RSI Clarifies Stance On Women’s Only Groups In Star Citizen

By Nathan Grayson on May 7th, 2014 at 12:00 pm.

What started as an outer space scare worthy of its own Event Horizon movie ended up being a big misunderstanding. It all began with a Star Citizen community member, “Lauresh,” attempting to organize a women’s-only group in the wake of some especially, er, uncomfortable forum threads, a place to go hang out on days when the wider universe left her cold. Since this is the Internet, her plan was immediately met with a barrage of ugliness and vitriol. To top it all off, she was then banned from Star Citizen’s forums, an unceremonious opening of the airlock that rightfully left many eyebrows raised and confused. Apparently, however, that part was a huge mistake, and Roberts Space Industries not only wants to allow players of any sort to form their own groups, but plans to give them the tools to do so.

The was apparently handed out because Lauresh was from a group associated with Something Awful that had recently been doing a lot of trolling. RSI’s moderators assumed this was just another instance of rowdy attention-grabbing and decided to send all involved packing. A pretty gross assumption given the subject matter? Absolutely. But it was the exact opposite of what RSI is hoping to achieve in the long run. Developer Ben Lesnik explained:

“On the greater subject of women in the Star Citizen universe, the answer is that yes we should go out of our way to create a safe space for them. Women online, and especially women in gaming, have it very, very tough in ways that men absolutely do not understand. This isn’t an argument for the community to have, it’s a fact. Our moderators (and game designers and programmers and everyone else involved in Star Citizen) should do everything possible to create a safe environment, not encourage typical internet knife-fighting in this regard.”

“Men don’t have to deal with this sort of thing, and it’s so systemic. For years I was part of a community that simply didn’t have women. At first I thought it was because space sims didn’t appeal to women… but I came to understand it was because of how immature the average forum user was towards them. It broke my heart hearing from women who loved fighting aliens but who had to pretend to be men in order to even talk to anyone about it, lest their PM inboxes fill up with come-ons and their social networking get invaded with awful dudes.”

“As if it even needed to be said, there is more than enough room for a female-only group in the ‘verse. Making connections like that is what our Organizations system is for, and there’s absolutely no additional room to argue with that.”

That’s very good news, obviously. A very, very inauspicious beginning, but RSI at least seems to be plotting a course to something much better. That said, it doesn’t really solve the community organization issues that spawned this issue in the first place, nor does it necessarily make the overall community a more hospitable place in the short term. These problems could be solved in time, but it’s going to require a lot more hands-on effort from RSI – not just assumptions and bans.

We shall see. For now, though, I at least applaud the no-nonsense stance they’ve taken. It’s needed. But statement of intent is just a start. Now it’s time to see if RSI will follow through.

, .

380 Comments »

Sponsored links by Taboola
  1. adscott says:

    It’s all pretty boring. Slow news day.

  2. Senethro says:

    Someone should make bingo cards for the comments that come with stories about women. Some suggested spaces would be “white knighting”, “clickbait” and “blathering about how RPS used to cover games”.

    • Premium User Badge

      RaveTurned says:

      Also “Slow news day?” as seen above.

    • Premium User Badge

      Harlander says:

      “What about the men!?!?!?” should be on your card, and what do you know, it’s already ticked off.

    • Premium User Badge

      Joshua says:

      No. There has to be an element of randomness, chance, and fun to bingo. In these comment threads, you can tick all your comments off faster then one can say “men’s rights activism” (No, that one doesn’t count).

      • Premium User Badge

        Harlander says:

        Well, you know, each card has a different subset of the phrases, so the fun comes from finding whose card will be completed first.

        I may have overthought this.

        • pepperfez says:

          But the delay between first and last is so short it always goes to a photo finish. It’s just not as accessible as it used to be – I think MRA bingo is really becoming a sport for fans only.

      • Phasma Felis says:

        “Men’s Rights” should be the freebie square in the middle.

    • Kentauroi says:

      You forgot the ever-popular “Social Justice Warrior” line.

    • Jenks says:

      You’re not going to be able to fill up the card with only half the silliness – bro, MRA, etc

    • Distec says:

      While we’re talking about RPS comment mainstays, circlejerks like this should surely qualify.

