@video_game_king: What, no shitty JRPG battle theme to go along with it?

I dont like that being offended seems to mean that people can think its ok to spout bullshit, harass and force people to change.

Also, anyone who gets offended an enraged over a tweet should probably kill themselves. Twitter is the worst! Twitter seems to only be people sharing pointless bullshit that no one could possibly actually care about, or people getting themselves in trouble for saying something and everyone overreacting.

If people are being hurt, or mistreated then sure, thats a reason to be concerned. But a dude saying dumb shit on the internet? who the fuck cares?

Fight those reductive generalisations with your own reductive generalisations.

@mcghee: Are you a real person?

Well written, Steve.

I don't know, personally, where to draw the line on this. I'm of the mind that people have the right to be who they want to be and say what they want to say, because I know that's how I would want to be treated. At the same time, though, you've got to understand where you're needlessly and hatefully disrespecting people instead of just voicing an opinion.

The finger-pointing, quick-to-blame attitude that's taken part of the community by storm kind of gets to me because a lot of them seem to try and make this case for women as if it were completely impossible for them to coexist with men in gaming. My (limited and personal) experience with women in the industry is the point of view I've adopted with this, which is the way to fight this is to treat everyone equally in the first place. The women I know and work with who are developers don't go out of their way to make a case for themselves or anything. They make games because they love games and that's it. Their case will make itself simply by being a human being who loves games. They're in it for the same reasons I am and nothing more. There's no sexe involved or bigotry or whatever. We're just weird organisms with limbs and nerves and a brain that says "Yo videogames are fucking dope."

That's not to say that the other side of this aren't in it because they love games—I know they are—but at some point I feel like it's turning into an issue where they're trying to be equal while demeaning anyone who disagrees with them and I really can't agree with that.

... I'm sure a lot of that probably comes out wrong. I'm really tired and I don't want to proof read.

The short of it is everyone is awesome and no one should be pointing fingers at anyone. Assholes will be assholes and that will continue regardless. If we're in this because we loves games, we should continue to be who we are and do what we do because of that love. Pure, imaginative, inspired creativity and heart for the medium is what will drive us forward and overcome the bullshit.

I don't mean to drag this thread out, but I feel obligated to say that this is something that might need to be addressed, because prior to this thread I wasn't aware there was any sense in which 'cis' was not pejorative. Maybe this is just me being a dumbass, but my understanding of the term stemmed entirely from my how I've seen it used, which is 'your sexual/gender orientation as a "normal" person makes you intellectually limited" or something to that effect. It's made me feel uncomfortable when it gets used, which is saying something.

Especially for a word that exists within a specific community, that applies to people who would not be considered part of that community, there should really be a much stronger effort to make clear there's no prejudicial meaning to it, or to push against it being used that way. Otherwise we just end up with an inverse 'retard' situation and everyone loses.

(I'm not saying rorie or anyone else here is in a position to take care of that, but... I dunno. Shit's weird).

So where is the strawman in my argument? Is it "there's nothing wrong with a sole focus on women's rights?"

Either way, I'm not arguing that "feminists are responsible when women are given full custody of children," which those links seem to suggest. Like many issues that feminists are concerned with, I would argue that the situation is systemic. And you certainly didn't provide me with anything even close to something resembling what I asked for.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324600704578405280211043510.html

Show me a feminist group who is outraged that the situation above would be allowed to happen, and is actively protesting against it. Show me a feminist group who is more concerned with egalitarianism than the issues that will benefit a single gender. Show me that feminism is about human rights, and feminism that will stand up for either gender when their rights are being violated.

...they also ignore things like the MASSIVE groundswell of support for, as an example, Female Shepard. Hardcore gamers of both genders absolutely loved FemShep, but they'll still bang the drum of "boys don't want to play as women" and it's JUST AS, if not MORE, problematic from that angle.

18% of players played as Female Shepard. I was one of them. I'm not sure I would call that a MASSIVE groundswell, though.

