Threats against Sarkeesian and family force her to leave home

Wow, Andrew, what a way to completely miss the point

Edit: The post this refers to has been deleted

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Jma on 28th August 2014 2:46pm

Edit: seems like the comment this is in reply to has been deleted.

Sorry but I can't take your comment seriously when you start throwing around terms like "effectively stole a ton of money" and "despicable women".

Why aren't you equally upset with the married games journalist who you claim cheated on his wife and slept with Zoe in exchange for writing some words? Maybe think about that.

To claim they "are no better" than the people sending death threats and harassing them 24/7 is just staggering to me and suggests an utterly blinkered view of the situation.

That your comment is top rated goes to show how much this shitty attitude is within the industry, not just its fans.

Edited 3 times. Last edit by Anthony Gowland on 28th August 2014 12:04pm

Andrew - mouthbreather is not a buzzword, it is an insult, an insult designed to illustrate the idiocy of people who threaten others with violence for expressing their opinion. MRA is not a buzzword, it is an acronym, an acronym constructed by the body itself, not externally.

As for Sarkeesian 'stealing' money - are you claiming that her donors want it back? Has she obtained it unlawfully? Did you donate and now feel cheated? Do you think that she, like all the other Kickstarters obviously do, should have just given all the excess money back? She has done what she promised and her videos are obviously having a deep and resonant effect - they have pushed an issue into the public eye which had gone unchallenged for too long.

As for Zoe Quinn being a "despicable women", it's not my business who she sleeps with, or for what reasons. It's not my job to report on unproven allegations about people's private lives. Even if it was, it would not be my position to blame just one of the involved parties. That story is not a public one, nor is it part of our remit. What is part of our remit is to bring to light the fact that a huge swathe of people who purport to identify as 'gamers' are participating in sustained campaigns of abuse, threats and defamation, so we have.

It does not matter one iota what sort of person Zoe Quinn, or for that matter Anita Sarkeesian, is. Nobody deserves the treatment that they have received, and when it is indicative of a far deeper and more pervasive culture of poison that is permeating this industry, it is even more of a concern. We'll continue to report on death threats to industry figures, be they to Sarkeesian or to David Vonderhaar, so get used to it.

That your comment is top rated goes to show how much this shitty attitude is within the industry, not just it's fans.

Looking at the posted threat, Kevin Dobson has not been credited with any games in any role, and MobyGames found only one user with this name. I am sure he must be a prominent person in the games industry or the media that his colleagues can be blamed. What really happens is that she is a political activist, and as such threats like this are not unusual. This is what the police is for. Most of them cannot be taken seriously anyway, this guy is probably a 15 year old kid.

Why aren't you equally upset with the married games journalist who you claim slept with Zoe in exchange for an article?

Considering that most reviews are paid for, i don't this case make much difference. The commercial performance of the so called games media clearly shows that they are not as relevant anymore.

Where's Andrew's Top rated comment gone?

What makes you think that "most reviews are paid for", Tom?

He deleted it, it seems. It certainly wasn't removed by staff.

While I do not condone death threats and personal attacks I do find the current spate of feminist propaganda articles distasteful, the polarizing opinion is being used as clickbate by a lot of sites I previously respected.
The lack of proper articles representing the counter arguments to me is disturbing to the point that I feel just by disagreeing with Sarkeesian and Co, you are automatically categorized along side "the wide variety of misogynists, MRAs, violent fantasists and bottom feeders which populate the murkier strata of the internet and society at large"

Can't say i'm a fan of what Sarkeesian says neither could i support her arguments. I only watched her initial few videos that went viral but I found them to be rather hypocritical, the whole thing had an agenda behind it, ignoring certain facts to support her own view.

However that has become a long distant memory by the shear bucket-ton of childish, ridiculous attacks against her. If you don't agree with someone attacking them doesn't make them or their stance look worse, it makes you and your stance look worse.

By creating this drama all it has done is made her look credible to more people, I'm not here to argue against her views, the point is this is someone who could of just faded away but how the internet has reacted will keep bringing her back up into news and once again more arguments will come.

If only we could just calmly debate these topics instead of attack them.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Aaron Parkes on 28th August 2014 12:19pm

On a more positive note, the most recent video is really good - can see why this one in particular picked up so much positive comment on social media.

Even if Sarkeesian isn't always "right", it's good that someone is making these sorts of critiques.

Personal threats are a condemnable act, and should be dealt with as the criminal offense that they are.

That said, by positioning yourself as a feminist you become part of the problem, not the solution. Ideally, we'll look beyond "isms" and whether you have a penis or a vagina between your legs. Until then, perhaps the best is to become a humanist.

Wish I could star the article like we can comments.

It's good to see a media outlet with some bal.....and this is where you realize that even a passive and complimentary statement can help perpetuate the problem. There is no intent to harm. There is no intent to harass. Yet it can still do both. While a stance must be taken against those that blatantly harm and harass, we must be aware of our own unintentionally harmful statements.

It's good to see a media outlet with the bravado to stand boldly open against a controversial issue.

May I suggest this site remove this article, there is no point posting about 'Tumblr' journalism as it's mostly idiots trying to out do other idiots on how PC they are and how you should do what they do.

Also, this isn't new:

http://www.dailydot.com/society/anita-sarkeesian-feminist-frequency-backlash/
"As a direct result of her work as a critic of sexism in pop culture, Sarkeesian has been receiving death threats and misogynistic slurs for years."

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/18/anita-sarkeesian-explains-fight-against-cyber-mob-of-misogynistic-trolls/
"A game that involved beating up Sarkeesian was published online in 2012. Others created fake pornographic images of Sarkeesian, published her address and phone number, threatened to kill or rape her, and tried to hack into her website Feminist Frequency."


*Removing last comment as was giving wrong impression of rest of my post*

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Gareth Donaghey on 28th August 2014 4:10pm

"Nobody deserves the treatment that they have received, and when it is indicative of a far deeper and more pervasive culture of poison that is permeating this industry, it is even more of a concern."

Nobody deserves the treatment, but I question the source of it. Is the poison in the industry? Or is it in a small subset of the customers?

What makes you think that "most reviews are paid for", Tom?

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-08-01-enough-of-the-games-media-shock-jocks

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-07-17-youtube-games-media-loses-its-shine

I meant something like that. A specific kind of games media.

Gareth, if you think organised harassment campaigns against prominent members of the games industry and game critics is 'Tumblr journalism' and unworthy of being reported on you are very welcome to not read the article. I would say that a critic being threatened in such a horrifying, graphic and literally illegal manner is newsworthy, but if you don't you can go argue about consoles in some other comments thread.

Dismissing this sort of horrible abuse as 'nothing new' or 'feminist propaganda' is pathetic and insulting to all of the men and women who are forced to endure this sort of abuse and harassment just for doing their jobs or believing that the games industry can treat women better than it does. Shame on you, seriously.

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Jessica Hyland on 28th August 2014 2:48pm

Sadly enough we live in times when intolerance is fueled and justified by mere disagreement and the inability of people to cope with it in a civilized manner. Considering the biggest narrative trope of our times is "violence works", there is sadly nothing else to expect for the foreseeable future. Stand your ground.

"feminist propaganda"

Your misogyny is showing. Best to zip it up.

And there isn't really a need for counter argument when the counter argument is whistling with fingers in ears saying "Theres no problem with women in gaming. None at all".

"I found them to be rather hypocritical,"
Id be interested to know what the hypocrisy is in a women pointing out tropes targeting women.

"the whole thing had an agenda behind it, "
I hope it does. An agenda to get games to no cater just to men and not abuse tropes that put women as secondary characters or simple plot objects.

Much applause to gi.biz for taking this stand. Its good to see this more and more.

@Jessica
I could have phrased my last post better. Shame on me. I meant more of the Zoe Quinn story part of the article as the 'Tumblr' journalism that this site should not bother report on, like Phil Fish twitters, as mere mentioning it in the article will start people talking about it. And that should be left to the trashier sites imo.

Merely stating that this has happened before numerous times to Anita does not make me have any stance on anything, this is your own projection. Of course it shouldn't happen to them.

The article above portrays it as if its the first time it has happened to her and why I just repeated it happening before in 2013 and 2012. My last line on it is way too aggressive, making the previous sound more angry than I intended it to be. And I apologize for that.

Still think though the article be removed for the obvious divisions it is causing in these comments.

@Gareth WTF?

"May I suggest this site remove this article...
why is this suddenly front page news again?"

Because it's NEW. Hence the word "News".
You are saying that it is normal and unremarkable for Sarkeesian to suffer this abuse. If you are happy with that state of affairs then you are part of the problem.

The article above portrays it as if its the first time it has happened to her

The article has a whole paragraph devoted to the abuse she has suffered in the past. Did you miss that part?

Still think though the article be removed for the obvious divisions it is causing in these comments.

I didn't see you suggesting this on any other recently controversial article. I wish GI had fewer terrible commenters too but just because some people will be determined to shit up every single comment thread about women or minorities in games with anti-feminist whinge doesn't mean GI shouldn't report on it.

You know, for someone who once made his money in this industry, right now, words cannot describe how much I hate our so-called "fans". I hate some of these people so much. They're an embarrassment.

The lack of proper articles representing the counter arguments...

What counter-arguments are there to make? The stand here is "equality".
Are you suggesting that there are legitimate reasons for women to receive a sub-par treatment?

