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

Saying you are privileged because of your race and gender is pure, inarguable racism and sexism. It is prescribing characteristics based not on the individual, but on the perception of the group the individual belongs to.

You might say it's not wrong to infer these characteristics in the individual, because they are true, according to you, or your academic of choice. But if I tried that with any other group and any other stereotype, be it true or not, my arguments would be considered uncivil, and I would surely be banned.

Oh, and @Jeff apparently joined in the conversation. I kind of have to agree with him, a bigger picture is important for a lot of angry people here. And equality is as simple as it sounds, in the end. It's just that he is missing areas where the movement for equality can and does go wrong, pushing against the rights of "privileged" "oppresors", which will surely have negative consequences in the future. Of course, I hope it won't.

@ahopelesstroglodyte said:

For those who don't understand, misandry would require women to have far more power than men in order to be real, since (again) sexism and racism are institutional phenomena. And I don't know of a society in this world where that's true.

This. Read those two sentences over and over again until you get it if you don't already get it.

@ahopelesstroglodyte said:

@Zetetic_Elench said:

lol. misandry doesn't actually exist, fyi.

Thank you for this and your other posts here! "Misandry" is the "reverse racism" of gender issues, nothing more.

For those who don't understand, misandry would require women to have far more power than men in order to be real, since (again) sexism and racism are institutional phenomena. And I don't know of a society in this world where that's true.

You are very much a complete buffoon. Your username is accurate, and you should feel bad. That's about all I have time for, right now, sadly.

@RagingDaemon: Finally someone who says this. I can't take Patrick's articles on the subject seriously until both sides are heard instead of him lumping everyone on the site and every male in the business into one hole of a misogyny.

@ahopelesstroglodyte said:

@EnduranceFun: So is it like a cult if someone says we have to acknowledge that sexism and racism are things that exist? Privilege is similarly supported by evidence, so...

BTW, I've also seen you say on this thread that internet anonymity should never be compromised. Ideas like this are what helped create Violentacrez and the overall creepy culture of Reddit. The most reasonable stance here is "you give up your own right to anonymity when you compromise someone else's anonymity or do something else equally horrible to them", period.

Those things you mentioned have little to do with disagreeing that your political belief is 'reality.' There is no evidence you can show me that will change my mind that a certain race or gender is born unequal due to privilege. It's reverse racism and sexism. I'm sure you don't believe in that, but I do when it comes to what one guy here called 'radfem' views. Equality only works when everyone is equal.

Why should I care what others do with their anonymity? If they commit crimes that is for a problem for the law authorities. If they're simply posting something that is disagreeable, disagree, or just forget about it. This seems far more reasonable to be than believing hokey nonsense that all of white males can't understand political science because of skin pigment and a Y-chromosome.

@dr_mantas said:

Saying you are privileged because of your race and gender is pure, inarguable racism and sexism. It is prescribing characteristics based not on the individual, but on the perception of the group the individual belongs to.

You might say it's not wrong to infer these characteristics in the individual, because they are true, according to you, or your academic of choice. But if I tried that with any other group and any other stereotype, be it true or not, my arguments would be considered uncivil, and I would surely be banned.

Oh, and @Jeff apparently joined in the conversation. I kind of have to agree with him, a bigger picture is important for a lot of angry people here. And equality is as simple as it sounds, in the end. It's just that he is missing areas where the movement for equality can and does go wrong, pushing against the rights of "privileged" "oppresors", which will surely have negative consequences in the future. Of course, I hope it won't.

Don't try reasoning with them, end of the day...just not worth it. I'd go play New Vegas if I were you...or me. Which I will do immediately.

@Zetetic_Elench

@ahopelesstroglodyte

So is the staff gonna call out these two shitposting hatemongers, too?

@dr_mantas: Yeah, what do all of those "academics of choice" sociologists know? They've just got PHD's and shit. You're a dude on the internet! Armed with limited knowledge and what passes for common sense these days!

