Andrew Sullivan commits a classic rhetorical error.
So let me make a few limited points. The tactics of harassment, threats of violence, foul misogyny, and stalking have absolutely no legitimate place in any discourse. Having read about what has happened to several women, who have merely dared to exercise their First Amendment rights, I can only say it’s been one of those rare stories that still has the capacity to shock me. I know it isn’t fair to tarnish an entire tendency with this kind of extremism, but the fact that this tactic seemed to be the first thing that some gamergate advocates deployed should send off some red flashing lights as to the culture it is defending.
All well and good, but…there’s a “but” coming. It doesn’t really need to be a “but”. And unfortunately, Sullivan throws out a real stinker of a “but”.
Second, there’s a missing piece of logic, so far as I have managed to discern, in the gamergate campaign. The argument seems to be that some feminists are attempting to police or control a hyper-male culture of violence, speed, competition and boobage. And in so far as that might be the case, my sympathies do indeed lie with the gamers. The creeping misandry in a lot of current debates – see “Affirmative Consent” and “Check Your Privilege” – and the easy prejudices that define white and male and young as suspect identities (because sexism!) rightly offend many men (and women).
There’s an atmosphere in which it has somehow become problematic to have a classic white, straight male identity, and a lot that goes with it. I’m not really a part of that general culture – indifferent to boobage, as I am, and bored by violence. But I don’t see why it cannot have a place in the world. I believe in the flourishing of all sorts of cultures and subcultures and have long been repulsed by the nannies and busybodies who want to police them – whether from the social right or the feminist left.
MISANDRY!
Now why wouldn’t anyone want to tone down a culture of violence? And while boobs are lovely, why shouldn’t people keep in mind that they are attached to human beings? This is a very peculiar argument, to suggest that it would be a bad thing to discourage violence and sexism…or at least, to keep it confined to fantasy worlds.
And there’s something even more appalling here. Look what Sullivan unthinkingly does: a culture of “violence, speed, competition and boobage” is “hyper-male”. Expecting affirmative consent and that we all recognize our cultural advantages is “misandry”. And somehow all of these things are tangled up in the “classic white, straight male identity”.
I am a “classic white, straight male”. I think I’m offended that Sullivan believes that I’m supposed to embrace the assholishness of the gamergaters, that somehow my sex and sexual orientation and skin color should make me find common cause with a mob of smug jerks who find amusement in disparaging and objectifying women. I’ve got news for Sullivan: that crap doesn’t go with my identity. The idea that sexism is part of the classic white, straight male identity is a perfect example of the toxic masculinity that feminists have been deploring.
Not to mention affirmative consent can go both ways. Sex for those who enjoy it, if they are not selfish assholes, is much much better if both people involved in it are wanting to do it (not just willing, or resigned, but ‘hell yeah’). And the MRA types are quite willing to bring out situations where men have been coerced to have sex when they don’t want to because misandry, so why aren’t they on board with the idea that both parties should be happy to consent to this (whether verbal or body language because there are other ways of expressing consent than a fucking signed waiver in interpersonal communications). Could it be because they want to be the only ones with the veto? Fuck that!
Geez, maybe it’s because said identity is based on pissing on the fun of just about everyone else? Mr. Sullivan, so full of concerns and boo-hoo pity for the feelings of poor angry entitled nerds, thinks that consent is misandry! Fuck him.
If feminists described white, straight male culture in the terms Sullivan uses, he’d probably accuse us of misandry for that instead. And it’s rare to see a white leader agree that white culture is inherently violent.
What the hell is misandrist about affirmative consent?!
The classic white, straight male identity is one of distilled entitlement. What’s really happening is that straight, white men are losing just enough power that they can’t wholly monopolize all the qualities that they take pride in, and certain qualities are no longer acknowledged by others to be superior. It’s an identity that’s becoming “only” just as good as any other, and maybe a little worse because of the excessive entitlement.
And yet despite being “swamped with revulsion”, the rest of the article is all about the horrible horrible bullying that journalists are heaping upon gamers, ending with this:
“… it’s tone…”
[eye twitch]
So obviously it have been so much better to respond to the people sending death threats *politely*.
…
I’d love to give gamergate the benefit of the doubt, I really would. I have a close friend who bought into it, and I’m a gamer myself. I *understand* how defensive they can be, and I even understand that defensiveness.
But nothing can change the fact that it’s a movement the drove people out of their homes, gave a platform to some of the most vile pieces of crap imaginable, and likely set back the normalisation of game culture by *years*.
Fuck gamergate.
But Actually It’s About Ethics In Games Journalism.
Gamergate got the Colbert treatment last night. He even had Anita Sarkeesian on the show.
He thinks these men are justified in being angry over efforts to ensure sexual interactions between individuals are consensual?
He thinks “Hey you’ve got it good in this area. Please recognize that not everyone else does.” is grounds for justifiable offense?
Well damn. I was going to comment over there, but that’s apparently not possible.
I’m so fucking over crying MISANDRY at the merest suggestion that it’s good to:
1) Make sure a person wants to fuck before you put your bits in their bits or
2) Consider the possibility that there are perspectives other than your own which matter.
