Why I can’t call myself a gamer anymore(salon.com)
salon.com
Why I can’t call myself a gamer anymore
http://www.salon.com/2014/01/02/why_i_cant_call_myself_a_gamer_anymore/
84 comments
> Stop treating everything like its holy ground, and learn to laugh at a joke, whether or not it targets your minority or majority class.
The main reason people get upset about transphobic jokes isn't that they don't have a sense of humor. It's because trans people are disproportionately targeted by violence because of their orientation. People get beat up, people get killed.
This is pretty serious, and a lot of people think part of the problem is a cultural sense that demeaning trans people is ok. You can call them "it", or a "thing".
These people aren't going to be mad if you make a joke around your trans friends. But they see it as a problem when a whole generation of 12-13 year olds are being culturally conditioned to treat trans people as lesser, as an other, etc.
Not to mention the effect this culture has on young trans kids. They already have a much much higher risk of suicide than the average person. Change has to start somewhere.
The main reason people get upset about transphobic jokes isn't that they don't have a sense of humor. It's because trans people are disproportionately targeted by violence because of their orientation. People get beat up, people get killed.
This is pretty serious, and a lot of people think part of the problem is a cultural sense that demeaning trans people is ok. You can call them "it", or a "thing".
These people aren't going to be mad if you make a joke around your trans friends. But they see it as a problem when a whole generation of 12-13 year olds are being culturally conditioned to treat trans people as lesser, as an other, etc.
Not to mention the effect this culture has on young trans kids. They already have a much much higher risk of suicide than the average person. Change has to start somewhere.
I understand that everyone fights a tough battle (and I do sympathize), but I see humor as a way of bridging that gap, not widening it. Humor is very different from hatred (although a joke can be hateful, in which case its not a good joke to make) - in this case the joke was lame, but I wouldn't say it was hateful. Look at Nick Vujicic who makes jokes about his missing limbs. He has it harder than anyone, but that does not stop him from finding happiness and humor in life.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOzsjEmjjHs
Change starts with acceptance, not censorship. If we all hush-hush when it comes to make a joke about a group, they are not comfortably integrated. In order to be an equal, they must be treated as equals, in every respect. I do think things are actually getting better overall for other orientations (I mean, look at what they did to Turing back in the day).
Change starts with acceptance, not censorship. If we all hush-hush when it comes to make a joke about a group, they are not comfortably integrated. In order to be an equal, they must be treated as equals, in every respect. I do think things are actually getting better overall for other orientations (I mean, look at what they did to Turing back in the day).
Having grown up as a gay teenager in the 90s, I don't really remember having had my bones broken by any jokes people made about me. I did get my ass kicked pretty good a few times, but in those cases, it wasn't words doing the damage.
Conflating jokes with beatings, and assuming that incidence of one has an effect on incidence of the other, does no good for anyone subject to either -- I also don't remember, in any of the cases where people beat the shit out of me, wishing someone would step in to stop them making jokes about me.
I'm also curious: What about kids who get beat up, not because they're gay or trans or what-have-you, but just because they're nerds? I was one of those, too, as it happens, and that bought me more beatings than being gay ever did. Those beatings are of less concern, in the realm of social justice, than the ones I got for being gay. Why? Certainly the latter didn't hurt worse than the former, nor did it particularly matter to me which was which.
Based on that experience, it seems to me less reasonable to consider that the reasons behind any given beating are the problem, than that the beatings are the problem; worrying specifically about gay kids getting beaten, or trans kids getting beaten, or what-have-you, seems roughly as risible as worrying specifically about guns being used to kill people, rather than about people killing each other.
Conflating jokes with beatings, and assuming that incidence of one has an effect on incidence of the other, does no good for anyone subject to either -- I also don't remember, in any of the cases where people beat the shit out of me, wishing someone would step in to stop them making jokes about me.
I'm also curious: What about kids who get beat up, not because they're gay or trans or what-have-you, but just because they're nerds? I was one of those, too, as it happens, and that bought me more beatings than being gay ever did. Those beatings are of less concern, in the realm of social justice, than the ones I got for being gay. Why? Certainly the latter didn't hurt worse than the former, nor did it particularly matter to me which was which.
Based on that experience, it seems to me less reasonable to consider that the reasons behind any given beating are the problem, than that the beatings are the problem; worrying specifically about gay kids getting beaten, or trans kids getting beaten, or what-have-you, seems roughly as risible as worrying specifically about guns being used to kill people, rather than about people killing each other.
> Having grown up as a gay teenager in the 90s, I don't really remember having had my bones broken by any jokes people made about me. I did get my ass kicked pretty good a few times, but in those cases, it wasn't words doing the damage.
Do you not think that words contributed to the atmosphere of oppression that made it easier for others to stand by and do nothing or think you deserved it somehow? Or that it doesn't have the effect of tearing someone down mentally? If someone is hurt by the things someone says, is it the victim's fault for letting it get to them?
Why can't people just be nice to each other? Why can't we just start from that? Why can't we as a society frown on that sort of bullying behavior instead of insisting that it's the victims who should take two "life experience" pills and get over it?
Do you not think that words contributed to the atmosphere of oppression that made it easier for others to stand by and do nothing or think you deserved it somehow? Or that it doesn't have the effect of tearing someone down mentally? If someone is hurt by the things someone says, is it the victim's fault for letting it get to them?
Why can't people just be nice to each other? Why can't we just start from that? Why can't we as a society frown on that sort of bullying behavior instead of insisting that it's the victims who should take two "life experience" pills and get over it?
You seem to be missing my point entirely. Of course hearing nasty jokes about me hurt! How could it be otherwise? But if the problem is that I'm being beaten for the same reason that people are making nasty jokes about me, I don't see how spending effort on stopping people making the jokes does more to solve the problem than would spending the same effort on stopping people doing the beating.
> Why can't people just be nice to each other?
Because human nature frequently requires otherwise.
> Why can't we just start from that?
Because it doesn't work; see above for why.
> Why can't we as a society frown on that sort of bullying behavior instead of insisting that it's the victims who should take two "life experience" pills and get over it?
I'm arguing that it's precisely that behavior on which the utopians should focus, instead of generating a lot of hot air on the subject of harsh language.
And it's pretty rich, I think, for you to be suggesting to me that I'm blaming the victim. I've been that victim, thank you very much, and it is in precisely that experience that my arguments on this subject find their motivation.
> Why can't people just be nice to each other?
Because human nature frequently requires otherwise.
> Why can't we just start from that?
Because it doesn't work; see above for why.
> Why can't we as a society frown on that sort of bullying behavior instead of insisting that it's the victims who should take two "life experience" pills and get over it?
I'm arguing that it's precisely that behavior on which the utopians should focus, instead of generating a lot of hot air on the subject of harsh language.
And it's pretty rich, I think, for you to be suggesting to me that I'm blaming the victim. I've been that victim, thank you very much, and it is in precisely that experience that my arguments on this subject find their motivation.
Sorry to hear it - I was also bullied, even though I was stronger than my bullies I was not allowed to fight back (by my parents demand) so I was an easy target. I actually felt sorry for one bully though because I'm pretty sure his parents abused him.
Wow. I'm sorry to hear your parents abused you in that fashion -- getting your ass kicked has got to be bad enough already, without such foolishness as being required, by your own parents, to just curl up and take it; mine, for all their other faults, at least had sense enough to grant me the right to defend myself if I could. (My schools mostly didn't, but that's a different matter, and one in which my parents took my side, as well.)
Yeah, in retrospect it was for my own safety - if I got on a bully's bad side who knows what could have happened. A few years before me a kid brought a gun to the school (this was prior to Columbine), and there were also gang associations at this time, for which reason bandannas of any color were not allowed). (I went to school in Napa, which you would think would be the safest town in the world but it had one or two gang shootings and bordered the high-crime city of Vallejo, not to mention one of the most famous serial killers spent at least a little time there (the Zodiac killer) ).