@Christopher Bowen

I get what you mean about some gamer 'fans', but this site is supposed to be for industry related individuals.

It is sad to see that a cutting edge industry like ours seems to bring the worst out in people when it comes to sensitive topics. This is 2014 and some people are still acting like it is the early 1900's in some of their perspectives on the world.

I didn't actually read the deleted comment, but I have read many questionable replies on this site in the last few years which were unbelievable.

Edited 4 times. Last edit by Darren Adams on 28th August 2014 4:34pm

What counter-arguments are there to make? The stand here is "equality".
Are you suggesting that there are legitimate reasons for women to receive a sub-par treatment?

For me there is two types of way to achieve equality, "positive equality" where you give opportunities and comparative experiences to a group of people to balance the equation and "negative equality" where you take away opportunities and experiences from a group to achieve a "fairer" balance, I personally feels she advocates "negative equality" which is something I don't believe in fundamentally as I believe "positive equality" offers more diverse choices for both groups.

I'm not sure if I'm explaining this in the best way, but I think you'll probably get the idea

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Craig Burkey on 28th August 2014 4:43pm

One thing I will note specifically for those saying this is a matter for the police rather than internet forums is that there is little to nothing police can, or will do about these threats. Their jurisdictional nightmares, hard to process, and until this person or someone like him actually causes physical harm, in many areas the police are totally hamstrung by our own laws and regulations when it comes to handling online threats. We need to police ourselves because our justice system is WOEFULLY behind the times when it comes to dealing with the onslaught of new methods of emotional and mental violence that the internet creates.

I've personally seen how ineffective the police can be when it comes to cases of in person abuse against women, and in-person threats vs. virtual ones. If they can't handle the immediate and present danger, how could they possibly deal with something like Twitter threats? Since we haven't, and presumably don't want to go full Minority Report with handling criminal behavior, there's a difficult balance that has to be maintained. We're dealing with a new frontier, while our country still fights contentiously about laws and regulations that are 300 years old. Until our laws catch up with our reality, this kind of horrible behavior has to be dealt with by all of us in the gaming community personally.

And please note I'm not suggesting that this isn't something the police should be handling, what I'm saying is that they have a history of being utterly ineffectual in these situations, either due to a lack of understanding of the severity of the issue, or because the laws and regulations they abide by and uphold simply don't have the breadth and depth necessary to deal with a whole new world of challenges.

Craig, would you elaborate on your theory of 'negative equality' as it pertains to Sarkeesian's work? I'm not sure how you can interpret 'games should probably try to improve the way they depict and treat women' as 'taking away' from anybody except lazy misogynists.

I mean, if you think it's important to protect lazy misogynists from criticism you are allowed to think so but I think most people here are going to disagree with you.

Yeah Jessica, for me is in what domain 'games should probably try to improve the way they depict and treat women' should apply, I certainly don't think it should apply to games targeted at the YA male demographic, games like GTA for instance. It this instance I'd advocate more games to cater for the female audience("positive equality")

But say you do include GTA rather than remove female strippers and prostitutes which would be an example of 'negative equality', I'd add male ones("positive equality")

I found her latest video very good, better than some previous ones where I had more moments of "err, yes, but wait a moment..."

On a tangent, I'm not really up-to-date on all the acronyms and (supposed) social movements:
MRA means Men's Rights Activist, right? how is that an insult? It appears to be used as such

Okay, well then I don't agree that just adding male strippers into a game like GTA would in any way 'level the playing field' nor that games targeted at young men should be exempt from an expectation that they would contain respectful and nuanced depictions of women and sexual violence.

First off, adding sexually objectified male characters to a game that contains sexually objectified female characters does not make things equal. As Sarkeesian observed in the generally very good Women as Background Decoration: Part One, due to the huge social imbalance between the way men and women are commonly depicted in media(women as sexy sex objects primarily, men as pretty much anything and everything else), adding male sex objects to games doesn't improve the way women are depicted:

...even if sexualized male NPCs were more prevalent, equal opportunity sexual objectification is still not the solution to this problem, especially considering the existing power differential between men and women in our society. Women are constantly represented as primarily for sex. Men may be sexual too, but they can also be anything else, they are not defined by or reduced to their sexuality and their sexuality is not thought of as something existing chiefly for the pleasure of others. Which means the fundamentally dominant position of men in our culture is not in any way challenged or diminished by the rare male depiction as sex worker.

As for the idea that for some reason games aimed at young adult men should be allowed to use all the lazy sexist tropes they like without a whiff of criticism, and if women want to play games that don't actively insult their existence we should just find something else to play rather than argue mainstream games could cater to us as well as the all-important YA male... Well, I think that's a pretty terrible argument all-round. Don't you?

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Jessica Hyland on 28th August 2014 5:22pm

@David, MRA is more specifically a term used by anti-feminist groups who see feminism and women's equality as a threat to men and masculinity. MRA is an insult in the same way that 'white supremacist' is an insult.

Reading some of these comments, JESUS CHRIST I HATE THE ACTUAL INDUSTRY, TOO. MY GOD. And this is coming from someone who is wearing an actual Fedora in his avatar.

Since this is in vogue, I will preface my comments by saying I've not been a fan of Anita's videos - they play loose with facts sometimes - and don't care for Zoe's games. My Mandatory Disclosure(tm) is now out of the way, because I guess that's necessary to prove I'm not a white knight or whatever that is. It also proves, I guess, that I'm not trying to screw Zoe Quinn?

Now, with that out of the way.

There is literally one reason we're talking about this, and one only: a bunch of crybaby MRAs really, really, really hate Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian. Like, *really* hate them. They want to drive these uppity women from the industry. Full stop. Everything else stems from that desire, and serves as a shield. The dudebros tipped their hand with Sarkeesian, when they tried to flag her work as violating Youtube TOS (and it worked for a time). From there, it was DMCA request after DMCA request (ironically, one of the complaints about Zoe now). Due to that, I take none of the "legitimate" complaints about either of these women seriously.

"But Anita is loose with her facts!" Then debate her on the facts.
"Zoe makes bad games!" Wondeful, then let's attack Zynga, too.
"But Ben Kuchera donated to her Patreon! Bias!!!" Disclosure form. Done. We don't attack financial analysts for their investments if they're disclosed. We do it here because we're dealing with manchildren.
"Zoe Quinn is sleeping with a reporter!" For one, he never reviewed anything of her's. Secondly? You better have proof - solid proof - before making that claim.
"Dude, why do we keep reporting on this? This isn't Tumblr, bro. Like, brooooooo"

That last one pisses me off the most, mainly because it's perpetuated by comfortable white men who could give a shit so long as they maintain the status quo. That's all they're interested in. Why are we reporting on this? Because a prominent voice in the industry has finally had to LEAVE HER HOME due to the vile hatred coming at her from the scum of this industry! That's newsworthy! And we go through this once a month! The fact that this whole issue started at 4chan and /r/gaming should *instantly* tell anyone objective that something's wrong; those places are famous for this shit.

As a writer, I respond to people telling me "stop writing about this, we're tired of reading about it" by writing more about it, and if that means someone doesn't read me, then we pressure others into having to talk about it. The status quo is very powerful - it's what's driving what's going on in Ferguson MO more than blatant racism - and it needs to be challenged, constantly.

Let me finish by quoting someone who said something very smart when #1reasonwhy (remember that?) came up:

Guys, there’s a lot of smoke. Eventually, you’re going to have to admit that something’s on fire. And when almost every woman in the industry on Twitter says that they have either been objectified, stared down, or outright discriminated against, that’s a really big (freaking) fire.

Oh, wait. I wrote that. A year ago. I also wrote something similar in 2012. And 2010. 2009. 2008, though that piece sucks.

I'm as tired of writing it as you are of reading it, and I'm not going to stop.

Edited 5 times. Last edit by Christopher Bowen on 28th August 2014 5:48pm

I don't agree with all of Sarkeesian's views - but at the same time, she has a right to share her opinion, and speak publicly and openly her views. I do 100% condemn the activities of those who hide behind a screen and pepper social media mediums with threats of violence and worse.

This leads to the next gripe I have. I stronly feel there is a need for all netizens to come together, and call for some kind of legal action against those who threaten violence and spew hatred on the internet. Despite what these "mouth breathers" and bottom feeding low-lifes believe, what Sarkeesian does is in-line with democratic freedom of speech. What the haters do is simply against the law, and should be punishable (rather harshly if I had the choice) as such.

Society draws this line extremely clear in its laws. One is allowed to express anger, it is their freedom of expression. HOWEVER, violence and hatred are not covered nor protected by these laws. The internet will become a better place the moment, laws and justice governing freedom of speech and expression can extend there as well.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Anthony Chan on 28th August 2014 5:36pm

@Craig Burkley I'm going to assume that you are a white, western, adult, male. I'm basing this on your profile photo and name. I sincerely apologise if I'm incorrect in those assumptions. If those assumptions are correct this puts you in a position of extreme privilege, especially if you happen to be heterosexual as well.

Adding male prostitutes to GTA would do nothing to correct the balance because you are not subject to the same prejudices as those less privileged than you are.

And for the record, Anita herself says that you can enjoy something and still understand that it is flawed (like GTA in its handling of women).

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Christopher Garratty on 28th August 2014 6:31pm

Regarding the argument for sexist content being permissible in games targeted at certain audiences; would you make the same argument for racist content?