But what about the menz is a crappy argument, but I’m not shocked to hear Mr Sullivan make crappy arguments that are based in opinion rather than fact. It still doesn’t address the actual problem that the feminists keep pointing out, which is the rampant sexist violence perpetrated on women in games both as formal parts of the game, and the behavior that is directed at women in gaming. His disingenuous comment about boobage ranks right up there on the degrading shit men say about womens bodies scale. How lovely that he assumes that leering at women is just perfectly harmless natural behavior that hetero men engage in. What a smug asshole.
Sven @4:
And why does Sullivan think Affirmative Consent only applies to heterosexual relationships?
*gag*
Sven @ 4
If you have to explicitly ask for consent, there’s a chance the person will say “no” which makes it a lot harder to rationalize that you really thought she was into it. Or that your friend really thought she was into it. Or that you’ll have to just not have sex this time. It’s as if not having sex doesn’t even occur to these dudes as an option.
I’m too a “classic white, straight male”. I feel empowered by feminism.
“The argument seems to be that some feminists are attempting to police or control a hyper-male culture of violence, speed, competition and boobage. ”
Wait, I thought it was about ethics in gaming journalism?
aceoaces, it is, as long as you define “ethical” as “never says anything I don’t want to hear.”
“The argument seems to be that some feminists are attempting to police or control a hyper-male culture of violence, speed, competition and boobage. ”
So criticism = police/control.
Because if someone says, “hey, maybe if you made games that weren’t full of sexist clichés, a wider variety of people might want to play them,” then that’s precisely the same as if they said, “I want to pass laws that would ban anyone from ever making a gave you like again.” Those two statements are obviously equivalent, right?
Well, Sullivan is making all kinds of new friends this week.
He just said that he thinks the Matthew Shepard killing wasn’t because he was gay, and accused the Matthew Shepard Foundation and the Human Rights Campaign of “smearing” the author of a book claiming it was just drug-related.
http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2014/10/sullivan-backs-matthew-shepard-truthers.html#disqus_thread
throwaway, never proofreads, every post a gamble
I was all upset that I missed it but then it came on with perfect timing. :) Now he’s got Jill L[something], author of The Secret History of Wonder Woman on. Very interesting. I’ll have to look into that.
Sullivan likes to periodically remind everyone what an asshole he is. For the same reason he keeps defending “The Bell Curve”.
Jafafa @19:
Thanks for that link. By Odin, I didn’t think my disdain for Sullivan could drop any further.
The way these people define maleness and masculinity is fucking offensive and sick…Go join a band of chimps if violence and dominance is what you are all about…leave the rest of us humans to use our brains to keep working on being something better than that pathetic picture…
Seriously, how the fuck do these people dare whine (mistakenly) about misandry when they are the ones being so profoundly misandrist and dehumanizing towards men (let alone women…). Do they hate humans or something? Because i have a MUCH higher opinion of men and people in general which is precisely why i want things to get better.
Andrew Sullivan, famous for rendering idiotic opinions in awful prose. Why does anyone pay attention to him? Why does he have a platform? At least most of the right wing idiots are good at propaganda. Essays written by high school sophomores are less obviously desperate to sound intelligent than Sullivan.
You can see the Colbert report featuring Anita Sarkeesian at the mary sue Mr Colbert declares himself a feminist and shakes Ms Sarkeesians hand. If you listen very carefully, you can almost hear all the misogynists tiny little heads exploding.. I hope Anita and Zoe Quinn continue to ruin gaming forever. It is sad they have had to endure such a torrent of hatred, but it is pretty great to see the gaters get mocked on national TV. I think the feminists have already succeeded in changing the video game industry.
“The argument seems to be that some feminists are attempting to police or control a hyper-male culture of violence, speed, competition and boobage. And in so far as that might be the case, my sympathies do indeed lie with the gamers.”
Did he just speak in favor of the culture of violence etc. … ???
The BBC has been talking to Zoe Quinn, and promises to publish an extended interview with her later today. Unfortunately, there’s some “both sides are doing it” and “trolls are provoking both sides” garbage in the article linked to – without, of course, a smidgeon of evidence.
I am in a public library, and so cannot swear at the top of my voice for the moment, but…
…fuck you, Sullivan. I am white and, as far as society is aware, male and straight, and you’re telling me that it’s prejudice against me to say that I shouldn’t have sex with someone who doesn’t want me to have sex with them? Or that expecting me to recognise that my life is significantly easier, despite the various stresses I’m currently dealing with, than the lives of others who don’t fit so easily into the societal idea of “normal” is bigoted against me? Seriously, fuck you.
I’m capable of getting through life without raping people, and I’m aware that other people’s experiences are not the same as mine. How dare you suggest that I am incapable of reaching so low a standard as that? How dare you suggest that expecting basic decency is unfair and prejudiced?
No excuse. I was bullied in high school too. Gaming was and is my safe space too. I still manage not to be an arsehole. In fact, I would argue that I manage not to be an arsehole, in part, because I was bullied in school. I saw how unjust my treatment was, and I realised that unjust treatment is unjust. What a failure of humanity I would be if I refused to extend the decency I have come to expect to have expressed toward me to others.
Here, I know exactly how they feel. My happy place has been co-opted by misogynistic thugs who want to shout down any voices that speak out against inequality; who will make death threats and overtly violate another’s privacy. As a result, mainstream culture looks at my hobby and sees raging hordes of hateful children. My safe space is tainted and, now, for the first time in years, I would think twice before being honest about my preferred leisure activity with someone new.