It still seems like an ideal way to inculcate learned helplessness, though. (And I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that getting beat up at his hands suggests you're already pretty well "on a bully's bad side.")
I grew up in Mississippi. Firearms were pretty ubiquitous; especially as I got into high school, a lot of kids I went to school with were already experienced hunters -- you could always tell the first day of hunting season by the way your classes were suddenly half empty -- and it wasn't all that uncommon for someone old enough to drive to school to have a rifle or a shotgun locked in his trunk. In spite of what might seem like a fertile environment for such enormities, no bully ever shot anyone.
But, to someone who's familiar with the history of school shootings, this should not come as a surprise. Perhaps the first instance of the modern spate was Luke Woodham's rampage in 1997, a case near and dear to my interest in the matter both for having happened while I was in high school and for having happened in my own home state. Woodham's "manifesto", as excerpted by Wikipedia, reads as follows:
> I am not insane, I am angry. I killed because people like me are mistreated every day. I did this to show society, push us and we will push back. ... All throughout my life, I was ridiculed, always beaten, always hated. Can you, society, truly blame me for what I do? Yes, you will. ... It was not a cry for attention, it was not a cry for help. It was a scream in sheer agony saying that if you can't pry your eyes open, if I can't do it through pacifism, if I can't show you through the displaying of intelligence, then I will do it with a bullet.
This is, again, the first instance of a pattern all but ubiquitous among the type: it's not bullies who kill, but rather their victims, who believe their actions to be their last resort in self-defense. Bullies have no reason to kill; they do what they do because it suits them, for whatever reason, to inflict pain, and you can't do that to a corpse. Their victims, on the other hand, can reach a point where killing seems the only option available, not just to defend themselves from those specific people who beat them, but in a larger sense to reclaim their agency and their power of self-determination, and that's the wellspring from which this sort of violence flows.
I grew up in Mississippi. Firearms were pretty ubiquitous; especially as I got into high school, a lot of kids I went to school with were already experienced hunters -- you could always tell the first day of hunting season by the way your classes were suddenly half empty -- and it wasn't all that uncommon for someone old enough to drive to school to have a rifle or a shotgun locked in his trunk. In spite of what might seem like a fertile environment for such enormities, no bully ever shot anyone.
But, to someone who's familiar with the history of school shootings, this should not come as a surprise. Perhaps the first instance of the modern spate was Luke Woodham's rampage in 1997, a case near and dear to my interest in the matter both for having happened while I was in high school and for having happened in my own home state. Woodham's "manifesto", as excerpted by Wikipedia, reads as follows:
> I am not insane, I am angry. I killed because people like me are mistreated every day. I did this to show society, push us and we will push back. ... All throughout my life, I was ridiculed, always beaten, always hated. Can you, society, truly blame me for what I do? Yes, you will. ... It was not a cry for attention, it was not a cry for help. It was a scream in sheer agony saying that if you can't pry your eyes open, if I can't do it through pacifism, if I can't show you through the displaying of intelligence, then I will do it with a bullet.
This is, again, the first instance of a pattern all but ubiquitous among the type: it's not bullies who kill, but rather their victims, who believe their actions to be their last resort in self-defense. Bullies have no reason to kill; they do what they do because it suits them, for whatever reason, to inflict pain, and you can't do that to a corpse. Their victims, on the other hand, can reach a point where killing seems the only option available, not just to defend themselves from those specific people who beat them, but in a larger sense to reclaim their agency and their power of self-determination, and that's the wellspring from which this sort of violence flows.
In some cases it is desperation, but often (I suspect) it is the dangerous mixture of being bullied and having psychological or socially-incurred disorders. Of course, it is never these things that are blamed, it is gun laws, or video games, or movies, or music...
I'd argue that such disorders, where present, contribute in that they make it more likely that any given bullied kid will reach that rare pitch of desperation which finds its expression in a shooting spree.
Of course violence has to be targeted and stopped, regardless of the reason.
But cultural change is important. Lynchings were bad because of the violence, but just as bad was the culture that lead to such violence being sanctioned. Gay bashing is horrible, but the culture that sanctions it is also horrible. Same with trans bashing, but there has been less progress at targeting that culture. Include nerds in the targeted groups, there.
Sure, maybe you don't agree that targeting the culture that sanctions violence is important, but a lot of people disagree with you there, including me.
But cultural change is important. Lynchings were bad because of the violence, but just as bad was the culture that lead to such violence being sanctioned. Gay bashing is horrible, but the culture that sanctions it is also horrible. Same with trans bashing, but there has been less progress at targeting that culture. Include nerds in the targeted groups, there.
Sure, maybe you don't agree that targeting the culture that sanctions violence is important, but a lot of people disagree with you there, including me.
But you're not talking about targeting the culture that sanctions violence. You're talking about targeting the culture that sanctions violence against the protected groups of your choice. There's a substantive difference there; the latter proposition has holes in it which I'd argue are, if not dangerous, then at least compromising to the goal of reducing violence, period.
I'll grant that not getting beaten up for being gay would've fetched me fewer beatings, and fewer would've been better than more. But no matter how thoroughly you manage to instill "don't beat up people because they're gay", fewer beatings is all you'll ever achieve by it. Considering that, if your movement has the power to succeed at the "don't beat up people because they're gay" social engineering project, it also has the power to succeed at the "don't beat up people, period" social engineering project, aiming for a lesser goal than you can attain seems to me a bit crass. (As it happens, I don't think your movement has the power to succeed at either project, so for me the question is academic. But you think otherwise, so, for you, I should think it'd be a matter of some import.)
I'll grant that not getting beaten up for being gay would've fetched me fewer beatings, and fewer would've been better than more. But no matter how thoroughly you manage to instill "don't beat up people because they're gay", fewer beatings is all you'll ever achieve by it. Considering that, if your movement has the power to succeed at the "don't beat up people because they're gay" social engineering project, it also has the power to succeed at the "don't beat up people, period" social engineering project, aiming for a lesser goal than you can attain seems to me a bit crass. (As it happens, I don't think your movement has the power to succeed at either project, so for me the question is academic. But you think otherwise, so, for you, I should think it'd be a matter of some import.)
You're suggesting there are groups where I don't support targeting such a culture?
Edit: Yes, I support targeting a culture of violence, period. Areas of disproportionate violence, like vulnerable minorities, need disproportionate targeting.
Edit2: You admit that there's been a cultural change away from gay bashing. Doesn't that indicate that cultural change can and does work in preventing sanctioned violence against vulnerable minorities?
Edit3, in response to below: I'm on Hacker News for fun. Do you really think it never occurred to me that nerds get beat up?
Edit: Yes, I support targeting a culture of violence, period. Areas of disproportionate violence, like vulnerable minorities, need disproportionate targeting.
Edit2: You admit that there's been a cultural change away from gay bashing. Doesn't that indicate that cultural change can and does work in preventing sanctioned violence against vulnerable minorities?
Edit3, in response to below: I'm on Hacker News for fun. Do you really think it never occurred to me that nerds get beat up?
Yet it didn't occur to you, to worry about nerds getting beat on, until someone pointed out to you that that happens. Disproportionate targeting just conveys the idea that the problem is not one's propensity to deliver beatings, but rather merely one's choice of victims.
Edit in response to your Edit2: I admit no such thing, but even conceding the point, you still ignore mine, which is that "against vulnerable minorities" is a problem. If you're going to shoot for a utopia, why not aim as high as you can?
Edit in response to your Edit3: No, I suggest that it matters less to you that nerds get beat up than that gay and trans people do, and I suggest further that, having been beat up both for being a nerd and for being gay, worrying more about one than about the other misses the point that it's not the cause of the beatings, but the beatings, which are the problem.