    • Senethro says:

      “One commenter furiously posting in every thread of comments asserting its all a conspiracy”.

      While usually cultural Marxists or feminazi agendas get blamed, I’ve never seen anyone claim that goons staged the whole incident. That was new.

  3. AchronTimeless says:

    Where there is a space sim, there will be goonswarm trying to ruin it for everyone else. I find it hard to believe that a woman willing to be a member of something awful and willing to put up with its membership would suddenly decide the players of Star Citizen bothered her… while remaining a member of something awful. There’s an old saying about removing the log from your own eye before complaining about a splinter in someone else’s.

    • Premium User Badge

      Bradamantium says:

      I was hanging around the GirlGamers subreddit when someone linked to Lauresh’s blog, and almost immediately a bunch of Star Citizen early adopters came along to tell us that we were all being manipulated to a feminist agenda by whatever the hell a “Goonrathi” is. Which we may well have been, I clearly lack expertise in that area, but why is something as simple as “I would like to create a group for females only!” so inflammatory that we’d call it trolling?

      • TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

        The goons are like that, they even went to call all moderators “rapists” and throwing random shit in general while playing all in tandem, the OP itself was likely not even remotely legitimate and it was clearly a freshly made shill account, with an utterly disgraceful description in the “bio” that i’d post if only i could find that crap again.

        The Goons stated goal is to cause distress, tears and shit, they are absolutely horrible by any standard, they are the Jeoffrey ( Lannister ) Baratheon of mankind, except they usually are more clever and craftier, in a bad way.

        They are hated even in EVE just so you can try to fathom how bad they are, except the recruitment criteria isn’t really biased towards gameplay parameters and as such they sort of suck, being the laughing stock of the better orgs.

        Forums are their real playground and the only thing they excel at. Rest assured that there ARE good people among them, but really, fly with the crows get shot with the crows.

        • DatonKallandor says:

          Completely ridiculous. But predictable. Obviously a goon can’t possibly be a woman. If they claim to be it’s obviously just trolling, because no woman would ever be associated with “those people”. And if they are, anything that happens to them is justified, since they were hanging out with “those people”.

          And let’s not forget the wonderful verbatim response to the “ARYAN GAMERS GROUP” by the Star Citizen forum moderators:
          Quote: “There’s nothing technically wrong with this.”

          • TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

            I never said she’s not a woman, or to better put it, i never said his/her gender mattered one bit.

            Goons playing in tandem calling all moderators a bunch of rapists yet again. THAT also was predictable.

            You’re not even trying to debunk the rest of the post, afterall how could you? I’m not making stuff up, you can ask any self respecting goon and you’ll get a proud answer.

            I’ve seen them stir far too much shit on everywhere they landed, they’re not even funny anymore and just incredibly sad.

            Maybe Lauresh had a legitimate point to make, but her clan made it so that it’d get lost. They started trolling in tandem and shit happened, if it wasn’t for that there would be no issue, like the post from that “good Goon” who made it’s own PAX resume and kept it informative and well written.

            “Strangely”, people didn’t seem upset from that and they gave him a lot of credit aswell.

          • DatonKallandor says:

            I’m sorry were you making “points” I could “refute”? Because all I see is you thinking goons are goonswarm, or that all goons play EVE or that goons are a “clan”. I’ll give you hint – none of those things are correct.
            You on the other hand, didn’t “refute” my “points” either. It’s okay for the Star Citizen moderators to ban discussion on a women gamer group, but call an Aryan gamer group “technically fine except for the controversy it would cause”?

            Oh yeah, I don’t recall any goons calling the star citizen forum moderators “rapists” – could you source that accusation? We’re calling certain redditors rapists, but that’s because there’s literally a subreddit for rapists that was defended by the reddit founders because “free speech”. (did they close that subreddit by now?)

            Also very unsubtle calling Lauresh “him”, trying to call her gender into question. Because obviously goons cannot be women.

          • TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

            “Also very unsubtle calling Lauresh “him”, trying to call her gender into question.”

            Are you completely out of your mind? Did you even read?

