Filled with us vs. them mentality: no man can understand, men all think this, men always tell us that. Men never deal with harassment, death threats, or rape threats. Well, here's a little variation on Hitchens' Razor: what can be proven with anecdotal evidence can be dismissed with anecdotal evidence.

http://www.edge-online.com/features/toxic-games-community-co...

http://i.imgur.com/HBxSZBF.jpg

The worst of it is, one paragraph opens with "Women in the industry are told by men what is valid for us to feel." and only a scant few paragraphs later is an entire article written by a woman telling men how they should act and feel. Part of which is "so great" that it deserved to be made into an "inspirational poster". Everyone thinks what they have to say is inherently valuable, I'm pretty sure that's a major component of the human condition.

No, wait, that would be racist.

But your version magically is not sexist?

Edit: To the folks downvoting this without being able to offer a counterpoint: that strong negative emotion you're feeling? That's called cognitive dissonance.

My change in wording is meant to show how ridiculous a notion that is. Sexist remarks in articles such as this are getting a free pass because at one time feminism served a purpose, and today's hypersensitive political-correctness puts it above reproach. But when you take those same statements and put them on an axis of racism, their nature is revealed.

You feel this is being "condescendingly lectured", and I don't see a way around it. Being receptive to someone explaining something to you requires that you: 1. acknowledge you do not know or understand that thing; 2. acknowledge that the other person does; 3. are willing to receive that knowledge from the other person. If you are not willing to grant any one of those, you will feel the other person is being condescending.

Instead, it's written as a hit piece and men are the target. I know exactly how hyperbolic that sounds, but it is the truth.

At every opportunity, men are painted as the problem: men aren't listening, men aren't doing this, men are saying that, men need to read this entire article of Do's and Don'ts to dictate their behavior towards women.

See my other comment in this thread[1] for just a few excerpts from the article I take issue with. I could provide more, as that's only going as far as the very first anecdotal account, but I would think they would be sufficiently convincing.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8070340

Is it really so hard for you to believe that you can’t understand – at least not completely – the situation someone is in? I would never be so arrogant as to believe that I, as someone who is straight, understand how it is to grow up gay, for example.

I guess there's no room at all for dissenting opinions, especially when they point out hypocrisies or bring counter evidence to the discussion.

When there is something you cannot understand it’s proper to address that with “Men just don’t …” That’s ok. It’s no claim that all men act disgustingly, it’s only a claim that men don’t understand.

That’s also completely unrelated to the “What can you – as a man – do to help?” part. I mean, where is the connection there.

You are saying very confusing things.

Pretty sure I didn't imagine that.

I am enlightened, you should feel proud of yourself.

(whoops, sorry)

(not really)

Sure, anyone can pick flaws in an article, especially in a piece of opinion like this one. One could go on and on about how this is biased, how that is a fallacy, how this is a red herring. That's usually the vast majority of comments you'd get on articles about women condition in our society/our communities. Thing is, this is not a mathematical demonstration or a scientific call for review.

What I didn't like about your comment is that you don't show the faintest sign of empathy towards what women in the video game industry might endure, and that you actually put a fair amount of energy dismissing what I see as a call for reflection, or help.

What I like about the other comments in this thread is the "shit, I never knew that was broken, thanks for the article, what could we do to fix it?" mentality that I generally see in HN threads about technology, hacking, health, etc.

What I have done, is point out the many, many ways in which that message has been used as a front to put forth sexist and propagandist messages intended to disparage men. Those two links directly follow my statement calling out the unacceptable assertions the article's author put forth that men are primarily at fault and cannot sympathize or understand the author's position.

I will not give any message wrapped in that sort of hate speech the time of day, and I certainly will not thank them for it.

I don't get how you take a testimony of people enduring such violence and turn it into men being the real victims of such articles. "Men are much more likely to be accused of rape and murder", as someone said earlier. Can't you see how twisted that is? That's rape culture 101 by the way: putting the focus on how the attacker is a victim since he'll be facing society disapproval/lose job/go to prison.

I did not make that comment in some lame attempt to troll or stir up controversy. I have presented my case against using the harassment of women in gaming as an excuse to target and harass the male demographic, and I'm willing to discuss it further with anyone that's interested.

> A male friend of mine that develops AAA games told me, "When a woman criticizes me, it goes to a different part of my brain than when a man on my team does. I get defensive really quickly. I’m trying to get better about it." I don’t think his is a unique experience.

> We live in a society that’s sexist in ways it doesn’t understand. One of the consequences is that men are extremely sensitive to being criticized by women. I think it threatens them in a very primal way, and male privilege makes them feel free to lash out.

I don't know how anyone, male or female, could read that excerpt and not be offended.

First, it starts out by basically asserting the premise that men do not get rape threats.

Second, it quotes one man as saying he reacts viscerally to criticisms from women and then asserts that this is typical behavior for men.

Third, it says society is sexist in ways it doesn't understand, asserts men are extremely sensitive to criticism from women, and then calls them primal and invokes male privilege.

This is hashtag feminism as its worst. It's building flimsy pretexts on top of anecdotal evidence, and hiding it in an article about harassment women face in an attempt to lend it some sort of legitimacy. It's as bad as the "think of the children!" excuses used to pass laws, and just as insidious because it is automatically above reproach in exactly the same way. It's clearly demonstrated right here in the way any comment at all that disagrees with the author is immediately set upon with downvotes, rather than reasonable discourse.

On the other hand, I don't think the article says men don't get rape threats, just that they're rare. Also I think society really doesn't understand how sexist it is.

Oh I absolutely agree with you there. This article is largely sexist against men, but few people are willing to admit it because it's buried in a legitimate rant about sexism against women.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8070340

Please read the thread located here for more details: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8070237

I'm making a video game myself right now, and this such a relevant issue that I never even thought about. It never occurred to me that women in the gaming industry were mistreated, but it kind of makes sense-- video games often cater to young males, and often the easiest way to cater to those young males is by over-sexualizing women.

I'm not going to say that that strategy doesn't work on me (I am, myself, a young male), but I am going to say that I don't think it's right for games and other media to capitalize so heavily on that. I think the over-sexualization of women in games and in other places often makes men think with their penises instead of their brains. They say and do stupid things that they really never should. It's inexcusable, and it's a two-way street: men should know better, and mass media shouldn't be encouraging that kind of thinking. I also don't think it's right that someone who just wants to follow their dreams in the gaming industry (or really any industry) should ever experience what any of the case studies in this article experienced.

I'm not sure what I can do to help here, but if I find a way, I hope I can! Right now I'm working on a gaming startup with a couple of my best friends and, at the very least, we have made a commitment to ourselves to never resort to over-sexualizing women in order to advertise our game (many similar games do, and it frustrates me). I'm also going to make a conscious commitment right now to be aware the way I behave around women in the gaming industry and make sure I'm doing my job to help stop the issue, not propagate it.

