K
kittens
Unconfirmed Member
Just saw this on Twitter and lol'd hard.
https://twitter.com/Tormny_Pickeals/status/507225083945820160
https://twitter.com/Tormny_Pickeals/status/507225083945820160
I would call it misogyny. But misogyny is too broad a term to be useful in most contexts. The "misogyny" that fuels gamergate trolls is very different than the "misogyny" that motivates Pat Robertson to tell wives to be subservient to their husbands.
My post was a thesis on the underlying motivation, conscious or unconscious, of these trolls. That necessarily humanizes them. Attack my thesis all you want, but arguing that I mean to "establish an equal sense of victimization for the unloved inhabitants of 4chan" or "sympathize with and validate their actions" is a strawman.
This is the closest I've ever seen someone come to the heart of the issue at hand as I identify it, though I find your view that "sexual entitlement" as the source for all this vitriol to lack nuance. Not to say that it isn't correct (it is), but it's missing the comprehensive assessment necessary to make total sense of online misogyny and online harassment toward women.
I think part of the reason why this (and I'll get to exactly what "this" is soon) goes completely unaddressed is because - and I must stress that I say this as a feminist - women cannot empathize with the emotional fuel that drives these trolls to do what they do.
It is a fact, one barely acknowledged, that there exists a sizable portion of the young adult heterosexual male population who go perennially or perpetually without sexual intimacy. They are involuntarily celibate. They receive no positive attention from the opposite sex. Their life is without dating and sex, when they are told that these activities are not only normal, but expected, to people of their age. They are lonely, they are miserable, and they are hurt. I'm sure everyone reading this post can think of a few men in their lives who fit this description, if they don't themselves. I disagree that their state of mind can be properly described as "sexually entitled." I would argue that such a description is insulting.
4chan's /v/ has a community much like any other gaming forum; its populated by the same type of guy who would describe himself as a "gamer." What makes /v/ unique - and all of 4chan for that matter - is that every user is by default protected under the auspices of anonymity, and that nothing he ever says can be linked to his identity or the reputation thereof. There you can easily find posts from anonymous users lamenting the paucity or absence of a romantic or sex life.
But these young men have video games. It is a male space. It is medication from the pain that consumes their lives. It is one of the few things they have that is curtailed specially toward them, something that makes them feel empowered and in control. (And I think that this is a very, very bad thing.) So when someone like Anita Sarkeesian comes along, the results should be obvious. She says that feminine tropes in video games are shameful, when these men use these same video games to escape their own shame. She says that men are privileged in society, when these men feel anything but the sort. She says that women are troublingly represented in video games, when these men feel like video games are one of, if not the only, things in life they truly own.
They see an encroachment in what is supposed to be a safe space by the very entity that brings them unrelenting pain. And so they lash out. They lash out with misogynistic, hyper-sexualized vitriol. They lash out with an intense hatred only capable of a tormented and broken psyche.
I don't think it's a coincidence that the male suicide rate has quadrupled since the advent of the sexual revolution. I don't think it's a coincidence that the incidence of mass shootings has steadily increased over the same period, nor that virtually all of them are perpetrated by lonely young men. And I don't think it's a coincidence that outspoken women, and especially feminists, experience a greater deluge of online harassment than people of any other hot button issue.
At least people seem to be aware of this last point. They recognize that feminist rhetoric riles up the internet hate machine like nothing else. But this is where the understanding stops. Their conclusion is "these men hate women," and don't go any further. Chalking it up plainly to "misogyny" is selling the issue very dangerously short.
Of course not. I don't believe there is a solution. There is no "now what?" My original post is the full extent of what I have to say on the matter.Ok, so we understand. Now what? Are you trying to say that these "outspoken feminists" need to change their behavior to avoid making the "lonely young men" change into a wrathful misogynist?
I didn't really read it that way at all. I think it's important to identify the root causes of this particular brand of misogyny. Doing that isn't excusing the behavior.
Of course I wasn't talking about everyone who plays video games.It is, as a recipient of racism this crap that is occurring to gamer's is exact same thing. if gamer's were a race this would out right racism what City of Dis wrote. Lets see "medication from the pain that consumes their lives" + "when these men use these same video games to escape their own shame" + "They lash out with an intense hatred only capable of a tormented and broken psyche". Replace gamers with skin colour of your choice.
I think many people understand why they're aggressive. The thing is it isn't relevant. Women don't have any responsibility for the frustration of straight male gamers, it's on them. Their sexuality is their own responsibility and nobody else's. And I think the comment about women not understanding it is ridiculous. Any rational person isn't going to be able to empathise with a person that both reduces them to an object and hates them for simply existing at the same time.
Of course not. I don't believe there is a solution. There is no "now what?" My original post is the full extent of what I have to say on the matter.
Someone promote Dis to proper member.