@markwahlberg: For the most part when I hear cis, it is just used as a descriptor. For example " My girlfriend(trans) and I(cis)......". Their are definitely people that use cis as a derogatory term, but I think that it's just a local minority. I don't think there is much anyone could do to stop them. Bigots will be bigots.

Anyone that goes to that panel is a bad person.

@spaceinsomniac: You can find plenty of feminists on Tumblr who stand for the equality of both men and women, myself included. Tons of them signed the petition supporting EZ-Bake Ovens marketed to boys, or who have pledged that they will be supportive if they have a son who expresses an interest in dressing in a skirt, or liking pink, or stereotypically feminine things. Women who believe all rape and molestation is wrong, and accusing someone of rape falsely is equally wrong.

I think I've mentioned this to you before Steve, but not to sound dismissive but I feel personally like this topic has become a point of entertainment to those who would like to see change and not an actual avenue for progressive change. I made the comment that Sarkeesian is doing what Bill O'Reily does.

I think it's perfectly fine for these people to do this, but the best way to handle it is to ignore it. It isn't productive and focus on issues that are actual problems that can be addressed. Good post Steve, hope Pax is great.

cis is the gender version of straight, that's all it ever was. Some people use het as a pejorative, after all

The only thing I'm going to leave here is this:

Moral & ethical gender equality is not found in statistics, it's found in opportunity and prejudice. Just because there aren't as many women working in the gaming industry does not mean there is an moral and ethical gender inequality. The same opportunities are offered to women as they are men. There is a statistical inequality because the topic seems to favor men's interests more than women. Women should also not expect to be given affirmative action to a job just because they are far and few between in the industry.

When talking about lack of female protagonists, it is the effect of free speech from a male dominated industry. If males so choose to develop a game with a protagonist of the same gender as them, they are within reason. Who's to say that men should be forced to develop characters they may feel they don't familiarize with. That would be taking away creative freedom.

TL;DR: If women want more women in the industry, they should encourage more women to join.

I'm on Gabe's side in this.

Boring. Please think of something interesting and pertinent to say and get back to me.

That's what all the fuss is about? The worlds gone mad.

It's distasteful, sure, but I don't go to Penny Arcade for political correctness.

That is not what modern Feminism is about anymore., In the western world it is about supremacy. Also I believe if you are for equality you can not call yourself a feminist. More like a humanist.

I don't generally participate in sexism and racism topics in video games because it's all generally nonsense. I plan to keep on saying whatever it is that I say in real life and if someone has an issue with that they can bring it up with me in person. I'm 27 years old and I've never had anyone call me out on anything that I say that can be considered racist or sexist. The reason? People in the real world generally don't care and if they do care it certainly wasn't enough to tell me to my face.

I'm just going to keep on doing my thing.

And this is why I don't use twitter.

What you're getting confused about is that it's not open to discussion, someone can't be "right" on the subject of misogyny or racism when they're a misogynist or a racist, that's the people who say shit like "Now, I'm not racist, but..." or "I have plenty of black friends."

What you're doing is essentially saying that racism and sexism is a forum of discussion, not a societal and institutional wrong.

See? It's not a discussion, it's something that's real and exists, and it unfortunately exists in spades in videogames. I mean, you complain about people complaining about racism and a lack of black characters, but how the fuck are you going to complain about that when in a industry where you work with people that aren't real, aka videogame characters, is it so hard to make some of them black, or more of them black? Why is it that games always produce white-washed versions of ethnic characters, or their version of a decent female character is one that is either bereft of femininity or too reliant on it?

You're essentially saying that your opinion, that there is no imbalance or misogyny or racism in games, should be counted, when the fact of the matter isn't that it's an opinion, but a fact, segregation was not an opinion, it was subhuman and evil, that's a fact. The people that were of the opinion that it should be maintained, were wrong.

By the way, I know moronic nerds love dogpiling on Anita, but even though her videos are amateurish, she's not preventing people from having discussions, her goal is like any other documentary or journalistic piece on issues, it's not meant to be a discussion in and of itself, but a treatise, revelation, or observation (neutral or not, because neutrality is not necessary to making any of those things good or factual) on some sort of contentious issue. Her thesis is based on the fact that these imbalances exist, and they do, because, as I said, a racist or misogynist's opinion does not factor into the undisputed fact that these issues exist, and revealing them and how they play into the medium, in this case, videogames.