@EnduranceFun said:

@ahopelesstroglodyte said:

@EnduranceFun: So is it like a cult if someone says we have to acknowledge that sexism and racism are things that exist? Privilege is similarly supported by evidence, so...

BTW, I've also seen you say on this thread that internet anonymity should never be compromised. Ideas like this are what helped create Violentacrez and the overall creepy culture of Reddit. The most reasonable stance here is "you give up your own right to anonymity when you compromise someone else's anonymity or do something else equally horrible to them", period.

Those things you mentioned have nothing to do disagreeing that 'my political belief is reality.' There is no evidence you can show me that will change my mind that a certain race or gender is born unequal due to privilege. It's reverse racism and sexism. I'm sure you don't believe in that, but I do when it comes to what one guy here called 'radfem' views. Equality only works when everyone is equal.

Why should I care what others do with their anonymity? If they commit crimes that is for a problem for the law authorities. If they're simply posting something that is disagreeable, disagree, or just forget about it. This seems far more reasonable to be than believing hokey nonsense that all of white males can't understand political science because of skin pigment and a Y-chromosome.

Very accurate, congratulations. I would also like to add that there's really no such thing as "reverse racism". All racism is simply racism, the direction of discrimination isn't set in stone as only possible in one way.

@JasonR86 said:

@ZeForgotten said:

@shoddyrobot said:

@Seven2600: wow. I looked @Seven2600 said:

@Rasmoss said:

@Jeff said:

Wow, Kotaku must be thrilled to see their name mentioned so much here. I mean, if genuine articles about actual, serious issues make people think of them then they must be doing something right, huh? It's certainly a step up from the typical complaint they get about... video game cakes and Japanese panty shots or whatever it is.

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.

Thank you, Jeff. Well spoken.

@Jeff Gerstmann Sorry I'm not sure you can have a valid opinion on knowing anything about or understanding equality....http://www.giantbomb.com/quick-look-far-cry-3/17-6839/ @~6:41 and @~15:45...what are the basic ideas of equality that you understand? Maybe you should wonder if its always been you who's in the weird, little bubble, with no perspective, still angry all the time...

uh... i went and looked up those time codes on the video you linked. I have no idea what you're talking about, so how about making it more clear than just vague accusations?!

Maybe we have to watch from 6:41 to 15:45 and see if we can spot it? Like a dumb game of "I can't find anything but if someone else can then I can take credit for it"

They joke that because the protagonists are "rich white kids" they deserve all the bad things they suffer including death. It was a joke but it looks weird compared to this article and Jeff and Patrick damning naysayers. Rule of thumb, jokes about rich people and white men are ok. Sexism jokes? No no no! We'll crucify your ass!

Yes, because there are major differences in privilege between different groups. My short and sweet way of stating this is: It is not fair or just to treat everyone equally when everyone is not equally privileged.

By and large, rich white people control the institutions responsible for phenomena like sexism and racism. They, much more so than anyone else, have the power to change the situation. They can acknowledge the problems, better represent women & minorities in their companies/pop culture/etc., refuse to work with other rich white people who don't follow their lead, and so forth. That they don't do nearly enough of this is a major reason these problems persist, so I have no problem joking about them or criticizing them.

This is also why "cracker" is nowhere near as serious as the n-word, btw. The latter represents real oppression since it has an entire established power structure to back it up, while the former does not and is mostly a coping mechanism for dealing with said power structure. Same thing with "die cis scum" and similar phrases.

@ahopelesstroglodyte: Here's the thing; everyone has a right to feel the way they do. Men and women. You can only judge whether or not what they're saying is ethically fair to anyone involved. The condemnation of 'privilege' is nothing more than having your feelings made irrelevant based purely on your gender, not on the actual content of your statement. To mark someone as irrelevant in an ethical sense entirely derived from their gender is the stark definition of sexism and inequality. I can't believe that it's tolerated. We used to use 'hysterical' and 'emotional' to silence the ethical issues raised by women, now we use 'privilege' in return. Both are awful and should not be repeated by anyone who believes in fairness.

