it means he realized where he went wrong, but most likely he was just told not to pursue this.

Avatar image for deactivated-5e49e9175da37
deactivated-5e49e9175da37

10812

Forum Posts

782

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 14

@HellBound said:

@Brodehouse said:

@HellBound said:

@Brodehouse said:

@Rasmoss said:

Instead you, as i've shown, and many others came from a viewpoint that the article was antagonizing all males and generally shifting the focus away from the potentially serious issue being discussed

Because it does antagonize all males. It does not antagonize all misogynists, it antagonizes all males. For the actions of criminals who happen to be black, no politician would ever dare say "blacks can do better". For the actions of violent terrorists, no person would ever dare say "Muslims can do better". Even rational, peaceful Muslims would not say "we can do better" because they do not believe they should be lumped in with violent murderers. Because they're not guilty of violent murders. Patrick has inarguably placed guilt for the actions of sexists on the whole of the male gender, both misogynists and everyone else. There is nothing egalitarian or even equitable about that. That is pure sexism.

I truly believe you are taking the comment out of context or you are guilt ridden because of an act you may have done that would be deemed sexism. To say Patrick was antagonizing all Males is laughable. Seriously? Get off your high horse. We can do better.

We has a human species, as a species that can actually make and commit change. You are just looking for a reason to get mad so that way you can ramble on and divert the issue to less important ones.

... Pardon me? Do you know the first fucking thing about me, that you believe yourself righteous enough to accuse anyone who has an opinion you don't like of guilt or wrongdoing? To a complete stranger, based on the fact that you don't like that they took offense to being generalized by a news article? Since when is that considered egalitarianism? Dissatisfaction about being generalized is the entire crux of this hashtag movement. What an ass you've made of yourself.

To say Patrick is antagonizing and generalizing all males as sexists and misogynists? He did. It's grammar school sentence construction. What's the subject, who does "we" represent here? Sexists, or males? Patrick is not a sexist, at least he claims not to be (though I consider infantilization of grown women to be sexism, let's focus on the sentence here). So he can't be referring to sexism. He must be referring to his maleness, the one thing that, barring surgery, he has no control over. Who else could he possibly be talking about? Now, "can do better". This isn't a complete sentence, but the topic at hand, the tweets in question are mostly sexist generalizations in the workplace. In order to 'do better' at anything, it has to be assumed that you are doing wrong in the first place, you can only correct things that are at fault. So the predicate is "make sexist generalizations in the workplace, and must correct it." Men make sexist generalizations in the workplace, and must correct it. It's not sexists we're scolding in today's fit of hand-wringing, it's men. There is no other way to construe it, and it's offensive to every man who isn't a sexist to be generalized and associated with men who are merely because we share gender. It would be unacceptable of any other social group in history.

It's even more sexist to assume that any man who dares defend himself from generalizations and sexism is "guilt ridden" on some level. Do you do this same thing on the street, if you saw a man defend himself from an attack, would you assume that on some level, he must have deserved it? Shameful, absolutely shameful.

This whole statement is based around the fact of YOUR belief that his statement was antagonizing. It has nothing to do with "knowing anything about you". I am taking a statement you said and giving my opinion on why I believe it is wrong. Like certain other people in this thread, you take that statement, and instead of truly refuting it or saying why it was wrong or why you truly believe that, you apply insults to various people because they don't agree with you. You then make absurd correlations to help prove a defend a point that you are making up.

"To say Patrick is antagonizing and generalizing all males as sexists and misogynists? He did. It's grammar school sentence construction." You make an opinion appear as fact.

"In order to 'do better' at anything, it has to be assumed that you are doing wrong in the first place, you can only correct things that are at fault." This is not true at all and just another example of taking something out of context for the sake of having a reason to be angry and carry a pitchfork. You don't have to do something wrong to do better. I am getting a B in my psych class. I am not doing anything wrong, but I know I can do better. Or in relation to this topic; I am not doing anything wrong in terms of sexism. I don't talk badly to women etc. etc., but I do nothing to stop it. I don't speak about it or raise awareness myself. I CAN DO BETTER, but I am not doing anything wrong.

I can see how the term "Better" could be associated with "you are doing something wrong", but barely (and that might only be because of how many times it has been repeated in this thread). You are looking for a bone to pick and miss the issue entirely. You take offense to something many others did not take offense to, and in your eyes it seems they must be blind idiot fanboys then.

"Do you do this same thing on the street, if you saw a man defend himself from an attack, would you assume that on some level, he must have deserved it? Shameful, absolutely shameful." This statement is just you trying to force a similarity between two unsimilar actions and ideas. Instead of saying "Could he have done better" it should be "Could I have done better to help this man". That is the correlation you SHOULD have been trying to make because this whole article is about SELF REFLECTION.

We can do better, but some people would rather avoid that issue completely and say why it is hurtful antagonizing. This is why change is so fucking hard. People make absurd correlations and avoid the real issues because they can't handle it.