So you can't even argue against her because there is no discussion, there is no forum of discourse for you to apply your own stunted views onto someone's dissection of a childish, ignorant, and moronic industry and medium.

Also, no, these "kinds" of people are not being overly emotional, or too PC, or whatever the hell you want to call it, they're doing what they do in every other medium, drawing attention to morally reprehensible things, immoral and hostile business practices to certain races or sexes, and unrealistic, insipid, and stupid portrayals of those minorities or individuals subject to others' prejudice. This has happened in film (where it is still an issue), in literature (where it is still an issue), in music (where it is still an issue).

See what I'm getting at here? These issues, about women, about minority members, they aren't about your precious, pathetic, fucking god damned hobby.

It's like the Christians who wail "What about us?" when their views on abortion are trying to destroy the rights of women, or old rich white men who wail "What about us?" when their views on healthcare and capitalism are destroying the lives of others. It's not about you, it's not about fucking videogames, it's about those issues.

As soon as you understand that, and quit trying to make everything about you, or the precious hobby you're holding to your chest like it's a sacred cow, you can probably begin to start helping making the lives of your fellow men by being less of a self-obsessed moron who casts off the issues in society because it's making it uncomfortable for you to go to forums or read articles about videogames.

In fact, I think it's pretty fucking funny that all of a sudden when this industry is becoming more mature, its journalists actually acting like journalists and being more watchdogs and less yes-men, that all the same fucking morons that whine about this industry not being taken seriously, can't stand it when the medium is starting to get more serious.

Make up your god damned mind, and stop being a prick.

I don't agree with what the title may misconstrue, that games should be fun, so we should ignore any negative issues, and I think the wording in the original panel description was a bit off-putting, but I think I get the gist of what their actual intent is. And I don't see how this makes someone a bad person for attending it. Should we just blindly accept a video game blogger's opinion or a person's tweet that something is sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or whatever offense they've taken, or should we critically think for ourselves and determine whether or not we agree with the blogger?

Do we want to have an actual discussion on these issues, or do you only care for one side to spout their opinion and shut out any dissenting opinions? Is it valid to simply label people something they aren't when they disagree with you, because it clearly seems that way with your comment.

I completely agree with the idea of that panel, games are treated way to highly nowadays. They are called "video game" for a reason, a game by definition is a form of play or sport, and the defintion of play as a noun is: Activity engaged in for enjoyment and recreation, esp. by children. and as a verb: Engage in activity for enjoyment and recreation rather than a serious or practical purpose. Thus a game is meant for enjoyment, something used for recreation. The primary purpose of any game should be to entertain in an engaging way, artistry is a great addition however it should not be the primary goal. I've personally said that if a game director is so focused on story that they compromise gameplay then they should just write a book or make a movie, mediums that are meant to tell stories.

Modern video games are being considered much more of an art form, and there is nothing wrong with that especially with games such as Bioshock and Last of Us which show classic artistic merit through their story telling. The thing is that the majority of games produced are not meant to be artistic masterpieces, they are meant to be fun, entertaining diversions from the real world. An entire medium should not be judged by a minority, it's like saying any movie that doesn't try to be a work of art should be considered wrong. Just as there is a place for Fast and the Furious along side Citizen Kane, there should be room for Bulletstorm beside Bioshock.

For much of the history of video games a large majority of both the consumers and producers were male, which makes it completely logical that the majority of games would be male focused. On the developer end for say a male writer it is much easier to write male characters because being a male them-self and likely having largely male friends they can more naturally write male characters. Since they would be designing the game for a male audience they would thus cater the game to them, most men would much rather pretend to be a knight saving a princess then a female knight saving a prince. Immersion improves the experience of playing a game greatly and well it's pretty damn tough to pretend you are the other gender. There is also the obvious point that if the majority of the market is male, then the producers will want male targeted games so they can sell more copies.