The Schrodinger's Rapist article elucidates it pretty clearly; All Men Are Rapists until they prove they aren't. I couldn't imagine using that kind of guilty-until-proven-innocent rhetoric on any social group and expecting support. Under that example, is it socially acceptable to become hyper-vigilant at the presence of blacks or latinos, since they are overrepresented in crime? I never thought I would read a justification for treating an entire gender like potential criminals. Foolish, lazy, intellectually corrupt. (Let's not even get into a core problem in that in the overwhelming majority of all reported sexual assault, the victim knows the assailant).

I believe that women should be treated with the same rights and respect as men. I don't need to prostrate myself to you, or whoever you feel is the proper authority, to believe in it. That you think 'feminist' is a badge of honor that must be earned, and not a definition for the most ethical and rational method of being, I don't know what to say to you or how you could ever reach that conclusion. That you don't see Anita Sarkeesian's clear anti-sex and censorship agenda is up to you, but you are clearly mistaken if you think shaming on a gender basis is the most effective path to ethical fairness. It's years of religion teaching women to be ashamed of their sex (and teaching both genders to be ashamed of sex in general) that has caused the most damage to women, and continues to today.

You seem to be ready to make snap judgements of what I 'buy into', attempting to label me right-wing and et cetera, without even paying attention to the argument in general. That entire statement is a bizarre tangent that has nothing to do with what's been said. When I bring up a cycle of victimization, it's men and women punished when they don't conform to gender expectations, punished when they do conform to gender expectations, on and on, again and again. To be victimized by someone because of your gender, to victimize someone else in return, who does the same. That's all that 'us-or-them' does.

I'm confused as to why you would create an alt account to be a part of this argument, however.

@randomfella21: Thanks brotato chip. Most people don't really think about the implications of what they've been taught, or read. They take a Womens' Studies 101 class, or read Schroedinger's Rapist and never go beyond the conclusion of the person telling them their viewpoint. According to the latest posters here, the only valid definitions of misandry, racism, et al are the ones approved by the Gender Studies higher ups.

With the exception of like 5 posters, it's mostly people screaming unexamined doctrines at one another while trying to sound super smart.

@TheEvilCory said:

@dr_mantas: Yeah, what do all of those "academics of choice" sociologists know? They've just got PHD's and shit. You're a dude on the internet! Armed with limited knowledge and what passes for common sense these days!

Thanks, friend! Now I see the error of my ways! I'm just not using logical fallacies like I obviously should - arguments from authority, insulting the person I'm talking to, all that great stuff!

Thanks, you really showed me the way. You must be a dude NOT on the internet.

But in HYPERSPACE!

@ahopelesstroglodyte:

I'm just of a mindset that it is dumb to base an opinion of someone based on a stereotype and that acceptable stereotypes that are "ok" to hate, like rich white kids, are hypocritical. But people can do whatever they want. Just like I can say what I just said previously.

@dr_mantas said:

@TheEvilCory said:

@dr_mantas: Yeah, what do all of those "academics of choice" sociologists know? They've just got PHD's and shit. You're a dude on the internet! Armed with limited knowledge and what passes for common sense these days!

Thanks, friend! Now I see the error of my ways! I'm just not using logical fallacies like I obviously should - arguments from authority, insulting the person I'm talking to, all that great stuff!

Thanks, you really showed me the way. You must be a dude NOT on the internet.

But in HYPERSPACE!

haha, Dr_Mantas, I have not agreed with some of the things you've said in these comments, but one thing that is indisputable is that you're alright. Keep being sensible.

@dr_mantas said:

@TheEvilCory said:

@dr_mantas: Yeah, what do all of those "academics of choice" sociologists know? They've just got PHD's and shit. You're a dude on the internet! Armed with limited knowledge and what passes for common sense these days!

