You want this sprawling mess in a tidy package? You can’t go wrong reading this lengthy breakdown by Kyle Wagner, who is probably now on a hate list somewhere.
One thing I particularly appreciated was the analysis of the attempt to coopt the young gaming jerk group by conservative culture warriors and anti-feminists, in particular the ridiculous Christina Hoff Sommers. Here’s the bit where he tears apart her video.
The numbers Sommers cites are well known, but instructive. Among incoming college freshmen, 65 percent of women say that they never play video games, compared with just 19 percent of men. Among hardcore gamers, just one in seven is a woman. In a breathtaking non-sequitur, Sommers argues from these numbers that including fewer sexy women in games and fewer instances of violence and indifference toward women will not make men less sexist, in the same way that violence in games has not been shown to correlate with violent crime. We can pass over the misstep of comparing an active and aberrant behavior (committing a violent crime) with a passive attitude (viewing women as sex objects instead of fleshed-out human beings); that’s wrongheaded, but it’s not the main problem here. Neither is the hand-waving at "cherry picking" sexist games without offering even ballpark statistics, an argument that can be boiled down to #notallvideogames.
The real problem is her claim that because girls don’t play games anyway, and boys do, it’s only natural that game makers would tend to include sexy women in their products. This launches fundamental economic precepts so directly into the sun that it cannot be accidental. You’ve got a growing base of women playing games and evidence that college women aren’t playing games at the same rate as men; that’s evidence of a massive untapped body of game players who should be catered to directly, not that gaming should run far and fast back the way it came and hope the girls never find it. This is the shallow reasoning that allows arguments like, "Duh, video games are a business" to fester in comment sections. Of course they’re a business—and this is bad business by any measure.
Sommers’s concern trolling ought to be beside the point—this is just not a credible argument in any way, flatly, obviously, right-there-on-the-surface. But it’s taken seriously—proudly, even—because the credibility of an argument or its source isn’t the point, in the way it’s not the point of a Marine Todd chain letter. The only point of propaganda is that someone with a veneer of credibility is saying it, and that the people who want to agree are able to do so, thus ratifying and reinforcing the ideals of the group.
That’s the thing — you can’t tout Glorious Capitalism and then ignore the Giant Invisible Hand pointing insistently at the untapped market of women who play games, but there was Sommers, doing exactly that for the AEI. But never mind the inconsistency, she helped grab a collection of oblivious potential middle class voters and convince them that conservative values will help them…the same thing they did to win over the religious right, getting them to actively assist in undermining their own class.
Imagine you have a product that has fully penetrated a market demographic to the point where they’re basically a captive audience. Now, you want to grow your business. Do you saturate the already saturated market demographic, or do you retool your product line to appeal to a broader range of demographics?
In the games business, there’s a huge underexploited* demographic. Common sense dictates that publishers should go after that market segment, and go after it hard. Of course, that would involve actually understanding the market segment, and not making broad assumptions based on the one time you talked to a girl for five minutes in an elevator before she maced you and ran screaming for reasons you’re too dense to comprehend.
* Well, they’re exploited IN the games, but their wallets are left untouched
But….girls have cooties!
The more I read about it, the more the obliviousness of the people insisting “GamerGate” is not about misogyny. I just read this just now: Gamergate Supporters Harass Woman to Prove They Don’t Harass Women
Elsewhere in the article:
Not likely.
In a way, it’s very evolutionary (not a perfect analogy, of course, but follow along). There’s an unoccupied niche, so whoever first expands into it will have a great chance for huge growth with little competition. If done properly, such a company could establish itself firmly by the time anyone else gets in on it and secure a long-term market share.
Meanwhile, the established companies that control the old market will be so well adapted to that niche that they have to overcome a lot of inertia to move into the new ground. As a result, the new market will likely be dominated by smaller companies, which otherwise face stiff competition in the old market. They have less motivation to stay in the old market and more flexibility to make the shift to the new.