Thank you so much for sharing this.

Why do you think so? Personally, I think it's the other way around - the cause is that people (not just men) respond better to "shallow" things - i.e. pretty things/landscapes/photos/people, which is why marketers/companies create things that are pretty. If your target audience is males, then it makes sense to use what males most powerfully respond to in your ads - pretty women.

I want people to play games because they are amazing, because they have great concepts, and have been wonderfully executed. I don't want people to play games because they have boobs in them.

This may or may not be an unattainable ideal, and certainly it would require change for both the advertisers and the target consumers.

1) Handsome 2) Stupid 3) Authority 4) Bro

Men are presented as objects just as women are, that is how you sell in 20 seconds.

It's not the same I agree. But men are equally vulnerable just about other things.

> Men are much more likely to be wrongfully accused of incest or sexual offending children.

I would be very surprised if this compares to the incidence of sexual assault. Also, men are much more likely to sexually assault women (and children), so perhaps the false accusations are proportional.

EDIT: Added last sentence of first paragraph.

We often forget that things take time to change. There are primarily CEO men in fortune 1000 companies be because of historical reasons.

Of course you are going to find an overwhelming number of men at fortune 1000 companies but the more you move towards today that will shrink.

Now go down to the homeless shelters and tell me what you see. Who is in the bottom of society?

Men are generally found in the top and the bottom of society but the reasons have changed radically the last 50 years and they have nothing to do with women being treated unfairly.

Anyways, here is her article. I really enjoyed it and it's a great piece if you want to learn more about video game culture.

http://www.polygon.com/features/2013/12/2/5143856/no-girls-a...

I would think that the marketing of video games is more connected to the fact that in the beginning, most games were developed by males (simply because most programmers/geeks were men, developing games that they would enjoy themselves).

Just fyi, but Sims wasn't targeted towards a specific gender. Its marketing was focused on young adults and casual gamers. The Sims is slightly more popular with females, but that doesn't mean it was specifically intended for a certain gender.

In addition, you don't need to speculate on the marketing of video games. The article I linked gives a very thorough walkthrough of its history. The very first games were predominately designed by men, but the content wasn't targeted towards males. For example, Pong, Breakout and Centipede are relatively gender neutral. The extreme marketing bias was introduced after the video game industry crashed in 1983. Companies had to be more careful of the products they created and Nintendo took the lead on the initiative to specifically target males.

How do you feel about that?

They are very quick to make jokes of your mistakes or shortcoming. The way they pry and tease is the manifest of how exceptional they think they are. They believe they are above social norms. Being nice is for the weak and unenlightened mass. They have an opinion, they will have you know.

They deliberately choose to ignore and not understand why making certain remarks and some conversation topics make people uncomfortable. And when they want to insult you, they will insult in the most uncivilized way. When they want to hurt you, they simply do not understand when a line is crossed.

And I am sure they are not the minority. Even if they are, they are the loud and obnoxious minority that gives everyone a bad name. I absolutely understand why people decline to be part of that community, why there aren't as many females in that workspace. Stigmas and stereotypes are for a reason.

There's also a lot of insecurity going on there, but that's true of most people. The difference is in how we deal with it. Some people do so by trying to become kinder and more decent people, which has an amazing effect on your own level of social comfort. Others try to bring the people who threaten them down to their level (or beneath, if possible). Oddly enough, this strategy does not improve the underlying level of social ease.

Quite the opposite. I mean, these are people (a) who act like assholes specifically to (b) lower those around them so they don't have to (c) do the hard work of making themselves better. It's a triple play of shitty behavior stemming from a toxic combination of fear and laziness on one hand, combined with sickening disregard for others.

The result is clear. You don't introduce them to others. In other words, you specifically and deliberately limit their social horizons, having (correctly) judged them as unfit for decent company.

This could be an addressable problem if the people in question had a baseline of personal integrity. But as you noted, they can also be willfully ignorant when convenient. Aside from being intellectually dishonest (which is maddening in its own right), it's also a major barrier to personal development. Self-reinforcing assholedom, essentially.

So, uh, maybe you need other friends?

My point. As a woman that works in an industry that cultivates a-social behaviour, lack of empathy, egotism, and so on, don't expect utopia like social orders. It's just unrealistic. Same goes for porn, movies, fashion, gaming. It's like fighting the symptoms but ignoring the causes. It's like trying to cool down the air around your town to fight global warming.

If I looked at my email unfiltered, I'd think one in three of the people sending me messages in the past day were unusually concerned about the state of my penis.

From a not-adding-anything-to-the-discussion perspective, dead baby pictures and random threats of rape or acts of violence are even less useful than those adds telling me how to work at home. From a cost-benefit perspective for the people involved, it's very easy for someone relatively unimportant to get an outsized influence on social interactions if they can easily reach people who actually matter with harassing comments, at virtually no cost to themselves.

So why don't we use tools to shape the online discussion and feedback mechanisms, the same way we do with our email inboxes?

Perhaps I'm just too out of the loop to see it being done.

Also, as a society, I'd like to think we can do better than "sorry about the rape/murder threats, we'll try to hide most of them from you"

I'd argue it's making use of technology to make a people oriented solution: people do less of things that are harder to do, and seeing less garbage even if you still see some makes the place seem more pleasant.

> I'd like to think we can do better than "sorry about the rape/murder threats, we'll try to hide most of them from you"

The best we can ever do, without swerving way out in to super repressive regimes, is impact the rate at which it happens, the response of other people, etc and not that it happens at all.

This doesn't follow from the symptoms being cited, which is that a small subset of people say incredibly offensive and inappropriate things online.

If a million people see a video, and 1% of the people respond, and 3% of the people responding are crazy, that's 300 crazy people responding. If each crazy person sends 15 emails before finding a new thing to obsess about, that's 4,500 threatening or otherwise crazy emails in response - which certainly seems like a flood to the person being responded to - but doesn't actually tell us anything about the population watching the video, at large, except that it has a similar percentage of crazy people to society at large.

Continuing the hypothetical: if you assume a normal person only sends 2 emails, then you only have 19000 normal emails to 4500 crazy ones, because crazy people are more talkative. At 1.2 emails for a normal person, It's 11000 to 4500, which makes crazy emails over a quarter of all messages received in response - a vastly disproportionate number considering they were 3% of respondents.

One thing that automated filters can provide is sentiment analysis and looking at related messages, to pull out the underlying distribution of people responding (and hence seeing it's just people being people), rather than just seeing the surface level "We have 25% crazy emails!"