I cant believe this "article" is on this site.
This is something I would expect to see on NG4.com or something like that.
This is about as baseless as any argument for or against Phil Fish with just about as much sensationalism.
For all we know she could have staged these alleged threats herself.
Yes, I do think she would do something like this.
Anyway...I am quite surprised at gameindustry.biz, up until this very moment they kept their head above water.

May I suggest this site remove this article, there is no point posting about 'Tumblr' journalism as it's mostly idiots trying to out do other idiots on how PC they are and how you should do what they do.

What makes this article so dangerous to you? Even if it wasn't 'news worthy' (which it clearly is) why would you try and convince the editors to have it removed? Is it really worth the time and effort? Covering up your intentions only serve to to give this article another reason to exist.

Personally I am frustrated by how polarized these debates tend to be. I am sure there are feminists who wouldn't necessarily agree with everything Anita has to say. That doesn't mean she doesn't have a point. However, I'm not a fan of the term feminism, as it is used too often as a cornering tactic and placing blame. It tend to trigger so much anger in people. I mean, what's wrong with mutual respect?

I do think Anita has a point. Just look at those Hitman ads. In my opinon a lot of mainstream games tend to go much further than the mainstream of other media in terms of using of sex and violence. There's still a sense of anarchy that is both liberating and a little bit worrying. It's not always offensive. Sometimes it's just bad taste. Some game stories feel more like rejected movie scripts than anything else. But I guess that's beside the point. Or not.

Edited 3 times. Last edit by Petter Solberg on 28th August 2014 7:46pm

Ralph, there is no evidence that Anita Sarkeesian staged allegations of threats against herself, is there. Your remark is just baseless, defamatory rumour-mongering.

I cannot fathom the level of self-delusion necessary to suggest that someone who has had multiple high-visibility hate campaigns enacted against her could be 'making it up for attention'. What an incredibly offensive and wrong-headed suggestion. Ralph, might I pointedly suggest you rethink your comment.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Jessica Hyland on 28th August 2014 6:09pm

@Jessica
Ah, so anti-feminists hijacked that neutral term and call themselves that? that is not at all comparable with "white supremacist", which is an inherently discriminating term.
I'm not familiar with the history of MRAs, but I'm against using a neutral term in a derogatory way because it throws the baby out with the bathwater and creates this negative image that also affects activists who stand up for legitimate issues. What do we call those people?
This sounds like saying feminists are man-hating lesbians...

First off, adding sexually objectified male characters to a game that contains sexually objectified female characters does not make things equal

I completely disagree, and it is this type of nonsensical argument that Sarkeesian and her ilk build thier straw house, that sadly mainstream games media refuse to challenge

if women want to play games that don't actively insult their existence we should just find something else to play rather than argue mainstream games could cater to us as well as the all-important YA male... Well, I think that's a pretty terrible argument all-round. Don't you?

No I don't , I think its a pretty measured and sensible one, I don't like sport games, you know what? I don't play them, I don't actively call for them to be changed so if I happen to buy/play one I'd find it more appealing, I know I'm not it's target audience.

I'm sure there is common ground like calling for more female protagonists but I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on the other points, I don't see either of us shifting our stance anytime soon, advocating censorship is just something I find to abhorent

@David
I didn't mean to say that MRA is comparable with white supremacy, just that some people take pride in calling themselves white supremacists and anyone with a shred of decency who is even vaguely aware of what the MRA movement is about avoids using that label to avoid being associated with hate groups. Possibly it could be more accurately compared to the benign-sounding 'pro-life' anti-abortion movement, whose prominent members routinely harass women and encourage or even commit violence and murder against medical professionals.

Activists who actually stand up for men's rights, for example men's rights to not be raped in prison, to not be conscripted into armies, to be afforded paternity leave and care for their own children, to wear what they like and behave how they like without fear of being accused of 'unmanliness', to admit vulnerability and access mental healthcare etc are often called feminists, because these are feminist issues exacerbated by the same restrictive patriarchal gender roles that we fight against for all people.

@Craig

advocating censorship is just something I find to abhorent

Well, it sure is a good thing that nobody is arguing that game makers be prevented by law from creating sexist games, isn't it?

Criticism is not censorship. Criticism is the suggestion that a work has flaws that could be improved upon, not that a work should not be allowed to exist. No matter how horrified Sarkeesian(and plenty of other people including myself) may be by the extreme sexual violence depicted in the games she criticises, she has never said that they should be banned.

@Craig

I completely disagree, and it is this type of nonsensical argument that Sarkeesian and her ilk build thier straw house, that sadly mainstream games media refuse to challenge

You are judging games as an isolated phenomena, disconnected from the real world. If there was gender parity in everything except games, then your argument would stand, in the real world, it doesn't.

I don't like sport games, you know what? I don't play them,

I really don't think that being depicted as a millionaire sports superstar (as happens in most sports games) has quite the same impact on the average guy as being depicted as a murdered prostitute has on the average girl, irrespective of how averse to exercise you are.

Great work from Sarkeesian so far, shame about the (mainly) sexist and aggressive parts of the population who can't handle her. Death and rape threats are a weak attempt by weak people to try and close down an important argument.

The idea that calling out tropes amounts to censorship is ridiculous and shows a lack of understanding of what that word means. What they're doing - what Anita's doing, and I say this as someone who's criticized her work in the past - isn't that. She's saying "hey, this is kind of weird, even if we don't know what we're doing. We should think about this." That's not the same as saying "we should make it so no one can ever do this. Ever."

THAT is censorship.

deleted last post because unfinished upload@Jessica

I realize social terminology tends to grow historically and that's what we end up stuck, regardless of inconsistency and incoherence and I'm not usually one to insist on this things as long as people understand each other, but this is a case were this fucked up terminology actually causes harm to the debate.

If we allow this definition of MRA to persist, we automatically have everyone who stands up for legitimate men's issues start of from a defensive position. It's as if feminists had to explain each time before they say something: now, I don't hate men, but...." It also associates legitimate concerns with ridiculous angry men and discredits them.

caling people who stand up for the equal treatment of men is feminist is imprecise and suggests all sexism is a result of patriarchy, perpetuating the erroneous notion that sexism is basically something that men do to other people.

To be honest, I think we'd have the most constructive discussions if we all just talked about gender equality. the other terms tend to foster an "us against them" mentality. There should be a male equivalent to feminist that isn't derogatory. That, or we ditch tbe terms completely and just use gender equality.

@Christian - Oh, they can experience racism and bigotry. They just experience, historically, a *lot less of it*. Vastly. And sexism, racism, these things are all institutionalized in our society. The only place where discrimination against whites is institutionalized is Zimbabwe.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Christopher Bowen on 28th August 2014 7:05pm

Fan of her message, although I find some of her research lazy. Still, I have to admire the courage it takes to stick with something through that the abuse she receives daily, and it's something I can't even really fathom. As a researcher, I find her work too frequently sloppy, and I don't like how she cherry-picks examples in games, while leaving counterexamples of balance untouched. Farcry 3 for example, is the only game I can think of that graphically handles male sexual violence, and your straight-male character gets sexually assaulted by a woman as well, but Anita only talks about the violence against women in it. That's a game I think actually is balanced because of that, and I think her message would be stronger if such things were included. Where I agree strongly with her, is that FC3 is so notable because of that fact - I can think of a dozen games featuring sexual violence against women, but that's my only example of the same against men.

Regarding adding male sexual violence balancing things, I agree with Craig - if it was depicted equally, that'd be equality, even if just in video games. Yes, it doesn't occur equally in real life, but this is an example where I think the media could help enact change. Anita makes the point well herself in the latest video - what we see and experience sets our norms. If abuse against both genders was presented equally, us guys would have far higher exposure to it being personified for us. Speaking for myself, the impact of the FC3 sexual violence was far greater to me, because it was against a man. That did a lot more to make me think about and consider the impact of that violence than the many, many times I'd gamed through similar experiences where the victim was a woman.

The idea that calling out tropes amounts to censorship is ridiculous

I disagree, she is advocating censorship, she is attacking narative and gameplay elements at conceptual level, whether it's decided to remove these at the inital design stage or post a dressing down from a classification body it still has the same effect, eg the removal of these elements and themes

Censorship has a nasty habit of creeping in, its something we all should be weary of

@Christian One thing I believe you're overlooking is that average white men very rarely experience racism or discrimination. I've got asian friends that very much have, despite us being pretty much identical in socio-economic status and upbrinigng (urban Canadians). For us straight white dudes, it's just not a thing we think about, because it doesn't impact our daily life.

The Daily Show provided a good example recently, where their scruffy-looking white dude camera guy entered a building with no problem, but the suit-wearing black guy got hassled following behind him.

I disagree, she is advocating censorship, she is attacking narative and gameplay elements at conceptual level, whether it's decided to remove these at the inital design stage or post a dressing down from a classification body it still has the same effect, eg the removal of these elements and themes

Censorship has a nasty habit of creeping in, its something we all should be weary of


Anita's video are designed to highlight tropes. This idea that she is advocating for their removal is preposterous. She has never, ever, ever said something should 100% not be in a game.

This seems to be a recurring problem. People perceive her videos to be being anti-gaming, and they're not. The Tropes series showcases video game themes or mechanics that add zero value to game other than to titillate the male demographic at the cost of degrading woman into nothing more than decorative toys.

I hate to be that guy, but have you actually watched her series? That's not a dig, I mean that as a genuinely honest question: Have you watched all her videos or are you just going off hearsay?