And, for pity's sake, will you comment in response rather than editing? It's a lot easier to keep track of the former than the latter.
Edit in response to your Edit2: I admit no such thing, but even conceding the point, you still ignore mine, which is that "against vulnerable minorities" is a problem. If you're going to shoot for a utopia, why not aim as high as you can?
Edit in response to your Edit3: No, I suggest that it matters less to you that nerds get beat up than that gay and trans people do, and I suggest further that, having been beat up both for being a nerd and for being gay, worrying more about one than about the other misses the point that it's not the cause of the beatings, but the beatings, which are the problem.
And, for pity's sake, will you comment in response rather than editing? It's a lot easier to keep track of the former than the latter.
> for pity's sake, will you comment in response rather than editing? It's a lot easier to keep track of the former than the latter.
Repyling gets delayed the further down the chain it goes. I didn't see the edits as they came up live, but that may have been why.
> which is that "against vulnerable minorities" is a problem. If you're going to shoot for a utopia, why not aim as high as you can?
I'm also in favor of this goal, but you seem to be thinking we can target all violent or violence condoning cultures en masse, which is a much harder proposition. You're also suggesting that we leave step 2 with just ??? and go to step 3 "world peace", we have to finish step 2 first and define it. It turns out it's really a thousand steps, some that can be taken together, and some that enable the rest. Consider just the general anti-gay culture in the US, it would be awesome if we could wake up tomorrow and see a free and open world. It's not going to happen, but there are steps in that direction. Until 2 years ago a number of friends and some family members who were in the US military couldn't openly discuss their relationships because of DADT, if they had they risked being discharged from the military. That same military now provides benefits to same-sex couples that used to be reserved for opposite-sex couples. Is the problem solved? Hardly (see Oklahoma), but it's getting there. We have to choose the battles that we can win, the battles we want to fight even though we will lose (at least this time, but maybe tomorrow), and the battles we'll have to wait to fight. It's not a surrender, it's not quitting, it's accepting that sometimes with our finite lives and finite energies we can't solve every problem at once. If one group wants to take on transphobia as a cause, and another wants to take on homophobia as cause and another wants to take on misogyny as a cause (opposition to these things, I mean), they aren't at odds with each other. And a victory with one often leads to victories in the others.
Repyling gets delayed the further down the chain it goes. I didn't see the edits as they came up live, but that may have been why.
> which is that "against vulnerable minorities" is a problem. If you're going to shoot for a utopia, why not aim as high as you can?
I'm also in favor of this goal, but you seem to be thinking we can target all violent or violence condoning cultures en masse, which is a much harder proposition. You're also suggesting that we leave step 2 with just ??? and go to step 3 "world peace", we have to finish step 2 first and define it. It turns out it's really a thousand steps, some that can be taken together, and some that enable the rest. Consider just the general anti-gay culture in the US, it would be awesome if we could wake up tomorrow and see a free and open world. It's not going to happen, but there are steps in that direction. Until 2 years ago a number of friends and some family members who were in the US military couldn't openly discuss their relationships because of DADT, if they had they risked being discharged from the military. That same military now provides benefits to same-sex couples that used to be reserved for opposite-sex couples. Is the problem solved? Hardly (see Oklahoma), but it's getting there. We have to choose the battles that we can win, the battles we want to fight even though we will lose (at least this time, but maybe tomorrow), and the battles we'll have to wait to fight. It's not a surrender, it's not quitting, it's accepting that sometimes with our finite lives and finite energies we can't solve every problem at once. If one group wants to take on transphobia as a cause, and another wants to take on homophobia as cause and another wants to take on misogyny as a cause (opposition to these things, I mean), they aren't at odds with each other. And a victory with one often leads to victories in the others.
The appearance of the "reply" link on the thread page is delayed, but you can reply immediately if you visit the comment page (by clicking the "link" link above the comment body), where the "reply" link always appears immediately.
I think you're still missing the point I am making, which is that it seems both simpler and more effective, not to target "cultures", but rather to target violence. Your anti-transphobes and your anti-homophobes and your anti-misogynists aren't working at cross purposes, exactly, but they are by default in silos, which is what necessitates the whole concept of "intersectionality" -- something which doesn't go nearly far enough, in my opinion, in that it still refuses to look outside the narrow categories of "vulnerable minorities" on whose behalf it is regarded as worthwhile to expend effort, but at least it's a start.
I think you're still missing the point I am making, which is that it seems both simpler and more effective, not to target "cultures", but rather to target violence. Your anti-transphobes and your anti-homophobes and your anti-misogynists aren't working at cross purposes, exactly, but they are by default in silos, which is what necessitates the whole concept of "intersectionality" -- something which doesn't go nearly far enough, in my opinion, in that it still refuses to look outside the narrow categories of "vulnerable minorities" on whose behalf it is regarded as worthwhile to expend effort, but at least it's a start.
Re replying: True, and I should have mentioned it, but I think most people don't know about it (evidenced by even older HN members still side-replying to messages far down a thread).
Re main topic: I'm trying to state my position and view more clearly. I'll either edit this later or post another reply. Short version: In my view violence is a product of the cultures it occurs in (or cultural boundaries).
Re main topic: I'm trying to state my position and view more clearly. I'll either edit this later or post another reply. Short version: In my view violence is a product of the cultures it occurs in (or cultural boundaries).
Not to preëmpt your longer formulation, but just as culture can engender violence, successful violence reinforces the culture which engendered it. Interrupting the cycle at the point of culture strikes me as a long and subtle process by comparison with interrupting it at the point of violence; after all, once people realize something won't produce the result they desire, they won't bother to waste their effort doing it.
Well, it's a really long rambling mess. So I'll pose this question instead. I type my long replies in emacs so I'll keep tinkering with what's probably best used as a blog post (if only I blogged) or essay than an HN post.
How do we interrupt the violence if we don't try to change the cultures that the violence comes from?
EDIT:
BTW, I really do think we agree on the end goal, it's just the way to it that we differ. I understand my view and will continue to try and get it down to less than 20 pages (exaggeration, though I've likely deleted about 10 pages of material so far in restating it over and over again), I just don't understand yours yet. And since I'm the one that's not understanding, I'd rather get your view first, I might find that my long-winded reply is unnecessary.
How do we interrupt the violence if we don't try to change the cultures that the violence comes from?
EDIT:
BTW, I really do think we agree on the end goal, it's just the way to it that we differ. I understand my view and will continue to try and get it down to less than 20 pages (exaggeration, though I've likely deleted about 10 pages of material so far in restating it over and over again), I just don't understand yours yet. And since I'm the one that's not understanding, I'd rather get your view first, I might find that my long-winded reply is unnecessary.
> if someone makes a tame joke about transgenders, who the f * * k cares? We make jokes about straight people all the time. My friends who are gay make jokes about gay people.
It's not quite the same thing. Some people are more vulnerable than others. Transgendered people in particular have often taken a long time coming to grips with who they are. Many are traumatized by a lifetime living in a body that wasn't "theirs".
I sincerely hope you can see the difference between mocking a vulnerable minority and mocking the dominant majority.
It's not quite the same thing. Some people are more vulnerable than others. Transgendered people in particular have often taken a long time coming to grips with who they are. Many are traumatized by a lifetime living in a body that wasn't "theirs".
I sincerely hope you can see the difference between mocking a vulnerable minority and mocking the dominant majority.
In my eyes we are all equal, regardless of whether we fall into to big group or some small group defined by some arbitrary trait. That said, we must learn to respect each other (many humans seem innately inclined to hate what is different). Mockery tends to denote making fun of someone, perhaps with cruel intention. On the other hand, saying "Wario got a sex change" is not really in any way cruel, and I cannot see it shattering the self image of any transgender person.
Comedians also have another saying: "Punch up."
Don't take the easy targets. Trans men and women are still being murdered with obscene regularity.