I'm truly nonplussed. That you could accuse anyone else of being 'insulting' when you couldn't make it a single sentence without accusing someone of some mysterious, unspoken guilt is mind-boggling. Your 'opinion' is not based on fact or any kind of logic, it's a pure ad hominem personal attack. You aim accusations of 'you don't try refuting' when you ignore the entire content of my post. Callow, very callow. Along with your accusations of 'you have a bone to pick'. Well, actually, no, I have about as much a bone to pick as any of the lady developers who decided to take to twitter to air their grievances with sexual generalizations. Sexism sucks, and it happens even when people aren't aware of it. And the article is not about self-reflection. You may need to look up what self-reflection means as much as the meaning of 'wrong' and 'better'. If you've done right, it is impossible to do better, we have phrases; 'can do no better'. The only way you can possibly 'do better' is if you've made a mistake, a flaw, an error; if you've done wrong. The grand assumption of 'we can do better' is that all men are either directly or indirectly at fault, and only men are capable of correcting it. Ironically, another way that people actually trying to help women take their agency away; hold on, honey, let the men fix men.

And clearly, you have lost the plot on my 'man on the street' example. I'm asking why is it when you see someone defend themselves, you assume immediately they're "guilt ridden" about some past crime? You were falling over yourself to try to affix guilt and wrongdoing to me for the crime of disagreeing. Why is that?

You are offended? Boo-hoo. Cry me a river. Get a fucking band-aid. You can do better then to just sit here and whine.

This one really takes it. I have stated that a generalization of myself, and my gender, to be debasing and sexist. And what's the response? "Boo-hoo." "Cry me a river."

Would that be your response to any woman who spoke up when someone made a generalization about women, or even just women in the games industry? "Boo-hoo"? "Get a fucking band-aid"? You would never dare disregard and dismiss the feelings of women who felt offended by someone's loose speech. What is it about the offense of women that you find more valid, more relevant, more acceptable than offense taken by a man? Do you consider that to be egalitarian, equality, do you think that's not sexism?

"You can do better than to just sit here and whine."

Unbelievable.

Remember, I'm not looking for a reason to be angry; I didn't start this thread. I merely respond to articles within it. Do you consider my ability to speak, or defend myself from accusations to be 'looking for a reason to be angry and carry a pitchfork'? What do you consider it when any other person speaks their mind about any other topic?

Avatar image for milkman
Milkman

19372

Forum Posts

-1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 3

Edited By Milkman

@TheHumanDove said:

I'm just glad Patrick stopped after this article. Hopefully it means he realized where he went wrong, but most likely he was just told not to pursue this.

Who exactly do you think told him not to pursue this? And why would you possibly think this?

Avatar image for thehumandove
TheHumanDove

2520

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By TheHumanDove

@Milkman said:

@TheHumanDove said:

I'm just glad Patrick stopped after this article. Hopefully it means he realized where he went wrong, but most likely he was just told not to pursue this.

Who exactly do you think told him not to pursue this? And why would you possibly think this?

The man.

Avatar image for jasonr86
JasonR86

10468

Forum Posts

449

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 17

User Lists: 5

Edited By JasonR86

@TheHumanDove said:

@Milkman said:

@TheHumanDove said:

I'm just glad Patrick stopped after this article. Hopefully it means he realized where he went wrong, but most likely he was just told not to pursue this.

Who exactly do you think told him not to pursue this? And why would you possibly think this?

The man.

CBS.

Avatar image for endurancefun
EnduranceFun

1116

Forum Posts

223

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By EnduranceFun

@Milkman: Most of these replies do not pertain to sexism one way or the other, they're criticizing or defending the article and Patrick. There's also no new hashtag to report.

At best I could see an editorial come out of this that largely ignored the comments. One that has, I dunno, an 'introduction' and a 'conclusion' would be a decent start.

Avatar image for milkman
Milkman

19372

Forum Posts

-1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 3

Edited By Milkman

@JasonR86: @TheHumanDove: @EnduranceFun: I'm not saying that Patrick will write another article because I have no idea. I'd say that he's probably not going to write another one since there's not much of a point anymore. But I can tell you will almost absolute certainty that if Patrick WANTS to write another article, he will. And no one is going to tell him that he can't.

Avatar image for zomgfruitbunnies
Zomgfruitbunnies

1298

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Zomgfruitbunnies

Is the twitter thing still going? I'm in a part of the world where twitter isn't available.

Avatar image for jasonr86
JasonR86

10468

Forum Posts

449

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 17

User Lists: 5

Edited By JasonR86

@Milkman:

Yeah I know. I'm just being a smart-ass. Don't mind me.

Avatar image for endurancefun
EnduranceFun

1116

Forum Posts

223

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By EnduranceFun

@Milkman: I don't really see your point. I inferred Dove was arguing Patrick has no reason to continue making these articles. Isn't it a bit defeatist to pose that Patrick doesn't care what we say? Especially on Giant Bomb, I don't think it's a positive that an editor doesn't listen to feedback, and no one has suggested Patrick hasn't, not yet anyway.