Normally, here's how it goes: Someone watches one of her videos. Then the person says "Well I agree with some of it, but I don't agree with all of it." Not once has anyone who's watched the videos with an unbiased opinion, gone "Oh golly, she's coming to ban all our macho blood-wank-fests," because she has never, ever, ever said she wants stuff banned, just looked at and addressed.

Anita Sarkeesian is not Jack Thompson, yet everyone seemingly thinks she is. And most of the time these people don't even bother to watch her videos because fucking 4Chan can fill them in.

With this in mind, I find it hard to measure discrimination and privilege by attributes like white, male, adult and heterosexual.

Seems that white slavery has been forgotten by many, as it does not quite fit the current agenda. Ottoman Empire? Barbary slave trade? It was quite active till the 19th century, and entire Italian cities were deserted in the middle ages because of that.

For all we know she could have staged these alleged threats herself.

For all we know, Ralph, you could have posted these "alleged" threats yourself, and you want this article removed in an attempt to cover up your deeds. That you have no evidence that you didn't make the threatening account is very suspicious, I must say.

See how easy it is to make up utterly baseless accusations?

Also there seems to be some degree of confusion that criticism is somehow linked to a desire for censorship. It's clearly not. All art forms undergo criticism, games are just finally growing up to the point that people are starting to treat them as they deserve, warts and all.

Putting aside the issue of the content of Sarkeesian's videos (because that really is a separate issue) I find it deplorable that anyone should have to be forced to move or put up with threats against their person or family. There's such a thing as a measured response: start a sub-reddit, make a counter-video or write a blog. But the perpetration of these threats by anonymous internetizens is truly beyond justification.

I hate to be that guy, but have you actually watched her series? That's not a dig, I mean that as a genuinely honest question: Have you watched all her videos or are you just going off hearsay?

I watched the video embbedded in this article, and I've read numerous other articles on similar subject matter, and read other forums, I can't watch any more of her videos, like I can't watch FOX News.

I just hate opinion presented as fact(towards the end she even says the words "In truth"), most of her gameplay footage featured interactive elements that when watched passively ended in a negative outcome, which is obvious, she also likes to reuse scenes and state facts of gameplay like they are inheirently bad practice when, again just in her opinion, when it comes to praising anything to do with games rather than look at the mainstream titles shes been pulling down she picks some leftfield game "Pappa & Yo" that I'd never heard of, yeah that might be my loss but from a video criticising mainstream games it feels very disjointed and strained as if she intentionally didn't use a mainstream example emphaise her arguement and cast mainstream game further in a bad light. So yeah it wasn't a critque of the games in question but rather a bias string of out of context clips often played out to the worse posible outcome

Centuries of being a supposedly civilized society, and we still sometimes feel the need to utter aloud the refrain, "I don't agree with you, but you have a right to express your opinion," as if it would somehow otherwise be unclear. How could any well-adjusted individual get so upset about a video game or about what was said about a video game? Death threats to game reviewers over a low score, death threats to developers because someone tweaked a weapon balance in online multiplayer, death and rape threats to women for pointing out where the industry has a little growing up to do - I'm starting to wonder, because I enjoy gaming, whether I'm batshit insane and just don't know it, since I appear to be in the company of a growing number of people so behaviorally and emotionally maladjusted, they'll react to a simple disagreement as if someone were forcing their hand onto a hot stove.

Maybe this is me just getting old, but I fear one day the majority of the gaming population is going to be made up of dangerously delusional, entitled male 20-somethings, whose parents one day handed them a game controller in an effort to shut them up, only to have never checked in again. They'll be screaming obscenities into a headset about the most minor things, because no one ever bothered to tell them a video game isn't all there is to life. They'll maim, kill, and insult others over warped, virtual transgressions, and when unplugged from that setting, they'll exist as individuals useless and even hazardous to civilization.

People like this, by the way, is why I get less and less enamored with "connected" games. Gaming has always been one of my escapes, but I'm not so lost without them that I'll stay should the industry ever fancy itself solely as the virtual arena in which these dullards play out their fantasies.

I disagree, she is advocating censorship, she is attacking narative and gameplay elements at conceptual level,

Does an art-critic advocate censorship when examining the use of religious or political figures in art? Does a film critic advocate censorship when questioning the use of actors, directing, or cinematography? Does a theatre critic?

Criticism and examination does not equal censorship. Moreover, a medium where both consumers and professionals propose this argument is not one that can grow. We need to self-examine and self-question, just like any other medium. Whilst I think Anita's Tropes series is less academically rigorous than what is needed, I find it the same as art or film critiques - we need all levels of criticism in order to target all levels of consumer/audience.

Or, to put it another way - if we were talking about the use of race/class and gender in Shakespeare, would you use your same argument?

(edited for double negative. :( )

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Morville O'Driscoll on 28th August 2014 11:32pm

Morville: Shakespeare is pretty old at this point, you couldn't separate his works from the context of the times they were written in. To do so would take away so much of what makes them what they are. Moreover examination is wholly different from lacing criticisms with dissapproval. The comparison doesn't work because the movements making the criticisms here are actually intent on change, not simply looking at things.

Compare Shakespeare with videogames which are a living medium prone to iteration (ports, ports of ports, HD remasters, definitive editions, GOTY editions, sequels in the next year). If the criticism of a living, pliable medium isn't to change it then what is the point of it?

I'm pretty sure the people making criticism have some kind of change in mind that they'd want enacted which would either require censorship of current material or self-censorship (on the developers part) to meet. They aren't so much as analysing games such as complaining that the games don't look the way they want. And people typically complain because they want their concerns addressed, not simply to "add to the debate" (so to speak).

Note that I'm not talking about cases where the games are simply being used as a talking point or cayalyst for a wider discussion, or where games are critically examing for the quality of their content (critique), but actual criticism based on the application of extraneous criteria.

Edited 3 times. Last edit by Shehzaan Abdulla on 28th August 2014 10:29pm

James and Christopher sum up my thoughts on this. It is possible for people in privileged positions to experience discrimination. But not experience the level of institutionalised discrimination that has been displayed against Anita and othersblike her.

Why are we even talking about Shakespeare? And literary criticism? This is all strawman stuff.

Sexist losers are attacking women who say or do anything they don't like and threatening them with rape and murder. How we got from there to the Ottoman Empire is beyond me. Woman says something MRAs don't like. MRAs act like scum, because they are. Lather, rinse, repeat.

I think there's an intent to this, to bring people off course and off topic in an attempt to minimize this very real issue.

@Morville She is not critiquing the games though she is flat out attacking their use of tropes in very negative and emotive mannor practically never stopping to provide propper context to the scenes she tears down

Woah, Craig! Are you starting to run out of gas? There were more grammar and selling errors in that post than words! :(

And yeah, maybe it's time to attack the tropes. Not only do they perpetuate sexism in many ways, but they're lazy and banal.

Pretty sure nobody felt the need to preface their sympathy for John Smedley when his plane was diverted by similar terrorist threats the other day with 'Well I don't agree with him but I guess I can admit that this is bad!'

At this point, I don't care whether you agree with literally anything Anita Sarkeesian has said. Turning every mention of her name into an excuse to bitch and moan about how white male privilege is a mean lie or 'context' makes gross sexist bullshit okay is getting really damn tiresome.

Why are we even talking about Shakespeare? And literary criticism? This is all strawman stuff.

Apologies. I meant to use the standards by which other art-forms/mediums are critiqued as a yard-stick for this medium, and argued against Craig's point that criticism = censorship. You're right that it's a form of straw-man, but I think the examination of other mediums and their critics can be useful in the sense of what we could possibly aim for as an industry (I may be in the minority here, though, so I'll just finish this comment on the point, and leave it at that. :) )

Compare Shakespeare with videogames which are a living medium prone to iteration... If the criticism of a living, pliable medium isn't to change it then what is the point of it?

Reflection and questioning of society and privilige, and examination of class. There's many living mediums which have decent, cogent forms of criticism, and which aren't attacked for assumed "censorship" - theatre (from contemporary playwrites), opera and classical (from living composers), film, and books. The Chinese New Wave of the 80s/90s, for example, has spawned a whole slew of criticism that examines films in the context of the fading of Communism.

(As I say, I'll leave it at that, other than to say that no right-thinking person would defend the actions of the people who have threatened critics and developers. Just awful behaviour.)

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Morville O'Driscoll on 28th August 2014 11:47pm

@Chris Mate, its late and I'm replying on my phone, sorry. I dont think I'm the best person to argue these point, as I'm not the most articulate person in the world, which iz why it makes me so depressed to see hardly any proper counter point pieces done by the professional games media, the fact this discussion has gone on so much shows how divided opinion is yet IMO the games media is portraying it as a completly one sided argument, which it is not

That is your opinion.of the tropes I respectfully disagree, it human nature for men to want to protect women, it makes perfect sense to me to see related imagery used in games aimed at games creating a male escapist fantasy, is it realistic? No. Is ment to be realistic? No.

It's just embarrassing that people are not familiar with criticism.

Exploring gender issues in media has happened in every medium, but when it happens to video games it's called censorship. She's not forcing anyone to do anything nor is she advocating that all tropes should be wiped out. She's just identifying and exploring that these are tropes and when done poorly, are examples of lazy writing. Standard non controversial stuff from the field of criticism.