Thanks, friend! Now I see the error of my ways! I'm just not using logical fallacies like I obviously should - arguments from authority, insulting the person I'm talking to, all that great stuff!

Thanks, you really showed me the way. You must be a dude NOT on the internet.

But in HYPERSPACE!

This was pretty much absolute gold.

@JasonR86: I don't think Jeff's comments are significant. They do support the idea that the staff really only cares about the politically correct side of the argument, thus giving a reason for why Jeff and Patrick have so far completely ignored most of the comments. I imagine the best we'll get is a footnote of 'some intelligent discussion' while they waste our time talking down the 5% who are trolls in the community as if they are 45%.

@Gordo789 said:

@dr_mantas said:

@TheEvilCory said:

@dr_mantas: Yeah, what do all of those "academics of choice" sociologists know? They've just got PHD's and shit. You're a dude on the internet! Armed with limited knowledge and what passes for common sense these days!

Thanks, friend! Now I see the error of my ways! I'm just not using logical fallacies like I obviously should - arguments from authority, insulting the person I'm talking to, all that great stuff!

Thanks, you really showed me the way. You must be a dude NOT on the internet.

But in HYPERSPACE!

haha, Dr_Mantas, I have not agreed with some of the things you've said in these comments, but one thing that is indisputable is that you're alright. Keep being sensible.

Thanks, I hope you're being sincere, because I really appreciate that.

I have this nasty habit of overdisagreeing with people who tell me how I should think, and what I should feel. I usually go into overdrive and say things that are as opposed and contrary to what they say as possible, even if I don't really think them. I guess it's just cocky self-assuredness that gets me angry. Nothing is ever as simple as people make it out to be.

And you're alright yourself.

@dr_mantas: I really am.

@dr_mantas: yes, I am a person being genuine on the internet. SHOCKING!!!!!!

@Brodehouse said:

@ahopelesstroglodyte: Here's the thing; everyone has a right to feel the way they do. Men and women. You can only judge whether or not what they're saying is ethically fair to anyone involved. The condemnation of 'privilege' is nothing more than having your feelings made irrelevant based purely on your gender, not on the actual content of your statement. To mark someone as irrelevant in an ethical sense entirely derived from their gender is the stark definition of sexism and inequality. I can't believe that it's tolerated. We used to use 'hysterical' and 'emotional' to silence the ethical issues raised by women, now we use 'privilege' in return. Both are awful and should not be repeated by anyone who believes in fairness.

The Schrodinger's Rapist article elucidates it pretty clearly; All Men Are Rapists until they prove they aren't. I couldn't imagine using that kind of guilty-until-proven-innocent rhetoric on any social group and expecting support. Under that example, is it socially acceptable to become hyper-vigilant at the presence of blacks or latinos, since they are overrepresented in crime? I never thought I would read a justification for treating an entire gender like potential criminals. Foolish, lazy, intellectually corrupt. (Let's not even get into a core problem in that in the overwhelming majority of all reported sexual assault, the victim knows the assailant).

I believe that women should be treated with the same rights and respect as men. I don't need to prostrate myself to you, or whoever you feel is the proper authority, to believe in it. That you think 'feminist' is a badge of honor that must be earned, and not a definition for the most ethical and rational method of being, I don't know what to say to you or how you could ever reach that conclusion. That you don't see Anita Sarkeesian's clear anti-sex and censorship agenda is up to you, but you are clearly mistaken if you think shaming on a gender basis is the most effective path to ethical fairness. It's years of religion teaching women to be ashamed of their sex (and teaching both genders to be ashamed of sex in general) that has caused the most damage to women, and continues to today.

You seem to be ready to make snap judgements of what I 'buy into', attempting to label me right-wing and et cetera, without even paying attention to the argument in general. That entire statement is a bizarre tangent that has nothing to do with what's been said. When I bring up a cycle of victimization, it's men and women punished when they don't conform to gender expectations, punished when they do conform to gender expectations, on and on, again and again. To be victimized by someone because of your gender, to victimize someone else in return, who does the same. That's all that 'us-or-them' does.