Don't take the easy targets. Trans men and women are still being murdered with obscene regularity.
1) I don't think there's really a movie watching culture in the same way there is a gaming culture. The author wishes to disassociate with a cultural movement he disagrees with.
and
2) There is also a movement to point out that many movies (as well as other works of fiction) are written/directed by men in the male perspective for a male audience and don't portray women in the same way they portray men. Ever heard of The Bechdel test? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test only 56% of the movies listed on http://bechdeltest.com/ pass.
There's really nothing wrong with simply pointing any of this out.
and
2) There is also a movement to point out that many movies (as well as other works of fiction) are written/directed by men in the male perspective for a male audience and don't portray women in the same way they portray men. Ever heard of The Bechdel test? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test only 56% of the movies listed on http://bechdeltest.com/ pass.
There's really nothing wrong with simply pointing any of this out.
The Bechdel test is severely flawed and not indicative of anything.
Most great films fail it miserably, so you'll be missing out on the greatest works of human cinema if you use it as a serious criterion.
It's very idiotic. It implies that there's something wrong with having a scene where two women discuss a man. Yet any film at all, no matter how great or even progressive in its themes, will fail because of a brief four-second quip.
Tell me now. How many films have a scene where two or more men discuss a woman? I'll tell you how many. A metric fuckton. Human sexuality is a pivotal motif in the arts and is a fundamental part of our lives. Whether you like it or not.
You can easily make a very misogynistic and hateful film that positively portrays wife beating, gay bashing and oppression while passing the Bechdel test. Fact of the matter is, the Bechdel test completely ignores any context. It's very narrow and to impose it on people is a violation of artistic license.
Most great films fail it miserably, so you'll be missing out on the greatest works of human cinema if you use it as a serious criterion.
It's very idiotic. It implies that there's something wrong with having a scene where two women discuss a man. Yet any film at all, no matter how great or even progressive in its themes, will fail because of a brief four-second quip.
Tell me now. How many films have a scene where two or more men discuss a woman? I'll tell you how many. A metric fuckton. Human sexuality is a pivotal motif in the arts and is a fundamental part of our lives. Whether you like it or not.
You can easily make a very misogynistic and hateful film that positively portrays wife beating, gay bashing and oppression while passing the Bechdel test. Fact of the matter is, the Bechdel test completely ignores any context. It's very narrow and to impose it on people is a violation of artistic license.
It's like BMI, taken as a measure of one film it isn't that valuable, however taken as a whole it is a measure of societal trends. It is one metric, of many.
>Tell me now. How many films have a scene where two or more men discuss a woman
Yea, but is that all those men do? Is that the entire point of having them in the movie?
>It implies that there's something wrong with having a scene where two women discuss a man.
No it doesn't. It says that is all women are for, is the male leads. Their sole purpose in film and life is and object for the males around them. They don't have personality, they have men. They can of course talk about men, but they should talk about other things too.
>It's very narrow and to impose it on people is a violation of artistic license.
No it doesn't. Nobody said all moves had to pass. It shows a societal trend that half don't, that 50% of the population is female but many writers can't figure out how to write women into their scripts in a meaningful way.
More data:
http://www.seejane.org/research/
MYTH: Boys and girls are equally represented in film and television.
FACT: Even among the top-grossing G-rated family films, girl characters are out numbered by boys three-to-one. That's the same ratio that has existed since the end of World War II. For decades, male characters have dominated nearly three-quarters of speaking parts in children's entertainment, and 83% of film and TV narrators are male. The Institute's research indicates that in some group scenes, only 17% of the characters are female. These absences are unquestionably felt by audiences, and children learn to accept the stereotypes represented. What they see affects their attitudes toward male and female values in our society, and the tendency for repeated viewing results in negative gender stereotypes imprinting over and over.
MYTH: Family entertainment is a safe haven for female characters.
FACT: Astoundingly, even female characters in family films serve primarily as "eye candy." Female characters continue to show dramatically more skin than their male counterparts, and feature extremely tiny waists and other exaggerated body characteristics. This hypersexualization and objectification of female characters leads to unrealistic body ideals in very young children, cementing and often reinforcing negative body images and perceptions during the formative years. Research shows that lookism still pervades cinematic content in very meaningful ways.
MYTH: Things are looking great for females behind the camera.
FACT: Females behind the camera fall far behind their male contemporaries and are at a distinct disadvantage in the entertainment industry. Only 7% of directors, 13% of writers, and 20% of producers are female. With such a dearth of female representation in front of and behind the camera, it's a struggle to champion female stories and voices. The Institute's research proves that female involvement in the creative process is imperative for creating greater gender balance before production even begins. There is a causal relationship between positive female portrayals and female content creators involved in production. In fact, when even one woman writer works on a film, there is a 10.4% difference in screen time for female characters. Sadly, men outnumber women in key production roles by nearly 5 to 1.
MYTH: Girls on screen compare favorably to their male counterparts.
FACT: Messages that devalue and diminish female characters are still rampant in family films. Gender stereotyping is an inherent problem in today's entertainment landscape, and children are the most vulnerable recipients of depictions that send the message that girls are less valuable and capable than boys. The Institute's research illustrates that female characters who are lucky enough to garner speaking roles tend to be highly stereotyped. From 2006 to 2009 not one female character was depicted in G-rated family films in the field of medical science, as a business leader, in the law, or in politics. 80.5% of all working characters are male and 19.5% are female, which is a contrast to real-world statistics of women comprising 50% of the workforce. With repeated viewings, young audiences may fail to realize this lopsided view is not, in fact, reality and believe there is no need for gender parity or industry change. Today's children will be our future business leaders, content creators and parents and the ones who need to lead the charge for future generations.
MYTH: Gender imbalance issues have gotten better over time.
FACT: Statistically, there has been little forward movement for girls in media in six decades. For nearly 60 years, gender inequality on screen has remained largely unchanged and unchecked. Without an educational voice and force for change, this level of imbalance is likely to stay the same or worsen. Only through education, research, and advocacy both from within the studio system and entertainment industry, and with parents and kids, can we effect real change in this heavily gender-biased media landscape.
http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Students/elb9501.html
Tannis McBeth Williams (1985) conducted a study in Canada to examine the impact of television on a community which had previously had no television reception. She tested the sex role attitudes of a number of children who lived in a community where they had no television reception shortly before television was introduced to the community, and again two years after. He found that children in a community where there already was television were more sex stereotyped than the children in the community who had no television reception, and also found that those who had been introduced to television were, two years later, significantly more stereotyped in their attitudes towards the sexes than they had been before. This type of evidence suggests that, "in the long term, television has the potential to shape children's sex-role attitudes." (Gunter and McAleer, 1990, page 64).
and finally, an antidote:
http://thehathorlegacy.com/why-film-schools-teach-screenwrit...
Only to learn there was still something wrong with my writing, something unanticipated by my professors. My scripts had multiple women with names. Talking to each other. About something other than men. That, they explained nervously, was not okay. I asked why. Well, it would be more accurate to say I politely demanded a thorough, logical explanation that made sense for a change (I’d found the “audience won’t watch women!” argument pretty questionable, with its ever-shifting reasons and parameters).
At first I got several tentative murmurings about how it distracted from the flow or point of the story. I went through this with more than one professor, more than one industry professional. Finally, I got one blessedly telling explanation from an industry pro: “The audience doesn’t want to listen to a bunch of women talking about whatever it is women talk about.”
>Tell me now. How many films have a scene where two or more men discuss a woman
Yea, but is that all those men do? Is that the entire point of having them in the movie?
>It implies that there's something wrong with having a scene where two women discuss a man.
No it doesn't. It says that is all women are for, is the male leads. Their sole purpose in film and life is and object for the males around them. They don't have personality, they have men. They can of course talk about men, but they should talk about other things too.
>It's very narrow and to impose it on people is a violation of artistic license.