Well I think the broader nuance is that all of that is relevant, just maybe not relevant today. None of how these people got to this point excuses their behavior. But, we do live in a world where this class of violent loner is prevalent. And it's because we've built up all these structures around ridiculing male virgins and exalting playboys, it's because we make games and comics and more that depict and reinforce ownership of or entitlement to women's bodies, it's because we didn't have lunch with that weirdo in our sixth grade class.
So condemn the harassment today--because it's absolutely unacceptable--but tomorrow also give a thought to the ongoing, quiet harassment and marginalization that drove these people to become such total jerks in the first place.
I think many people understand why they're aggressive. The thing is it isn't relevant. Women don't have any responsibility for the frustration of straight male gamers, it's on them. Their sexuality is their own responsibility and nobody else's. And I think the comment about women not understanding it is ridiculous. Any rational person isn't going to be able to empathise with a person that both reduces them to an object and hates them for simply existing at the same time.
So condemn the harassment today--because it's absolutely unacceptable--but tomorrow also give a thought to the ongoing, quiet harassment and marginalization that drove these people to become such total jerks in the first place.
I agree but I wouldn't really call it quiet harrassment. A few posts above some put loney young men in quotes and that type of attitude is quite common.
I think you're treading thin ice when you caution not to use the word "misogyny" itself as though it's no longer capable of encapsulating the words and deeds of the harassers.
Whether it's an accurate summation of their perspective or not (and of course, I take issue with the assertion that women are incapable of empathizing with romantic or sexual loneliness, which is an extremely 4chan thing to say), the problem isn't that we have to solve the disenfranchisement of a bunch of sexually frustrated adolescent boys, it's that we have a patriarchal society which teaches them unconsciously that women are objects they can threaten, punish, and silence with impunity.
And while City of Dis points to games as a male space for the unloved, Anita Sarkeesian and others have been attesting to games as a media structure which communicates this idea that it's acceptable to treat people this way. And we're watching the effects of that now.
Well I think the broader nuance is that all of that is relevant, just maybe not relevant today. None of how these people got to this point excuses their behavior. But, we do live in a world where this class of violent loner is prevalent. And it's because we've built up all these structures around ridiculing male virgins and exalting playboys, it's because we make games and comics and more that depict and reinforce ownership of or entitlement to women's bodies, it's because we didn't have lunch with that weirdo in our sixth grade class.
So condemn the harassment today--because it's absolutely unacceptable--but tomorrow also give a thought to the ongoing, quiet harassment and marginalization that drove these people to become such total jerks in the first place.
That is my contention. I think you could take out every iota of patriarchal influence in today's culture, eliminate entirely the issues Anita Sarkeesian points out, and you would still have the trolling and the vitriol.
In case you haven't noticed, everyone's already tried that. They keep coming no matter what you say to them, and they will continue to do so.Why wouldn't the solution be to encourage these lonely young men not to attack a woman on the internet just because some other woman won't have sex with them?
It is, as a recipient of racism this crap that is occurring to gamer's is exact same thing. if gamer's were a race this would out right racism what City of Dis wrote. Lets see "medication from the pain that consumes their lives" + "when these men use these same video games to escape their own shame" + "They lash out with an intense hatred only capable of a tormented and broken psyche". Replace gamers with skin colour of your choice.
The Auerbach article is basically "Ether" with the enthusiast press standing in for Jay-Z. Absolutely brutal.
I'm honestly not completely convinced that misogyny is even the motivator. I think some people just derive a lot of enjoyment from annoying and upsetting other people, and one of the best ways of annoying and upsetting people is to do and say things that they think is ethically questionable.
In case you haven't noticed, everyone's already tried that. They keep coming no matter what you say to them, and they will continue to do so.
I disagree on all those points, general sweeping assumptions made on stereotypes that no way reflect whom gamer's are. Just as bad as misogyny and bigotry in gaming.
I agree but I wouldn't really call it quiet harrassment. A few posts above some put loney young men in quotes and that type of attitude is quite common.
Professional Gaming Journalism is becoming very obscure and often they are reaching for deeper meaning such as social/culture aspects in games. This is not going well as video games were never meant to be a medium for that.
See, this is the problem with City of Dis' post. Confusing being a troubled white male who isn't having enough sex with actual discrimination and oppression is a tremendously misguided road to endeavor upon, and while we may say that today's harassment is unacceptable, attempting to paint it as a byproduct of genuine of marginalization as opposed to the obscene use of force by the privileged is an insult to the people who are truly being marginalized in this situation.
Why wouldn't the solution be to encourage these lonely young men not to attack a woman on the internet just because some other woman won't have sex with them?
That is my contention. I think you could take out every iota of patriarchal influence in today's culture, eliminate entirely the issues Anita Sarkeesian points out, and you would still have the trolling and the vitriol.