That depends on what the word “classic” is supposed to add to “white, straight male identity”, which Sullivan doesn’t tell us. You could interpret it – given what else Sullivan says – as adding entitlement, sexism and violence; in which case I take the liberty of suggesting that you’re not “classic” at all! But the gamer stereotype itself is far from “classic” in that it does not involve striding forth and mastering the world, or even vigorous physical activity. Sullivan does notice that the prospect of games development companies ceasing to cater for young straight white men is remote – which makes his expressions of sympathy for the privileged whingers of #gamergate and the blatantly dishonest claim that “bullying has occurred on both sides, and only one side was bullied before.” all the more contemptible.
Yet in the whole Gamergate drama the women who have been harassed, Sarkeesian, Quinn and Wu have tried to ban not one single game or article beloved by straight, white cis male gamers.
And while shaking their fists at the sky at the imaginary oppression of them and “their” hobby Gamergaters have counted amongst their most substantial victories boycotts aimed at forcing publishers to ban speech they don’t like!
Is this how he wants maleness to be measured? It sounds like his hierarchy is rather inverted. The culture he describes is simply a stage which many man pass through, and many others bypass entirely. I refuse to accept that I’m “less male” than a guy who lives for “violence, speed, competition and boobage”.
What I have found, is that so called “moderates” on the right really love Andrew Sullivan, can’t recommend him highly enough.
but.. they must be fucking ignorant tools, because EVERY time Sullivan comments on a social issue, he’s utterly utterly uninformed as to the greater context. instead, he tries to reinvent the context to make his themes work.
perfect example right at the end:
he is entirely clueless that this is a MUCH larger issue that just journalists and gamers, but it fits his missive to frame it that way, and you’ll never be able to tell him different.
THAT has always been his biggest problem; his world is tiny. He cannot grasp larger contexts.
I stopped reading him before he even got popular. the rare, and getting rarer. decent article he writes is more than outweighed by clueless gibberish he writes on pretty much ANY social issue.
How the hell is a place a safe space for me by being an unsafe space for others?
That’s the same argument every bigot has ever made.
That last quoted sentence is a bit odd, too: I believe in the flourishing of all sorts of cultures and subcultures and have long been repulsed by the nannies and busybodies who want to police them – whether from the social right or the feminist left.
Why the “social right”? Because they fight against gay people getting married, perhaps? But…isn’t that just their culture?
Also interesting here is that he apparently doesn’t see the gamergaters being awfully similar to the social right in regards to their attitudes in policing women. Apparently he doesn’t see “the tactics of harassment, threats of violence, foul misogyny, and stalking” as forms of policing? But then maybe Sullivan doesn’t actually care about the social right when it comes to women? (I don’t read his work, so I don’t know where he stands on such issues.)
Jafafa,
It’s safe for you if you are why the others are unsafe and your identity is tied up in you being able to harm them without repercussions.
He’s telling us very clearly what he wants to be able to do to other people and why he thinks he should be able to do it because of his straightness, whiteness and maleness. He’s not wrong about rape and bigotry being his legacy. He’s right there. He’s alot like the people who complain that the stars and bars are about “history, not hate”. Only unlike them, he’s honest about that history being a history of hate.
A bunch of guys whining that they are being beaten up by girls.
Really!!??
Sullivan, quoted by quasar @6: And look, many gamers were the bullied in high school
I really doubt that. I’d guess he’s buying more into stereotypes from the 80’s and early 90’s. I grew up in the 90’s and went to high school at the turn of the century; if gamers were bullied (for merely being gamers), I didn’t see it. So I’d really like to have seen Sullivan back up this claim with some evidence.
As quasar points out, “the rest of the article is all about the horrible horrible bullying that journalists are heaping upon gamers.” So Sullivan is basically feeling sorry for them because he’s got this impression (but, again, no evidence) that they’ve been bullied all their lives. It apparently doesn’t occur to Sullivan that even if these gamers have been bullied all their lives, maybe it’s not because they are gamers, but rather because they are deplorable people. (Which doesn’t excuse the bullying, but the point is Sullivan seems to be jumping to conclusions he doesn’t seem to have reason to be reaching.)
What I want to know is how that boobage that’s such a part of hyper-male culture somehow accidentally got attached to womenfolk?
How in the hell did women manage to steal all of those boobs rightfully belonging to the guys?
Shorter Sullivan:
1) but what about the menz??
2) #notallgamergaters
Andrew Sullivan is the SE Cupp of gay.
First he defines classic white, straight male using traits common to gamergaters and then complains that this classic white, straight male identity is “under attack”?
Here’s the solution to your problem, Sullivan: STOP perpetuating the stupid idea that you’re not a white straight male if you don’t demand sex and violence.
Never stopped anyone at this library… ;)
Anri:
Are you forgetting that women are property?
Andrew Sullivan can’t condone threats of violence against women, but then spends the next paragraph implying that violence and degrading women is a function of manhood that only women who hate men would complain about.
Doesn’t Andrew Sullivan make any connection between the violence of the games coupled with arousing straight guys and guys who will then go on to harass female game avatars and female game critics? What am I saying? Defending the status quo depends on not making that connection.
Gosh, no way those could be related.