No it doesn't. Nobody said all moves had to pass. It shows a societal trend that half don't, that 50% of the population is female but many writers can't figure out how to write women into their scripts in a meaningful way.
More data:
http://www.seejane.org/research/
Males outnumber females 3 to 1 in family films. In contrast, females comprise just over 50% of the population in the United States. Even more staggering is the fact that this ratio, as seen in family films, is the same as it was in 1946.
Females are almost four times as likely as males to be shown in sexy attire. Further, females are nearly twice as likely as males to be shown with a diminutive waistline. Generally unrealistic figures are more likely to be seen on females than males.
Females are also underrepresented behind the camera. Across 1,565 content creators, only 7% of directors, 13% of writers, and 20% of producers are female. This translates to 4.8 males working behind-the-scenes to every one female.
From 2006 to 2009, not one female character was depicted in G-rated family films in the field of medical science, as a business leader, in law, or politics. In these films, 80.5% of all working characters are male and 19.5% are female, which is a contrast to real world statistics, where women comprise 50% of the workforce.
All facts are supported by research conducted by Dr. Stacy Smith, Ph.D. at the USC Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism
MYTH: Boys and girls are equally represented in film and television.
FACT: Even among the top-grossing G-rated family films, girl characters are out numbered by boys three-to-one. That's the same ratio that has existed since the end of World War II. For decades, male characters have dominated nearly three-quarters of speaking parts in children's entertainment, and 83% of film and TV narrators are male. The Institute's research indicates that in some group scenes, only 17% of the characters are female. These absences are unquestionably felt by audiences, and children learn to accept the stereotypes represented. What they see affects their attitudes toward male and female values in our society, and the tendency for repeated viewing results in negative gender stereotypes imprinting over and over.
MYTH: Family entertainment is a safe haven for female characters.
FACT: Astoundingly, even female characters in family films serve primarily as "eye candy." Female characters continue to show dramatically more skin than their male counterparts, and feature extremely tiny waists and other exaggerated body characteristics. This hypersexualization and objectification of female characters leads to unrealistic body ideals in very young children, cementing and often reinforcing negative body images and perceptions during the formative years. Research shows that lookism still pervades cinematic content in very meaningful ways.
MYTH: Things are looking great for females behind the camera.
FACT: Females behind the camera fall far behind their male contemporaries and are at a distinct disadvantage in the entertainment industry. Only 7% of directors, 13% of writers, and 20% of producers are female. With such a dearth of female representation in front of and behind the camera, it's a struggle to champion female stories and voices. The Institute's research proves that female involvement in the creative process is imperative for creating greater gender balance before production even begins. There is a causal relationship between positive female portrayals and female content creators involved in production. In fact, when even one woman writer works on a film, there is a 10.4% difference in screen time for female characters. Sadly, men outnumber women in key production roles by nearly 5 to 1.
MYTH: Girls on screen compare favorably to their male counterparts.
FACT: Messages that devalue and diminish female characters are still rampant in family films. Gender stereotyping is an inherent problem in today's entertainment landscape, and children are the most vulnerable recipients of depictions that send the message that girls are less valuable and capable than boys. The Institute's research illustrates that female characters who are lucky enough to garner speaking roles tend to be highly stereotyped. From 2006 to 2009 not one female character was depicted in G-rated family films in the field of medical science, as a business leader, in the law, or in politics. 80.5% of all working characters are male and 19.5% are female, which is a contrast to real-world statistics of women comprising 50% of the workforce. With repeated viewings, young audiences may fail to realize this lopsided view is not, in fact, reality and believe there is no need for gender parity or industry change. Today's children will be our future business leaders, content creators and parents and the ones who need to lead the charge for future generations.
MYTH: Gender imbalance issues have gotten better over time.
FACT: Statistically, there has been little forward movement for girls in media in six decades. For nearly 60 years, gender inequality on screen has remained largely unchanged and unchecked. Without an educational voice and force for change, this level of imbalance is likely to stay the same or worsen. Only through education, research, and advocacy both from within the studio system and entertainment industry, and with parents and kids, can we effect real change in this heavily gender-biased media landscape.
http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Students/elb9501.html
Tannis McBeth Williams (1985) conducted a study in Canada to examine the impact of television on a community which had previously had no television reception. She tested the sex role attitudes of a number of children who lived in a community where they had no television reception shortly before television was introduced to the community, and again two years after. He found that children in a community where there already was television were more sex stereotyped than the children in the community who had no television reception, and also found that those who had been introduced to television were, two years later, significantly more stereotyped in their attitudes towards the sexes than they had been before. This type of evidence suggests that, "in the long term, television has the potential to shape children's sex-role attitudes." (Gunter and McAleer, 1990, page 64).
and finally, an antidote:
http://thehathorlegacy.com/why-film-schools-teach-screenwrit...
Only to learn there was still something wrong with my writing, something unanticipated by my professors. My scripts had multiple women with names. Talking to each other. About something other than men. That, they explained nervously, was not okay. I asked why. Well, it would be more accurate to say I politely demanded a thorough, logical explanation that made sense for a change (I’d found the “audience won’t watch women!” argument pretty questionable, with its ever-shifting reasons and parameters).
At first I got several tentative murmurings about how it distracted from the flow or point of the story. I went through this with more than one professor, more than one industry professional. Finally, I got one blessedly telling explanation from an industry pro: “The audience doesn’t want to listen to a bunch of women talking about whatever it is women talk about.”
Minor nitpick, but calling them "transgenders" is kind of like referring to straight people as "straights" - it just doesn't really make sense. I think the appropriate term would be "trans people."
I accidentally up voted this comment and feel like now I need to respond to it.
Kids online yelling "Haha die you faggot nigger." are not making a joke. It's not funny. It's not something to just laugh at and move on. It's awful, childish, stupid behavior.
Kids online yelling "Haha die you faggot nigger." are not making a joke. It's not funny. It's not something to just laugh at and move on. It's awful, childish, stupid behavior.
I agree - to clarify, there is a difference between a joke and hatred laced with a "joke" - not really a joke in the example you pointed out, more of a derogatory statement, but I get what you are saying.
[deleted]
Careful there, Citizen. You're courting accusations of reactionism with regressionist talk like that.
Heheh ;)
As Parkin points out, the term “gamer” is idiotic. We don’t call movie fans “moviers” or literature enthusiasts “bookers.”
There are various terms for both. Bookworms, cinephiles, movie buffs, bibliophiles.
Maybe if it's a "branding" problem, of sorts, using other words would work, like ludophile, but it doesn't avoid the fact there are cores of enthusiasts for most (all?) media.
There are various terms for both. Bookworms, cinephiles, movie buffs, bibliophiles.
Maybe if it's a "branding" problem, of sorts, using other words would work, like ludophile, but it doesn't avoid the fact there are cores of enthusiasts for most (all?) media.
I'm trying to see how changing the name will in any way change the culture. You can call gamers whatever you want. You might even be able to convince them to use a different word. But they'll still misuse the "crouch" command.
Culture? You're way more kind than I am.
It's all no-thought, meme-chanting-so-I-feel-like-I-fit-in middle-school behavior. It's the same groupthink of pop Internet culture (reddit/4chan).
It's all no-thought, meme-chanting-so-I-feel-like-I-fit-in middle-school behavior. It's the same groupthink of pop Internet culture (reddit/4chan).
The important point is that "gamer" is a word made from attaching "-r" to the verb game. If you play you are a "player", if you watch you are a "watcher", if you read you are a "reader". Thinking that the word "gamer" is idiotic is idiotic.
Oh come on. The word movie is idiotic then. "Look the things on the screen are moving, thus movie!" Or talkies.
Language didn't all of a sudden become silly. Its always been like this. Personally, I love the term gamer as its used, almost exclusively, with the FPS and racing game obsessed manboys I love to hate and go out of my way to avoid.
