I can't remember the last time I saw an "Anti-Feminism Rally!"

I can remember the last time I saw a Feminism Rally; considering how uncomfortable it made me and my wife, I think it's the former, not the latter, that see's low adoption of the Feminist moniker.

QuoteSo, Novastar, you claim I am making claims without proof... you think MRAs represent anywhere near 20% of folks in the US?

Not even close. I'd be surprised if 2% identify themselves as MRA's; they have an absolutely toxic reputation (not helped when MSM portrays mass murderers as part of the group), and there's a societal expectation that men "man up", rather than actually discuss many of the issues that MRA's advocate for.

And yet, we have the 82% stat; it should swing both ways.

Quote from: Will;792644http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/feminism-poll_n_3094917.html



There are two ways you could take this:
Feminism as a movement makes people steer clear.
Anti-feminism has successfully spread propaganda to make people reject the label (and some of the aims).

I think it's a combination weighted a bit toward the second.


So, Novastar, you claim I am making claims without proof... you think MRAs represent anywhere near 20% of folks in the US?

As someone who once identified as pro-feminism, because honestly, who's not for equality, it was the men and women that used the label to slander and tear down anyone who they could that turned me off the movement. These days I'm neither pro-men or pro-fem, they're both a pack of assholes. And before anyone starts with "but they're not all like that" bs, no, they are not like that on both sides, but when your frontrunners are assholes, it might be time to go a different way.

Quote from: Novastar;792641One in five people identify as Feminists, but I'll hazard if you asked people "Do you believe men and women are equals, and each should get equal representation?", you'll get an outstanding high percentage of people in the US who agree with that statement, which is the aim of classical Feminism.

The problem, is that modern Feminism has been hijacked by Radicals. So you get a mismatch of Classical Feminists, sex-positive feminists, sex-negative feminists, 3rd Wave Feminists, and outright misandrists, all under the umbrella.

And it's bad enough that over 60% of women, will not claim membership in an ideology that expressly should champion them.

This seems to have it's ups and downs. So Gallup found a peak of identification with the term "feminism" at 33% in 1992, going down to 25% in 2001.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/6715/feminism-whats-name.aspx

I didn't find a Gallup update, but I found another set of surveys indicating that number a voters who identify as feminists has been increasing from 2008 to 2012, to around 40%. (Though the absolute numbers are not directly comparable since voters are not representative of the whole population.)

http://www.msmagazine.com/winter2013/feministfactor.asp

I'd love to see other numbers if people have them.

I'm doubtful about the issue of radical co-option being particularly modern.  While there are certainly radical feminists, there were also plenty of radical feminists in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. (Valerie Solanas, among others, for example.) Really, feminism has always been a broad umbrella since its origins in the 19th century.

Quote from: Will;792560So explain to me exactly how women getting votes 10-50 years after men isn't related to misogyny. (And in the US, it's more like 60-70 years, depending)

That's easy; with rights come responsibilities, though it was the other way around where voting was concerned. With the notable exception of the U.S. (where the American Civil War kick started the issue), men in most other western countries got voting rights largely as a response to protests against military conscription. The idea they should be expected to put on a uniform, pick up a rifle and go off to fight and probably die on some foreign battlefield for a government they had no say in naturally rubbed them the wrong way, and as public sentiment opposing military conscription mounted the Powers That Be realized it was time to include a carrot with the stick they'd been using for the past several centuries.

Except in the case of women's suffrage, of course. When women were granted voting rights the corresponding expectation of civil service was conveniently forgotten about, just as it's been every time women have been granted legal privileges equaling those of men over the past century or two.

Virtually every time feminists have pointed at (perceived) institutional inequality and screeched "Misoooogynyyyyy!" at the top of their lungs there's been a perfectly reasonable explanation for that thing working the way it did given the context of the circumstances in which it occurred. That doesn't necessarily mean those things are always fair or that they can't be done better, but it does put the lie to this obsessive preoccupation with finding discrimination in every inconvenient shadow.

Quote from: Novastar;792605From a pro-GG perspective, that isn't how it feels (someone else can make the counter-argument from the anti-GG side). It feels more like:
"One's going "Yeah, there are misogynist assholes out there, and we condemn them on either side of the debate, look at all the GAME JOURNALISM CORRUPTION!"  While the other is saying, "Yeah, I don't have to address your argument because of the MISOGYNY!"

The article posted earlier above is really dead on, in it's point: at this point, I think neither side believes the other is acting in good faith. And I really don't know how to start a dialogue with someone, who's pushing an agenda, and yet denying me mine.

I can understand why some want to keep the focus on journalistic integrity in order to avoid an ideological pissing match, but I honestly think it's a mistake to pretend GG has nothing to do with feminism, not least because I don't see games journalism as being all that relevant. I don't remember the last time I visited Kotaku, RPS, et al even before this whole thing kicked off. If I'm interested in a game, I'll look it up on YouTube in order to see it in action.

To me, it seems readily apparent that GG is at least as much about telling these self-righteous ideologues to take their bullshit political agenda and get the fuck out of our hobby. Most games are not sexist, most gamers are not sexist and the vast majority of what those on the anti-GG side would label misogyny is absolutely nothing of the sort, so sit down, shut up and just play the fucking game.