The issue now is that there are now more female gamers as well as female producers, and such a large portion of the market can not be ignored. There should be more games with female protagonist, and there should be less male oriented and gender neutral depictions of both genders in games. As previously pointed out Feminism is about equality, male characters and female characters should be treated equally then. I'll try not to get to into it but Tomb Raider is a perfect example of failure of this; Lara is shown to grow into a confident young woman after brutally killing hundreds of men and people applaud showing a strong female character yet in Uncharted people critique Nathan Drake being portrayed as a lovable character while he kills hundreds of men. That's a double standard that exist in almost all forms of life sadly.

Bottom line is that games are meant to be fun, it's in their very definition as well as their roots. Art in games is a great thing but it should be seen as the primary goal, and games should not be discredited because they don't try to push any artistic boundaries. Currently there is certainly a need for more acknowledgement of the female presence in the industry, however the majority of games not trying to utilize it are not sexist, they are designed for an audience that is still largely male and thus would likely be more receptive to it.

Not really gonna touch on the transgender stuff because this thread is listed under general discussion on games site so the discussion should be focused around games and transgender are such a huge minority that to say games are ignoring them is prejudice would just be ignorant.

@mofaz: The problem is of what they call sexist. Big boobs are not sexist. Less clothing are not sexist or misogynistic. We need to put a line here. IF you make a harmless gay joke like the one in Far Cry Blood dragon it is not anti gay. Persona 4 is not anti-gay no matter how much you like to spin this. Instead of concentrating on real issues of sexism and misogyny in video games these Journalist attack everything which has a women or better not having a fully clothed woman in it. And that is backfiring now. Now people are getting annoyed if they hear the name Anita. Now people get annoyed when Kotaku's Patricia Hernandez post another stupid article about how big the boob of this characters are. They are not leading to discussion they are killing it.

And what is even more funny: Most of these people who write these articles are men. Men who are deciding what is offensive for a women. And in my opinion that is way more sexist than anything else. If someone gets offended sure. People even get offended by the weather but we should not listen to everyone. How about we talk about real issues like how women were groped at E3 for example. How we talk about real issues like rape games in Japan where you are even getting points and a hero status for raping women. How we talk about real issues instead.

tell me more about 'modern' Feminism, since you seem to know SO MUCH about it

@zella This is not about video games ignoring trans people, this is about Gabe's terrible views about them.

@animasta: I guess I could have been a bit clearer, I'm saying that from the OP, thread title, and specific board that this thread should be about games. Frankly while Gabe is a prominent member of the gaming industry what he thinks of transgender people has nothing to do with gaming. While it is clearly too late now, the debate surrounding Gabe's remarks should be in another thread instead of this one, but oh well whatever.

Animasta I think I linked you to this 1 hour video already in the past. Why not watch it? As for the panel this panel deserve as much to be there as the feminism panel which is there as well.

Maybe if all the white males stop talking about feminism or racism and start listening things might get better.

Note: I am not saying they should shut up. But I have the feeling it is mostly white men in here arguing with each other what is sexist or racist when frankly we know nothing. We might as well start discussing nuclear fission.

I am sorry but this is always when I stop listening. Do not judge people because of their Color. Do not judge people because of their gender. People have opinions no matter the color or the gender they are. And to assure you my female friends also think that whats going on is stupid right now. Yes there are issues that needs to be solved but if every journlaist shouts sexist because a game has a female character with big boobs then you know there is something wrong with that.

For example: There are already calling the Sniper Quiet form MGSV misogynistic because she wears a bikini top and gets tortured without any clue about what kind of character she is.

That's exactly my point. Your female friends can say if the big boobed girl is sexist (probably not). It's not that you cannot give your opinion but it's more that if two white males are arguing over if something is sexist without asking a group of women for their opinion. What is that discussion worth?

Note: Now some people are more sensitive than others so we shouldn't react every time a person says something is sexist or racist.