I would have to see a much more detailed analysis of the emails, responses, and distribution of them to conclude that it's a widespread problem, rather than a small crazy contingent being amplified above their importance by just posting a lot.

So how would you feel about it? How would you feel about the oppression you're looking to subject others to, being applied to you?

You have the right to free speech, but you do not have the right to be listened to. If you are on private property the owner can ask you to leave. If I wrote a script to send you an obnoxious email every 5 minutes I imagine you would set up a filter so you would not have to read them or even be aware of their existence. You don't have the right to make other people read your (hypothetically) obnoxious comments any more than I have the right to make you read my obnoxious emails.

It's what you're proposing to do to other people, so you have the ethical burden of considering how you'd feel if it were done to you.

So how would you feel? Would you feel that it were ethical, even if it were somehow legally justified? Would you accept it? Would you consider it a good, just, humane use of technology? Stop evading the question and answer it already.

How would I feel if a website removed my profane, unreasonable, and offensive comment? Ashamed. Considering a website has no obligation to display my comment I think it would be ethical (and of course legal) for them to not display horrible comments. I would accept it. I see nothing inhumane or unjust about a website declining to distribute my hate speech.

How would you feel if websites colluded to prevent you from communicating at all, based on what they consider to be undesirable, not based on what you consider to be undesirable? By definition, you're already negatively predisposed to what you consider to be undesirable, so your proposed scenario never comes up. Mine does.

It doesn't need to have anything to do with profanity. It could be something as simple as you being a pro-censorship piece of shit. Or something else. Who knows. It doesn't matter. What matters is them oppressing you the way you'd like to oppress others, based on criteria you don't necessarily agree with, and possibly don't even know. How would you feel about that?

Stop trying to evade the question. If you evade it one more time, I will consider you to have conceded.

"How would you feel if websites colluded to prevent you from communicating at all"? They don't have that ability; a website cannot reach through my computer screen and gag me. Since the you question are literally asking is absurd, I guessed you really mean to ask how I would feel if a website removed my comment, which I answered. Now I think you are asking how I would feel if every single website agreed to a common blacklist and put me on it. This is still quite far fetched and drastically different from what I am talking about, but I will answer it anyway. I would feel annoyed and embarrassed.

What I am talking about (removing vile comments) is already done manually, so your notion that it "never comes up" is strange. If you right to force other to distribute rape threats is so important to you then I doubt we will come to an agreement.

Lastly, there is no need to call me a "piece of shit". If you stoop to this level again, I will consider you to have conceded.

Yes, they do. What stops private parties from colluding? Nothing. What stops your local ISP (in most locations, in a position of local monopoly) from denying you access, even without participation from websites? Nothing. What stops them from doing this for their own reasons, which you might not necessarily agree with, and possibly don't even know? Nothing.

And the actual point that you keep evading -- what stops other parties from approving of ideas and speech that you disapprove of, and vice versa? Nothing. What stops them from oppressing you, the way you want to oppress others, in a way that enforces this diametrically opposed configuration of approval and disapproval? Nothing. What stops them from considering every idea and form of speech that you've ever perpetrated, and every idea and form of speech that you stand for, to be vile, and to do everything in their power to censor, silence, and oppress you as a result? Nothing.

You have evaded once again, and lost by default. Thanks for your time, anyway.

P.S. I didn't call you a piece of shit, the hypothetical oppressive parties in the hypothetical scenario did. You lose by default for putting words in my mouth, as well.

I have already answered the question you think I am evading.

If what you're excluding is political speech of a sort, then someone is going to be able to accuse the system of censorship, no matter where the line is drawn. It's inherent in the system's goals.

Personally, I think that's a point where any system is going to be rightfully challenged and examined critically, but I think it's still worth doing on a greater good basis. Spam filtering works, it makes my inbox a more tolerable place. It's a good idea to extend it to other types of crappy speech that makes other peoples' lives worse.

Also, possibly this comment would be a false positive in some places because I included extreme text as an example.

Applying r/SRS standards to r/RedPill would be an extreme example of this, and a good thought experiment. Could you model what kind of karma score a RedPill post would get on SRS? How would it change what a discussion page looked like?

It's as much of a lost cause as DRM. You can't silence people until and unless you're willing to kill them, and possibly not even then.

My suspicion is that she is not threatened because she leads a development studio, but because she is a writer. She's not asking for it, but she is making herself a public figure and they are usually targets of such behaviour.

I'd hope that the women I work with aren't regularly getting rape threats from my co-workers...

> I’ve personally never heard of a man in the games industry getting rape threats for having an opinion.

Because men are not women, and women are not men, it goes a little something like this: rape is an act of power (not sexual satisfaction). The threat of rape is the threat of asserting power over someone else. When these lowlifes are offended by a woman, they respond with the animal instinct of threatening to overpower them and rape is the closely available tool. None of them would actually ever have the guts to rape, I'm sure.

When men have contrarian opinions, rape is not threatened, but a whole chain of events occurs, the purpose of which is to remove as much power as possible from that man.

Consider famous causes that you know of where men who are not independently wealthy and have voiced opinions that are controversial to some. What happened to them? They were fired, demoted, jailed, investigated etc. The PyCon case some time back comes to mind.

Consider famous cases of women who did the same. What happened to them? Threats of rape. The same woman involved in the PyCon case, I'll bet, received rape threats. Additionally, she did get fired because she was a public spokesperson for her company.

These threats are about asserting power over dissenting viewpoints in a bid to make yours dominant. You perhaps won't outright hear of a man getting threatened with rape, except maybe in prison or during a competitive game, but you will definitely hear of men being hurt in different ways for having opinions that make people uncomfortable.

And, c'mon, by your definition pretty much anyone with an internet presence and an opinion is a public figure, and therefore a "target." I don't think that's a helpful way to approach the problem.

I'm not saying it's right. It's not. I'm saying that the reader needs to tease apart the two.

You are making this comparison because you haven't fully thought things through. In your mind, death is worse than rape, therefore receiving death threats is worse than receiving rape threats. But it's not so simple.

Rape threats are significantly worse than death threats, for a similar reason that killing children is worse than killing adults. Women are a vulnerable group in society -- they are smaller and physically weaker than men on average, and are socially oppressed on top of that. If both rape threats and death threats are an attempt at exerting power (with no intention of actually carrying through with the threat), then rape threat is a lot worse because it exploits a vulnerable group in the most mentally damaging way possible.

> You are making this comparison because you haven't fully thought things through. In your mind, death is worse than rape, but it doesn't automatically follow that receiving death threats is worse than receiving rape threats. But it's not so simple.