            Also please quit that silly shit about Goons not being Goonrathi or Gune or Goonswarm or Kittens of doom, nothing of that is important as they’re all proud of being terrible and they don’t mind abusing rules and loopholes, dancing around ban hammers or setup incredibly complex retaliation schemes to ask for the freedom of their poor banned members, which can go as far as getting VERY personal.

            Really, just quit the clan, you’re too unsubtle and unskilled in their art.

          • dsch says:

            This debate is not going to be able to be resolved in theory, like you are trying to do here. *If* she was trolling, then she deserved to be banned; *if* the mod was using suspected trolling as an excuse to express his misogyny, then he deserved to be removed. It is, of course, possible for both to have been acting in bad faith, or both in good faith. But the point is you’ll never figure this out by applying universal principles. You can never say, ‘anything can use feminism as a cover,’ nor, ‘anything that might possibly be trolling can legitimately be removed.’ In this thread, DK is arguing from universals, and TNP from the particular situation. TNP could be wrong about the particular situation of course, but DK will never be able to prove the point by arguing from universals.

          • hotmaildidntwork says:

            What was the point, precisely?

          • El_Emmental says:

            Your trolling is weak, DatonKallandor. It is a disappointment to us all.

        • blargh says:

          If making a thread to suggest a womens group is a successful troll, then what the fuck does that say about the RSI community?

        • RobotAnna says:

          yeah how dare women have a personality, or criticize people like you who are clearly unaware of what is going on around them

          its almost like women want to enjoy things the same way and for the same reasons, up to and including enjoying blowing up your crap and podding you in eve because you are trash and it is hilarious, but without wanting to deal with a wall of unfunny and creepy “omg a girl on the internet” bullshit.

          also maybe goons dont really fit the narrative you have in your head of horrible supervillains or something and an inclination to cause/enjoy game drama is not the same thing as being a bigot who knows?

          • TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

            Yeah, a bigot, because i’m clearly still arguing that we’re not talking about a real woman, and because the fact that she was later pulling vitriolic comments and insulting everyone, with her clan backing her like they often do in multimillion pages heated thread doesn’t mean anything. Ok. Oh, i also bet you didn’t even research the matter, or read the thread, or considered other views.

            And they create less game drama than they’d like, which is something i still consider legit, it’s mostly forum drama ridden with insults, but you probably didn’t notice this little nuance as you seem a pretty decent insult-bot yourself.

            You’ve been a little hasty in trying to place your poorly prepared label on me, just move along if you want to read stuff in a way that fits your convenience. Thanks.

          • RobotAnna says:

            ah yes, lets not talk about the subject matter lets make it a whinefest about my feeeeeeeeeels

            typical overemotional male that cant handle discussion or rational debate

          • Anorak says:

            typical overemotional male that cant handle discussion or rational debate

            What? Are you a real person? Is this a bot?

          • TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

            The subject matter is that you have no idea what i wrote and that you don’t even care, because you wouldn’t know how to unload random lines otherwise.

            Just call me when you’re done throwing your portfolio of pre-baked crap around. You went off the mark, very far, deal with it and stop being a tool.

            And really, just shut up, you wouldn’t want other males thinking you’re actually representative of female gamers if you want to help your cause.

      • Shooop says:

        Because that’s what neckbearded Cheetos-n-Mountain Dew-guzzling shitbags do with their time.

    • IridiumRE says:

      Exactly! She’s clearly guilty by association. If she didn’t want to be treated like that she should have picked her friends better and not been dressing like that.

    • Pharos says:

      OK, what? I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t follow the entire forum (not enough hours in a day to start with), but where’s this coming from? In the parts I do read, whenever sexist opinions come up, they generally get derided and sneered at, and not hooting approval like a Youtube comment thread.

      I guess maybe FYAD? But who the hell understands what goes on there?

      • Premium User Badge

        Cinek says:

        “In the parts I do read, whenever sexist opinions come up, they generally get derided and sneered at, and not hooting approval like a Youtube comment thread.”

        – You’ve seen the first live stream RSI made? That was an outstanding show of sexism from the SC community. Sorry, but in general it seems like sexism is something with community-wide approval, there are some instances when people complain about it, but in general sexist jokes and alike are pretty much a commonplace.