Whoever first jumps on this boat and does it right will end up as the next Blizzard.
You know that gamergate was never, ever about anything but misogyny because their pretend reason, “ethics in gaming journalism” is bullshit. We know it’s bullshit because if that had ever been what it was about, THEY WOULD BE GOING AFTER THE JOURNALISTS, NOT THE DEVELOPERS.
If you see biased reporting in a newspaper, you question the reporter on their ethics. You don’t question the person they interviewed or wrote about. The ethical issue is with the reporter. As far as I can tell, the ‘gater’s have targeted one journalist, and that was the guy who supposedly slept with Zoe Quinn but then never wrote about her game.
That’s not what “invisible hand” means. I agree completely with what you’re saying, but just as you (rightly) criticise non-biologists for misusing the technical terms of biology, you shouldn’t misuse the technical terms of other fields.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/09/08/adam-smiths-invisible-hand-and-low-retail-interest-in-alibabas-ipo/
“Duh, video games are a business” As are drug cartels and sex slavery among others.
My experience is that many women begin playing games in college because they’re hanging around with more guys who play games. Citing incoming freshman and extending that to college students doesn’t make any sense to me.
The Wii, back in 2006, demonstrated that there are untapped markets out there. That’s not really up for debate anymore. They completely crushed their competition with marketing targeting families, kids, and the elderly, as well as fun, family-friendly games.
Unfortunately any plank extended in an attempt to reach that boat is immediately set on fire.
We know it’s bullshit because they never went after the collusion between AAA companies and the gaming press: they’re not only misogynists: they’re also the lackeys of the decadent de facto aristocracy lording over the industry.
@6 DRST.
Not exactly. What happened was the journalist — unhappy that Quin broke up with him — sicced the gamer community on her.
Far from being a “target”, he was on the other end of the rifle, using gamers as ammunition against her. And it worked.
#7 – OptimalCynic
Calling the “Invisible Hand” a “technical term” is hilarious at best.
I do like, however, that you provide a link that completely undermines your argument. As the Forbes article mentions, the original usage of the phrase Invisible Hand by Adam Smith has nothing to do with how it is interpreted by economists or lay people today. In addition, the article mentions at least 3 different interpretations/definitions that are used today.
Just proving that there is no technical definition for it, and furthermore, it’s original definition has little to do with its current colloquial usage.
PZ uses it in its colloquial sense, and is absolutely correct to do so. Your chiding him for using it the way economists and lay people use it today and not using it the way it was intended in a throwaway line in a centuries old book is rather silly.
#13 – VP
Isn’t that the “evolution is just a theory” argument that creationists use? Economists don’t use “invisible hand” to describe market forces.
It reminds me of the utter ineffectiveness of MRA types in actually helping with men’s issues and concerns. But when many of the people flying under the #GamerGate banner are the same people, perhaps that is not surprising. There are plenty of people out there that have been trying to investigate and bring people’s attention to ethical issues surrounding the behaviour of game companies, journalists, and YouTubers, but instead of supporting them many GGers have felt the need to heap abuse on them.
Not sure that’s really relevant, except as a reinforcement of my point: Established companies have to worry about the dudebro reaction and so will be slow to occupy the available market space. However, smaller companies, who not already heavily invested in the male market can afford to just not give a shit and pander exclusively to young women. There’s enough of them out there, with enough disposable income, that a company doesn’t actually need to compete for the already over-saturated male demographic.
It’s just a matter of time before somebody realizes that making games for women is going to make them millionaires. From there on, it’s just dominoes falling down.
Obviously chick dollars are worth less than dude dollars.
@12 I didn’t think the ex-boyfriend who whined about her was the journalist. I thought the ex-boyfriend was throwing a hissy fit because she may, after dumping his worthless ass, possibly have slept with someone else who might have been a journalist who didn’t actually review her game.
@16 Especially if they make games that are *good* games and not games about makeup or dating or stereotypically feminine games, but merely good games that don’t include negative sexist tropes, and then not only will women be buying them, but chances are a fair number of male gamers who just like good games.