> Death threats are significantly worse than rape threats, for a similar reason that killing children is worse than killing adults (a child has a longer life and more choices to make than an adult, so killing a child is more choice-reducing than killing an adult - just as killing is more choice-reducing than raping). Men are a vulnerable group in society -- they are physically stronger than women on average and therefore work more dangerous jobs, and commit more suicides and die sooner on top of that. If both rape threats and death threats are an attempt at exerting power (with no intention of actually carrying through with the threat), then a death threat is a lot worse because it exploits a vulnerable group in the most mentally damaging way possible.

Death threats against players are made as a way of voicing displeasure with the player's performance or the result of the game. The intent is to air frustration. Since competitive sports themselves are a way of bringing out the human primal side, being the target of threats or other displays of hostility is perceived and treated as part of the culture (even though it still sucks).

Rape threats against females are made as a way of mentally and emotionally damaging them. The intent is to harm, oppress and silence. This alone makes them way worse than death threats made against players, because women are targeted specifically due to their perceived weakness and inferiority.

P.S. I'm very disappointed by the down-votes. If people are disagreeing with what I'm saying then the situation is much more hopeless than the anecdotes in the article suggest.

You could easily say the same thing about violence/death/rape threats against people writing opinion pieces online (which is what this conversation is about): "Making threats when you disagree strongly with someone is perceived and treated as part of the culture (though it still sucks)".

> Rape threats against females are made as a way of mentally and emotionally damaging them.

I don't see how you can credibly conclude that when it happens to a sports player, "it happens all the time so it's nbd even though it sucks", but when it happens to an online writer who happens to be female, it's a much higher level of significance and is intended to mentally/emotionally damage them. I'm pretty sure that's the purpose of all violent threats? Seriously, how would one make a violent threat to anyone without expecting that it may mentally or emotionally damage them?

> women are targeted specifically due to their perceived weakness and inferiority.

This has to be a joke. Google "death threats twitter" and you'll see a billion examples of every person under the sun who's inspired ire on a large scale (for whatever reason). For fuck's sake the creator of FLAPPY BIRD got death threats. I think this whole culture of "take every Twitter loon's vioent threat as if it may be serious" is a good one in the name of prudence, but it's disgustingly hypocritical when people turn around and go "oh except for threatened sports figures, and except for threatened X and threatened Y, those are crappy but not that big a deal".

> I'm very disappointed by the down-votes. If people are disagreeing with what I'm saying then the situation is much more hopeless than the anecdotes in the article suggest.

You think the situation is hopeless because people don't agree with your very specific, intricately constructed apologia of death threats against public figures in sports?

If you imply that women are inferior though, the statement has to be vigorously opposed. Imply that feminism isn't necessary, and the tumblr and twitter brigades will come out to shame and silence you, until you agree that women have it harder.

It's absurd behaviour for a group of people who supposedly believe women are equally capable as men. Once you figure this out, feminism makes a lot more sense. When they can blame men, they blame men. When fairness requires them to blame women, they blame 'society'.

I said perceived inferiority. I didn't say they are inferior.

That is such unadulterated bullshit.

Would you rather be raped or killed? Quick! Choose one!

Exactly.

Change "woman in tech" to something like support for/against gay marriage.

I may have my own opinion, but once I voice it, I'm a target.

Maybe that's true (I don't think so), but like you said so what? It doesn't make it any better.

One thing that's often missed is that it's not only men making the death and rape threats - one of the people jailed for threats against Caroline Criadoperez was a woman. It'd be interesting to see what portion of the "troll"[1] population is women.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/twitter-trolls-is...

[1] giving in and using modern version.

What is your day-to-day like?

It's just like any other IT guy's day. Go to work, do your job, fuck up a bit, say sorry, give others a hard time when they fuck up :P But seriously, no difference apart from the fact that I can see men at work are very cautious around me as far as cracking jokes is concerned. But I can't really blame them with all these sexual harassment out of nothing stories floating around everywhere now, can I?

I'm glad your life is as uninteresting as the regular IT guy ;)

7am: coffee

8am: get to work

9am: rape threat from coworker #1

10am: standup meeting

11am: death threat from coworker #2

So you are saying that women are different and need to be treated in a different way than men? I thought we were trying to avoid this and treat women the same as men?

You are right, we should avoid treating women differently than men, that's something we're all able to agree on. That does not mean that men and women in our societies are treated the same as of now.

Women should not be considered as more vulnerable, yet that's how they are perceive, and that's also what they are being taught:

- don't fight, don't fight back

- always smile and be pretty

- don't get angry, that just shows you're hysterical/on your period/pregnant and hormone-crazy

- agree with the males, especially when they make sexist jokes, that makes you really cool

- don't be a feminist and try to improve your condition

We should not treat women differently than men, but letting society/communities/bullies target one group more than the other and then refusing to acknowledge it or to empathize with it, seems like a convenient way of not taking responsability, as a society/community, and not try to improve ourselves.

But anyways, here's something that's been posted earlier : "In 2006, researchers from the University of Maryland set up a bunch of fake online accounts and then dispatched them into chat rooms. Accounts with feminine usernames incurred an average of 100 sexually explicit or threatening messages a day. Masculine names received 3.7."

http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/women-ar...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060731153456.ht...

PS: feel free to dismiss these numbers.

People in this thread need to make up their minds.

And if you want me to listen to your arguments, don't side with people who are trying to hijack entire populations for their own agenda.

"sometimes it feels like a woman-in-tech's workday must go something like this according to the articles I see"

How was this article titled? It didn't say "online harassment of female authors in the gaming industry" which is what it is actually about. The title tried to lump in every woman in the gaming industry, a common tactic. So I get to make my own generalizations just as well as they do.

I think you're reading too much into her tone. The key point is that no skin is thick enough to shrug off this treatment, and it's common for various unidentified women and one identified one in the industry to receive it from the general public. Do you think that's true, or not?

Unfortunately, hate for Anita Sarkeesian will transfer to her associates.

> Nicole Tanner is a former editor of IGN, and was one of the founders of "Girlfight.

Editor/writer. Don't know what Girlfight is.

> Every time I'm interacting with an enthusiastic fan

Another public figure

> Carolyn Petit is an editor for GameSpot.

Editor

There are no anonymous developers here (save for the reblogged post). This is clearly public figures in tech. I'd assume there are less public female figures in tech than there are non-public women in tech.

As for telling them to develop a thick skin, I have no opinion on that. If you are a public figure, you will be subject to this kind of behaviour.

The title of the post pisses me off. If they had just said "Online harassment of female authors", I'd have no complaint to make. But it is clickbait.

it's rather bizarre that you managed to transform this story into something about men when the article is pretty clearly about the uniquely violent verbal abuse women are subject to in the tech sector.

Because the article literally says:

> I’ve personally never heard of a man in the games industry getting rape threats for having an opinion.