Normal people tend to say "I play video games" or "I play $whatever." Gamer as a self-identification is very useful socially.
Language didn't all of a sudden become silly. Its always been like this. Personally, I love the term gamer as its used, almost exclusively, with the FPS and racing game obsessed manboys I love to hate and go out of my way to avoid.
Normal people tend to say "I play video games" or "I play $whatever." Gamer as a self-identification is very useful socially.
Agreed, this point is nonsense, as well as being incorrect.
A person can be a "gamer" without having video games be their whole culture and identity, just as they can be a "sports nut" without having their favorite team be their whole culture and identity.
The fact that there's a concise word for "enthusiast in this particular area" doesn't imply anything about gamers that it doesn't also imply about other enthusiasts.
A person can be a "gamer" without having video games be their whole culture and identity, just as they can be a "sports nut" without having their favorite team be their whole culture and identity.
The fact that there's a concise word for "enthusiast in this particular area" doesn't imply anything about gamers that it doesn't also imply about other enthusiasts.
Ludophile I would think of as a (pretentious) board gamer rather than videogamer.
This ties into the "branding" thing. That's what the term could instantly make you think of, but really it has no specific connotation. (A bit like how to some it seems "gamer" gives off a certain vibe, when no such vibe is intrinsic to it.)
While it makes sense, "I'm a ludophile" is way too easy to mishear.
Not knowing the root word, I would assume ludophile would be related to luddite.
Or just "readers".
Perhaps the author would also like to stop calling themselves a person. I mean, there's no reason to half-ass this sort of thing. Many evil deeds have been committed by people, each calling themselves a person.
Failing that, perhaps the author would like to stop pigeon-holing the entirety of gaming for every single misstep committed by someone that happens to play games or that takes place in a gaming context.
Failing that, perhaps the author would like to stop pigeon-holing the entirety of gaming for every single misstep committed by someone that happens to play games or that takes place in a gaming context.
It's funny the author mentions "transphobia", given the existence of many postmodern feminists who are openly against transsexuals.
But ignoring that, the problem is that this article adds baggage to the term "gamer" when there isn't any. A gamer is a person who has a passion for playing games (usually video games). That's it.
Might as well stop calling ourselves programmers, because after all, programmer culture is horribly misogynistic and oppressive.
But ignoring that, the problem is that this article adds baggage to the term "gamer" when there isn't any. A gamer is a person who has a passion for playing games (usually video games). That's it.
Might as well stop calling ourselves programmers, because after all, programmer culture is horribly misogynistic and oppressive.
> It's funny the author mentions "transphobia", given the existence of many postmodern feminists who are openly against transsexuals.
Also known as the "fuck you, I got mine" variant of feminism.
Also known as the "fuck you, I got mine" variant of feminism.
One that is nonetheless relatively popular. For all intents and purposes, they aren't any different from the other postmodern feminists which pervade contemporary feminist discourse on the web, in all other aspects.
I don't see what your first sentence has to do with the essay. The author is uncomfortable with the treatment that transgender people get in the gaming community. How does the existence of those in a different community who also treat transgender people poorly relevant?
Because they share the author's extreme social justice sentiments in every other way.
But why is that relevant to the article? I'm just lost as to what point you're trying to make. It seems like a non-sequitur to me.
> It's funny the author mentions "transphobia", given the existence of many postmodern feminists who are openly against transsexuals.
Why does that make the mention of transphobia funny?
Why does that make the mention of transphobia funny?
This is stupid. The article claims the term gamer itself isn't appropriate but the examples it provides are wrong. People who enjoy films may often be called film buffs or even more generically movie goers. People who enjoy reading may be referred to as book worms. Deciding to reject them doesn't really mean anything. The term gamer is not the problem.
If this article was more about rejecting sexist and racist language and behavior in gaming I'd agree with it. However I think these problems are more a factor of age and maturity than anything else. Play in a gaming community where the average age is 20+ and you'll find a more tolerable environment.
If this article was more about rejecting sexist and racist language and behavior in gaming I'd agree with it. However I think these problems are more a factor of age and maturity than anything else. Play in a gaming community where the average age is 20+ and you'll find a more tolerable environment.
I want to see someone write an article entitled "Why I can't call myself a journalist anymore" and then blame Salon for articles like this.
This piece is less about gamers and more about the failures of online 'communities.'
The interesting thing about the Internet is how utterly unaccountable people want to be for what they say. Just try mentioning that people should be held responsible for things they say. Anytime you even suggest the state of online discourse is abysmal, there are five people who show up to tell you that it's perfectly fine, and the problem lies with you for noticing it.
It's like there's a culture of acquiescing to perceived social norms (in this case, mediocrity), lest you speak up and be expelled.
The interesting thing about the Internet is how utterly unaccountable people want to be for what they say. Just try mentioning that people should be held responsible for things they say. Anytime you even suggest the state of online discourse is abysmal, there are five people who show up to tell you that it's perfectly fine, and the problem lies with you for noticing it.
It's like there's a culture of acquiescing to perceived social norms (in this case, mediocrity), lest you speak up and be expelled.
> Just try mentioning that people should be held responsible for things they say.
I have the right to free speech. If I say I think trans is a psychological condition treated by therapy instead of surgery or whatever politically incorrect thing might be the enemy of popular thought today, I shouldn't be put up in some discrimination court because someone was offended by my views. I also should have the right to publish my thoughts anonymously.
Long story short, political correctness is just censorship. While I certainly don't like hateful on-line communities, I think your suggestion to make people "accountable" for speech is only something that can lead to real human rights violations instead of perceived slights from overly touchy people.
Try criticizing Islam in the middle-east. There's accountable speech there. Why are westerners obsessed with bringing these horrific limitations on speech to the west? Free speech transcends being offended.
I have the right to free speech. If I say I think trans is a psychological condition treated by therapy instead of surgery or whatever politically incorrect thing might be the enemy of popular thought today, I shouldn't be put up in some discrimination court because someone was offended by my views. I also should have the right to publish my thoughts anonymously.
Long story short, political correctness is just censorship. While I certainly don't like hateful on-line communities, I think your suggestion to make people "accountable" for speech is only something that can lead to real human rights violations instead of perceived slights from overly touchy people.
Try criticizing Islam in the middle-east. There's accountable speech there. Why are westerners obsessed with bringing these horrific limitations on speech to the west? Free speech transcends being offended.
This is less about free speech and more about setting zero tolerance for outright hate speech. Accountability here is being banned from games/discussions. This doesn't apply to society in the large.
I'd prefer to take the term back than to give it up, personally. Gaming culture used to be better than this, and if we can kick the fratcore back to the fringes whence they came, it can be better again.
Consoles aren't going anywhere, though, and their low barrier to entry means they're going to have a larger share than PC gaming for as long as they're around.
I'm not so sure consoles are the problem. XBox Live gets a lot of heat, and deserves it, but most of the fratcore's market strongholds don't have their roots in consoles. FPS, MMO, and sandboxes all have famous PC roots, while technical fighters got their start in the arcades. Madden is really the only one the consoles can claim, and then only arguably: the first Madden wasn't released on consoles, but the consoles were where it really took off.
That's why I'm reluctant to point the finger at consoles. The problematic franchises and strongholds have their roots elsewhere, and continue to start in these places, only coming to consoles later. If anything, consoles' low barrier to entry makes them more a part of the solution, not the problem: simply put, we need new blood, and lots of it.
That's why I'm reluctant to point the finger at consoles. The problematic franchises and strongholds have their roots elsewhere, and continue to start in these places, only coming to consoles later. If anything, consoles' low barrier to entry makes them more a part of the solution, not the problem: simply put, we need new blood, and lots of it.
Also, they're pretty nice. PC gaming does have disadvantages.