Avatar image for kierkegaard
Kierkegaard

718

Forum Posts

4822

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 2

Edited By Kierkegaard

@Brodehouse: Just wanted to point out, as the risk of drawing your ire, an exhortation to do more is almost never wrong. We aim for the sky and often miss. It is great to be recognized for our achievement and better to be directed toward improvement.

If you think of fighting sexism as some sort of objective, you can certainly think of a time you let a "bitch" slip or accidentally demeaned. I know I have. Our imperfection, our room to grow, is constant and it is great to become better.

And the thing I have had the hardest time coming to grips with is the inherent, unearned power of my gender. Men in western society forced their agendas, their swords, their patriarchy onto what they considered the weaker sex, the lesser race, the poorer class, the less aggressive nation--they did so for hundreds, thousands of years.

I was simply born with a penis. I was born with white skin. I was born into wealth. I can't help any of that. I should not be pilloried.

No, but I should be humble, giving, caring, and aware of those who were not. I was born lacking little. I should help others around me who were not rise up to meet my unearned podium.

You truly think it a damnable slight to be exhorted to work harder to undo what members of our overpriviliged sex have wrought?

Avatar image for endurancefun
EnduranceFun

1116

Forum Posts

223

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By EnduranceFun

@Kierkegaard: And this has what to do exactly with women seeking equality in the workplace...

If Patrick wanted to make an article about feminist issues in gaming, he should have. Your philosophy, free you are to have one, does not factor when this is meant to be an impartial piece of journalism. You've already lost if you accept that this article steps into preaching even your own ideologies.

Heck, he barely says anything, to that end, in this article at all, it's all in quips.

Though then again, I'm not sure if you're in the same argument as me, or on the same planet.

Avatar image for deactivated-5e49e9175da37
deactivated-5e49e9175da37

10812

Forum Posts

782

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 14

@Kierkegaard Lets ignore the first section, the part attempting to foist guilt upon complete strangers for the crime of disagreeing. That's not effective.

Let's talk about this idea of forced overprivilege. The idea that men are capable of anything on this earth without the assistance of women is a historical oddity. That men could find a way to dominate the earth, to survive against an incredibly hostile environment, against the abject revolt of their suffering women is a fallacy. There's a reason why, in every corner of the world, in societies that couldn't be more different, the societies that survived were those that put women's safety above all; reproductive necessity. Any society is limited by the reproductive capability of their women; one man can do the reproductive work of 100, not so with women. And in those old days, the old 'patriarchy', men were required to do what was once dangerous work in the public sphere. You could not have your most valued members of society in danger. Men were given the privilege of life in the public sphere (jobs! property!) and the obligations that come with it (war! work!).

Now, things are way different now. We've moved technologically past the point where we struggle against the natural world. Women don't need to be protected from every threat in the world, and with the pill and fertility meds, we have control of our reproduction as well. We can move beyond outdated models, women are eligible for 'male' privileges, and responsible for 'male' obligations. I would never go back. Conservatives who want to return to a world that we've moved past are sad, indeed.

I'd actually go on a little more, but I have other responsibilities cropping up. But I'd urge you to actually look into this further. And I'll add one last thing; you are not responsible for the sins of your ancestors (or, in a phrase that pretty much explains it, sins of the father). You are only responsible for you.
Avatar image for fiercedeity
FierceDeity

364

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By FierceDeity

@biosfear said:

@FierceDeity: must be nice to be so privileged that you can pick and choose what you feel like caring about.

No, I'm just human.

As if being privileged confers apathy or being disadvantaged confers empathy. Replace the term "privilege" in your post with anything else and you sound like a bigot. But because "privilege" is a nice, meaningless term you can get away with being a hypocrite.

Avatar image for paindamnation
Paindamnation

875

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By Paindamnation

Just like the twitter movement, this conversation has come and gone, and everyone got their panties in a bunch, and now the wedgie is gone.

Avatar image for featurepreacher
featurepreacher

40

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By featurepreacher

2 things

1.Don't expect the internet to solve anything that's dependent on human beings. I know the internet is fun and easy, and that's the problem. Climate change, raising taxes, supposedly ending -isms are not easy problems. Some are so hard, they cost billions of dollars just to get started on a solution.

2.Start from an honest assessment of the problem. 47% of the entire gaming audience includes what? People who play solitaire built into Windows? We're talking about hardcore games. With hardcore games, most likely 1% of the audience is female, if it comes close to that. You really expect to not see dismissal from an overwhelming majority of the audience? If ladies feel so bad working in the hardcore gaming industry, there's the softcore industry where there are more ladies and hardly any complaints about -isms.

Avatar image for rjaylee
rjaylee

3804

Forum Posts

529

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 2

Edited By rjaylee

@Paindamnation: Just because you stopped talking about it doesn't mean the conversation didn't carry on elsewhere.

Avatar image for monsterelite
monsterelite

22

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By monsterelite

Nope, still not gonna touch it!

Avatar image for striderno9
striderno9

1362

Forum Posts

3

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 6

Edited By striderno9

Good write up Patrick, and great point at the end. No one is forcing people to go on this post.