Optimal Cynic@14:
PZ is using it the exact same way Adam Smith did: as a metaphor for price signaling in a market.
Here’s the first of Adam Smith’s invisible hand quotes:
The entire article is excellent. Moar snippets:
And this part near the end is a nice summary:
If atheism were to do a movie about Gamergate, the slymepit would play the part of Reddit and Dawkins would be starred as Adam Baldwin. Hoff Sommers would play herself.
LykeX @ 16:
I was, indeed, trying to reinforce your point while also bringing up a different aspect of the problem.
Let me see if I can explain where I was coming from with that comment…
Making a good game and marketing a game are two different things. You can have the most awesomest greatest game evah, but if no one knows about it you got nothing. There is a huge untapped market out there (i.e. your boat) but how do you reach them? The current major marketing angles are dominated by dudebros selling to dudebros and woe to anyone that tries to change that. (i.e. my plank) No only do the developers need to change, but the entire marketing apparatus needs to change too.
not sure if that clears it up or not. need more coffee.
Blake Stacy @4
Here’s what I notice about #notyourshield. I don’t want to tell women and minorities when they are supposed to be offended, or disregard their experiences. But I don’t understand the metaphor of the shield. How are “SJW”s using them as shields?
What’s even more odd is that pro-GamerGate dudes keep bringing up the hashtag in order to deflect criticism. In essence, they are using #Notyourshield as a metaphorical shield in argument.
It just boggles my mind, really.
@ 17, Moggie
Well, yeah, chick dollars are only worth $.78 of dude dollars…see, it makes perfect sense.
@gmacs
It’s easier if you understand that #notyourshield is full of sockpuppets impersonating bad stereotypes of minorities. It’s another 4/8chan astroturf.
gmacs
Because those assholes are acting as if SJW’s are doing the same thing they do: using minority people as a tool. For them it’s for not being racist, sexist, etc. since their “black/woman friends agree with me” and SJW’s use them to say “I’m not racist because I agree with black people”. To them SJW’s are both white knighting for people who don’t want to be defended and using them as a weapon. Thus, getting minorities on their side is a game to win because without uppity minorities and those filled with white and male shame who side against their own interests the problem will go away. Because being vocal about equality and diversity is the problem.
vaiyt
True and this can’t be re-stated enough. But there are minorities who don’t think there’s a problem (my Roomie being one of them) so I was trying to explain the reasoning behind the thought that getting all the minorities to shut up about the problems would make the problems go away.
Me #28
Sorry, let me clarify that bit about my Roomie. He’s black and doesn’t have a problem with how most games are white or how little representation there is outside of white men. He understand that other POC want it but doesn’t fight for it and just ignores the racism he faces in online gaming. He definitely has a problem with the threats and #GamerGate as a whole and agrees it’s misogynist.
When the Invisible Hand flips you off, you don’t know until it’s too late.
This has been Deep Thoughts with Unknown Eric.
Speaking as a game developer, I say the same thing that I posted on Ophelia’s FB the other day.
We devs have a very specific remit: to turn a profit. We do so by making our games as joyful as possible, as accessible as possible, and open to as wide an audience as possible. We do not narrowcast, we do not exclude, we encourage everyone to play and have fun. I’m not allowed to speak on behalf of my employer, but this accurately summarises my mission.
In my view, anyone who wishes to restrict our audience, to drive custom away, to turn it into a club for the like-minded, can get lost.
Gamergate has upset me so much, but it gives me hope to see so many mainstream news articles which are so on point about it. Like Deadspin, that’s a sports news site.
#notyourshield is another #endfathersday. At this point, anyone that gets taken in by the scam is a willing dupe.
leebrimmicombe-woode@31:
Turning a profit is what the execs care about. The whole team is involved, but generally the devs I know care more about the art and technology for its own sake (granted, as an indy dev I get to be both a exec and a dev).