I haven't had a console since the original Playstation, so I don't know the answer to this question: How so? Is it just the low barrier to entry, or is there something about the actual experience of playing a console game which outdoes anything a PC can accomplish? (I really tend to doubt it's the latter, given the much greater flexibility of the PC as a platform -- I can use an Xbox 360 or PS3 controller to play a game on my computer, but as far as I know, I can't use a keyboard and mouse to play a game on either of those consoles.)
I find the lower friction quite valuable:
- I don't need to care much about updates, not at all about driver issues. There are only two DRM mechanism in use (disc and digital) and their behaviour is well defined. (I'd rather have none, but that is only an option for very few games sadly).
- I can pick up my controller, sit on the couch, press a button and the console turns itself on in a few seconds. Then, using just the controller, I can use all of its functions.
- I quite like split-screen multiplayer and PC games almost never provide it. It would require 2 PCs for most games and would be impractical on a couch.
- The console was also much cheaper than a gaming PC and used games + PSN sales end up at similar cost to Steam games + Steam sales.
I've played with a Steambox and it comes close, but without being able to play all PC games in history, much of its appeal is gone.
- I don't need to care much about updates, not at all about driver issues. There are only two DRM mechanism in use (disc and digital) and their behaviour is well defined. (I'd rather have none, but that is only an option for very few games sadly).
- I can pick up my controller, sit on the couch, press a button and the console turns itself on in a few seconds. Then, using just the controller, I can use all of its functions.
- I quite like split-screen multiplayer and PC games almost never provide it. It would require 2 PCs for most games and would be impractical on a couch.
- The console was also much cheaper than a gaming PC and used games + PSN sales end up at similar cost to Steam games + Steam sales.
I've played with a Steambox and it comes close, but without being able to play all PC games in history, much of its appeal is gone.
This "article" is but a mere click/flamebait, the likes of Kotaku likes to post. Absolutely terrible. In fact, the whole Salon website is clickbaits and it's a shame to see this kind of stuff on the front page of HN.
There is a recent wave of so called "social justice warriors" (SJW) invading video game journalism and writing articles such as this one under the guise of "feminism" and other fringe movements because the feelings of transgender people are not respected, because it promotes "misogyny, transphobia and rape culture". Excuse me? I don't really know what kind of agenda they're trying to push other than trying to fabricate controversies where there were previously none (apart from the "video games make you violent" crowd, which everyone already dismissed).
What kind of bizarro world does the author live in - and from reading the article I assume he's a pretty casual gamer otherwise he wouldn't write such an unsavory article and call PAX the Woodstock of video games (an event that appeared in 2004) - that people call themselves gamers? No one I know calls himself a gamer and I've been playing video games since the 80's. Your identity is not driven by your hobby.
Protip: Just because your feelings were hurt, it doesn't mean you are right.
There is a recent wave of so called "social justice warriors" (SJW) invading video game journalism and writing articles such as this one under the guise of "feminism" and other fringe movements because the feelings of transgender people are not respected, because it promotes "misogyny, transphobia and rape culture". Excuse me? I don't really know what kind of agenda they're trying to push other than trying to fabricate controversies where there were previously none (apart from the "video games make you violent" crowd, which everyone already dismissed).
What kind of bizarro world does the author live in - and from reading the article I assume he's a pretty casual gamer otherwise he wouldn't write such an unsavory article and call PAX the Woodstock of video games (an event that appeared in 2004) - that people call themselves gamers? No one I know calls himself a gamer and I've been playing video games since the 80's. Your identity is not driven by your hobby.
Protip: Just because your feelings were hurt, it doesn't mean you are right.
> We didn’t even call video game players “gamers” until the fairly recent past. I certainly don’t remember hearing the word “gamer” in the mid-’90s
Gamer originated in the 90s, in particular round-about 1996 with Quake, but well before that too with other games. A gamer was someone who packed up their big computer and lugged around a monitor in their car to a LAN party. There were plenty of girls around too, however they were mostly girlfriends and sisters.
The strange rape-approving culture and other terms such as 'gg', came about because of two factors (I think, anyway). First, most people involved were generally high school or university students, and if you've been to a boys high school party then you shouldn't be surprised. Secondly, you generally sat around in a large hallway and the games let you use text chat. It was amusing at the time to talk congenially with your friend next to you and then send him a text message about raping because most of the people didn't even know what rape was. You generally saw complete shock if a younger player who was sending messages about rape was actually told what it was. It was probably the novelty of real time text communication. 1337 speak was also very popular around the time for the same reason - it helped to cement who was 'in the know' in the community.
Gaming itself was very much a meritocracy. People at the top of the kill board were the popular ones and people listened to them, and these people would generally travel around to other lan parties and pick up the 'rape culture' from them, and then it would spread at more lan parties when these knowledgeable players talked about it. Standard social dynamics, I guess.
Gamer originated in the 90s, in particular round-about 1996 with Quake, but well before that too with other games. A gamer was someone who packed up their big computer and lugged around a monitor in their car to a LAN party. There were plenty of girls around too, however they were mostly girlfriends and sisters.
The strange rape-approving culture and other terms such as 'gg', came about because of two factors (I think, anyway). First, most people involved were generally high school or university students, and if you've been to a boys high school party then you shouldn't be surprised. Secondly, you generally sat around in a large hallway and the games let you use text chat. It was amusing at the time to talk congenially with your friend next to you and then send him a text message about raping because most of the people didn't even know what rape was. You generally saw complete shock if a younger player who was sending messages about rape was actually told what it was. It was probably the novelty of real time text communication. 1337 speak was also very popular around the time for the same reason - it helped to cement who was 'in the know' in the community.
Gaming itself was very much a meritocracy. People at the top of the kill board were the popular ones and people listened to them, and these people would generally travel around to other lan parties and pick up the 'rape culture' from them, and then it would spread at more lan parties when these knowledgeable players talked about it. Standard social dynamics, I guess.
> Gamer originated in the 90s, in particular round-about 1996 with Quake
Gamer predates its use for video gamers. I was a gamer in the late '80s because I liked RPGs and wargames.
Gamer predates its use for video gamers. I was a gamer in the late '80s because I liked RPGs and wargames.
> Gamer originated in the 90s, in particular round-about 1996 with Quake
This just isn't true at all. Kids who played Dungeons & Dragons and other games were "gamers" in the 80s, and probably before.
The term only entered the mainstream in the 90s when DOOM and Quake made PC gaming a mainstream activity.
This just isn't true at all. Kids who played Dungeons & Dragons and other games were "gamers" in the 80s, and probably before.
The term only entered the mainstream in the 90s when DOOM and Quake made PC gaming a mainstream activity.
I'd say the term got re-used. It felt like a different subculture to me at the time. The people involved in D&D/tabletop gaming were generally not the same people at lan parties as well. I don't think joining the current gaming culture to the D&D/tabletop culture is entirely correct...
In my case and most of the people I knew, it was the same people. It depends on your generation, I suppose. But everyone I knew who was into D&D was also into computers and computer games. I'd challenge you to find someone who was into D&D and NOT into computers and computer games.
There were a lot at the time. Computers for playing games were expensive and lan parties tended to take a whole weekend including sleeping there, while D&D was more relaxed and was just a couple hours in the evening.
I'd still say the culture was vastly different though. A few people sitting around a board rolling dice was just a completely different social interaction to a hundred people in a noisy hall. There also wasn't the same level of 'scoreboard hero' in tabletop games that arose during Doom/Quake.
I guess I'm actually talking more about 'quake culture' than gaming culture at the time, but it's actually that 'quake culture' which has gone mainstream rather than the 80s gaming culture which is still around today. Without the lan parties and quake, you wouldn't have the 'rape culture' they talk about and that's why I'm saying the two are something different.
I'd still say the culture was vastly different though. A few people sitting around a board rolling dice was just a completely different social interaction to a hundred people in a noisy hall. There also wasn't the same level of 'scoreboard hero' in tabletop games that arose during Doom/Quake.