Ok, I can now say that, thanks to an involuntary vacation from my previous job, and the fact that this "gamergate" thing seems to be a thing to so many people, I've spent about 8 hours over the last two days watching videos about it on YouTube.

Why? I have no fucking idea, aside from the fact that it sucks you in like any other reality TV show I guess.

After watching a ton of videos from people like Thunderf00t and the InternetAristocrat, (and not just the Sarkeesian related vids, but many others related to Zoe Quinn and others), I have to say that people I might not consider "fellow travelers" on many other fronts (TF for example is a rampant Atheist but an awesome general-interest science presenter, for example), I think I can say that Feminists and their White Knight Enablers have done for the Atheist movement and video-gaming industry what their smaller and less effective sycophants are trying to do to the tabletop RPG industry.

It's... just an epic, atomic face-palm (to borrow a phrase), but the patterns, claims, and terminology are unmistakable if you watch videos about the Atheist and computer game turmoil and then compare them to the SJWs on TBP about... well, anything. It is a LITERAL case of "If you're not with us, you're against us" - with no possible middle ground. Irony, it seems, is lost on the SJW Crusaders.

Holy shit, we're through the looking glass here, people...

This is why I get angry at people that just play rpgs that look at gamergate with a shrug and yet complain about social justice warriors plaguing rpgs.  It is literally the SAME FUCKING THING.  The social justice warriors are attacking at all fronts and all media.  

While I usually say there is two sides to every story this one only has one sane side.  That side are the hobbyists that are sick of double standard assholes that love to shove their world view down in other people's throats.  It is literally sane people versus zealots.  I feel bad for any woman and/or minority that disagree with social justice view points because the fanatics will go on feeding frenzy on them.

Quote from: Will;792288Referring to the MRA douchebag who killed a bunch of people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings

That's awful, though the whole time I read it I nodded and went uh-huh heard that crap before. 9 times out of 10 serial killers are motivated by feelings of resentment towards women. I suspect most of the other 10% are women themselves.

But the reason I posted this reply was to ask, in what way was this guy a Men's Rights Activist?

Quote from: Daztur;792305Yeah, people are flipping out because what, the video game press mostly functions as a PR conduit? They are surprised by this? They care? I'm just totally mystified. It's like people being shocked to discover gambling in Vegas.

Yep, the last time I read any "videogame journalism" it was mid-90s issues of Nintendo Power.

Quote from: TristramEvans;792692That's awful, though the whole time I read it I nodded and went uh-huh heard that crap before. 9 times out of 10 serial killers are motivated by feelings of resentment towards women. I suspect most of the other 10% are women themselves.

But the reason I posted this reply was to ask, in what way was this guy a Men's Rights Activist?

He wasn't, at all.  He was a loser who wanted to punish women for not fucking him, and punish men who women were fucking.  He killed more men then women.  Since he hated everyone with a normal sex life, or indeed any sex life, that, by definition, included women as well as men.

This video is awesome...it's like if RPGPundit was a hot foreign chick

Quote from: TristramEvans;792692But the reason I posted this reply was to ask, in what way was this guy a Men's Rights Activist?

For whatever reason, several news sites labeled him as such:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings#Misogyny

Rodgers was definitely Misogynistic, but his rage was more directed at women as a gender (for not having sex with him), and men who were sexually active (particularly PUA (Pick-Up Artists)).

I never read any part of his Manifesto that dealt with the visitation Rights of divorced fathers, or the unfairness of alimony distribution, etc.

Quote from: Will;792471A lot of recent vocal misogyny might be a reaction to feminism, but the idea that misogyny in general is a reaction to feminism is... laughable.

I mean, what, men didn't let women vote because of 1600s era feminism?

[joking] Its all because of Babylon. The only matriarchy in Western civilization that to this day, millenia later, is still synonymouus with the most awful civilization of all time. The entire patriarchy is just men getting their just dues from history's biggest mistake[/joking]

Quote from: Novastar;792696For whatever reason, several news sites labeled him as such:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings#Misogyny

Rodgers was definitely Misogynistic, but his rage was more directed at women as a gender (for not having sex with him), and men who were sexually active (particularly PUA (Pick-Up Artists)).

If he was out to kill PUAs aren't there certain segments that should be cheering him?


...

...

I'll show myself out.

Quote from: Nexus;792698If he was out to kill PUAs aren't there certain segments that should be cheering him?


...

...

I'll show myself out.

I couldnt help thin king reading his "manifesto" where he whined on and on about being a 22 year old virgin and his disbelief that menof minorities were able to get sex from white women when he couldnt and blahblahblah Imsohornyandlonelyblabh blah blah was...

hadnt this guy ever heard of prostitutes? I mean, if he was able to save up 5K to spend on guns, well, lets just say Im pretty certain 5k could have fixed that whole virginity problem for him...

Quote from: TristramEvans;792699I couldnt help thin king reading his "manifesto" where he whined on and on about being a 22 year old virgin and his disbelief that menof minorities were able to get sex from white women when he couldnt and blahblahblah Imsohornyandlonelyblabh blah blah was...

hadnt this guy ever heard of prostitutes? I mean, if he was able to save up 5K to spend on guns, well, lets just say Im pretty certain 5k could have fixed that whole virginity problem for him...

Hiring a prostitute is considered something only losers or the desperate have to do by some. "Real Men" don't have to pay for it". So may not have given him much emotional solace which is really what he probably wanted/needed.