        • Pharos says:

          Sorry, I should have clarified. I meant Something Awful, not Star Citizen. I haven’t visited those forums much so I wouldn’t presume to remark on them.

    • Chalky says:

      You should try actually reading the forum you’re talking about some time. SA has very strict posting rules and the sort of terribly misogyny and bigotry that goes on in other gaming communities would get you banned on there within minutes.

      • The Random One says:

        Ya, SA has a reputation of being pretty much 4chan with bigger words. From my experience that’s not true. They can be bad, and when they decide to be bad they’re the worst (I mean, trolling EVE is such a challenge of sheer logistics that I can’t think of anyone else who’d have the inclination, the manpower and the tactical coordination) but even then they’re more enablers than outright coordinators.

        • pepperfez says:

          I always got the impression that SA was an irredeemable cesspool which then began charging for membership and moderating aggressively and became a model community. Both sides of that may be wrong, though.

    • RobotAnna says:

      there are a lot of women who are goons and those of us who are prefer to play online games with other goons because there’s generally little to no tolerance for OMG GIRL ON THE INTERNET bullshit. even if they’re not perfect by any means, the manchildren of something awful are much more tolerable than the manchildren of anywhere else on the internet

      you also dont need to be a sexist doucheclown to enjoy making pubbies mad in eve online

      • bjohndooh says:

        I guess they could be nicer if you are one of them?
        They’re generally unpleasant to everybody else.

        • Amstrad says:

          In general they are nicer if you are one of them. There’s very much a goons vs pubbies mentality. The overall behavior of any given group is also very much dictated by whoever is running that particular arm of goons. Goons related to EVE and the Goonrathi are quite a bit more notorious than some of the SA forums groups that play on other games.

  4. sharkh20 says:

    I feel like this was all just one giant troll trying to get RSI in trouble. Also, I think you were going for “The ban was apparently handed out.”

    • Premium User Badge

      Vesuvius says:

      And what, as part of your conspiracy they created all the blatantly sexist and horrible threads on the RSI forum (and ensure that THOSE didn’t get shut down)?

      Like the one where they argue the importance of including the ability to rape in Star Citizen?
      https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/105381/

      Or how women in space should all be dressed in lingerie?
      https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/878746

      This isn’t just about her being banned, it’s about what they tacitly encourage by leaving active.

      • sharkh20 says:

        The article was about her getting banned and the reason. I said nothing about any other problem posts, as clearly there are problem posts in every forum. People say bad things on the internet. They should be dealt with accordingly. That said, when you troll forums, whether male or female, you are probably going to get banned. If you do get banned, there shouldn’t be a big reaction because the person getting banned was female. That on it’s own fits the definition of sexist.

        • Syphus says:

          This would be true if there was a legit reason for her (or any of most of the others who were banned), to be banned.

        • Shooop says:

          Those threads do matter because if you can’t get banned for threads like that, but can for trying to make a female-only group will get you one right away it’s obvious the reason she was banned had nothing to do with violating common decency.

      • waltC says:

        About objectionable threads–raping, lingerie, et al, should simply be avoided by the people who don’t wish to read them. The Internet is full of discussions and topics that I personally find offensive and irredeemable, but my reaction to that is to stay away from that kind “discussion” because engaging in it is unprofitable–like most political and religious discussions. The thing is that in an Internet forum nobody knows who the responding party actually is–the lingerie thread, for instance, may have been started by pubescent pre-teen, and so on. Why get yourself worked up over such petty things? Wanting to insulate yourself in a “special group” simply in the hopes of avoiding objectionable thread topics seems like fool’s gold to me.

        • Phasma Felis says:

          objectionable threads […] should simply be avoided by the people who don’t wish to read them.

          Wanting to insulate yourself in a “special group” simply in the hopes of avoiding objectionable thread topics seems like fool’s gold to me.

          So people should avoid threads they don’t like, but they shouldn’t join a group to avoid threads they don’t like? Make up your mind.