I'm confused as to why you would create an alt account to be a part of this argument, however.

Frankly, this user deserves a medal. I didn't realise there were so many pseudo-scientists on GB.

@Brodehouse said:

I'm confused as to why you would create an alt account to be a part of this argument, however.

FYI that isn't me which I think is what you're implying?

@RagingDaemon said:

If you're railing against women being legitimately discriminated against via hiring practices, pay discrepancies, promotion denials, etc, you have a legitimate issue.

If you're fighting for women to feel perfectly comfortable at all times, you don't have a legitimate issue. Real life is rough and messy. Conflicts happen. Social faux pas' are made. Feelings are hurt. Misunderstandings happen. Sexual Harassment laws exist if it goes beyond that. Being mistaken for a secretary, being hit on, being told you don't look like you're a programmer or whatever, are bullshit victim hysterical complaints. The world is not obligated to be sensitive and perfectly attuned to your personal set of hangups, no matter who you are. You are only deserving of human rights and a fair shake under the law.

Are you going to advocate for litigating "niceness"? Will you be happy once all language is fully neutral, the only allowed words denoting negative things are strictly regulated, and offenders fined and punished? How would you regulate interactions to prevent anyone from being offended ever? How far would you take it, if you were fully in charge?

Next, as has already been stated many times, the 47% figure is clearly BS.

The publishers would have gone out of business if the cash cow AAA titles (not Angry Birds and Farmville) were bought by 50% women.

There is nothing wrong with selling to your audience.

Please start arguing that heterosexual Romance novels have unrealistic depictions of men. Please rally hard for that to be fixed.

Also, while you're fighting the good fight for women to get into STEM fields by any and all means necessary... Know some other fields women are underrepresented in? Garbage collectors, loggers, truck drivers, construction workers. You know, the most dangerous, destructive, and shit paying jobs. There is absolutely no parity there. But something tells me you aren't going to give a shit.

It's almost like you're not really interested in true egalitarianism.

Thank you

I work in the porn industry, I've never even met a strong woman.

@Zetetic_Elench: No, it's not. It would be a hell of a trick if it was.

@TheEvilCory: Oh shit, the guy wearing a Reddit avatar posted a link to a sociology 'expert.' Thread closed!

@EnduranceFun said:

@TheEvilCory: Oh shit, the guy wearing a Reddit avatar posted a link to a sociology 'expert.' Thread closed!

I must have missed it, where?

@GreggD: It seems he deleted his post. Probably good that he did, for the discussion.

@EnduranceFun said:

@GreggD: It seems he deleted his post. Probably good that he did, for the discussion.

Not to be a dick but...

What discussion? I don't see anyone discussing anything. I see two sides being represented, middle of the road people being ignored, and no one getting anywhere.

@JasonR86: There actually have been periods of civil discussion in this thread at various periods, it's only in the last few pages that it has descended into x vs y, but that seems to have also died down. Simply being optimistic that civility will resume. Although it may have run its course. I don't know.

@NyxFe: Thank you for assuming what I am or am not doing with my time. Also, for all your time and energies spent toward convincing everyone that they're feminist, the word egalitarian has slipped your radar completely.

@Brodehouse Privilege isn't something that should be condemned or ashamed of, nor is it meant to imply that you were handed a wallet full of money and the keys to the world. It simply means that you haven't been subject to the conscious and unconscious discriminations that other groups of people have been. It also doesn't mean that you have suffered no prejudice yourself. Every group has both privileges and adversities, but some have it worse than others. All people are trying to say (I hope, though I could be wrong) is that you should defer to the people who have experienced a particular form of discrimination when you are specifically discussing the subjective experience of being the subject of that discrimination. However, you absolutely can and should be part of the discussion of what should be done about the discrimination.