I wrote a blog a while ago talking exactly about this. I don't think that sexism is an issue that should be pushed to the side in the games industry but at the same time we have reached this strange boiling point where almost everything gets questioned. The game Remember Me is about a strong female non-caucasian lead, not scantily clad nor exploited in any way during the span of the story - yet most people only notice that she's facing backwards on the cover so it's all about her ass. Tomb Raider was agonized over for how much Lara gets beaten up despite the fact that she undergoes a realistic and strong character development from a young naive girl to a seasoned explorer - yet all we can talk about was her climbing a radio beacon in the snow without wearing a jacket.

@mofaz: Unfortunately, while I agree with the reality that there can be right and wrong on issues such as this, that is a separate fact from how one engages with other human beings. You can be unequivocal about what is right and wrong and still have a discussion with a fellow individual. You are a person, not an issue. If you have views I disagree with, you are a person that has views I disagree with; you are not solely the views I disagree with. You are not a faceless evil or a faceless good. You're you.

And I have an interest in talking to you. Because communicating with other human beings is useful and sometimes enjoyable. Often, it is not enjoyable, but it still serves a purpose both to you and hopefully for the other person. Thus, we have an interest in having a discussion on things we care about. And often, people have differences, even on things that are clearly right or wrong to us. Yet, there's still an interest in discussion. Not because admitting that something can be discussed diminishes your conviction to what is right and wrong, but because we care enough about other human beings or enough about the issues that we try to have a dialogue with them. Hopefully, you can reach a better understanding, but, if not, at least you made an appeal and discussed something you care about.

You are first and foremost a fellow human being, and even though these are cold words on a screen, these are the words of a real living, breathing individual just like yourself. So, it isn't just so simple as "this is right and wrong, they are not up for discussion", because an individual isn't just a black and white 100% or nothing. They're a person who may be wrong on some things and right on others. I attempt to be right, but I am aware of the reality that I am likely wrong on some things. And in the course of human history, even the most progressive among us will likely find themselves currently agreeing with something that will later be deemed wrong. And that doesn't mean every human being who has ever lived before this exact enlightened moment was evil. It means people are more than just issues; they are human beings with both right and wrong beliefs, opinions, and actions.

In my own personal, enduring imperfection, I see the imperfect minds and hearts of others, and if I truly believe that something is right or wrong, I hope that others who currently do not see that reality will one day see as I do. And even if I cannot convince them of what I know to be true, I will still stand for that truth and make an effort to convince them of what is right. And I hope that others might do the same. I know that I have been wrong and I will likely be wrong again, perhaps even on the bigger things in life. And I am not alone in that. Others believe they know right, but hopefully, they also know that they may be wrong. And in our shared imperfection, our communication might help enlighten one another and make each of us better from having actually connected with those different from ourselves.

Life is not so simple as to simply shut off others. I speak with purpose, because I believe in what I am saying. If I believe something is right, I will not just state that it is right but instead try to communicate with those who don't yet see it, and hopefully, they'll do the same for me. Communication through discussion benefits us all, even as it tires us and sometimes sacrifices in vain hope. Ultimately, it is worthwhile, because I believe you are worthwhile just as I am. Some issues may be relatively certain to you, but they are then especially worthy of discussion. If you care deeply about things, then I hope you will openly share your thoughts and attempt not just to share information but to foster greater understanding amongst yourself and others.

I am not stupid, ignorant, or otherwise intellectually useless because I was born straight, white or male. A straight white man brings up an argument and your only reaction is to say that his skin color or gender or orientation invalidates his argument. "We know nothing". No, I know a lot. Thank you very much.

Being of a specific gender does not make your argument good or false. An argument that is ignorant can be shown to be ignorant through the argument itself, not through a recitation of the gender of the person speaking. This line of thought says that only Christians can tell you if something is biased against Christians, and when they do, they cannot be argued with because they're Christians and you're not so they're obviously right, even when they cannot show any evidence beyond "I am a Christian, and I don't like this."

As for Mike Krahulik, I think a lot of people are not caught up with the recent trend of addressing gender as different from sex. To him, being biologically male means you're called a man, the gender consideration does not come into it. I'm sure you can see the problem in that instead of explaining the difference between sex and gender, people immediately want to crucify him as a villain and a bigot. Did they expect that would lead to more understanding, or were they more interested in having another villain character?