But that's not what this article is about. It's about how it is different from what men get and about how it is more than what men get. You won't get the same reaction from writing a blog post as a man as what's described in this article.

It's about that, but it doesn't prove that. Not at all. Not one bit.

Four anecdotes aren't proof of anything.

Come back with stats.

Then every time I see a photo of Marissa Mayer, I think, "Damn, she's hot." And then I hate myself for making that my first thought instead of something more equal like, "Damn, she's accomplished and brilliant" like I do when I see a photo of Robert Downey Jr or Idris Elba or Benedict Cumberbatch. But no, if it's a woman, my first thought is about her looks instead of... well, instead of anything else.

I'm really glad I don't have kids (yet), and in a lot of ways, I hope I don't have a daughter. I'd rather raise a son to treat women fairly and with respect than to have a daughter who has to live in a world where articles like this are written. But if I had a daughter... I'd do my best to help her be strong and confident, and to make her way successfully in a world where this kind of shit goes on.

So senseless. :(

It's pretty much my first thought when I see any woman (and some men). I can't help it, it's the product of us being animals. Who cares. I don't feel guilty, and certainly don't hate myself for it.

>I hope I don't have a daughter.

Oh brother...

Ha. I don't mean that I don't want a daughter... It's just that every time I think about having a daughter, I think about these issues, and it scares the shit out of me. Raising a son, I wouldn't have to worry that much about this stuff, and I could focus on helping him help make the world a better place, instead of worrying about whether my daughter is gonna get raped because she wore short shorts today. That make sense?

I really have no preference as far as kids go, it's just that when I read articles like this, the idea of having a daughter seems terrifying.

I understand the comment you made (downthread) about parents being perhaps irrationally concerned about low-probability dangers to their kids, and totally understand: what I don't understand is why you'd be more afraid of your daughter being raped than your son. According to CDC data[1], the 12-month incidence of rape victimization for men is basically the same as for women. Given that the data doesn't support it, is it perhaps possible that your lopsided fear of rape is rooted in more sexism? A la, "Women are frail creatures that must be protected from all the dangers of the world", but "Men are independent, powerful shapers of their fate". I feel like an attitude like that is more of a concern to your hypothetical future daughter than any of the other concerns you've raised.

[1] pp 18-19: 12-month incidence of penetrative rape is 1.1% of women and the data is too noisy for men; non-penetrative rape is 5.3% for men and 5.6% for women.

This is like the tech equivalent of suburbanites who never go to the city because of all the news reports of murders they see on the nightly news. These outlets take a serious but infrequent problem and exaggerate it into an epidemic for the eyeballs (and hence, ad revenue).

There are other biases like "force of personality bias", too, where we assume charisma is heavily correlated with correctness, which isn't necessarily true. In terms of solutions, things like blinded hiring and internal prediction markets might help mitigate these. However, if we are going to experience beauty and charm we have to accept the fact that these qualities will affect our opinions of those who possess them. There's no way around this without changing the nature of our perceptions of these phenomena, and thus the phenomena themselves.

The problem is when people go from thoughts to words or even actions, and act as if we lived in prehistory instead of in a civilized society. Fortunately I think men behaving as disgustingly as in the article are a tiny minority. And unfortunately, that minority can still do a lot of damage. The duty of the rest of us is to not turn a blind eye to this. This kind of trolling cannot be permitted.

The trouble stars when a specific kind of odious and socially toxic person encounters an attractive person. The first thing they do is ignore the "person" and focus on "attractive" as though they were dealing with an inanimate object which can be owned, controlled, manipulated, and eventually discarded. Their response to the presence of the attractive person reflects their basic lack of regard for the other's humanity. These responses are both abusive in their own right, and - if unchecked - contributory to a culture in which the targets of this treatment are freely abused.

In other words, the problem isn't about your immediate, natural response. The problem depends on whether you're a respectable human or an contemptuous creep, and thus, how you respond. Needless to say, the assholes make themselves known pretty quickly. The problem gets out of hand when they're allowed to dominate a space or situation.

I'm straight. Not sure what impact that has.

That's weird. When I see them I think they are good (or at least interestingly) looking and have pleasant voices. I would never think of them as brilliant or accomplished (even though I know they are) because they do something I have no idea about. Just the same when I saw worlds best CEO, lawyer, window cleaner, bus driver, mercenary or whoever. I have no idea and I don't really care what it means to be brilliant and accomplished at those jobs. It might be horrible. It's just too alien for me.

When I see Marissa Mayer I have a mixed feelings. I notice she's attractive, and I'm happy this didn't get in a way of her reaching her goals. On the other hand I'm sad that most of the attention she get's from the media is just because she's an attractive woman. I'm also sad that I see a geek that transitioned to management which is always a loss of a good brain.

Could people who downvote me explain why and in what way my thoughts are damaged?

Mammalian brains are hard-wired to notice reproductively relevant physical features first. Retraining your brain to notice anything else is fighting against the thousands of generations of sexual selection that occurred before civilization was even invented. The major problem is that there are no outward physical signs of outstanding competence in your niche of economic specialization, so no effective competition to displace "Wow, that body looks like it would be great for assuring the survival and prosperity of my potential offspring."

You cannot wish it away. You can't guilt people into not doing it. It will simply continue as long as our brains are still subjected to the mind-altering chemicals that testicles and ovaries typically produce. You are not a bad person for thinking such things.

But, of course, now that civilization has been invented, and we have developed values beyond simple babymaking, it would be inappropriate to speak or act until well after you have engaged the areas of the brain responsible for either rationality or empathy for at least a few seconds first, and possibly both. The proportion of people who actually think before speaking or doing is still depressingly low, and that is why we see stories like this.

Expensive tailored suit, fist-bitingly expensive wristwatch, huge house in an expensive area, very new luxury car... I could go on and on.

Besides that, your house, car, and clothing does not leave an indelible and unfalsifiable mark on your outward appearance. Expensive decorations can be faked, borrowed, or stolen. Even if the balance of your bank account appeared as a birthmark across your forehead, ownership of resources is not always a sign of competence. Wealth can be inherited or acquired by chance.

Now, the first thought in your head when seeing someone might be "she's got huge... tracts of land!" But that will probably be because you live in a swamp.

Yeah. Right. Because there is no such thing as credit.

People that display expensive things don't project outstanding competence. They project just that they value displaying expensive things.

And that's usually something (I just speak from my experience) that inversely correlates with thoughtfulness and competence.

There's a couple things that probably rate a down vote in some people's minds:

- "I would never think of them as brilliant or accomplished (even though I know they are) because they do something I have no idea about. Just the same when I saw worlds best CEO, lawyer, window cleaner, bus driver, mercenary or whoever. I have no idea and I don't really care what it means to be brilliant and accomplished at those jobs. It might be horrible. It's just too alien for me."