@Scrawnto said:

@Brodehouse Privilege isn't something that should be condemned or ashamed of, nor is it meant to imply that you were handed a wallet full of money and the keys to the world. It simply means that you haven't been subject to the conscious and unconscious discriminations that other groups of people have been. It also doesn't mean that you have suffered no prejudice yourself. Every group has both privileges and adversities, but some have it worse than others. All people are trying to say (I hope, though I could be wrong) is that you should defer to the people who have experienced a particular form of discrimination when you are specifically discussing the subjective experience of being the subject of that discrimination. However, you absolutely can and should be part of the discussion of what should be done about the discrimination.

Exactly, but I feel like some people would rather not hear our opinions in this discussion. Namely, the people throwing around the term privileged like it's a de facto thing.

@EnduranceFun: It wasn't a link to a sociological article. I said that, informally, appeals to authority are only fallacious when said authority is either not an expert, or not an expert in a field related to the argument. I provided a link to show that I was not just pulling that out of my ass. I deleted the comment because fuck it, whats the point. I got so mad reading these stupid comments that I insulted a dude, and that was wrong. The only reason I'm replying now is for clarity, and to explain why I deleted my comment.

@GreggD said:

@Scrawnto said:

@Brodehouse Privilege isn't something that should be condemned or ashamed of, nor is it meant to imply that you were handed a wallet full of money and the keys to the world. It simply means that you haven't been subject to the conscious and unconscious discriminations that other groups of people have been. It also doesn't mean that you have suffered no prejudice yourself. Every group has both privileges and adversities, but some have it worse than others. All people are trying to say (I hope, though I could be wrong) is that you should defer to the people who have experienced a particular form of discrimination when you are specifically discussing the subjective experience of being the subject of that discrimination. However, you absolutely can and should be part of the discussion of what should be done about the discrimination.

Exactly, but I feel like some people would rather not hear our opinions in this discussion. Namely, the people throwing around the term privileged like it's a de facto thing.

I almost feel like exemption would be a more appropriate term than privilege, since it's more about the lack of a bad thing being done to you than it is an extra good thing happening.

@BallsDeep: You got it. I'm kinda surprised my comment hit home with more than 0 people :-p I think it's up to 3 or 4 now!

#1; kudos to Patrick for bringing this movement to the attention of the GB community. And more importantly, kudos to the women for coming forward with their stories. Shame on those of you who say this is unimportant because video games are just a hobby. Bringing social injustice to light is always a good thing.

#2; to those of you on the opposite extreme of the sexist jackassery that has been displayed in the comment sections of these two articles, I posit my own personal life as an argument against the concept of "privilege". I am white. I am a man. But I also have muscular dystrophy. I've never been able to walk. I am incapable of feeding myself. I have severe respiratory issues. I have never been on a date before because I have never met a woman that wanted to go out with me. I am most certainly NOT privileged. By generalizing one side of an argument, you defeat your own.

@Scrawnto said:

@GreggD said:

@Scrawnto said:

@Brodehouse Privilege isn't something that should be condemned or ashamed of, nor is it meant to imply that you were handed a wallet full of money and the keys to the world. It simply means that you haven't been subject to the conscious and unconscious discriminations that other groups of people have been. It also doesn't mean that you have suffered no prejudice yourself. Every group has both privileges and adversities, but some have it worse than others. All people are trying to say (I hope, though I could be wrong) is that you should defer to the people who have experienced a particular form of discrimination when you are specifically discussing the subjective experience of being the subject of that discrimination. However, you absolutely can and should be part of the discussion of what should be done about the discrimination.

Exactly, but I feel like some people would rather not hear our opinions in this discussion. Namely, the people throwing around the term privileged like it's a de facto thing.

I almost feel like exemption would be a more appropriate term than privilege, since it's more about the lack of a bad thing being done to you than it is an extra good thing happening.

That would probably be a better route to take, I agree.

Or rather, it would make more sense, not necessarily be better.