          • pepperfez says:

            You should try to avoid them, but fail, and be reminded that you’re not a full member of the community, but not make your own community, just sulk along desultorily in your sorrow and your space lingerie.

          • P.Funk says:

            I just don’t like the fact that their solution to avoiding threads like that is to create a gender exclusive group. They should just do what everyone on the internet does and form group of people who aren’t douche bags, be they male or female. My Arma clan is small, friendly, devoid of douchebags (mostly) and has had multiple active female members. The one time someone said something sexist he got an earful from men and the woman didn’t even have to complain.

            I just think broad gender exclusivity is not a real solution to the problem.

        • simplystarbucks says:

          If you expect women to do things like you do, as a guy, then you should also do things that women expect you to do- like not leave rape comments or sexist jokes. It’s only because those exist that we should give them a space where they don’t feel like they’re being assaulted by the other gender. If they want to objectify men then, sure. They have their views of what they want. However, going onto a forum only to see things like “women should get raped” or anything of that sort doesn’t really allow women to actually feel safe.

          Everyone deserves to enjoy a game. You shouldn’t expect a group of people to just go with it and suck it up. That’s the wrong mentality when you want to promote a growing community. Girls enjoy games just as much as guys do.

  5. Premium User Badge

    drewski says:

    I think RSI need to take a little more hands on approach to managing their forums if this sort of thing is happening. But credit to them for acting quickly to clear the situation up.

    • IridiumRE says:

      If by “so quickly” you mean banning her, waiting upwards of 24 hours, banning other members who were protesting against the moderator’s actions (many of which have not been unbanned), then issuing a half apology blaming the organization she belonged to and encouraging the forums to continue ti persecute said organization.

      • PopeRatzo says:

        Wait, twenty-four hours? Without the Star Citizen forum? I can’t imagine how she survived.

        • Jenks says:

          She couldn’t post comments about a game that is probably over a year from even having a solid release date. If you don’t understand the problem then you need to check your privilege.

          • ScubaMonster says:

            Yeah I get that being banned for something you shouldn’t have isn’t good but come on. If 24 hours without posting on a forum is something hard for you, I highly suggest you unplug your computer and find yourself a life.

      • Premium User Badge

        drewski says:

        Believe it or not, but people who make video games don’t sit around on the internet hitting F5 on every forum and news website just in case a controversy relating to their game appears.

        And you need to draw the distinction between the forum moderators (who clearly get NO credit) and RSI, who I did give credit to. Ben Lesnik didn’t ban her, or her allies.

        • TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

          And Ben Lesnick would actually even have a lot of reasons to do so.

        • Premium User Badge

          Bradamantium says:

          Right. A lot of this seemed to frame it as the developers themselves encouraging this, but as soon as the buck was passed, they basically shut the impotent criticisms right down and took action. This was more the mistake of a community manager, who are passionate but unqualified volunteers at best.

          • Premium User Badge

            jrodman says:

            If someone figures out a good solution to that class of problem, I would like them to tell Wikipedia about it.

    • Chalky says:

      It’s pretty pathetic that being a member of a community with over 100,000 members is something the RSI moderators thinks is worthy of a ban. All sorts of people are members of SA. It’s like banning everyone with a reddit account just because someone from reddit did some trolling.

      Hopefully this means that RSI are going to clean up the parts of their moderation team who are so clearly incompetent.

      • Premium User Badge

        drewski says:

        Well, not really, because Goonswarm are notorious for chasing “lulz” in a way that Reddit isn’t.

        I’m not saying guilt by association is right, of course, but Reddit and Goonswarm aren’t really comparable in the way they interact with online multiplayer games.

        • DatonKallandor says:

          Goonswarm is not Something Awful. Something Awful is not Goonswarm.
          But hey, let’s gang up on the evil goons – they’ve got some members who are famous for trolling online games.
          Let’s let Reddit off the hook – after all all they’ve got is some members who literally brag about raping minors.

          Clearly the Goons are the ones more worthy of scorn for what a subset of their members do.

          • Syphus says:

            Aside from “Goons” meaning a member of the Something Awful forums, you hit on an important point. The worst thing about Goonswarm is its pubbie infestation.