That tumblr feminists want to emphasize any traditionally feminine characteristics in male children does not impress me, in fact, I think it's the most likely scenario from a group of people who demonize masculinity or masculine interests as being oppressive. Would they be supportive of a son who expresses an interest in traditionally masculine things?

And before anyone flips out at me, I was a feminist for a good long time. I'm extremely liberal, and that's where feminism breaks down for me. It's as corrupt as any religion, and responds to any attempt to rigorously challenge arguments with the same reaction of a religion; condemnation and calls for excommunication. So morally I could not choose feminism over egalitarianism, and I would urge anyone else to do the same.

Agreed, a good friend on mine is Transgender and before she changed i never really considered just how offensive a lot of this stuff can be, now i cringe everytime i read or hear someone say something like that. Its a learning curve, people still arnt used to meeting or dealing with Transgender folks, its only when someone you know takes that step that you realise and become much more sensitive to these situations. As more and more people become comfortable with Transgender folks we will see much less of this, but it does still need to be highlighted, letting it go is not an option, if we dont say anything how will they know they have crossed the line?

Even if Gabe dosent think he has done anything wrong he still needs to think about what he said and make some kind of apology, it wont make everything better but it will at least show that hes listening and that he understands that he has upset a large group of our population.

Hmm, hmm, oh, oh no! Ahh, Ahhhhhh! "Breathing heavily",......sigh....Video Games?

Lets have a discussion about raising disabled children then. It is not about gender, it is about experience. Do I know how it is like to not get a job because of my skin or gender or orientation? No. Do I know how it is like to be searched at an airport because of how I look? No. I have not experienced these things. I can discuss this with someone who has. I cannot discuss this with someone who has also no experience in this. Let me explain by the following example:

Person 1: The sky is purple.

Person 2: The sky is purple.

----- Person 1&2 will always agree. If they never talk to anyone else they will for the rest of their lives believe nothing is wrong ----

Now they talk to person 3.

Person 3: The sky is blue.

----- Now there are a few more scenario's -----

Person 1 and 2 can decide that person 3 must be color blind or crazy and leave it at that. Or decide that everyone sees the sky differently and it is not important. They could also talk to another 20 persons and probably in that case find out that their way of seeing the sky is different from the majority.

Something is not sexist towards women because a single woman says so. But maybe if a lot say it is, it is?

See the thing is, and this might be hard for some, that sometimes you can't talk about something because you don't know how it is. Of course if someone says "all gays are pigs and should be slaughtered" non-gays can see that it is offensive towards gays. But more often things are far more subtle and we might not see them. Then there is the this thing that, for some is even harder to understand, we are different. Women are a lot more self-conscious about how they look than men for example. Also men's thoughts and feelings are more separated. Where those of women are more intertwined. So how can we tell how the other should behave or feel? We should talk and listen to each other, where all opinion is equal. But I believe we should also accept that someone is more knowledgeable about a topic. When we talk about nuclear fission we would rate the opinion of a scientist higher than that of a plumber. So why can't we do the same when it comes to more abstract topics such as feelings and thoughts?

I think that that core video game audience isn't mature enough to discuss sexism in a constructive and meaningful way. "Things aren't 100% perfect all the time for males either, you know!" is the typical knee-jerk topic derailment.

I mean, there are still people on this very board who think, for example, that men are under just as much pressure to be physically attractive as women, despite all the evidence to the contrary. If they can't be convinced that there is a problem, how can we even open up a discussion about how video games might contribute to that problem?

@nictel: "if a lot of women say something is sexist then it is"

No. This is an appeal to the majority. Things are what they are based on the evidence observed, not based on popular opinion. We say the sky is blue because it has the properties that we call 'blue', not because a lot of people agree it is blue. The sky will remain blue independent of what people think, until either the sky or the definition of blue changes.