As someone who was bullied in grade school, junior high and high school, I would like to extend a hearty FUCK YOU YOU FUCKING FUCK to anyone who tries to use that as an excuse for anything as an adult.
Ok, i’ve only just found out who this Andrew Sullivan guy but from what i can see in that article, i would bet money that he is gay and that he desperately tries really, really hard to be “one of the guys”…really…..really hard….how close am i?
Wait, let me get this straight: the promotion of consent in sexual interactions between two or more adults and expanding one’s perspectives to honestly consider others is misandry but suggesting (if not outright asserting) that “maleness” is synonymous with petty baseness is not?
Misogynistic, violent Muslim cultures that persecute and threaten critics? Attack! Misogynistic, violent “white” cultures that persecute and threaten critics? Defend!
I hope no one’s ever charged Sullivan with an overabundance of consistency.
I know others have already pointed this out, but I find it so shocking I have to chime in as well. Affirmative consent = misandry? What the everloving fuck? See, best I can tell, that means opposing rape = misandry. How the fuck does that work? How can someone claim to be the least bit reasonable and have a problem with the notion of affirmative consent?
Sully sez:
Unless it’s that nasty Moozlim culture/subculture. That we are free to bomb the shit out of.
But…but…but I thought MALE rape was by far the greater scourge??? WHY DOES SULLY HATE MEN!!!???
@41, PZ.
“The S.E. Cupp of X” is the best thing to come out of Sully’s existence.
azhael @48:
Oh, he is indeed family. And he’s dripping with ignorance, prejudice, and apathy.
I’m still shocked at how much sympathy he’s showing the poor, poor, gamergaters.
Affirmative consent is misandrist because people like Sullivan think it’s a dog whistle for “all men are rapists.”
Sullivan equated women to “boobage.” So, can we go around and call him Mr. Testicles or Andrew Ball Sack? But then no one deserves to be identified by a body part. He is also equating criticism with censorship. Has anyone called him out on his poor logic skills? Of course, he probably wouldn’t listen
Oh ugh, he’s going with the “the poor bullies only act that way becasue they were bullied too” bullshit.
Uh, no Sullivan. Not true:
http://sadd.org/issues_bullying_know.htm
Yeah, it “seems” that way to people who don’t know what the fuck is going on.
They’re tossing a legitimate criticism of how women and other minorities are portrayed in video games with bullshit, unsubstantiated Lieberman-esque criticisms of video game violence. There’s no evidence violent video games encourage violence in those who play them; there is plenty of evidence, on the other hand, of stereotyping’s deleterious effects, particularly on those being stereotyped.
Who, exactly, is offended by “speed” remains a mystery to me. Is someone saying feminists don’t like racing games?
But what does Andrew Sullivan know of this? Violence bores him. Boobs aren’t his cup of tea. As matters of subjective taste, that’s perfectly fine, but if he’s not a gamer then what the fuck interest does he in have writing about it, if not to promote his hair-brained neo-Reaganite political narrative?
Oh, that’s right. No reason at all.
@Alastor Russell, 58
I don’t know if it counts as “offended,” but I generally prefer slower, more tactical, patient games to twitch gaming. I do like racers, but they’re pretty much the only fast thing I like… unless you count Pac-Man and Tetris as fast?
quasar @ 6
Bullying is horrible, especially the ableist bullying gawker has done. Calling gawker out for its repeated use and tolerance of ableist slurs against autistics isn’t justifying death threats.
Just to pile on:
What reasonable society would ever want to control violence?
As for “controlling speed”: did feminstas put up all those speed limit signs I see on every road?
And poor Andrew Sullivan, those feminists want to control your boobage? Just continue being a boob and show us your hyper-manhood.
Oh yes, Andrew, thanks for bringing this up, because I’m so bored by violence too! When classic straight white men do things like rape women, beat and murder their female partners, beat and murder black people and gay people, it’s just so dull and boring. I’m so over talking about it.
Can’t violence just have a place in our culture, as it deserves to?
I was bullied as a kid. I like to think it’s made me more sympathetic to all kinds of victims and disenfranchised people. It certainly has never given me the least impulse to bully anyone else. Could it occasionally happen? I don’t know, I’m just an anecdote. But it’s no excuse, none whatsoever. I don’t get sympathetic to systematic violence and harassment directed at an entire class of people just because the harasser was hurt before.
To give the dickwad his due, back in the Shrub years Sullivan did produce some good work on the normalization of
enhanced interrogationtorture.He may even have cranked out other bits of respectable wordage since then, but I for one don’t feel it worthwhile to go looking.
@54 Tony
Thought so. He reads to me like someone who would throw anyone under the bus if it means getting the lads to pat him on the back and invite him to come along to the pub. He reeks of desperation to be accepted by the classroom jocks…
Everyone sees what he has done here, right?
He has snuck in that made-up horseshit term “hyper-male” to invent a victim of this “policing”, i.e. the male population. The real sentence should read:
“Feminists are attempting to control a culture of violence and boobage. And in so far as that might be the case, my sympathies do indeed lie with the gamers.”
But he didn’t write it like that because then he would come across as an utter asshole.
@Saad (#66) You make a very good point. I didn’t catch that.
So, Sullivan uses the term privilege, but he clearly does (or more likely, chooses to) not get it. Of course, he’s mostly in a position of privilege, so he’s ok with it.