This honestly is kind of a weird stance to take. You don't think about anyone in any way other than aesthetics (look and voice) if their life experience doesn't completely match your own?

- "I'm also sad that I see a geek that transitioned to management which is always a loss of a good brain."

This is:

a. Pretty insulting to anyone who has gone into management, which is, believe it or not, sometimes something that does involve your brain.

b. Especially problematic as writing off management, HR and other "soft" fields as not as important as engineering is a common way to sideline the women who do make it into tech companies, as they are somewhat more common in those areas.

This is a blatant twisting of his words. Women are even less represented in tech management than they are in other tech roles, and throwing in a few roles that he didn't mention at all doesn't change the fact that the one role he _was_ talking about (management) contradicts your narrative 100%.

And hell, even if you don't want to consider that, it's not a blatant twisting of his words. She's the CEO of Yahoo. That's not a "waste of a good brain".

How can you be sure? What a CEO of Yahoo can do? Hire some people, fire some people? Pick some project to develop and some to abandon? You could say that this has some value but you can't predict which project will turn out worthwhile. "Predictions are hard especially about the future." What's sure that there is one smart person less actually working on those projects.

You are twisting his words because you have no legitimate argument.

Thank you.

> This honestly is kind of a weird stance to take.

Not so much of a stance. I'm just describing the way I feel.

> You don't think about anyone in any way other than aesthetics (look and voice) if their life experience doesn't completely match your own?

When I look at people and hear them say something that does not convey information relevant to me that's exactly what I'm thinking. How they look and sound. I never heard any of the mentioned actors saying anything relevant to me although in more private conversation I don't doubt they say things that would make me also think about what they said.

I'm just saying that I don't think of people as accomplished or brilliant in disciplines I have no idea of. I know they are by proxy of recognition of their peers. For example I know Brian Cranston is accomplished because Antony Hopkins sent him a congratulatory letter by his own initiative. But knowing something and thinking/feeling/believing in something is not exactly the same.

> - "I'm also sad that I see a geek that transitioned to management which is always a loss of a good brain." > This is: > a. Pretty insulting to anyone who has gone into management, which is, believe it or not, sometimes something that does involve your brain.

Please note I didn't say "waste of a good brain". I don't think that management is brainless activity. I just think that best thing a men can do is to develop technology. Because it triggers advances in all the other aspects, most importantly in science, but also medicine, social interactions, wealth and everything worthwhile. So if you take a bright person who has a chance to push technology further and give him/her the task of dealing with politics instead then it's a loss in my book.

> Especially problematic as writing off management, HR and other "soft" fields as not as important as engineering is a common way to sideline the women who do make it into tech companies, as they are somewhat more common in those areas.

Bright engineer such as for example Bram Cohen can singlehandedly push technology further. I value very highly awesome project managers as they can join engineers together and direct the technological effort but anyone above this level is just not doing anything that counts for me as advancement of civilization. Similarly sideshows as HR, Legal, Accounting, Sales and such. You don't make progress but shoveling what you already have back and forth and consuming a little bit every time you do it.

If women tend to keep away from engineering that's just bad and I don't really want to comfort myself with the 'at least they are close to engineering'. I'd rather see them hack on technology because in my opinion that's the best use of any persons time.

Are you really under the delusion that women do not react that way to an attractive man?

I wouldn't be so apologetic about it. I don't know your sexual orientation, but it's natural to not think of men as hot (or only think it as a second thought) when you're not sexually attracted to men.

You don't magically acknowledge Mayer's accomplishments and abilities better if you force yourself and others to not think of her attractiveness.

Just don't make someone's attractiveness their only accomplishment. It's easier said than done, but to illustrate, it's okay to think "Damn, she's hot" when you see a photo of a woman, but it's not okay to write a profile that focuses on her attractiveness and distracts from her other attributes; it's okay to think a man is hot, but it's not okay to tell your coworkers about it.

Be careful not to confuse systemic sexism with personal sexuality.

My first thought about Robert Downey Jr is usually something about his hair or attire.

We're primed to study the physical appearance of others when we see them. I don't see any reason that it's bad to notice that someone is attractive, has a funny haircut, etc.

The key point is that it's just a thing, and to move on to more important things (such as they're accomplished, intelligent, etc) rather than dwelling on physical ones.

Insisting you not see that she's attractive seems as weird to me as just focusing on her being attractive.

It's whether or not your thoughts about Marissa Mayer stop at "Damn, she's hot" and don't acknowledge her (or any other woman) as anything other than pleasant set dressing for your life.

Just shows how deep the problem goes I guess.

Do you see us crying about it?

Grow up already.

That's the first line of the article. That's banter? That's equivalent to being "fat" or "dorky"?

First, I find this "words in my mouth" thing infuriating. Have I written anywhere that this specifically is "equivalent to being fat or dorky?" Why not respond to what I DID say?

As for banter, yes it is. 99.99999% of such talk is BS bravado from kids that would never do anything to act on that, and in fact would go to bed crying if someone told their parents what they said.

Second, is that kind of talk like the one you quote constrained against women? In the gaming forums males say things like "I'll kill you and piss down your neck" all the time. And lots of males (and maybe females) uses such threats over the internet anonymously to other men too. Including the words "rape", "nigger", "kill", "faggot" and tons of variations on maming, killing, hurting, etc.

I used to get a few of those per month as a simple general topic blogger, not even related to games.

Secondly, I agree. I don't believe it's constrained to women, but at the same time I don't think the volume or impact is the same when it's thrown at men. A few per month is, apparently a very low volume ("Feminine usernames incurred an average of 100 sexually explicit or threatening messages a day. Masculine names received 3.7"[1] -- although I need to find the actual study).

This isn't a topic I particularly enjoy discussing. I'm not in a position to speak for those who are threatened, and there are myriad reasons and subtleties why I'll never truly understand their plight. I'm sorry you feel like you were misunderstood.

[1]: http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/women-ar...

As for the impact, if it's not the same, it's simply because men are more mature, and women have a lot of growing up to do.

Especially as, for women, body shaming and rape threats often come hand in hand.

I understand that we are simply going to disagree on this, so I won't bother rebutting anything else, but I'd appreciate you not adding context to my own thoughts.

They do have a relationship - indeed, there's two of them embedded in this conversation, one of which you introduced:

1. Insults as a form of threat to one's health, in the form of pushing someone toward suicide. As noted, this relationship between an insult and a threat was of your own creation.

2. Rape threats are insults. They are suggestions that a woman (or man) is a lesser being. A thing. Something to be commented on, their violation a subject of idle speculation. Their autonomy denied because of who they are. All those are insults, as well as threats.