I guess I'm actually talking more about 'quake culture' than gaming culture at the time, but it's actually that 'quake culture' which has gone mainstream rather than the 80s gaming culture which is still around today. Without the lan parties and quake, you wouldn't have the 'rape culture' they talk about and that's why I'm saying the two are something different.
His examples aren't problems with gamer culture, they're problems with a mass media culture that stereotypes gamers as basement-dwelling neckbeards, and has decided the best way to market to them is T&A.
This really is idiotic to me. It seems increasingly popular for someone to take a minority position and then complain about how they are oppressed by the media, or game companies or whatever. The entire argument is pointless. It assumes that 'gamer culture' is somehow imposed by the industry, which is just utter bullshit. The video game industry, like virtually any other, exists to serve it's customers. The industry will do whatever it thinks it needs to do to appeal to it's customers. That's it.
> As Parkin points out, the term “gamer” is idiotic. We don’t call movie fans “moviers” or literature enthusiasts “bookers.”
We call people who read "readers", we call people who go to movies "movie-goers". Game isn't just a noun, it's a verb, and adding an "-r" or "-er" to the end of a verb is a common English way of turning that verb into a word that means "person who [verb]s". To suggest otherwise is idiotic.
We call people who read "readers", we call people who go to movies "movie-goers". Game isn't just a noun, it's a verb, and adding an "-r" or "-er" to the end of a verb is a common English way of turning that verb into a word that means "person who [verb]s". To suggest otherwise is idiotic.
I blame consoles primarily, as it seemed the barrier for entry in the PC master race was always high enough to separate at least some of the wheat from the chaff.
It could also be rose coloured glasses, given that my last serious gaming (before coding ate up 12+ hours a day) was 5 years of Diablo II and CS:S followed by 6 years of Guildwars. I got out of all of this before COD/ BF and LOL were huge games.
I can say that I know far more brogamers rocking a PS/Xbox than PC's.
It could also be rose coloured glasses, given that my last serious gaming (before coding ate up 12+ hours a day) was 5 years of Diablo II and CS:S followed by 6 years of Guildwars. I got out of all of this before COD/ BF and LOL were huge games.
I can say that I know far more brogamers rocking a PS/Xbox than PC's.
My biggest issue with this article is that he isn't talking about speaking up for the acceptance of transgendered individuals. He is just stepping away from the word "gamer" and declaring himself on a moral highground
>Until then, not thinking of myself as a gamer is going to be a matter of conscious effort and avoidance of temptation, because it’s just so easy to do otherwise.
This guy clearly thinks he is really brave, while not really doing much
>Until then, not thinking of myself as a gamer is going to be a matter of conscious effort and avoidance of temptation, because it’s just so easy to do otherwise.
This guy clearly thinks he is really brave, while not really doing much
>Parkin feels that the idea of the “gaming community,” and its endemic misogyny, transphobia and rape culture, all need to die, and by extension, anyone who has adopted an identity as a “gamer” needs to give it up.
Everyone I know who plays games isn't a misogynist, transphobic or makes jokes about rape.
>We don’t call movie fans “moviers” or literature enthusiasts “bookers.”
No we call them "Movie buffs" or "Book worms". Besides, this point really highlights an issue; shaking the word "gamer" won't change the behavior of some people in the community.
Everyone I know who plays games isn't a misogynist, transphobic or makes jokes about rape.
>We don’t call movie fans “moviers” or literature enthusiasts “bookers.”
No we call them "Movie buffs" or "Book worms". Besides, this point really highlights an issue; shaking the word "gamer" won't change the behavior of some people in the community.
I'm a gamer, that means I play games.
I try not to be a jerk, but some people who play games do act like jerks. I am not going to give up my hobby or my identity because some people who have the share either act like jerks.
There is a subset of the gamer population which encourages players to act like jerks. The correct response is to build environments (games, communication channels, and communities) which inhibit and discourage negative behavior, not to abandon the field.
I try not to be a jerk, but some people who play games do act like jerks. I am not going to give up my hobby or my identity because some people who have the share either act like jerks.
There is a subset of the gamer population which encourages players to act like jerks. The correct response is to build environments (games, communication channels, and communities) which inhibit and discourage negative behavior, not to abandon the field.
[deleted]
Does it matter if you call your self gamer or not?
I've been a gamer since I was a kid in the 80's. Being a "gamer" is not my identity, it's something I do. I'm also a home chef, a programmer and a husband. No one of these things identifies me entirely.
There's a lot of teenage males who play video games and consider "gamer" the entirety of their identity. This is because they haven't developed an actual personality yet. These are usually the people who are constantly slinging racial/homophobic epithets and flipping out whenever they encounter a girl online.
Their behavior does not affect how I view myself, or the hobbies I engage in. It has no bearing on whether I am a gamer or not. To say that it should or does is pretty stupid. It's like saying because Paula Deen is a racist I shouldn't identify myself as a home cook.
There are douchey people out there who engage in all hobbies. The correct response is not to pretend you don't enjoy your hobby or to damage your enjoyment of it. The correct response is to let these people know what douches they are and call them out to their face.
People like the author of this article are the problem as much as the immature, stupid kids are. Because when they encounter those kids acting awful online, they stay quiet and do nothing. You should stand up and call them out. When I run into racism in DotA 2 I tell the kids "Does being racist help cover up the fact that your parents are first cousins?" or when they engage in homophobic slurs I point out "The most homophobic people are usually the ones giving blow jobs in the airport bathroom." This usually shuts them up.
Pretending you don't play games, or stopping a hobby you enjoy is doing nothing but damaging yourself.
There's a lot of teenage males who play video games and consider "gamer" the entirety of their identity. This is because they haven't developed an actual personality yet. These are usually the people who are constantly slinging racial/homophobic epithets and flipping out whenever they encounter a girl online.
Their behavior does not affect how I view myself, or the hobbies I engage in. It has no bearing on whether I am a gamer or not. To say that it should or does is pretty stupid. It's like saying because Paula Deen is a racist I shouldn't identify myself as a home cook.
There are douchey people out there who engage in all hobbies. The correct response is not to pretend you don't enjoy your hobby or to damage your enjoyment of it. The correct response is to let these people know what douches they are and call them out to their face.
People like the author of this article are the problem as much as the immature, stupid kids are. Because when they encounter those kids acting awful online, they stay quiet and do nothing. You should stand up and call them out. When I run into racism in DotA 2 I tell the kids "Does being racist help cover up the fact that your parents are first cousins?" or when they engage in homophobic slurs I point out "The most homophobic people are usually the ones giving blow jobs in the airport bathroom." This usually shuts them up.
Pretending you don't play games, or stopping a hobby you enjoy is doing nothing but damaging yourself.
I'm all for every sexual orientation, but if someone makes a tame joke about transgenders, who the f * * k cares? We make jokes about straight people all the time. My friends who are gay make jokes about gay people. Stop treating everything like its holy ground, and learn to laugh at a joke, whether or not it targets your minority or majority class. Do you really want to live in a perfectly politically correct world where nobody can make a joke about anything because they might offend somebody? As George Carlin said:
"I think it's the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
That said, dissociating yourself with gamers because many of them have a juvenile sense of humor is kind of silly. It is like saying "I am going to stop calling myself a movie watcher because half of all movie watchers like straight male-oriented action movies."
Edit: Uh oh, hit the beehive. To clarify, there is a very clear difference between hatred and joking, most people can make the distinction. I understand the trauma that a lot of orientations go through (I have watched my friend's parents disown him for being gay and read the countless stories of people being murdered for being whatever orientation). Nonetheless, I do not believe at all in censorship and I never will. I do believe in being polite and respecting others. Humor is a way of bridging gaps, hatred or making fun of somebody cruelly is a different beast.