The blinders that must take….
karmacat @56:
Well, technically, asshole is a body part. And I think Sullivan has earned the right to be identified as an asshole.
If I hadn’t turned in my Official HeMan card ages ago, I would have to turn it in now. Despite having been in the military, I am anti-violence, a pacifist. I prefer games that move slowly — CIV or Sim City. I do like competition — I watch professional and college sports — but for participation, I prefer games in which cooperation or coopetition is ideal — Scrabble, for instance. And boobage? I guess I’m just not a real man.
I seem to remember Ed Brayton had, at least, a fair amount of respect for him, too.
This seems to happen to him a lot. Is “chronically assuming smugly privileged right-wing shitbags are reasonable and intelligent and giving them the benefit of imaginary doubt and unearned deference” the sort of thing we can stage an intervention for? ;/
I wonder how Sullivan would define ‘boobage’. Whatever he came up with, I doubt it would reflect the issues feminists have with sexism in video games.
Fuck you.
I think they are repulsed by affirmative consent because it subverts the natural order of “buy a girl dinner and stuff and say a few lines and she has to put out”. You know, romance and seduction and all that horseshit.
Just gonna leave this Oglaf strip here
http://oglaf.com/isle-of-tits/ (NSFW)
Thank you for addressing Sullivan, I’ve been waiting for someone on my RSS feed too. For some stupid reason I read Sullivan on a regular basis and whenever it comes to any issues about women he fails and fails horribly. And I just keep hoping one of his readers eventually sends him the right email that makes him get it but it just hasn’t happened yet.
*Sigh*
Sullivan has really gone down hill. I used to read him because I thought he was a fair representation of US politics and society. He was even the one to introduce me to this blog. But he is so saturated with his Beltway privilege that he lacks any empathy what so ever on any issue† concerning women, non-white people, and the poor.
†Not social as a whole, mind you. He’s very sensitive when it comes to gay rights. It’s only the issues that don’t concern him directly are the ones he has trouble identifying with.
Azkyroth #72
Would you like to expand on that? What part of the comment do you have a problem with and why?
Frankly, I’ve never personally witnessed any gamer being harassed or bullied just for being a gamer (outside of cheesy movies, anyway). Indeed, where I grew up most boys, and a fair number of girls, were gamers to some extent. The ones who weren’t were the outliers and certainly in no position to bully anyone. As such, questioning the “gamers are being bullied” narrative is not unreasonable. Are they really? Gamers as a group? I wouldn’t rule out the possibility, but when I think back I can’t think of a single example.
We know for a fact, based on our current situation, that a subset of gamers are just plain skeevy assholes. Is it really so unreasonable to suggest that this is not a new development? That they might have been skeevy assholes for a long time? That this might be the reason why they, and not other gamers, were being excluded and bullied?
Leo Buzalsky’s comment does not, as far as I can see, assume that every gamer who was bullied was a nasty person. It questions the assumption that every gamer who was bullied was targeted only for being a gamer. It questions whether they were really being bullied or whether they received a normal response to aberrant behavior.
Whether a given act qualifies as bullying cannot be determined from the act itself. You must also include the behavior that inspired the act. Telling someone to fuck off can be bullying… or it can be an entirely reasonable response to fucked-up behavior. Just because someone was ostracized doesn’t mean that they were bullied.
I feel like I’m ranting now and I don’t know how much clearer I’m making things. Let’s round it off by saying that I’m not sure what your objection is or whether it has any merit. It you clarify, then maybe we can get somewhere. As it stands, “fuck you” doesn’t really explain much.
I have absolutely zero standing to speak for Azkyroth, obviously, but my reading of that “Fuck you” was that it was a response to the victim-blaming suggestion that if people “have been bullied all their lives, maybe it’s not because they are (X category), but rather because they are deplorable people”.
Typically it ain’t the victims of bullying who are deplorable people, of course, it’s the bullies. The present crop of bullies – the gamergaters – just might possibly have been victims once, perhaps, but gaming ceased to be a predominantly nerdy niche so long ago now that there’s no way gaming singled this generation out at school. Going on their current behaviour, I think it’s far more likely that they were the bullies in school too.
I mean (sorry, I wasn’t very clear) – I don’t read that as Azkyroth supporting the ridiculous “gamers are being bullied” narrative at all.
Every time that shitheel opens his mouth I feel a twinge of shame for being gay.
The only time he’s ever been right on an issue is when he was dragged there kicking and screaming.
FIFM
LykeX @ 77
I’m not sure why you wouldn’t recognize the victim blaming in the statement Azkyroth quoted.
I’m willing to give Leo Buzalsky credit for meaning ostracized, but that is not, in fact, what they said.
“And look, many gamers were the bullied in high school; this was their safe space; it was a place they could call home.”
So – for anyone this actually describes – these are lonely people who normalized the abuse they suffered and were happy to find a culture full of virtual victims they could abuse. Then, once someone suggested they transcend that abuse rather than wallow in it, they dug in their heels and exercised the only conflict resolution skill they ever learned, which is yelling and poop flinging.
@Seven of Mine
I think it really comes down to this: Are gamers really a victimized group? That’s the thing that struck me, because for as long as I’ve lived, gaming has been entirely mainstream and getting more so every year. In my experience, if a person is being bullied, it’s not because they play video games. That would be like bullying someone for only having one head.