This is not a threat. Good luck getting it prosecuted as one.

> Rape threats are insults.

This is not an insult. Good luck getting it prosecuted as one.

I don't mean to "Not all men" this, but I wish we would stop treating behavior like this as a normal part of the male psyche. It's not. It's seriously disturbed. It's an unfortunate consequence of the Internet and any area where you have a large audience that a small active segment is going to produce a large impression.

Yes, maybe your friend and even most men feel differently when a woman criticizes them than when a man does. No it is absolutely NOT a normal, male response to start making rape and death threats because of it.

I think these responses are a combination of seriously disturbed individuals and literal or mental children who haven't yet fully internalized that there are real live human beings on the other end of the keyboard and are trying to be shocking.

I think making a few examples would deter the idiots who think this is amusing. I mean, that one kid in Texas made an offhand, sarcastic comment about shooting up a school and got himself arrested within a couple of days. It would be nice to see police take other threats as seriously.

I think that realization is the very opposite of the "Not all men" mindset. Saying "Not all men are like that" is a red herring - it's a way of distracting yourself from the fact that there are people out there who treat women like dirt by saying you don't do that.

I think where we're failing as a society is the inability to close the loop and turn "not all men" into "yo dude, not cool" - we don't seem to be very good at getting men to call out sexism in other men.

I would love some kind of resource for how to do that effectively.

You don't need a resource. Do it yourself. Do it in situations where no one else will. This will encourage other to. This isn't an issue that's going to go away without grassroots support. There's no silver bullet, it's going to take work and unfortunately, time.

Perhaps that's just the nature of the beast, though.

Is that a "Red Herring?"

You need to cut that shit out, and you need to cut it out right fucking now.

It's stupid that in these cases where the context is a LOT more ambiguous that absolutely nothing can be done about it. That energy should be redirected to where it could do some good.

There must be some people with serious issues out there to generate things like this. Those people are not normal and this behaviour is not acceptable.

I think it's deplorable what the author and the women she describes have gone through. I think that we all should re-examine our behavior to ensure that we aren't perpetrating this sort of thing. But I wish that the article, and others like it, weren't couched in terms of demonizing half of humanity.

- Think about how you act around the women in your life, the women you interact with as public figures, your female coworkers, etc. Critically self-examine. Do you treat them like fully formed human beings? When someone asks you to name the "top X in your field" do you automatically always think of a man? Things like that. The answers can end up entirely being "Yes, I do treat women like human beings" - no one was ever harmed by a little self-reflection.

- Similarly, think about that behavior in others. Stand up when someone says something sexist - toe-curling awful, or just subtle. Take your female coworkers at their word when they talk about their experiences.

> We live in a society that’s sexist in ways it doesn’t understand. One of the consequences is that men are extremely sensitive to being criticized by women. I think it threatens them in a very primal way, and male privilege makes them feel free to lash out.

Attributing malice to an actor due to circumstances beyond his control or understanding... I think that qualifies as demonizing. It's reminiscent of racialist and eugenics theory.

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/WarZoneChaptIIIE.htm...

For convenience's sake,

> I want to see you use those legendary bodies and that legendary strength and that legendary courage and the tenderness that you say you have in behalf of women; and that means against the rapists, against the pimps, and against the pornographers. It means something more than a personal renunciation. It means a systematic, political, active, public attack. And there has been very little of that.

But do RTFA :)

EDIT: Direct quote from the article: "We live in a society that’s sexist in ways it doesn’t understand. One of the consequences is that men are extremely sensitive to being criticized by women. I think it threatens them in a very primal way, and male privilege makes them feel free to lash out."

Anyone is justified at being offended by that.

Somebody got a bit confused.

Insults are different when directed at a women than men, and the cause is not as simple as typing the word sexism. Insults, like swearing, is rooted in social norms. People use terms and concept which is understood by others in their social environment. This is why men will not get rape threat, since in most social groups, people think men can not get raped. It make no sense to threaten others with something that they do not think could happen in the first place.

People who send insults are expecting a predicted reaction (Remember several research papers making this specific statement). If a specific insult directed at a woman would not result in the same reaction as if it was directed at a man, then the insulter will change which words they use when insulting men. Which words they use has actually very small meaning given that they receive the expected reaction.

Rather then talking about how women get harassment and men do not, maybe we should talk about why the culture of insults are so personal and violent against women, and so focused on skill and ability for men. Why do not men get insults like "dam, you look ugly" and women get "don't quit your day job, you suck!". When was the last time you saw someone go up to female speaker and say "you do not understand this!", or loudly being argued with by someone in the audience over a technical detail.

Culture for male and female behavior is not identical when it comes to bad behavior. The article says: "I have yet to talk to a man who has had to call a police officer due to a stalker". The obvious reason is that female stalkers tend to focus on celebrities (small number of people), while male stalkers tend to focus on people they find in the local area. Stalking is bad, be that male or female stalker, and who they target is not same. Pretend that one do not exist because it is different is not going to make sexism less in society.

There is simply very little diversity in applicants who apply for videogame jobs, and if your entire employee base is comprised solely of these applicants, it's going to become an echo chamber.

The people who would not stand for this type of behavior are typically not those who would stand for 80+ hours a week of work at $25,000 salaries.

Build a diverse employment environment with your employees spanning the spectrum in terms of both age and gender, and the problems will become more and more self-righting.

As an anecdote, the only environment where that kind of inter-personal discussion was reinforced and accepted was one where the majority of employees were just out of college. Every other company where the majority of employees are over 30 has not tolerated this behavior at the employee level.

I disagree. A team's composition is the only thing that matters when it comes to minimizing this sort of behavior towards co-workers (whether in or outside work). And a team which is comprised of people who have not experienced a professional work environment can not be expected to be professional. It's the same reason we don't expect interns to be immediately familiar with the reality of programming in a business; they have no context of business reality.

I honestly believe that it's fair to say that vast majority of people will act poorly, when the action has no (or few) repercussions; it's why we have easily-pickable locks on our houses, to deter the 98% of people who would steal small items if there were no barriers or consequences.

Diversity and professionalism are the locks to deter people from behaving poorly in a work environment. Of course, this leaves the small minority who would act poorly regardless of the repercussions, their behavior can only be resolved through rules and contracts regardless of the team size or composition. The most you can ever hope to do is prevent the majority of attacks, and penalize the minority appropriately.

At my job, we had a guy for awhile who would post funny pictures in chat. Every once in awhile, he'd post something NSFW (not necessarily nudity) and all the guys would just say "lol" and the women wouldn't respond at all. What should have happened (and I'm guilty of not doing this) is that all of the other men should have stepped in and said "Hey, you know, that's not cool."