When I argue on mercantile grounds that we should make our app more inclusive it’s that I’ve given up on my interlocutor having any moral fiber of his own.
Stats like these drive me mad. Why cherry-pick such a specific segment of gamers? I mean, I know why, but c’mon… From http://www.theesa.com/facts/gameplayer.asp :
Because it makes her side look more relevant, of course!
just like the teapartiers are.
coincidence?
doubtful.
@Ichthyic #37.
Preservation of privilege is a huge motivator to fight against anybody that even mentions the existence of the privilege in the first place.
I’m actually kind of optimistic these days about how it’s going with Gamergate. Once mainstream media outlets started talking about it the backlash was swift and vocal. It seems Gamergaters are the only people who can’t see what a vile, dishonest and deluded pile of crap their movement is. I think this may mean that society actually is moving in the right direction despite the best (worst?) efforts of evil people after all.
numerobis @34
And oddly enough many devs care about it too. It’s not a zero sum game where we can only care about one thing. I’m rather focussed on keeping my studio alive as well as trying to craft the best game experience I can.
There’s more. Revenue corresponds to popularity. And who doesn’t want their product to be popular?
I think the comparison has some merit – just like the existence of violent videogames doesn’t create a highly violent player base*, so sexist games don’t create overtly sexist players. I don’t even think videogames make men consider their women-friends sex objects: it’s much more subtle than that. A person who consciously accepts basic feminist principles of equality and wants to engage in relationships where women are treated as equals, is still influenced by gender bias. If videogames are part of a culture that reinforces gender stereotypes, then the greatest harm it does is by making otherwise good intentioned people unconsciously treat women (and men) through the lense of gender bias. Just take “mansplaining” or talking over women in conversations: it’s something even feminist men have to watch out for and a trap and barrier to communication that even loving and committed partners fall into.
Perhaps violence in videogames tends to make people treat media coverage of overseas wars and death tolls as “just numbers”. Similarly sexism in videogames may tend to make people treat women’s rights issues as “just hormones” or “bitch be crazy” or “why’s she complaining she so hot?”. Subconscious bias concerning the violence of war doesn’t affect most Westerners, but gender stereotypes shape our everyday lives whether we want it or not.
*I’ve always played violent games in a “pretend the characters are real people” mode, which is why I always get disapointed at games that only allow violence. Thief was a great game, allowing non-violent takedowns and stealth, I completed the first and second games without a single human kill, while still feeling a bit sad at having to kill some non-human enemies. Occasionally feeling frustration at not being able to play one-track violent videogames the way I want is feels like a fraction of what women and others feel when wanting to play sexist videogames.. as their own gender, without having to dodge gender stereotypes at every turn. Or not being ABLE to play the game without accepting boilerplate gender essentialism (the Multiple Shitty Sexist Choice™ game model).
Even in cases when “privilege” basically means “being a House Servant rather than a serf“
Also, if that statistic CHS cherry picked shows anything then it’s that there’s a population of young men who have a serious gaming problem, i.e. spending way too much time playing video games. IIRC the “hardcore gamer” was defined as 20+ hours a week. But we all know that when those 20+m hours a week gamer dudes fail college and get bad grades it’s the educational system being misandrist…
” The only point of propaganda is that someone with a veneer of credibility is saying it, and that the people who want to agree are able to do so, thus ratifying and reinforcing the ideals of the group.”
This x infinity. The GOP has learned this lesson very, very well, and the media plays right in to their hands. I remember watching the movie Network when it was first released. (Yes, I am that old, thank you!) I recall thinking at the time how prophetic it was, and imagine my complete lack of surprise, some years later, that the prophecy had come true. CBS, ABC, NBC, and most certainly, FOX exist as profit centers for their corporate overlords. News is only “news” if it is approved by the “suits.” It is a shame, for sure.