I’m tempted to compare gamers to evangelical Christians; people who like to think they’re victimized, even as they make up the majority and have a huge swath of the culture catering to their every desire. Granted, there may be local differences, so maybe I’m just not seeing what you’re seeing. If your experience differs, feel free to clarify.
Sullivan presents gamers as a disadvantaged minority, but the specific cultural elements that he defends—”violence, speed, competition and boobage” (VSCB)—are not unique aspects of gaming but are parts of the pervasive “classic straight, white male” majority. It’s a rhetorical bait and switch. The analog to VSCB in gamer culture is nowhere close to being a leather bar in gay culture—leather bars have always been a niche interest. VSCB are not endangered cultural elements; gamers can find that shit anywhere.
This is the same fucking discussion about intersectionality that’s going on among every group whose founders included a large white male contingent. Gamergaters make the mistake of thinking they’re somehow special (which belies their overinflated egos), but video games are a red herring. The question is, WHY should classic straight, white male values be privileged elements of gamer/gay/atheist/comic book/whatever subculture? Why would a subculture not want to speak to topics that are of interest to members who are already fucking present and who do not give a fuck about “classic straight white male” values? The onus is on the gamergaters to demonstrate why values that are not at all unique to video game culture have fuck-all to do with actually playing video games.
LykeX, @77 etc.
I think you’re on the right side of the argument, but I’m extremely uncomfortable with your reasoning. The idea of “it doesn’t exist because I haven’t seen it personally” is word-for-word the same arguments that people use to claim that harassment of women doesn’t exist. If someone says they were bullied, we should take their word for it, even if they’re horrible people. It just can’t be used as an excuse for them being horrible people.
LykeX @ 84
Are gamers qua gamers an oppressed group? Probably not. And I get that was the argument Leo Buzalski was probably making. But Azkyroth was responding to a specific sentence, the wording of which was extremely victim-blamey. And I don’t believe for a second you don’t understand that.
Also, this “I doubt it exists because I haven’t seen it personally” thing you’re doing? Um…seriously?
Finally, I’ve personally witnessed a boy being taunted for being fat by another boy even more overweight. When I was in 7th grade a boy taunted me for wearing Converse All Stars (*sneering* “So you’re an all-star then?”) It doesn’t fucking need to make sense.
Having been bullied is certainly no excuse for the behavior these #GGers are exhibiting but that doesn’t give anyone else cause to deny their experiences. Judging by the kinds of things some of them say, I think a lot probably have been bullied. And they’ve found in gaming a way to feel like they belong to a community. And they’re terribly defensive at hearing people say these horrible things about this community that has been possibly the first and/or only place where they’ve ever experienced any sense of belonging. And that has to feel pretty awful.
Again, it doesn’t excuse the behavior but I have no trouble believing some of them have been bullied. And we don’t need to argue that they can’t possibly have been bullied in order to defend our position on this. It’s a red herring.
Qwints @60
… are we talking about the same article here?
Unless I’m mistaken, Sullivan didn’t say anything about ableism, and I didn’t see any ableist slurs in the linked and referenced deadspin piece, or on Gawkers brief comment on the matter.
Also under the heading of “makes no sense”: In 4th or 5th grade I had a friend tell me she could no longer be my friend because some other girls she was friends with had informed her that I was not on their list of people it’s cool to be friends with. Because reasons. I’m really at a loss to understand why you’re pressing this point.
#88 quasar
I read that comment mean Gawker does that in general not in the specified article. A quick google got me this for racism and mentions ablism in the last paragraph. There’s also a tweet from Max Read, Gawker editor in chief saying he spent his day fucking with “neuroatypical” people. But I don’t actually read or follow Gawker so I haven’t been following along.
I am vaguely reminded of Andrew Sullivan’s fascination with the conspiracy theory that Trig Palin was actually the child of one of Sarah Palin’s daughters rather than Sarah Palin herself, long past the point that it was clear there was no actual evidence for it. I would have to go back to the articles to figure out why I got the impression, but I definitely sensed a whiff of sexism against Sarah Palin over the issue.
On another note, +1 on people critiquing the “classic” part of what Sullivan calls the “classic straight white male identity”. I certainly identify as straight, white, and male, but I’ve long resisted many of the characteristics of the traditional male gender role; arguably that cuts me out of the “classic” part
Lastly, on the “affirmative consent = misandry” thing, I got into a relatively civil dispute with someone on imgur who claimed that affirmative consent reversed the burden of proof to the accused rather than the accuser. In private messages, I did get him to concede that that specific point wasn’t true, but that affirmative consent was being pushed by “radical feminists” who supposedly believe that all PiV sex is rape. (I expect the discussion wouldn’t have remained civil if I’d pushed him to justify that one, but I decided I didn’t particularly want to engage in that particular game of pigeon chess.)
I think there might be something to inverting the cause-and-effect here:
“Are gamers likely to be victimised for playing games?”
Probably not.
“Are people who are victimised more likely to play games?”
Possibly: it’s an activity that can be particpated in alone or with anonymous folks on the internet. When someone is ostracised or asocial (and being bullied can quickly make someone asocial), games are a far more entertaining pass time than most.
That’s a fair position, and I don’t follow Gawker either so I can’t comment on them, I just don’t understand how we got from my comment mocking gamergate’s “OMG bullies!” position, to “Calling gawker out… isn’t justifying death threats.”