A lot of why this kind of stuff happens, I think, is that there's a sort of acceptance implied by the fact that so few men speak out about it. We just let it happen. We frown inside -- or maybe we really think it's funny! -- but we never say "Don't do that."

A strong culture of morality, of speaking up when something is wrong, would go a long way to helping foster a safe, secure atmosphere. Public shaming will stop that behavior in its tracks. Eventually, either the harassment stops or that person leaves.

In the case of my coworker, I don't think he really thought things through. I don't think he meant to be offensive or post sexually harassing things, I think he just honestly thought they were funny and posted them. That doesn't make it okay, but it doesn't mean he needs to be fired, either. He just needed to be told "That's not cool" enough times to make it stick.

As far as external harassment goes, like the ones in the article, I'm not really sure. I think we as a community need to just stand up against this type of behavior, but it's hard when the harassment is all private, like via email or text messages.

TL;DR Say "That's not cool" when bad shit goes on.

What you describe is not a zero tolerance policy. A zero tolerance policy requires punishment and "Hey, that's not cool" is not punishment.

If an employee is harassing another employee, he or she should be punished. Depending on the nature of the harassment and the employee's prior violations of company policy, the offending employee should absolutely understand that termination may result.

> At my job, we had a guy for awhile who would post funny pictures in chat. Every once in awhile, he'd post something NSFW (not necessarily nudity) and all the guys would just say "lol" and the women wouldn't respond at all. What should have happened (and I'm guilty of not doing this) is that all of the other men should have stepped in and said "Hey, you know, that's not cool."

This is precisely why your approach to the problem doesn't work: the first response of the people you're asking to say "Hey, that's not cool" is to "lol" when presented with a NSFW picture at work. This is simply a reflection of the fact that some percentage of employees are not mature and professional enough to have developed an awareness of the environment they're in.

It's silly to expect self-policing from folks who don't understand that a NSFW photo that might genuinely be amusing when shared outside of work can be incredibly awkward or offensive when shared at work.

I don't disagree with you, though. An official policy is great, but I think sometimes people just say things without thinking, and I don't necessarily think punishment (beyond public shaming of some kind) is really necessary in 100% of cases, which is kind of what I was getting at. If it was something blatant and clearly intentional, then absolutely get HR involved, but sometimes people just say things unintentionally.

I dunno. It's a very, very tricky, complicated topic, but in the end, I think we both agree that those with the power (socially or professionally) should absolutely step in and stop inappropriate behavior.

My kids are at the age where they make poop and fart jokes, and I confess that I find them funny. I fear I will always find them funny. I am unable to be upset when my kids swear -- even if I don't think they should be using those particular words. (Was there ever a more sincere expression of three year old frustration than when you overhear them saying, "Fucking _bummer_"?)

But, at work, it feels like there's a different line. The things I would laugh at if I saw them on my Facebook feed (linked by ladies or men) would make me uncomfortable to encounter at work. The mild "so to speak" banter, or the (non-sexual) mild harassment that men and women friends have had has always been funny, but I feel weird when I hear it at work. My inner dialog is usually, "I'm not offended, but ... is that okay? Are we allowed to joke about ... ?"

I tend to listen a lot more than I speak at work, as you can probably tell. ;)

If you decide it's inappropriate, you should say something.

If you decide it's appropriate, don't.

I'm not advocating censorship, but I am advocating that you should push back if someone's doing something offensive. Your female coworkers are probably more likely to go to HR or the CEO to complain (in a relatively safe manner) than to speak up in "public", especially amongst a bunch of men who think "it's just a joke" or "it's just banter." And I'm pretty sure we both agree that talking to HR can make the whole thing way worse.

Keep in mind a joke about someone "like you" is easy to read as a comment about you.

What now?

The type of "jokes" you refer to are usually not only not funny to the people who have to listen to them, they can create huge liabilities for the companies dumb enough to employ the out-of-touch fool who thinks he's the office's Dave Attell.

"But we're a startup with a relaxed office culture and an opt out from toxic emails policy, not a big corporation!" isn't an effective defense to a racial discrimination or sexual harassment lawsuit.

http://www.boardmanclark.com/reading-room/it-was-just-a-joke...

http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/161026

http://www.fox19.com/story/26069939/wings-with-a-side-of-rac...

Please note that the vast majority of employment lawsuits settle before they ever go to trial.

None of your examples demonstrate this.

The joke is always a footnote to some other, primary complaint.

You failed your burden of proof.

Maybe if you have a very homogenous company then noone will be there to take offence (that doesn't make it right), but the fact is that most companies are becoming more diverse and it is in their interests to support all members of the company to retain cohesion and efficiency - that means protecting them against their own coworkers, who may be racist, sexist, etc.

In addition, a company doesn't want it to get out that it has a very toxic work environment, as that could harm relations with consumers and partners.

You might call it censorship, but the fact is that companies must do what they need to to protect individual employees against a toxic culture.

what else could it possibly mean?

"What is a game called where a bunch of white guys are chasing a black guy? Golf."

I think the joke would be less funny if the races were reversed (and a different, but appropriate game was used).

See Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e and following). Title VII applies to employers that fit into the following categories: private employers with at least 15 employees.

14 Women can get together and not hire any men if they want. They can make software for women and get rich and support their families if they want.

They don't need men. They can make this completely public, legally. 14 people not big enough? Form a second 14-woman company and subcontract out to them.

The problem as stated was "How can I make everyone in my game studio behave the way I want?" That is like sending electricity through plastic.

The real problem is: "How can I earn a living to feed my family doing what I love to do in a safe environment?"

My answer is the answer to the real problem. If you think you can keep sending electricity through plastic and make it work, it's worse than my "temporary hack" which is only "temporary" as long as the Constitution is in effect.

My answer brings new information to the table which most people don't know. I'm sick of these threads coming up over and over again and I've offered a fresh formulation with new ideas that people can start to use right away.

> The problem as stated was "How can I make everyone in my game studio behave the way I want?" That is like sending electricity through plastic.

No it isn't. You can influence it or change it through culture and rules. We're not static machines.

Stop getting offended by trivial things.

You're the problem, so stop being a problem.

You don't have the right to do that. That's unacceptable.

Police your own, instead.

Again where in this specific thread did you read that? In this thread, I'm questioning the long term logic of someone else's idea of what you would call "policing".

Have you read your own comments on this thread? I find it ironic that you're essentially doing the same thing that you accuse me of doing.

edit - though I would go to the person making the threats and give them the opportunity to make amends first before involving any level of publicity or authority.

Companies can, and should, take vigorous legal action against customers who issue such threats. It would be a good start.

I agree with you, though, that game companies should generally take a hard line on abusive in-game behavior.