PZ wrote:
Well, Amanda Marcotte figured that out weeks ago. It’s only become more obvious since then. I suppose it’s good that a man is pointing this out now, too, but…
Game companies are already targeting games to a wider audience, because they want to make money. Even with AAA titles. Is it universal and commonplace? No, because there’s still a ridiculous level of dudebro-ery in the game making part of the industry. But it’s there, and it’s getting bigger, because the other thing about a big market is consumer choice. It isn’t the case anymore that there are only a handful of games on the market and if one is sexist, too bad because that’s all you get. Now if a game pisses off women, say, or is hugely racist, people will talk about it, and a lot of people will say “hey, I can spend my money elsewhere.” FFS, Saints Row 4, which is hardly a socially redeeming game, is set up so that thTe game is exactly the same depending on whether you play Generic White Dude or a fat African-American lesbian. When a player whined that the latest Dragon Age had a gay romance and ethnic female NPCs, the lead writer for the property publicly told him to fuck off if he didn’t like it.
And that’s why these fools are so noisy and violent. It’s an extinction burst.
Ok, got a bit of time, so let’s jump back into the muck and see what’s been happening lately.
The article itself? Contained absolutely nothing new. The same arguments, the same assertions, the only difference being a modulation in style. It begins reasonable enough, with a somewhat well put together summary of events . . . but data interpretation is where things begin to go terribly wrong.
The second paragraph in particular is instructive.
So here the author himself have listed 4 groups within GamerGate that he could think of.
1. Conspiracy theorists.
2. Advocate for ethics in gaming journalism.
3. Opportunistic misogynists.
4. Organized harassers.
It’s an adequate paragraph. It captures some of the groups within GamerGate, to the limit of the author’s own preconceptions. Yet, immediately after, the author zeroes in on the narrowest and most extreme subsets, and treat it as representative of GamerGate. Immediately after the enumeration of the four groups, of which 3 and 4 are explicitly stated to be narrow and small, the author then concludes that GamerGate is and should be defined as 3 and 4, by way of assertion that of course it is true.
This is patently ridiculous, yet is taken as self-evident by many here and many opponents of GamerGate.
To demonstrate the utter inanity in that argument, let us think of another group with fringe elements that are minor in numbers comparatively yet loud in volume. Given current events, I am of course speaking of the Muslim community.
How many here thinks Al Qaeda defines the Muslim community? How many here thinks ISIS defines the Muslim community?
How many people here thinks that the horrendous acts of violence, murder, and rape is what it means to be a Muslim?
How many people here thinks that all Muslim share the culpability of those acts of utter brutality and devastation? Of the beheadings, of the beatings, of the stoning?
The answer should be zero. It’s ridiculous to hold the actions of Muslim extremists, of Muslim terrorists, against the general Muslim community. This couldn’t be any more clear.
And yet, when it comes to GamerGate, suddenly the sheer volume of its extremists means that all members of the group support the message of those few. Suddenly, the sheer vitriol generated by its extremists renders any and all association with the GamerGate identifier as harmful and toxic.
If you speak out against harassment, but use #GamerGate, this means you support harassment.
If you speak out against bullying, but use #GamerGate, this means you support bullying.
If you speak out against threats of violence, threats of death, threats of rape, this means you support threats of violence, threats of death, and threats of rape.
If you speak out against misogyny and sexism, but use #GamerGate, this means you support misogyny and sexism.
In essence, any and all actions you do, so as long as you use #GamerGate, is taken as evidence against you, is rationalized somehow someway as proof of your sexism, as proof of your misogyny, as proof that you are an anti-feminist, as proof that you are a bully, as proof that you are deluded, as proof that you are a fool, as proof that you are a liar, as proof that you are only putting on a facade, as a cover as a tool as an excuse as x as y as z —
As iron-clad irrefutable written in stone proof, of your terrible thoughts of your terrible beliefs of your terrible deeds.
And this is just ridiculous. What’s so easily seen in the case of the Muslim community should be just as visible in any community, in any group, and yet somehow it is invisible now, as if blinders are raised the minute GamerGate is seen.