@Craig
It's non controversial in any field except video games. That speaks volumes.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Shane Sweeney on 29th August 2014 1:30am

The mere fact we even have to debate this just proves it's a problem.

Think about that.

It is imperative that people like Sarkeesian do not give up. Not only gaming but society needs strong women like her ready to stand a fight.

@John: Sarkeesian does not criticise the depiction ti self as much the cultural background and legacy that feeds it. In more specific words: the reason why a woman dying has a more dramatical charge than a man is a sexist legacy.
Comparing it with Schindler's List (which, by the way, is a historical movie recreating real events) is completely out of what she is trying to say and reducing it to something close to that she is criticizing is exclusively the violence and gore.

I also fail to understand where you people see "censorship". Is she imposing it to you? is she ordering you or actively asking for laws to prevent this content? nope; she is criticizing and trying to make us; the industry, think about it and, so far, I saw a few points to disagree with her but not a single reason to openly say that she is wrong.

Censorship is what we sometimes face in Germany, not what she is promoting.

@Christopher

I think there's an intent to this, to bring people off course and off topic in an attempt to minimize this very real issue

I don't believe that. I'm more optimistic and think that the reason why people discuss other things than how completely unacceptable and disgusting it is to send death and rape threats is that this is obvious to the largest majority of commenters. There really is nothing to discuss here. There is also not much to be gained here, there is a social consensus on this and it materialized long ago in what we call the Law.

But give people a forum and they'll want to discuss. In these cases they'll discuss issues related to sexism, where there is still a lot of ground to cover.

Another reason why people might be more voca land digress in comment sections is that men don't yet have the equivalent of feminists as a mouthpiece to speak in a media-attention-grabbing way. The only highly-visible folks doing that are a bunch of douches and nobody wants to even be associated with the term they call themselves because it means to be automatically ridiculed and dismissed. So it's every commenter, every forum-poster for himself.

Of course some people will try to rationalize, excuse, minimize, but suggesting people who digress from making obvious and self-evident statements are doing just that is about as helpful as blanket statements like: gamers send death threats!

Edited 1 times. Last edit by David Canela on 29th August 2014 9:25am

It's just embarrassing that people are not familiar with criticism.

She's not criticizing she is preaching. If she were to take the scenes she disagrees with and suggested changes that to me would be valid criticism but she just attacks using lazy mass generalizations and out of context clips, and for every scene she uses I'm sure there is an equivalent scene in other media be it TV or Movies, I certainly think she is unfairly singling games out

Y'all arguing over and again that anything Anita says amounts to censorship are embarassing yourselves. She has never argued for any game to be banned, she has never said that any game should not exist, she has never said that game designers have to do any particular thing.

All she is doing is shining a light on pernicious issues within games that retread tired and harmful sexist stereotypes about women. If you think the things she's looking at are not a problem, you are still 100% free to keep on rehashing them. But nobody is above criticism, and crying about the mean feminists trying to 'censor' your games by saying that sexism is gross and terrible is the same kind of logic that literal children use. Grow up, for God's sake.

If she were to take the scenes she disagrees with and suggested changes that to me would be valid criticism

Criticism in an artistic sense should not include suggestions for how content should be changed. The critic is not the artist, it's not their piece.

I'm going to take issue now with the idea that the scenes Sarkeesian criticises are presented 'without context', as though there is some kind of context that would make sexual violence and pointlessly sexualised women 'okay'. It would be somewhat impractical to present these scenes within the context of the entire rest of the games they are from, as it generally takes at least ten or twenty hours to play through a modern AAA game. Anita usually summarises what the game is about and the in-game context for the scenes she criticises, so for one thing, saying she presents everything out of context is literally wrong.

For another thing... have you ever considered the fact that the entire TvW series is about context? Taking examples of sexist tropes from hundreds of games is illuminating the context of the medium as a whole - that even if the sexism in one game is relatively benign, it exists within the context of hundreds of others that repeat and reuse the same tired, shitty ideas so often that they become tropes, they become shorthand for 'things that define the existence of women' in games. No game is an island. Complaining that the context of a single game excuses its narrow and harmful depiction of women and use of sexual violence is just ignoring the context of all the other games that do the exact same thing for the exact same terrible reasons.

You can't appeal to 'context' if the only context you're willing to acknowledge is the one that lets you excuse and ignore problematic themes in your media.

"I'm not here to argue against her views" I think you find i also said Jason. You ignored my point which is that the attacks against her are inexcusable.

I completely disagree with what you said but i'm not going to go off on a tangent and go on about why i disagree with you and her. You have your point of view I have mine. That will unlikely change.

I will not support her views but I will support her right to make them.

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Aaron Parkes on 29th August 2014 10:28am

@John Owens

That's not censorship. It's criticism. Censorship is when an authority prevents an audience from receiving all or part of a work. Nobody is stopping you playing any part of these games. Just like you're not censoring anybody when you say these discussions aren't appropriate.

@Jessica I totally agree she has the right to voice her opinion, but what worries me most is the mainstream games media swallowing what shes selling as fact, no balance, no challenge, no impartiality which I find extremely disturbing, the debate relegated to forum and comments where often it descends into name calling and insults which aren't helpful to anyone

@Alex

That's not censorship. It's criticism. Censorship is when an authority prevents an audience from receiving all or part of a work.

That's one form of censorship, self censorship which is what she is advocating is still censorship, just because a government authority isn't involved yet, doesn't mean it isn't censorship

Criticism in an artistic sense should not include suggestions for how content should be changed

Why not? It's valid to say that a scene in a film would work better in a different context, or a ballet would work better in a different style. Basing a review around such things is bad, but critiquing works and examining how they could be changed is a mature thing to do for any medium.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Morville O'Driscoll on 29th August 2014 10:46am

@Craig
You're worried because the games media agrees with her? There are plenty of people out there who disagree with her and post hilarious conspiracy-style videos about PROVING HER WRONG but I think you might find that the reason most of the more mainstream outlets generally agree with her conclusions is because... (whisper it) she's generally right.

And, once again, what she is advocating is not self-censorship, or mind control, or regular censorship, or moral censorship. The only thing Anita is advocating is for the developers and consumers of videogames to critically engage with the themes in their games.

If that critical engagement results in realising that we've been using and reusing and abusing terrible stereotypes about women and that maybe we could stop doing that, imo that's great. But all Anita is asking you to do is think about your work and the greater context of what you create and consume.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Jessica Hyland on 29th August 2014 10:45am

You're worried because the games media agrees with her? There are plenty of people out there who disagree with her and post hilarious conspiracy-style videos about PROVING HER WRONG but I think you might find that the reason most of the more mainstream outlets generally agree with her conclusions is because... (whisper it) she's generally right.

She not right, its her opinion, it's not fact, to accept it as such does everybody a disservice, it should be challenged. To relegate anybody dissenting as crackpot is deeply unfair, it's mainstream media job to challenge her opinion and provide an alternative view point not leave it to random unskilled youtubers to "post hilarious conspiracy-style videos"

Have to say, I'm kinda shocked at some of the footage she is showing. I hope she is campaigning with equal vigor against some well known religions however. Far bigger problem globally.

The internet is a really bad platform for balanced communication, but people should be allowed to express their opinions none the less. It shouldn't result in real world threats of any kind.

@Craig
I don't think it's the sole responsibility of anyone who works in the media to 'challenge' or 'debate' criticism they agree with. I have seen people on feminist discussion boards critiquing, amongst other points, Anita's stance on sex workers without being dismissed as 'crackpot' but when the vast majority of dissent is framed in deeply sexist and violent language, it's hard to take someone seriously when all they can say is 'NO SHE' S WRONG YOU'RE WRONG BECAUSE REASONS'

If you want a debate, you're going to have to try harder than just saying 'I disagree that's wrong I don't think that's true' and not providing anything to back up your disagreement with. It's fairly telling tbh.

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Jessica Hyland on 29th August 2014 12:57pm

@Jessica There is no such thing as a correct opinion you insistence that she is "right" is to me indicative of a weak argument, we a all entitled to our own opinion, My personal opinion is that It's absurd to change media aimed for male consumption to fit some feminist paradigm, yeah I can join in calling for more media aimed at a more inclusive audience but that is a different argument.

@Craig

I watched the video embbedded in this article, and I've read numerous other articles on similar subject matter, and read other forums, I can't watch any more of her videos, like I can't watch FOX News.

So your entire diatribe against Sarkeesian's terrible "opinion presented as fact" is based on ONE of her videos, plus other people's opinions of her opinion? And your clearly strongly held opinion of these videos that you haven't watched (but shouldn't go unchallenged) is that she is trying to censor the industry? And you think HER opinion is ill-founded?

Seriously, if you're going to spend so much time critiquing someone's work on a forum, then at least watch the bloody videos. Otherwise no-one will put a lot of stock in YOUR opinion.

@Chris, I think I've seen enough, you don't need to eat much manure to know what it tastes like.

Mate everybody has a right to an opinion, don't take offense if people don't subscribe to her feminist utopia.

Oh, missed this gem:

My personal opinion is that It's absurd to change media aimed for male consumption to fit some feminist paradigm

So it's perfectly OK for games to present women as sex objects for male consumption, as long as we discourage women from playing them and getting all upset? Nice, Craig.

@Chris Yes Chris, it is, get off your high horse it's naive not to accept that Men find Women attractive and desirable, it IMO would be a horribly sterile world if art didn't depict the female form.

