Obviously I do not intend to speak as if the social conversation about sexism in gaming, tech and other industries is an actually even battle where both sides have equal rhetorical or empirical firepower to "win" or "lose".
And if indeed the problem is that I called it a 'battle', then I'll conditionally accept correction on that (even if I think it ignores the larger point I was attempting to make).
I think now is a good time for me to step aside from this before we go off the rails.
My problem with the particular phrase 'battle of the sexes' is that invites a reduction in this context that gamergate holds a reasonable male position and Sarkeesian merely holds an equally reasonable female position, and that men can't be blamed for holding the gamergate position and that only women should reasonably hold Sarkeesian's position. I admit I'm ignorant of the game theory allusion you're making.
More generally I fear I don't understand the larger point you're trying to make if you weren't trying to do the "two sides, both have some good points and some bad points, let's ask the peope receiving death threats to sit down with their abusers and find a compromise" truth-is-in-the-middle thing.
let's ask the peope receiving death threats to sit down with their abusers and find a compromise" truth-is-in-the-middle thing.
Except I never said that. I never insinuated that, if you think that's the case, then it appears you're trying to force your interpretations into my statements, and that's not cool.
Instead, what I've asserted repeatedly is this:
1) Sexism in gaming, tech and other industries needs to be addressed. Absolutely and positively.
2) Many who carry the banner of "Feminist" and many who carry the banner "Gamer" have taken unfortunate and problematic stances, as well as have made unfortunate and problematic statements to get "their" side more validity to the point where taking a side either way carries many severe consequences in the interest of moving a conversation forward.
3) Instead of simply jumping to one side because of how the other side reacts, I personally have decided to abstain from participating further until I see an opportunity where I personally feel comfortable participating and not be accused of being sexist/misogynist/whateverist or otherwise chided for not expressing myself in absolute support.
Please break it down for me? I'm clearly not seeing it (we often fail to see the failings in ourselves, it's just human), I for my part tried to clarify my stance; repeating "false equivalency" doesn't help me understand your response any better.
As far as I can tell, there's the gamergate people organizing the harassment of people, posting their victims' private addresses, sending them death threats and all kinds of abuse, bullying people into withdrawing from their online identities, all under a propaganda screen of fabricated pretenses and smear campaigns.
Then there's the "feminist" crowd which wants that sort of thing to not happen, and also talk about videogames.
Your way of putting it implies that these two are equivalent in being "unfortunate and problematic", which in my opinion is a severe misrepresentation of the situation.
Your way of putting it implies that these two are equivalent in being "unfortunate and problematic", which in my opinion is a severe misrepresentation of the situation.
In your opinion then, what's a better way to present it? I'm trying to look at this as broadly as I possibly can without getting strung up in highlighting granular, "this instance" and "that instance" responses, effectively coming across as a 'single issue debater'.
A better way to present it would be, "I don't agree with all the points that people identifying as feminists in these arguments are making, for example XYZ. However, I strongly condemn calls for violence against them and think that the violence and threats of violence discredits any argument the GamerGate people may be making and reinforces the fact that we live in a patriarchal society and a rape culture where violence against women is all too common and normalized. Arguments against the content of arguments and counter examples are fine and okay, however the word of someone claiming they personally are being marginalized and victimized should generally be given more weight than someone else claiming that that person isn't. We can have civil and even enthusiastic discussions about how sexism manifests itself in the videogame industry (or doesn't), but misogynist violence is never okay and de facto reinforces how big of a problem sexism is in tech culture, and the way that both covert and overt violence is used to silence women.
Further: threats of violence used to silence anyone, are not anything like a valid argument form. They are the usual tool of a corrupt, authoritarian voice. The practice is to be condemned by all who support rational dialog.
however the word of someone claiming they personally are being marginalized and victimized should generally be given more weight than someone else claiming that that person isn't.
No it absolutely should not, and the applications that we've seen when this framework of thought is proof enough of what happens when we give the victim more legal weight than the accused.
Title IX is a perfect example of this flawed implementation of "justice" to the point where the victims receive all the benefits of due process, but the accused does not. Taking the victim at their word is preposterous and absolutely and wholly contrary to the way our legal framework was designed, and ought to work:
Quote:
"OCR’s language implies
that the rights of accused students at public colleges do not merit lengthy
discussion and further suggests by negative implication that accused have any rights at all.57 The Letter also states that “[w]hen taking steps to
separate the complainant and alleged perpetrator, a school should
minimize the burden on the complainant, and thus should not, as a matter
of course, remove complainants from classes or housing while allowing
alleged perpetrators to remain.” In other words, alleged perpetrators
should automatically suffer life-upending punishments like expulsion from
their residences upon accusation because they are likely guilty. The
writing on the wall from this treatment of due process rights is
unmistakable: it implies, “oddly and ominously, that the statutory rights of
the accuser trump the constitutional due-process [sic] rights of the
accused.”"
You can absolutely have a civil discourse on how sexism manifests itself in the video game industry and others, and misogynist violence is absolutely never okay. But once we get to the point where conversations depend on giving one person more credence than another simply because of their status, or role in the affair, we're entering very dangerous waters.
One such example of the treacherous possibilities comes from the events of October 2012 at Ohio University where two students publicly engaged in lewd acts, photographs showed the female participant smiling, engaging and interacting with the male participant, and still cried rape to the detriment of the male participant even when local law enforcement could not find evidence to indict;
Obviously I do not intend to speak as if the social conversation about sexism in gaming, tech and other industries is an actually even battle where both sides have equal rhetorical or empirical firepower to "win" or "lose".
And if indeed the problem is that I called it a 'battle', then I'll conditionally accept correction on that (even if I think it ignores the larger point I was attempting to make).
I think now is a good time for me to step aside from this before we go off the rails.