Now you transfer this into the idea that in order to understand what racism or sexism is, and to be able to identify it, it is necessary to have experienced racism or sexism first hand. This is not true for a number of reasons. First of all is humanity has empathy; we can understand something through imagination of experience. You are capable of recognizing racism or sexism even without being victimized by it, independent of your own 'experience'. You are also capable of recognizing when things are not sexism, or not racism, independent of your own experience, by looking at the evidence. You are wrong in thinking that because enough people agree, or enough people of the proper gender, that therefore it must be true. Things are true based on their evidence, not people's opinion. This is the core principle of rationalism. Sexism exists where one gender is treated differently, not where women (or men) say it does.

Your example of "when talking about nuclear fission we should talk to scientists rather than plumbers". This says that knowledge and understanding is preferable, and this is true (though don't fall into the fallacy of believing the scientist is right in her argument because the plumber is not a scientist, this is an appeal to authority). However, when we're talking about gender equality, women do not have a monopoly on knowledge and understanding as you so believe. That you are willing to throw away critical thinking in favor of taking whatever a woman says as truth is fine for you, but do not place that on other men, or other whites, or other straights. I will judge sexism by the definition of sexism and the evidence presented in any situation, not by the gospel of one gender. And I do not appreciate being ignored because of my gender, race or orientation. It does not become okay because society says it is.

@kentonclay: Men are not under as much pressure to be physically attractive, because that's never been what men have been judged on. Men are under pressure to be financially successful and productive, to be capable and dominant. Women are judged on their looks, and men are judged on their bank account. Now, attractive men and successful women are also considered preferable, but it's a secondary benefit and not the major deciding factor on their 'quality'. Neither is very fair to either sex, and both are valid complaints for both genders.

We hear constantly about how 'feminism is about equality for both genders' and when you hear things like the above, where men's problems are simply not valid because they're men, it makes it hard to take seriously. I'm an egalitarian and I believe sexism against men is bad, and sexism against women is bad. And that women suffer in the Middle East does not invalidate actual cases of sexism in America, and that a rich man has it good does not invalidate the problems of a poor man. But that doesn't work for feminism. The admission that men, even merely some men, require help is considered 'derailing'. And yet the gall remains to label this 'social justice'.

@brodehouse: I'm not saying that discussing sexism against men is inherently bad, I'm saying that if the discussion we're having is about issues that affect women, then trying to change the argument to "Well men have problems, too!" is a case of topic derailment.

@brodehouse said:

It is a very different thing to say 'we should get a female opinion on this' than to say 'opinions from those other than female do not matter.' The reason we might want to have a scientist in a argument or a woman in a discussion on gender equality is twofold. One is that they are more likely to give a fuller argument in their particular field - the scientist on fission and the woman on female inequality - due to more experience on the topic, which would hopefully touch on more facets of the issue and this give a fuller examination of the problem. The other is that any assertions made by those people are more credible due to their experience, as after all not every statement can be backed up with perfect and complete evidence, especially on a topic so nebulous and wide-reaching as gender equality.

None of this is absolute in any way - at no point have I said that a woman or a scientist would definitely be better in the debate than a man or a layperson, and crucially at no point have I said that the arguments put forward are lessened or invalidated by their gender or experience as this would, of course, be an ad hominem attack. And also, the experience of the debaters should be well-rounded - while the nuclear fission debate would be enriched by a scientist present, this would only enrich discussion of matters relating to the actual science of the issue. Other facets of the debate, such as the logistics of mining and enrichment of the uranium needed for the reactors or the storage of potentially hazardous long half-life nuclear waste may well be outside of the scientists area of expertise. Similarly, while I think that having a woman present in a debate on gender, I think the exact same of having a man present, and if there were a debate where the debaters where overwhelmingly female, I would think that highlighting the male opinions would be of value to the debate. But this is the internet, and it's video games, so such discussions are inevitably few and far-between.

While yes, arguments should be judged entirely independently of the arguer, this is only possible with idealised, perfect debaters on either side who can cover every facet of a topic and verify everything with solid evidence. When this is not possible - which of course it never is - the imperfections in the debater unfortunately become part of the debate. This does not the make the debate any less valid, but it does mean that the debate is not necessarily complete.