What's wrong with a feminist utopia, anyway? Equality of opportunity and respect for everyone, what a chilling idea.

Oh wait, I see. Craig just wants to be able to look at boobs in games without having to think about things like respecting women or the context in which those boobs are presented. Never mind, let's move on.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Jessica Hyland on 29th August 2014 1:18pm

@Jessica I've explained the destructive negative Equality that is being promoted that restricts opportunities to the "right kind" of opportunity rather than the good positive Equality offering true "opportunity and respect for everyone", most importantly it enshrines choice as a fundamental human right.

get off your high horse it's naive not to accept that Men find Women attractive and desirable, it IMO would be a horribly sterile world if art didn't depict the female form

There's a difference between depicting the female form, and creating such obvious wanking material that it puts women off. Compare Rubens' work with Penthouse. Even the porn industry now has female creators who respect what the female audience seeks without belittling them.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Morville O'Driscoll on 29th August 2014 1:30pm

There's a difference between depicting the female form, and creating such obvious wanking material that it puts women off. Compare Rubens' work with Penthouse. Even the porn industry now has female creators who respect what the female audience seeks without belittling them.

Exactly my point, more content should be made for female/mixed consumption but games aimed at male demographic are perfectly fine using this sort of imagery

@Craig
Your continued ignorance of how feminism works is not a great excuse to keep on attacking a strawman. Feminism isn't about 'negative equality' and you do not have an unassailable human right to have sexy naked dead ladies in your videogames.

you do not have an unassailable human right to have sexy naked dead ladies in your videogames.

This definitely sounds like censorship to me, I thought you said it wasn't...

This woman is getting death and rape threats and all you 'guys' want to talk about is her method of criticism?

@Jim I agree I wasn't gonna go into the debate and leave by 2 cents with comment #11, however I felt drawn into defending my call for the Games media to remedy the "lack of proper articles representing the counter arguments" and like I said in #11

I feel just by disagreeing with Sarkeesian and Co, you are automatically categorized along side "the wide variety of misogynists, MRAs, violent fantasists and bottom feeders which populate the murkier strata of the internet and society at large"

Certainly when you get people like Jessica saying stuff like:

Oh wait, I see. Craig just wants to be able to look at boobs in games without having to think about things like respecting women or the context in which those boobs are presented. Never mind, let's move on.

I seem to of been proven correct.

Explain to me how I'm wrong then, Craig.

Actually, Craig, you accused Anita Sarkeesian of censorship, which has already been shot down numerous times.

That's one form of censorship, self censorship which is what she is advocating is still censorship, just because a government authority isn't involved yet, doesn't mean it isn't censorship

How is self censorship a bad thing? If you decide through your own reasoning, which you may or may not have arrived at through listening to someone else, that something's bad taste or better left out, isn't that your decision? All Sarkeesian is doing is presenting her views, which represent a lot of women's views too. The decision to do something with that information is up to whoever's creating the content.

OK then. Couple of things. Socially responsible content does not equal censorship. Making people aware that the majority of gaming is overtly skewed towards men is not censorship. Pointing out that the objectification and marginalisation of women is probably a bad thing to perpetuate does not equal censorship. Games have, historically, always been aimed at men, largely. That is changing. In the ill-fated words of Adam Orth: deal with it.

Most games treat women as window dressing. Virtually none pass the (admittedly not perfect) Bechedel test. Those games will continue to exist, just as those films, books, songs etc have continued to exist. There will never be a "feminist utopia". You will always be able to play a game where women are treated poorly, should you so wish to. You might find that more people think it's distasteful than they used to, but hey, you stick to your guns and show 'em you're gonna play it anyway, that's your prerogative.

Nobody is taking anything away. These are market forces. Women are interested in games, despite the best efforts of the industry. They're noticing that some games make them uncomfortable with their portrayal of women, much as they did with films books, yada yada yada. It's happening, you can't stop it. Women have money now, they can influence stuff with choices.

Games will continue to improve, to become more representative of the wants and tastes of humanity, like any decent medium with a future. You don't have to change, you don't have to believe what's being said, but you won't stop it happening.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Dan Pearson on 29th August 2014 2:32pm

Also, just a friendly reminder to A) keep it civil. If you're being baited or attacked, be the bigger person rather than lashing back; B) this is a site for industry professionals and those training to take a place in the industry, rather than a fully public forum. If you can't prove that you are an active member of the industry or a student in a relevant degree, you are liable to have commenting privileges revoked. Again, not a threat or aimed at anyone specifically, just a reminder of existing rules.

@Eric - Exactly. I only made the distinction to highlight that Sarkeesian acts as a mouthpiece for women who might otherwise be drowned out in this industry due to being in the minority.

Craig.

The thing is, sexist images and ideas can be harmful. And I don't mean harmful in the hysterical Jack Thompson "Call of Duty turns us into murderers" sense. I mean insidiously harmful as a slow process over time. They instill or reinforce unhelpful or damaging worldviews and make us think of women in reductive ways. I concede it may be possible that some people, perhaps yourself included, are able to compartmentalise sexist material, play sexist games, listen to sexist music or watch sexist pornography without it colouring their treatment of women. But there is evidence to suggest that it does have an affect on many of us (perhaps most of us) unconsciously, on men and women. And the material's mere existence becomes a tacit acceptance by society that disempowering a whole social group is okay. Particularly if it is commoditised mass media. My personal feeling is, on balance, that a selfish enjoyment of sexist works is less important than improving the net quality of life for as many people as possible.

Using racism as an analogy to sexism, I'm very glad as a society we no longer tolerate "golliwogs" in our childrens books and "Black and White Minstrels" on our television sets. I'm sure for people who grew up with these and perceived them as entertainment it was considered censorship when publishers stopped funding these works. But I would hope you would agree that as a society our no longer finding them acceptable has been to the net benefit of human well being.

Primum non nocere.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Jonathan Burroughs on 29th August 2014 3:51pm

Ah. My intent was to label media and ideas sexist or racist, not specific individuals. Certainly not the person I was directly addressing with my reply. I agree they are powerful terms.

I mean... you've actually entirely misrepresented what I said. I didn't call anybody sexist or racist.

No, I agree with you, in so much as those are powerful terms best not casually applied to individuals. I was very careful to avoid doing so in my post.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Jonathan Burroughs on 29th August 2014 3:43pm

It's frustrating being a liberal fighting for equality, and seeing my fellow liberals using blatantly arrogant and condescending words which only ruin the movement. If you're commenting in support of feminism, but you're using said language, just stop. The movement will be much more successful without your harmful post.

On topic, no one deserves this sort of attack. Period.

As for the industry's gender parity, it's pretty slanted. But that's only really because of the overwhelmingly large male demographic. That demographic is changing, and the industry is changing to accommodate this. But it isn't going to happen in a year. Maybe 5, but that's just how long it'll take. Obviously if I could wish it faster, I would, but it's just not possible.

@Jessica
This is slightly off-topic, but your description of a man's natural rights (child care, etc..) is appropriate, and is a great description of the issues that male feminists fight to change. But (and I'm not a very masculine guy, so this is coming from witnessing my masculine, male friends) that list only covers things that affect guys like me and not guys like my friends. I really hate that MRA's happen to be so terrible, because that title would be appropriate.

Feminism (which I count myself as a supporter) only serves to reduce the influence of our patriarchal society. But I've always felt that we're missing a movement or group to separate what counts as 'bad' (sexual exploitation and such) and what's 'good' (men's health and hobbies). It's sort of how I hate that some of my liberal friends will argue that, say, camo or country music should be discouraged because the sort of politics they typically disagree with is commonly correlated with camo or country music.

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Nick Wofford on 29th August 2014 7:24pm

It's frustrating being a liberal fighting for equality, and seeing my fellow liberals using blatantly arrogant and condescending words which only ruin the movement.

My problem with this thread is that people are very judgmental of others. Liberalism is a bit like doing anything you want until it hurts someone else, but activist like some people commenting in this thread must choose something to stand against, and its ending up more like "you can have any opinion as long as its the same as mine", which is not that different from the male chauvinist view. This is what liberalism turned out to be by 2014.

It's frustrating being a woman fighting for equality, and seeing 'my fellow liberals' using blatantly tone-policing and condescending words which only ruin my blood pressure. If you're commenting 'in support' of feminism, but you're using said language, just stop. The movement literally does not give a toss what you think of our language. If anyone on the sidelines is put off the entire idea of feminism because they witnessed a woman being angry about facing down insulting sexist rhetoric, they weren't actually interested in feminism in the first place.

The movement literally does not give a toss what you think of our language

Out of curiosity, what would you think and feel if some would tell you that "he/she does not give a toss what you think about dead, naked ladies in a game" ? You sound a lot more like the person that you are so keen on fighting.

Bleh. My two cents: This is and should be a police matter first and foremost. I know here in the U. S. of A., many women tend to be given the "shrug and hug" treatment by some law enforcement when they call in that they've been threatened when the proper response should be the people doing the threatening getting a visit from their own local authorities and the fear of some sort of legal retribution put on their stupid heads.

Of course, some would call that a "violation" of one's free speech rights, but I call it karma in action. If you're an asshole to ANYONE online in terms of making threats like she's gotten, you pay the price. Same goes for threatening game developers, critics or anyone else these fools think they can push around with their bullshit posts and laugh about it later.