@GreggD said:

@Scrawnto said:

@Brodehouse Privilege isn't something that should be condemned or ashamed of, nor is it meant to imply that you were handed a wallet full of money and the keys to the world. It simply means that you haven't been subject to the conscious and unconscious discriminations that other groups of people have been. It also doesn't mean that you have suffered no prejudice yourself. Every group has both privileges and adversities, but some have it worse than others. All people are trying to say (I hope, though I could be wrong) is that you should defer to the people who have experienced a particular form of discrimination when you are specifically discussing the subjective experience of being the subject of that discrimination. However, you absolutely can and should be part of the discussion of what should be done about the discrimination.

Exactly, but I feel like some people would rather not hear our opinions in this discussion. Namely, the people throwing around the term privileged like it's a de facto thing.

It's funny to me that the privileged are the exact people who need an increase in awareness and yet they are the ones who are damned in this discussion. I mentioned this earlier but for this campaign to work honest conversations with people who the campaigners probably don't like are going to have to take place. And yet most of the campaigners in here don't want to have the conversation. So why even hide behind this idea of raising awareness? To me it looks like people want to have conversations with like-minded people and yell about how awful the 'others' are.

@JasonR86: Yeah, I mean. I dunno. It kinda feels like this has turned into a club house thing. Like if you don't meet certain criteria, then you're not welcome.

@Scrawnto: I think we might have to disagree with how people are using 'privileged'. It is clearly an insult when it is used on these forums, meant to silence and dismiss any argument ad hominem rather than speak to the argument.

I would also argue that I've never begrudged someone their feelings or their situation (and if I have, I'll apologize). I think the lady developer mistaken for a receptionist is totally valid in her offense, as would any man who is treated like a rapist primarily due to his gender... if you think 'well the man should have considered how it looked' should apply the same logic the other way. Over-representation and our human ability to recognize patterns is absolutely a grey area, but people's feelings are obviously valid. I haven't been arguing for less women working in games, or for less female characters in games (I'd say I want talent in the games industry regardless of gender, and more female protagonists primarily for diversity of experience). But I think the most important thing to guard is to make sure there aren't bad arguments being made for a good cause. Bad arguments for a good cause always hurt someone in the end. The "We Can Do Better" stuff coming out of Patrick is emblematic of a bad argument for a good cause. It promotes guilt on all men for the actions of sexist pigs, which is obviously functionality inept. Shouldn't we apply guilt to the guilty, not demand recompense from the sympathetic? The accusations of 'you have privilege, so you can't talk' is the same 'silly hysterical woman' trick that misogynists use to dismiss ethical truth being spoken by women. I think anyone who stands for equality could not in good faith deny someone's appeal to fairness on account of their gender.

There's a major issue with the way this is being discussed. People are mixing sexism within the workplace and the appearance of female character's in video games to attempt to push their own agenda on these virtual characters.

Note the giant bomb page which includes an image of DOA 5 selling character outfits, what has this at all got to do with sexism in the workplace? This is just people using the twitter thing to push their own agenda on something they don't like.

The result of such non-sense is that it is pissing off a lot of people who would normally be in agreement with their cause. If they simply left out their own personal stance on virtual characters and kept the discussion to the actual real life instances then there wouldn't be so much backlash in the comments.

Stuff like this embarrassing privilege philosophy is a prime example of why the feminist movement is so mocked. They claim to only be wanting tolerance and equality, while refusing any opposition and demonizing opposition universally simply because it's opposition.

@CommanderZx2 said:

There's a major issue with the way this is being discussed. People are mixing sexism within the workplace and the appearance of female character's in video games to attempt to push their own agenda on these virtual characters.

Note the giant bomb page which includes an image of DOA 5 selling character outfits, what has this at all got to do with sexism in the workplace? This is just people using the twitter thing to push their own agenda on something they don't like.