And nowhere is this more evident than within #Notyourshield.
There have been multiple posts asking for the purpose behind #Notyourshield, multiple posts with the conclusion that #Notyourshield is, unironically, a shield that GamerGate use to guard against criticism, multiple posts that express a disbelief in its authenticity, who doubt the people within the hashtag, who dismisses out of hand the experience of the many many many individuals within the tag, decrying them as merely sockpuppets impersonating bad stereotypes of minorities, who essentially misses the entire damn point of #Notyourshield and unequivocally justifies its existence.
So, what is #Notyourshield?
A response against the tirade of gross generalization that gamers are white heterosexual middle class males. As a way of showing that yes, minorities do exists within the gaming community, that yes, minorities do identify themselves as gamers, and that no, they’re not white heterosexual men.
And what is the response to #Notyourshield? @vaiyt #26 is illustrative.
The response from the people who should know better, the people who should know damn well better, is one of contempt and disbelief.
What the heck.
Imitation of bad stereotypes? Does this look like such an imitation?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7FqXi7SydA
A quick search of the hashtag itself, just now, gives the faces of #Notyourshield:
https://twitter.com/GintaxAlviss/status/523308484729663488
https://twitter.com/georgieonthego/status/522310438629830656
These are the sockpuppets. These are the people dismissed. These are the people who don’t exist. These are the white males we’ve been looking for.
And *that*, is why #Notyourshield exists.
@47 I’ll extend you the benefit of the doubt that you haven’t seen the reporting on the IRC logs .
If you genuinely care about the purported aims of this movement, I sincerely wonder where you were during the Gerstmann firing, Doritogate, or the Lauren Wainwright dustup.
Extending the example: Frank is very concerned with corruption on Wall Street. Frank came to this realization by reading Protocols of the Elders of Zion and feels it made some good points except for the anti-semitism. Can you see how this utterly undermines any position Frank may take?
Odds are that either 1) you’ve been tricked into marching under the banner of monsters or 2) are willingly marching under the banner of monsters and attempting to deflect and derail the discussion. Again, I’m willing to extend you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is naivety.
Unevidenced assertions, dismissed without evidence.
And your EVIDENCED point is????
@ansatz
#GamerGate was FOUNDED by those “fringe elements”. They’re in your movement, leading and dictating the tone. We know because every big “Operation” #gamergate has executed so far consists on either harassing women, or trying to pressure video game publications into silencing people you dislike. We know because every manifesto vomited forth by your mob so far has struck the same chord – SJWs wanna take away my vidya, gamer smash! That’s the only “corruption” you seem to care about because a hack from a looney tunes site of conspiracy theorists managed to convince you that there’s a Vast collusion of feminists aiming to make all games conform to the radical notion that women are people. (LE GASP) The #gamergate notion of ethics in journalism is laughable and unlike anything I’ve seen in communications college.
This. Shit. Is. All. Documented.
We can also see the forefront of the movement is still populated by reactionaries, authoritarians and known anti-feminists; more keep joining and getting their voices echoed by the masses.
https://storify.com/x_glitch/when-the-gamergate-mob-targeted-anil-dash-for-no-r?utm_campaign=&utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=sfy.co-twitter&utm_content=storify-pingback&awesm=sfy.co_dvdf
Grudgy asshole with ties with A Voice For Men sics the #GG horde on a guy who has nothing to do with games journalism. For an amorphous, leaderless movement, you’re awfully good at marching in lockstep with bigots.
Same guy gets invited by #gaters to do some research on what the movement is Really About. Here’s what he finds out.
I hope I don’t have to explain why this is bullshit.
vaiyt, #53
You sure don’t.
I love the use of the phrase free of politics to disguise sexism and marginalization of women.
Is that a new tactic? First time I’m seeing it.
Saad wrote:
Not exactly. It seems to be a variation of the complaints about politicising a tragedy. The aim of this turn of phrase tends to be identical to the other: “Stop talking about this!”