The tweets, from a throwaway account under the name @kdobbsz

Is there really no way to find out who set up the account and where the IP originated from? I know that some hackers are too good to be caught but I always wondered why, when some of them do get caught, they aren't forced(or offered) to help out catching other online criminals such as these who make online threats with fake accounts. To me that would be a much better use of taxpayer dollars than red light cameras.

Jessica, continue to flounder then. I'll be busy fighting for equality in a productive way.

Paul, I'm sure the guy could be found. It's Twitter, so I'm doubtful that they've got NSA levels of encryption. Hackers are just so picky about what they target. You have to bait them and make fun for them. Kinda scary to me, honestly.

Nick, will I be seeing you at the European Women in Games conference next month then? We'll be discussing how to bring women into the games industry, founding studios and forging long-lasting careers... but I'm sure condescending at me in the comments here is faaar more productive, right?

If anyone reads all the comments on this thread (or others like it), something becomes apparent very quickly.

At first the comments relate to the actual article, but quickly descend into personal sounding boards, semantics nitpicking and arguments about things that do not directly relate to the article.

This article is about someone being viciously harassed to the point that they fear for their lives and have to move somewhere else. That is what comments should relate to but some posters seem far happier to get into personal battles with other posters. And strangely enough the worst articles for encouraging these kinds of derailments are related to women in games.

But then again I do feel these are the final death rolls of the male vs female debate as this cannot go on any longer. There are far too many voices that cannot be silenced and things will have to change because of the sheer weight of it all.

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Darren Adams on 30th August 2014 10:32am

This article is about someone being viciously harassed to the point that they fear for their lives and have to move somewhere else. That is what comments should relate to

This is true, but also, I don't think even the most ardent anti-feminist/pro-vidya-gaems commenter here will say anything here other than "My sympathies/call the police/this is awful". It's indefensible, and everyone knows it. There's also the inclination to question why such things happen, which ties into

the worst articles for encouraging these kinds of derailments are related to women in games.

Because we're all right-thinking people here, and can't understand it. Which, of course, spirals into questions about criticism/feminisim/sexism, etc.

There are far too many voices that cannot be silenced and things will have to change because of the sheer weight of it all.

I do hope so.

Jessica, if I had the money to go to Europe, certainly. I'm state-side for the time being though, so I'll be attending events at my campus and in my area that are within a day's drive. Enjoy the conference though. I'll be following it over the Internet (assuming coverage of it is decent, which given the topic, may be a futile exercise on my part as gaming journalism seems pretty content to ignore events like this.)

Also, nothing I've said here is sarcasm. Genuinely enjoy the conference! :)

I also found interesting, that no one pointed out that public internet hate messages are quite common, and only in exceptionally rare situations are actually serious. But then, in this case, somehow more serious than in all others?

I was watching a car review video on youtube which compared 3 similar cars from different makes, and the comments were not much nicer than the threats in the above-mentioned case. Apparently, the reviewers deserve death for choosing that particular set of cars, according to some of the commenters. Do they actually intend to do anything? Maybe one in a million...

When it comes to death threats delivered with your physical address attached, the idea isn't to weigh up the odds of whether you think someone might *actually* come and attack you. It's a threat, an extremely serious, illegal and frightening threat.

I really hope the police catch up with whoever sent those awful tweets, and I really hope(though sadly I don't think it'll happen) Anita doesn't have to put up with this kind of harassment for much longer.

Just playing the devils advocate here : the news i've read only talked about she was getting twitter messages.

As a former security expert (first few years of my career) my opinion is : attaching an address shows that more effort was made, but its not that hard to figure out who you are and where do you live. Do you have a company? Directors address is available from the companies house anonymously.. Searching for my company name gave me my personal address on the first google hit. Thats all it took.... And I am a nobody. Anyone wanted to know where she lives could have figured out that a long time ago. The amount of personal data collected and available on the internet is shocking.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Tom Keresztes on 31st August 2014 1:55am

@Tom

There's wishing for someone to die (and suffer other horrible things), there's obviously empty threats (i.e. "you better never meet me in a dark alley") and then there's "I know where you live and i'll come to f*** you up", which is the kind of threats that you might want to take seriously.

It is true, however, that Sarkeesian isn't the only one to receive such threats. I know a similar episode happened to a community manager of an online game I play. Even in that case, authorities were alerted and hopefully someone got uniforms knocking at their door. Personally, i'd like to see on the news that someone making such threats got his good share of jail time, just to show other would-be-tough-guys that the internet anonymity i no excuse for openly criminal behavior.

[EDIT]
I honestly think that how easy it is to dig up someone's address is actually irrelevant. It's still a very specific and direct threat that would be unwise to ignore.

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Paolo Giunti on 31st August 2014 2:01am

honestly think that how easy it is to dig up someone's address is actually irrelevant. It's still a very specific and direct threat that would be unwise to ignore.

My point is that digging up the information is not beyond the skills of the average frustrated teenager. In other words, somebody posting on twitter is not quite same as delivering the same messages to your doorstep. It actually requires zero effort.

@ Paolo

Personally, i'd like to see on the news that someone making such threats got his good share of jail time, just to show other would-be-tough-guys that the internet anonymity i no excuse for openly criminal behavior.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/24/two-jailed-twitter-abuse-feminist-campaigner

@ Tom

There's a train of thought that says that if Zero Tolerance is applied to a particular activity, then you can potentially minimise how disruptive that activity is. I'm not sure if I believe it, but it's interesting (as an academic exercise) to wonder if Zero Tolerance were applied to Trolls on Twitter/Facebook/Online generally, would things have gotten to this point? Some sites would still exist (the trolls would congregate), but I'm not so sure such people would exist on the more mainstream websites/gaming sites.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Morville O'Driscoll on 31st August 2014 8:30am

Morville, from a practical point of view, zero tolerance is simply not maintainable. The police does not have enough resources to investigate every petty crime, least checking up every single person who is a proof for the GIFT theory. To a certain degree, if one wants publicity, has to be aware that whats going to come his/her way is not just unconditional love. Its 2014, and unlike in the early 90s, its not just the intellectual elite (researchers, scientists, etc) use it. Welcome to the Daily Redneck Standard.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19

First I want to preface this by saying I'm aware we are getting away from the topic at hand. It seems almost tacky to point out my opinion on an issue given the gravity of this story. But it's too late for that, the debates are already in motion. I want to make a point that will, if actually heeded, potentially revolutionise the feminist debate. It's a point brought on by some comments in the comments section and one that many have tried to make before but failed to covney succinctly.

I will only make this point once. I will not reiterate and I will not tolerate mud-slinging or labelling. I think the entire industry and feminism as a whole can learn greatly from this:

I will implore GamesIndustry International, this once to actually write something productive on the debate by *gasps* turning the magnfying glass on themselves, the rest of videogames journalism and pro-feminists.

If we can do it for one side of the debate, why can't we analyse the others? (to be honest there are far more than the binary feminist/misgynistic positions that feminism has reduced the debate to). Truth be told putting feminism under the magnifying glass is a more beneficial practice in the long-run as one of feminisms greatest hurdles is the monster it itself helped build, counter-feminism (which is different but may overlap with misogynism).

Yet precious little has been said on this. Feminists selfishly shutting down or attempting to censor anyone who even dares suggest the whisper of the suggestion that they too might be a part of the problem as well as the solution. Dare to so much as even allude to the vague notion and you'll be thrown the wolves with liberal forum moderators sittingly by approving by silence.

@Jessica

If you think that people are annoyed with a women being angry at facing down sexist rhetoric you're wrong (or maybe you're in fact right and I'm simply talking about a different groups response). They're angry at being the target of anger when they aren't the perpetrators - and the fact that when they point this out they themselves are branded perpertrators.

The idea of taking issue with "tone policing" displays arrogance because it's predicated on the idea that one is owed a (sympathetic) audience irrespective of what one says or does - something that applies to literally no other walk of life where it is common sense that you have to work to capture your audience's imagination if you want them captive. Feminism operates under a unqiue arrogance that it can do and say anything it wants, however it wants, and if you don't like it (no matter how reasonable the objection) "tough, you're sexist Hahaha. I have the moral high ground now".

How on Earth can any reasonable debate take place when that is the attitude of one side? Nevermind that the objections have literally NOTHING to do with taking issue with feminist values.

You say you don't care what people think of the language of your movement. I doubt it given that the way feminism conducts itself is one of the biggest obstacles (and the mother that gave birth to counter-feminism) in propogating its message. If you care about propogating your message you should care about those who point out why you are failing to gain traction in places.

And if you don't care then you're ultimately guilty of being vain; that is, being happy to content yourself with factionalising the debate into "good guys" and "bad guys" and settling for the tingly feeling that you are "one of the good guys" in place of actually making progress. Sure must feel good basking in self-created moral superiority right? Who cares if your beliefs are actually being understood or heard when you have that!?

If you geniunely don't care than you shouldn't be caring about what the impact of your words/actions have on others, and you most certainly shouldn't be taking issue with people effected by those words/actions because, as you said, you don't care right? You can't have your cake and eat it in this case. Go ahead, gloat empitly about your hollow moral victory.

To summarise: You don't get to act like an ass and then complain that someone's sexist when you get called out on it (TBH I'm not sure what the feminist is doing in the example you have in mind, but for the sake of argument lets say they are being an ass by conventional standards). That could only make sense if they were taking issue with your feminist values. What feminists are doing is essentially derailing the topic by selfishly claiming they, and only they, can possibly be pro-women's issues and if you dare to disagree with them, about anything, then you are on the moral low ground.