The result of such non-sense is that it is pissing off a lot of people who would normally be in agreement with their cause. If they simply left out their own personal stance on virtual characters and kept the discussion to the actual real life instances then there wouldn't be so much backlash in the comments.

Man, thanks for bringing this up! These are not the same issues at all. I love me some DoA5. FUCKING LOVE IT. It's totally unrelated to these workplace issues though. There's no reason we can't have games like that and treat women with respect at work at the same time.

But what if one of these women complains about the outfits or boob physics or whatever? That's a valid question you might ask, and the answer is that they're free to complain, and their complaints should be taken as seriously as any other member of the team, regardless of gender, not met with blank stares or outright dismissal.

@JasonR86: True, there is an awful lot of preaching to the choir going on, while shunning the people who need to be brought in. That's problematic for sure.

@GreggD: Yeah, it doesn't really flow well to say, "I'm exempt from random catcalls by skeezy dudes and assumptions of incompetence based on my gender and/or skin color." I don't know what would work better without all the 'privilege' baggage.

@Brodehouse: You're probably right about how people are using the word. I admit I kind of skimmed over the last few pages of this. I guess I just optimistically explained what I feel it should mean based on my understanding of the issues.

@SirGregoryEdmunson: what do you mean by opposition? i think you're making broad assumptions.

@studnoth1n said:

@SirGregoryEdmunson: what do you mean by opposition? i think you're making broad assumptions.

more like he's making some assumptions about broads.

couldn't help myself.

@Gordo789 said:

@CommanderZx2 said:

There's a major issue with the way this is being discussed. People are mixing sexism within the workplace and the appearance of female character's in video games to attempt to push their own agenda on these virtual characters.

Note the giant bomb page which includes an image of DOA 5 selling character outfits, what has this at all got to do with sexism in the workplace? This is just people using the twitter thing to push their own agenda on something they don't like.

The result of such non-sense is that it is pissing off a lot of people who would normally be in agreement with their cause. If they simply left out their own personal stance on virtual characters and kept the discussion to the actual real life instances then there wouldn't be so much backlash in the comments.

Man, thanks for bringing this up! These are not the same issues at all. I love me some DoA5. FUCKING LOVE IT. It's totally unrelated to these workplace issues though. There's no reason we can't have games like that and treat women with respect at work at the same time.

But what if one of these women complains about the outfits or boob physics or whatever? That's a valid question you might ask, and the answer is that they're free to complain, and their complaints should be taken as seriously as any other member of the team, regardless of gender, not met with blank stares or outright dismissal.

I have no idea what goes on at DOA project meetings but you can't just assume that they're outright dismissing those concerns- I bet that some team or whatever looks at all the complaints about ridiculous boobs or whatnot after every DOA release, but then figure out that the people actually buying DOA games like that shit or don't care enough to boycott the game, so it makes sense from a financial standpoint to have those characters in.

my stance is, if it works and people reach out then more power to those who benefit from it. if it doesnt then im sorry,

i just cant get over that it could be a lot worse. as again try being of indian decent in america during when 9/11 was all the business and having people treat you like dirt and label you a terrorist. and when you try to reach out for help no one helps. so forgive me if im a bit cynical on this topic. i do hope this movement works for those women though

but this is beside the point, ill let the war continue in the comments below

but @Jeff and @patrickklepek you guys seemed so bothered by americanninjas comment.

well its kinda your guys fault that he made a comment like that. you gotta realize that there is a group of your audience that you guys influence greatly to where they wanna act like you guys, so when you guys always say stuff like "o videogames", "oh cause its a videogame", "because videogames," in just the most condescending demeaning tone ever, its a no brainer to me that SOME people in the community will start copying that type of attitude.

at least thats my take on why that dude made a comment like that, he could honestly just be trolling the comments section, but hey

@Gordo789 said:

@studnoth1n said:

@SirGregoryEdmunson: what do you mean by opposition? i think you're making broad assumptions.

more like he's making some assumptions about broads.

couldn't help myself.

BA-ZING