This article and comments thread makes me very sad.
First, and unfortunately necessary: my credentials: I’m a sociologist who has studied and presented/published on gender/race/religious differences in education, and how those differences influence outcomes in life. I’ve marched to protest violence against women on two continents, volunteered in support of various women’s organizations across the political spectrum. I have participated in the modern abolitionist movement, with specific emphasis on putting an end to the sex-trafficking of women in Southeast Asia. In business outside of school, I successfully campaigned to make the workplaces I participated in more open, welcoming, and supportive of women, and was commended by all of my female co-workers and reports for it. My academic discipline and career included focused study on gender roles, gender differences, social and cultural constructions of the same, and so on. I have devoted serious time, attention, study, and professional effort into the issues I am about to discuss.
To the heart of the matter:
However “polite”, it was a direct argument for gender essentialism, which is straight-up sexist. Nevertheless, he got eleven direct responses, four of which were simply objections, seven of which were refutations of points he argued. So it’s hardly the case that his argument was ignored.
(Sorry, not familiar with this forum setup, so quoting directly to the post isn’t working for me).
Gender essentialism is not “straight-up sexist;” Sex-positive feminism, indeed, is a branch of feminism that takes gender-essentialism as its core principle. Sex-positive feminism is not mainstream feminism, however, and so has been so maligned often enough that many progressives believe that theirs is the only manner of thinking about gender. That dogmatic approach to social issues prevents real discussion on it - and, in support of Verse’s comments, blocking someone with whom they only disagree was a shameful thing for BoingBoing to do.
I enjoy video games, especially 4X strategy games like Civ V, and light-hearted adventures like King’s Quest. My wife and I play them together, usually at her preference. I don’t enjoy or find appropriate games with hyper-sexualized women, graphic violence (Skyrim is too much for me), violence-as-end-or-appropriate-process games, or other games that promote and glorify behavior/depictions that I find reprehensible elsewhere in life. I’m also a heterosexual man, and a person of faith; indeed, both my interpretation of my masculinity and my faith reinforce my belief in gender equality, and the moral imperative of opposing objectionable media.
As such, the general critiques in this article - that women are disqualified from gaming communities, that women are marginalized and mis-represented in the gaming industry in general, and that marketing is not directed at women - I agree with wholeheartedly. I also agree with some of the points made in the comments: that harassment of women in online games, in many gaming communities, and in the larger social context, both exists and must stop immediately.
But that argument is, unfortunately, lost in silence and rancor - silenced commenters, and rancorous debate. If two viewpoints - two feminist viewpoints! - can’t be allowed to speak on a forum, then that forum is no place for me.
Moreover, that movement is not a place for me. I agree with many of Anita Sarkeesian’s and others’ feminist critiques of video games. But I do not support the feminist orthodoxy of thought that has been demonstrated even in this thread of comments: a sex-positive feminist, Elsa_K, brings up an alternative female perspective, and is shouted down. A man (?) brings up a perspective that disagrees with the article, and tries to support it - and he is silenced; not because of his presentation, and certainly not because he was directly attacking or harassing specific individuals, but because his position is, apparently, fundamentally unacceptable to site moderators.
That is dogmatic, not open-minded. It is not progressive, it is not welcoming; it is prejudicial. That signals that this site, this community, this movement are not interested in dialogue, and that this thread is not a discussion, but an echo chamber.
As someone who is fundamentally opposed to the types of games Gamergate stereotypically supports, for both sociological and religious reasons, - and as someone who, like the article author, wishes that there were more games, more complex games, and more intense games that do not involve the marginalization/hyper-sexualization/objectification/exploitation of women - I still feel the appeal of that movement (Gamergate), because it opposes this (orthodox) one.
I will continue to fight for gender equality, as I have ever done. But it will not be on the terms presented here.