@stalefishies: I will take the absolutist view as it comes to rationality, because I don't see the merit or even the ethics in 'moderation' when it comes to rationalism. I would not ask for a token male to be represented on a panel of women, no more than I would ask the opposite. A discussion is improved by an addition of solidly reasoned debate and rhetoric, not merely a more diverse set of chromosomes. The 'male viewpoint' is no more relevant to a discussion on gender equality than a female viewpoint, because equality is not a matter of perspective but a matter of fact. That a panel of women may not be knowledgeable on gender equality speaks to that panel's knowledge, not their gender's knowledge.

It seems whenever we discuss some issue in which women stand to benefit from a dose of equality in some manner, the mantra is that we should not treat people differently. This works for me, I'm a fundamentalist in this regard. But when it comes to inequalities that affect men, or places where equality would benefit men, I hear constantly "we have to understand that the sexes are different and have different needs". Unacceptable. I will not accept such blatant hypocrisy, and I wouldn't accept it if it worked the other way.

And keep in mind, the scientist on the fission is not necessarily right. They would still require evidence for their assertions, even if they're not asked to preset them. And if they said something that does not follow in fission, they would be wrong regardless of their credentials. That's the beauty of rationalism and the scientific method. A scientist is not right because they are a scientist, they are right because they have evidence to prove their assertions.

No means of linking in captions.

Let's rename this thread to "Strawman Argument Central."

uhm?

@brodehouse: You are wrong in thinking that because enough people agree, or enough people of the proper gender, that therefore it must be true. Things are true based on their evidence, not people's opinion. [...] This is the core principle of rationalism. Sexism exists where one gender is treated differently, not where women (or men) say it does.

The truth is nothing more than the universally accepted opinion that declares it as truth. Also you cannot rationalize feelings or emotions.

I haven't read everything posted in this thread, but I do think I can agree that the conversation involving these issues has turned into the conversation about everything else on the internet; there are only two extremes and no room for anything in the middle. The greatest ever or total garbage stance we see with games so often. As I push on towards 30, I find it more and more exhausting.

@kentonclay: I agree that if a discussion revolves around, hypothetically, a woman kept out of a bus driver's job because the hiring personnel believe women are bad drivers, bringing up an instance where men are kept from being day care workers because the hiring personnel believe men are child predators would not be germane (unless the discussion revolved around the idea that discriminatory hiring practices were _uniquely_ suffered by women, in which case it would be perfectly relevant as a counterargument).

In this case, the argument revolves around the claim 'feminism is about gender equality'. The counterargument is that feminism is only concerned with the betterment of women, and the evidence is examples in which feminism either ignores or advocates for inequality for men. It is not derailment in this instance, it is a direct counterargument to the initial proposal of the discussion. The problem is is that rather than conceding the issue, or presenting evidence that feminism is concerned about inequality suffered by men, generally the response is that any counterargument, presented with evidence, is inherently derailment because ... it points out that feminism is not about equality.

The thing is, is that I have no problem with people whose focus is on women's rights, men's rights, the rights of some group here or some group there. Focusing on an issue is not negative behaviour. But claiming that feminism means egalitarianism when it doesn't fit the description, I do see that as negative. Especially when I look at the evidence, when I look at feminists scolding MtF trans people for 'latent male privilege' or attempting to 'infiltrate the female-bodied' (and if asked, I could probably find where I originally saw these; a series of comments on the original Schroedinger's Rapist article, and a twitter war involving popular feminist Germaine Greer).

1. It is about video games and how somethings about them may be considered offensive to some.

2. What terrible views? I keep seeing people claim he has terrible views, how he's a monster,and a transphobe, but don't actually cite anything that is terrible. I've asked people point blank what it is, because unless he's deleted a tweet, which is possible, I haven't found anything where he says trans people are terrible, subhumans who shouldn't be afforded the same rights as non-trans people. This all stems from saying "woman have vaginas." Is that statement a terrible indictment against trans people?

I dont know why people treat sexism in gaming like some special thing. Its no different then rampant sexism found in every other facet of our society.