(PS: Am I the only one who finds it a little ironic that the movement for whom “professional victim” is practically a rallying cry is also playing up how much they are supposedly being bullied?)
Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy wrote:
Exactly. Anything that can be used to set you apart from the crowd can be used as ammo to bully you. Being too invested or knowledgeable in any pastime can do it, even if that pastime is mainstream like music, movies or television. Even, as you pointed out, the brand names of whatever you’re wearing can do it. And sadly, it seems that just as the abused are more likely to become abusers, the bullied can become the bully.
quasar wrote:
I might find it ironic if it wasn’t so damn typical. Generally, I’ve started assuming that everything they complain about their opponents doing is what they’re wishing to do or actively doing. Those that complain about political correctness aren’t really upset with the particular concept, but that they think their opponents are being successful in implementing it. Those that complain loudest about supposed infringements of free speech usually seem intent on silencing others. And so on, and so on.
Calling it “hyper-male” makes it sound automatically negative. Like the implication that it’s literally “too male.” He’s not saying it’s a male culture of violence and boobage. It’s a hyper-male culture.
I mean, it sounds like he’s directly contradicting himself. “Policing a hyper-male culture” sounds like a good thing in of itself.
I’m so confused.
@various people
I’ve been thinking about this and while I think I have a point, I also admit that there’s a fair potential for splash damage. I’m not convinced that there’s any productive outcome to be had from digging into this. I may have fallen into the trap of hyper-intellectualizing this subject, so I think it’s best to let it rest.
With regard to personal experience, I was simply trying to describe mine, not trying to invalidate anyone else’s. I may have ended up giving that impression anyway. Sorry about that.
I will say that whatever someone is bullied for, it is wrong. Flat out. Even if they happen to be total assholes, bullying isn’t a decent response to that. I don’t think anyone was suggesting that it was but…just to get that out there.
@LykeX I see what you’re saying. I grew up in a younger generation than many on here, or at least that is the impression that I get. In my personal experience it depended largely on the type of games someone played and not so much that they were gamers in general. Dude bro types that played Halo and CoD etc. were popular and I never saw them take any shit for playing video games. They were proud of it and it was something they did with other macho dude friends. On the other hand, I still to this day hear people poking fun at people who play RPGs and fantasy type games. A “nerdy” coworker takes time off to go to a Free Mason convention every year but everyone jokes and says he is spending the entire week playing WoW.
This has perhaps become a tl;dr at this point and I apologize for that. Just adding my experience which is somewhat similar to yours. I see where you’re coming from, anyways. I think the normalization of video games changes with every generation, and maybe its different in different areas as well.
There may be some overlap and similarities in those two groups, buuuuut, the thing to remember is that bullying is largely a social activity. Bullies generally act with some social support and/or approval from a group of active allies or silent/silenced supporters. They’re also bolstered to some extent by the inaction of bystanders. But the roles of bully, victim, bystander, supporter are very malleable and depend as much on circumstance as personality. People can move from one role to the other in different circumstances. The bystander/victim/bully kid at school can become a bully/ victim/ bystander in the evening at choir/sports practice or with the neighbourhood kids or in their family. Or they can be a bully everywhere they go or victimised in more than one social group or a passive bystander regardless of who’s bullying whom.
I remember my husband coming home alternating between puzzlement and fuming one day. He’d had to give one of the kids at school a firmly-worded dressing down for joining in on bullying another kid. The fuming and puzzlement? He’d rescued that same kid from much the same group of bullies the previous day with similar stern words to that group. All that had happened was that the group reasserted its dominance with a new entrant and a different victim.
A lot of the time when we think or talk about bullying, we’d do a lot better to focus on the sociology of mob/group behaviours rather than individual psychology.
Just a pointer to those who want to do the “death threats are bad, but…” construct: If you absolutely must point out your opposition to the person in question, please construct your statement so that the “but” qualifies your objection to the person rather than qualify your objection to death threats. i.e. “I don’t agree with [person X], but death threats are wrong and must stop” is okay, but “Death threats are wrong and must stop, but I don’t agree with [person X]” is not.
yes, and I’ve had words with Ed about it on occasion.
some rather harsh even.
“The argument seems to be that some feminists are attempting to police or control a hyper-male culture of violence, speed, competition and boobage. And in so far as that might be the case, my sympathies do indeed lie with the gamers.”
As a male gamer, let me just make it absolutely clear that not all gamers, and not all male gamers, are behind this gamergate nonsense. Personally, while I’m 100% behind equality of the sexes, and I don’t want either sex to dominate, I tend to think that the period of female “dominance” that it seems the gamergaters are so frightened of would hardly be an unfair response to 2000+ years of male dominance. Not saying I’d want it, and I’d be the first to stand against it, just as I stand against male dominance in all its forms – I’m saying it would be at least “fair”.
Misogyny, like any other form of discrimination, is evidence of weakness, pure and simple. People who have inner strength and self-confidence are never afraid of equality.
Wow, it’s so good you made sure to tell us you’d be against female dominance, beery, because it’s so high on our priority list, and we’d hate to like you for false reasons. /snark
That is to say, virtually no feminists want female dominance. Actual equality would be plenty. So you’re saying we’re justified in working towards a goal we don’t want to achieve. Please don’t do that. We are neither monsters from fable nor legendary demons. We just hold the radical idea that women are people.