I agree with your other posts, but this is a very hard prediction to make: the way we, as humans, act is of course related to our biology, but humans' evolution gave them biological structures that are influenced by memory and culture, so human behavior is much more complex than that behavior of, to say, a chicken. Sex drive is not going anywhere, like males' instinct of dominance, but still our culture, history, media, education, play a major role in the way we act, in fact actions exclusively driven by instincts are usually considered bad and are mostly punished by law. The trolling and the vitriol would probably still be there, but in a very small proportion, and their propagators would likely be rapidly punished and ostracized by the rest of the society: there would be no "factions" in this matter, but truly a few idiots that are perfectly conscious of their wrongdoing, completely bashed by any possible media outlet as serial killers or blatant racists are.That is my contention. I think you could take out every iota of patriarchal influence in today's culture, eliminate entirely the issues Anita Sarkeesian points out, and you would still have the trolling and the vitriol.
This particular article is very, very good. The author went out and actually spoke to many people who were tweeting with the #gamergate hashtag, and asked them various questions. Please, if you do nothing else before participating in this thread, read this piece.
Because it likely wouldn't work.Why wouldn't the solution be to encourage these lonely young men not to attack a woman on the internet just because some other woman won't have sex with them?
There's absolutely nothing new there. The big gaming journalism sites have been on the decline for years now and everyone knows it, and it's partly because of the faceless nature of those sites compared to Youtube/Twitch. It's just Slate repackaging that common knowledge in a clickbait headline that's very typical for that shitty publication. Games journalism will probably evolve into more personality-driven stuff, like Gamespot is trying to do now. That Slate article doesn't really add anything to the conversation that we didn't already know long before this shitstorm broke out.
David Auerbach actually does add something. He calls out the narcissistic, pseudo-analytical articles that fueled gamergate and how other journalists willingly cited them without reflection of how bad they are. Some of these articles (like the one by Dan Golding or Leigh Alexander) are somehow sacrosanct within game journalism, yet theres no reason why they should be.
Imru al-Qays;128558936 said:(Did City of Dis's post kill Gaf for a second or was that just my internet?)
The Slate article wasn't for 'you' - the Slate article was an explaination to a different and likely less-engaged audience about just how antagonistic the games media and the games consumers often are to one another. Mostly because there aren't nearly as many examples of it outside of gaming.There's absolutely nothing new there. The big gaming journalism sites have been on the decline for years now and everyone knows it, and it's partly because of the faceless nature of those sites compared to Youtube/Twitch. It's just Slate repackaging that common knowledge in a clickbait headline that's very typical for that shitty publication. Games journalism will probably evolve into more personality-driven stuff, like Gamespot is trying to do now. That Slate article doesn't really add anything to the conversation that we didn't already know long before this shitstorm broke out.
It is for a lot of the people who's abusing others online right now.
David Auerbach actually does add something. He calls out the narcissistic, pseudo-analytical articles that fueled gamergate and how other journalists willingly cited them without reflection of how bad they are. Some of these articles (like the one by Dan Golding or Leigh Alexander) are somehow sacrosanct within game journalism, yet theres no reason why they should be.
regretful if my tone alienated non-neurotypical ppl. i had a lot of challenges re social norms as a child & games were my safe place, too <3
'Non-neurotypical'?>L. Rhodes's article "To fair-minded proponents of #GamerGate": https://medium.com/@upstreamism/to-f...e-7f3ce77301bb
That's a good one.
Also noticed:
https://twitter.com/leighalexander/status/507673109705797633
>L. Rhodes's article "To fair-minded proponents of #GamerGate": https://medium.com/@upstreamism/to-f...e-7f3ce77301bb
That's a good one.
Also noticed:
https://twitter.com/leighalexander/status/507673109705797633
![]()
#notyourshield
#notyourshield
Taking a deep look into this, I am going to side with David Auerbach.
Professional Gaming Journalism is becoming very obscure and often they are reaching for deeper meaning such as social/culture aspects in games. This is not going well as video games were never meant to be a medium for that. They try to latch onto indie games for social justification such as Gone Home but thats hardly effective as its an indie developer just making games their own way and not truly expecting to produce a huge AAA hit.
Also with amatuer game reviewers and their media channels, we truly get to see an unbiased look at the video games that we get hyped about. For me its far more effective than even renting a game.
Eurogamer did a really great piece on why YouTubers, usually not having had the background in best journalistic practices, not only often have a lack of clarity on their biases but even go as far as breaking laws governing disclosure on when they're doing an ad piece. Not to say that there aren't honest youtubers out there, but I've never understood why some people seem to treat all journalists as being corrupt while YouTube is the home of Wunderkinds.
Are you looking forward to the next James Bond movies? What if someone came in and tried to change most things you enjoy about those movies to make them "more inclusive", to the point you wouldn't care about watching them anymore, would you be ok with that?
"As I said above, instead of trying to find and develop a new space, they rile against current games."
That was a good read. My favorite part was about how people responded when asked how they would achieve their goals. I feel like people like to whine about things and yell "I want thing to be better"... and then never offer up any ideas for how to actually feasibly fix a problem, which to me says that there probably isn't a realistic, feasible fix that anyone is going to bother to make. And if you aren't invested enough into something to try to make changes yourself, why should anyone else care enough to do it for you?