That's not intellectualism. It's moral warfare. And it's utterly stomach churning that it passes for being intellectual in any capacity.

I'm sure many people are already furiously banging aware some (pointless) criticism of my own tone totally oblivious to the fact that criticising me is trivial in the grand scheme of the debate. Whereas correcting one of feminisms biggest PR issues actually is of benefit to something important.

Or maybe they'll pointlessly (reflexively) tell me that I'm somehow "mistaken" in my interpretation of feminism when it's based on the words and actions of feminists I've actually ran into (which in my experience are in fact the majority, if not the at least a vocal majority) - if so then maybe the lesson those feminists should take away is that their message is unclear and, as part of the movement, managing their own PR is an issue for them to tackle (pro-actively), not something to shirk responsibility of onto those they are trying to court (can you imagine any other movement or organisation blaming their userbase/customers/audience for their PR issues?)

You now have two choices:

1) Reform and benefit from my advice
2) Ignore it and shout me down for being sexist

One of these will net an actual positive result, the other one will only make you feel like a positive result has been achieved.

Choose wisely.

This has turned out to be a long post. But I hope people the word count will somehow reflect the weight of the concept it grapples with. If it doesn't... well, it's not me that's going to be hurt by it (though the deluge of blind rage this post will no doubt incite might).

Edited 9 times. Last edit by Shehzaan Abdulla on 31st August 2014 5:38pm

@ Jonathan

I think one of the key differences between sexism and racism is that sexism, as the name implies, relates to sex and by extension, sexual fantasy - an entire realm of sexual material that can be compartmentalised from wider attitudes because it's intended as fantasy. And I think people will realise that no matter how you try, you can't stiffle expression of all the eclectic range of sexual fantasies out there; even puritan societies couldn't manage it.

The debate itself is useful in that it can actually help create awareness and allow people to compartmentalise how they process sexually charged material. And it's an important debate to have as unlike with violence (which are are conditioned to understand as a social evil from a young age) there's no wide-spread debate (other than topics like these) on where to draw the line/compartmentalise things with sex. And perhaps that's not surprising given how squemish our societies can be when it comes to sex-talk beyond the whos-and-hows.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Shehzaan Abdulla on 31st August 2014 5:49pm

@Morville

I understand there's scope for criticism without demand for change in a way that disrespects creative intent. But I don't believe the bulk of feminists topics on this issue or Sarkeesian's videos are the type of weighted, respectful criticism you are giving them the benefit-of-the-doubt of being.

Yes, criticism can be done without falling inevitably into censorship. But agreeing with you on that should go without saying. The question is, is the criticism in question that kind of criticism? And if it isn't should we just ignore the fact that it isn't and only grapple with the ideas presented? Isn't it fair to also take issue with the censorship angle?

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Shehzaan Abdulla on 31st August 2014 5:56pm

A death threat is not a petty crime. I don't buy the whole the police don't have the resources argument.

If the police will track down every death threat posted on the internet, the criminals are going have a good business for a very long time. They prioritise based on resources available at the time, and thats a finite. See the link below. Sure, for political pressure they will investigate, but until there is an actual danger, they won't do anything. For them, this is a prank. Like a hoax call.
Was there an actual danger to her? Or its just a weirdo some twitter freaks sending her messages from a temporary account?

(UK)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900384

The question is, is the criticism in question that kind of criticism? And if it isn't should we just ignore the fact that it isn't and only grapple with the ideas presented?

Arguing the position the person takes, and their inherent bias/lack of knowledge, is relevant. However, the problem arises in that the divide between consumer, critic and academic in this industry seems to be non-existent. I think quite a part of that is due to the origins of criticism in the industry ("enthusiast press" to a startling degree, when you think about it), but it means that we (as an industry) have to grow. I think allowing the Tropes series to run with few critical arguments against it is something that now has to happen in order for those divides to form, and as a form of "wake-up call". Whilst it may not be academically perfect, it needs to be said and heard. After all, if it's not true, what lasting damage is there? A non-abusive retort to it all can be Kickstarter'd next year. And if it is true, then it's all good; positive change can occur. Either way, we lose nothing from letting it run its course and evaluating it at a later date.

Isn't it fair to also take issue with the censorship angle?

Not really, because Sarkeesian isn't strictly arguing for that. As an example of what you are talking about, read some of the work by Gail Dines ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gail_Dines ). Dines has repeatedly misrepresented facts about porn/sex workers; ignored those in the sex industry (sex workers and porn entertainment professionals) when they argue against her anti-porn stance; and continuously rails against porn as anti-feminist, even though large swathes of it aren't, or are but are slowly making way for female creators. Gail Dines uses the above to force media and educational outlets into "being with her, or against her" - a form of censorship. I don't get the same feeling from Anita Sarkeesian. Not in any way.

Edited 3 times. Last edit by Morville O'Driscoll on 31st August 2014 10:07pm

@Tom - I think in Sarkeesian's case, having her details posted online is far more of a credible threat than the same thing happening to anyone else just down to the sheer number of threats and abuse she gets. In all that angry hot air there's more likely to be someone with a bit of actual determination to cause trouble lurking around in it.

John:

"except if you are a man and woman is equally but not better qualified"
Equality of opportunity means everyone has the same opportunity, regardless of gender. So your point fails. Isnt this what you want, everyone to be treated the same?


"Except if you are a man "
Respect for everyone regardless of gender is what we are going for. Isnt this what you want, everyone to be treated the same?

I think your arguments are straight from the MRA play book. You see the idea of women being raised up to the same level as men as some sort of "loss" for men. The idea that people are treated the same means you "lose" something. Is that the case? Or will you strawman up another set of ideas in which "Oh noes, what about the mens".

Anyone that things the games industry is a bastion of equality currently is living in a dream world. That inequality is turned into a n inequality in terms of games narratives. For every example you can give of how the games industry is so equal, i can give you ten as to why it isn't.

But hey, im just getting agitated at a person receiving death threats for what i consider mild criticism of the games we make. You seem very agitated at the idea that, god forbid, a woman points out how terrible our industry is.

Tone policing:

[link url=""]http://i.imgur.com/3A53b.jpg[/link]

That's all that needs to be said. If one side is angry about a situation in which they are made to feel less than equal then your job is to not try to say "Goodness, if only you said things nicely, people would listen".

The point is that feminists think that it is Ok to not treat people equally but to give priority to women.
It's a simple fact.

You could not be more incorrect if you tried. It is not a simple fact. You seem to be operating from a position in which you are cherry picking data to ignore the larger truth. Well done. I dont need to strawman you. I chose the words you speak in an effort to enlighten you. But i fear you have already made a decision based on what you think the world is as opposed to how it actually is.

You know what's not fair? Getting a deluge of death threats, rape threats, racist and sexist abuse and doxxing for the foul crime of critically analysing videogames. Let's keep this in perspective, here.

You're the one who decided to whinge about that wonderful misapprehension here.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Jessica Hyland on 1st September 2014 5:30pm

The point is that feminists think that it is Ok to not treat people equally but to give priority to women.
It's a simple fact.

What so they don't advocate that under certain circumstances?

Feminism, like anything, has a range. To generalise all feminists like this is as useful as saying "All men are pigs". You might feel better after saying it, but it does nothing to add to the depth of the conversation (not trying trying to be rude, or anything, mind).

This tangent of the conversation thread reminded me of a recent interview with Monica Lewinsky, in which she criticised her treatment at the hands of feminists - http://www.vanityfair.com/society/2014/06/monica-lewinsky-humiliation-culture (page 3). I'm not sure how relevant other people will think it is, but it's an interesting read, if only because it kicks the whole "feminists only support women" myth right out the window.

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Morville O'Driscoll on 1st September 2014 5:44pm

Jason, comparisons to Hitler are about the most obvious of straw man arguments that have ever been made. I thoroughly enjoyed your post #154, but let's be reasonable. A more accurate comparison would be Dr. King and Malcolm X. When I say that tone matters, I'm not telling anyone to just shut up and take something. But taking the Malcolm X approach didn't help then, and it won't help now. It never does.

By all means, show dissent. I certainly do. But don't actively harm a large chunk of the population's chances at equality with a violent rant. Is the person responsible for this terrible? Yes. But fighting fire with fire only burns more stuff. We have to be better than them.

I condemn any kind of harassment against any person, I don't care what is the reason since it's never correct nor fair to do that.

There, Just wanted to point that out since after 165 comments I think some of you completely forgot the original point on the article.

If this were about another programer being attacked for re-balancing a sniper rifle in CoD there would be no doubt that that harassment is something unacceptable, and the conversation would not be bigger than 10-20 posts. After all, when this happened (around a year back) that is was happened. I would humbly like to ask you to think about this for a minute or two.

And to those of you that, in some way, justify or find acceptable this kind of behavior towards a person based of genre: I wish you a daughter, so you can at least learn the hard way.

Now have a good day and continue the talking as you wish the most. Cheers.

Nick, did you look at the cartoon. It was an example that Tone Policing doesn't work when the situation you are faced with is so offensive. The example was designed to be outrageous to et across the point that telling an upset person that they shouldn't be upset is counterproductive.

All i can think of reading the above comments is this... Link

Edited 4 times. Last edit by Aaron Parkes on 2nd September 2014 2:30pm

Very interesting article.