Thanks for the clarification CatieCat, but I think I figured out that feminists want equality and not dominance about 40 years ago, when I first became a feminist. It might help to read “and understand” the points I’m making before you go off on a rant.
So nice to get a pleasant welcome.
Oh, well, since you’ve been a feminist for So Very Long, I guess my carefully expressed and relatively polite post is inherently invalid. Thank Sappho for Good Men who’ve been feminist forever, who can come along to let us know what we’re allowed to do, and only make a tiny little tone-troll along the way.
Thanks ever so much for deigning to talk down all the way to my little old lady brain. I feel much better, thank you.
beery @102:
You must be new. We already know this.
Feminists do not want ‘female dominance’. The hysterical whinging of GamerGaters is based on their irrational fears, not on the goals of feminists. And yes, it would be an unfair response. The goal is equality and equal opportunity for *everyone*, not one group usurping the power from another.
That’s a rather simplistic understanding of humanity. Tell me, how did you reach this conclusion? What about all the people who have inner strength and self-confidence but who are afraid of equality (for that matter what about the people who aren’t afraid of equality, but think equality is a zero-sum game)? How would you even go about determining someone’s inner strength or their levels of self-confidence? Is there a test to take that can measure both (objectively)? Do you take the results of this test and compare with others? I look around at the landscape of anti-LGBT bigots, and see a lot of people that seem to demonstrate self-confidence and inner strength, yet they’re still bigoted shitspigots. I don’t think self-confidence and inner strength has much to do with prejudice and bigotry (for instance, I’m a big advocate for equality and I lack quite a bit of self-confidence).
beery @104:
If you already knew that, why even bring up that horrible caricature of feminists?
Knowing CaitieCat, I’m thinking she *did* read and fully understand the points you were making. I know I did, and I reached the same conclusion she did.
(oh, and that was hardly a rant)
Perhaps you ought to think about why you weren’t welcomed as pleasantly as you’d have preferred.
Also, think about the fact that no one *owes* you pleasantries.
I’m sure you didn’t compose your first comment thinking that you would receive any criticism, but you have. How about dealing with that criticism rather than complaining that you didn’t receive the reception you’d have preferred?
Clearly I chose the wrong group to join. Not sure how alienating new members works, but I should probably have gone with my first instinct – to stay away from internet groups, all too many of which turn out to be exclusive cliques. Thanks for confirming my fears.
beery @108
You made a strawman (or strawfeminist) statement and some people criticized it. If you’re so thin-skinned as to be unable to take criticism then this is not the blog for you. This place isn’t a clique but we do have a social justice ethos. So basically you have three choices: You can justify your female dominance claim; you can withdraw it (an apology would not go amiss); or you can leave.
beery,
This makes absolutely no sense. Why would you be the first to stand against female dominance if you’re saying it would be “fair” (whatever the quotation marks there mean)?
For someone who has been a feminist for 40 years, you sure seem fundamentally ignorant about what feminism is. That mention of female dominance (and especially of it being hardly unfair) makes that obvious.
beery @108:
Geez dude. Overreact much? You feel alienated bc you were criticized? It happens. Pretty much to everyone.
Did you expect to join a group and it would be kumbaya all the time? That we’d avoid reading your comments with a critical eye? That people would say “beery is a newbie everyone, so ignore the fact that he is perpetuating harmful caricatures of feminists or that he thinks a matriarchy would be fair”? Sorry, that’s not how things work around here. You aren’t owed anything.
Given how poorly you respond to criticism, I’d advise you to stay away from people in general. Your delicate fee fees might get hurted.
I think I know what went wrong.
I forgot the Watson Principle:
The three most corrosive, insulting, and basically fight-starting words that one can drop into any conversation are “Don’t do that.”
I feel like Wonder Woman accidentally crushing a man’s hand because she didn’t know how frail the poor dears are.
Sometimes, I miss the good old days.
Newcomer makes pretentious/inflamatory/ignorant statement, gets called on it, runs away complaining about tone. Geez, where have I heard this before?
The “gamers wer bullied and this is their safe space” nonsense buys into the GG lie that only reactionary dudebros count as real “gamers”. Are we supposed to believe that if only they had been female, that their classmates would have said “oh, you play Everquest? That’s cool.” Of course not – and women have always been gamers and made games.
I genuinely do not understand why anyone reads Sullivan. He would be one more reactionary Republican bigot with a hate blog except for his self-interested activism on behalf of gay men, and the fact that he’s British being treated as some kind of exotic thing that sets him apart. He’s an unapologetic sexist and racist who manufactures page hits re blogging intelligent things said by other people.
beery, pro-tip: Don’t get so passive aggressive and defensive. It was not clear what the point of invoking “Female domination” was in your first post, saying that you would be “the first to oppose” such a thing sets off an alarm bell, and getting pissy and defensive when criticized is not a good strategy in general, but is especially poor in Pharyngula, which is a very critical environment. Pharyngula is not a place you just dive into blindly. You need to show self-awareness and control, and you need to careful about what alarms you set off. The place has a reputation for rudeness and being confrontational. Expect that. But you should also not confuse a license to rudeness with a license to say or do whatever you desire. This is not a good place to AVOID argument, is what I am saying.