kidkarolus

I would argue that the anti-GG side is far more political than the GG side. I would challenge @patrickklepek to read the following http://www.popehat.com/2014/10/21/gamer-gate-three-stages-to-obit/ as a counterpoint to the VOX article. That is, GamerGate is a reaction, for good or for ill. If you would like a more even handed approach, Ken (of the same site) is spot on: http://www.popehat.com/2014/10/26/ten-short-rants-about-gamergate/.

I would caution against using people or organizations implicated in the scandal. It seems to me like cultivating an echo chamber as opposed to facilitating debate. Also, on a personal note, I would urge you to remember that the idea that "the personal is political" is not the opinion of most members of GamerGate. Indeed, many in the movement reject that idea all together as an outside notion, imported from feminism (see Sargon of Akkad for examples of this).

@marokai said:

I would argue that many of the words you highlighted don't have any place in an academic or critical sphere. Gaze theory, for example, has undergone drastic changes since its inception in the 70s and it is held by some feminists that one can gaze while recognizing the humanity of the individual subject to the gaze. Patriarchy is also subject to debate; some believe that it is the construct of any hetero-normative society, while others think it applies exclusively to certain cultural groups like those in India or China. Ultimately, as a philosopher, there is a lack of firm definition for many of these terms. That makes them unhelpful in any analysis, critical or otherwise.

It may be your personal opinion that things like Bayonetta demean females, but that should be based on well reasoned argument, not knee-jerk reaction and poorly defined concepts such as gaze theory or patriarchy.

I would say that he is speaking specifically to a group of women, feminists. That means the writer is a bigot, certainly, but not a misogynist. He is intolerant of feminists to be sure, but nothing there suggests he hates, mistrusts, dislikes or mistreats women, just feminist women. Granted, that may be a purely semantic argument, but i think the distinction is important.

I was drawing a parallel between social movements and this particular movement, but challenge accepted. Do you claim that journalistic integrity is a bad thing? How about unbiased reporting? Is wanting to see journalists apologize for deliberately spreading misinformation and harming individuals and organizations ignoble?

I would say that is fighting for a just cause. So you have said that, because these groups fought for more profound freedoms, literal terrorism is ok, but because GGers want to see change in an industry, no amount of threats and harassment is ok? Is that your claim, because I think few people would find that position attractive.

Are you saying that because you approve of those particular goals, and means justifies that end?

I would also point out that Intel pulling advertising on any site is no small deal, but that is just my personal opinion.

I agree, but again advise caution. The writers are journalists and their friends, colleagues and co-workers are being accused of a breach of journalistic integrity. Indeed, some GGers are calling for a purge of the gaming press all together, throw the baby out with the bathwater, so-to-speak. I would like to see more moderate pieces, but understand why GB and other outlets resist the movement so strongly.

Still I think a civil discussion is warranted and appropriate. I would like to see a thread opened to this topic that is relatively less moderated here on GB (so it isn't a drain on staff and moderator time), but understand why @rorie has taken this stance.

I certainly appreciate his efforts and the modicum of civility preserved within this forum.

That isn't misogyny, no matter how you spin it. If people hate one woman, that is not misogyny; the definition says ambiguously: "women" not "a woman". If you are to say they are equivalent, any harassment of a man is driven by misandry. I think people would be hard pressed to call anyone who has criticized a male a misandrist.

To anyone reading this. Be careful and critical when classifying GamerGate. I would compare it to any other social movements in terms of composition. Remember the Civil Rights Movement had the Black Panthers; the Irish Freedom Movement had the IRA; the Zionist movement had the Irgun, the Lehi, the Haganah and the Palmach. Social movements tend to attract both positive as wells as negative members of society in general and the particular community in specific.

So, I am going to call you out, and I appologize for that but where is there "aspects of the culture [that] are indeed unambiguously misogynistic". Remember, by the dictionary's own definition, misogyny is: 1. hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women. Keep in mind this is all women, so a particular woman who is reviled is not sufficient.

Ah. Now you misrepresented my statement. Patrick said, and I referred to, harassment. Now, if only death and bomb threats constitute legitimate harassment, then we can consider the Escapist articles credible. So if you want examples of harassment, Ms. Quinn "ddos'ed someone by accident", Ms. Alexander "boys, you've been making juvenile treehouse shit", and Ms. Wu "you fucking gross aspie".

@dogma said:

But the difference is that Ms. Sommers does not claim to be a gamer, which Ms. Sarkeesian does. Ms. Sarkeesian misrepresented herself for convenience. If Ms. Sommers did the same, her video would be taken as seriously I think.

But, assume that it doesn't matter whether or not Ms. Sarkeesian is a gamer. Then I would discredit her for her poorly constructed arguments, her examples admittedly taken out of context, and the fact that, by her own admission, she has started with a premise and found examples to support it. I have not seen good citations for her examples and she has failed to "prove" anything.

That is insidious Patrick and you know it. Anti-GGers have harassed gamers including Ms. Alexander, Ms. Quinn and even Ms. Wu. So by your logic, none of those sources are credible.

A number of their complaints have been substantiated as well. Press has personally financially supported Developers. Developers and Press have had relationships far closer than journalistic integrity should dictate. Hell, GamesJurnosPros is a facsimile of the JournoList. There is a real narrative being built that gaming websites are corrupt, and GG is asking for an end to that. I think they have blown the whole thing out of proportion, but to have the audacity to claim GamerGate: couldn't articulate beyond "don't criticize games in a way I don't like them being criticized."" is just false and you know it.

I am not attacking anyone. I am saying that she is misrepresenting herself if this is true. So she called herself a gamer, but she isn't. That doesn't bother me. What bothers me is the same thing that bothered KiteTails (you may or may not remember linking to her response video). I think her argument are mired in deliberate misinformation and misrepresentation. Indeed, she uses the same logic that Jack Thompson did, that is "in video games you do x and are more likely to do x in real life". For Thompson it was violence and for Ms. Sarkeesian it is misogyny.