            Anyway, my honest question here is that there’s one thing I’m not clear on. There is this girl here who is the subject of the article, she is a member of SA. Now is she also part of Goonswarm? Or is this just the Goonswarm mythos? Because in my long-ass time of Eve playing I don’t know who this is.

          • Premium User Badge

            drewski says:

            Your persecution complex is showing.

          • TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

            If you’re a goon you’re a bad one, you’re not following the clan guidelines.

            You might aswell leave and stop being surprised that the rest of the world doesn’t even bother about giving credit to a legitimate concern posted by a Goon, which is a shame because i know some of them who really are top notch people.

          • Premium User Badge

            jrodman says:

            Its impressive that the stereotyping of SomethingAwful members in this thread is stronger than the stereotyping of women.

          • WhatAShamefulDisplay says:

            @jrodman I know, right? I find it doubly amusing because on 4chan the goons are stereotyped (equally incorrectly) as scions of John Walker-esque gender-harmony and social justice. Speaking as a member of Something Awful AS WELL, I actually find both of these characterisations hilariously lazy and inadequate to describe the whole.

            And before anyone asks, I go on SA for the excellent Paradox Games threads, not for the EVE trolling. SA trolling is usually either weak or OTT anyway.

          • TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

            That’s the point though, as gamers we notice the portion that matters to us, which is the various Goon thingies appearing ONLY on games that have ( intentionally or not ) griefing and zerg mechanics in place.

            You can all dance around the problem for as much as you want, and goons can change their names for 100 times in a year just to have the privilege of claiming “We’re not the same! We’re us!” all they want, it won’t make their idiotic forum tandems and game shenanigans go away, no matter their name.

            Well, the good thing is that they are the laughing stock in most of these games, anyway.

          • WhatAShamefulDisplay says:

            @TNP, Forgive me but is there anything here that can honestly be regarded as a “problem”? Some people get together to cause damage to virtual property in a videogame which clearly advertises the hostility of the world to the player. I don’t accept the notion that feelings being hurt is a universal ill that must be stamped out, that leads us to doctrinally utilitarian ways of looking at the world that I am not sure would be beneficial.

            You know the drill, not a personal dig at you, etc etc.

          • Premium User Badge

            jrodman says:

            In one breath, you mock the simulated stereotype of the straw man opponent, in which, propped up by you, they complain for a lack of sympathy.

            Self mockery?

          • TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

            Piracy and being a real bastard in general is one of SC’s main draws, and i don’t see a problem in that. I actually hope that many will muster the balls to actually make a lot of enemies and to draw a lot of anger.

            Creating drama and tears out of personal attacks and horrible behaviour outside of the GAME is, however, a very big issue. Again, i’ve got no problems with such GAME features and i repeat that i actively encourage them, i’m just trying to point out that they also sometimes have the side effect to attract shitheads who aren’t really much keen on the boundaries between games and reality.

            It just so happens that i’ve never seen a Goon clan, be it Goonrathi, Gune, Goonsquad, Goonswarm, GoonDaddy or GoonWhoKnowsWho, that didn’t have a critical level of said shitheads.

            And again, i find it even more sad that i actually admire some members.

          • Premium User Badge

            jrodman says:

            So earnest stereotyping then.

          • WhatAShamefulDisplay says:

            @jrodman: were you addressing me in your last reply? If yes, let me clarify: It is unfair to label the whole of the SA community as a bastard. I, however, AM a bastard, at least in the frivolous sense of causing minor mischief on the internet (although in my case never in a videogame, oddly)

            EDIT: Ah right, looks like you weren’t. Never mind, I’ll leave this here, it’s a fair clarification.

            @TNP, So as I understand it your main complaint is that goonsquad is not funny and not clever, rather than being too evil? If that’s the case I can back you one hundred percent.

        • Chalky says:

          They’re notorious for shitting up eve in the same way that redditors are notorious for fiercely defending their “mens rights” subreddits.

          Making broad statements about communities because you heard about someone from that community doing something bad at some point is beyond stupid when they contain hundreds of thousands of members.

          Banning someone on that basis is astonishing incompetence.

          • Premium User Badge

            Nogo says:

            Is it even possible to shit up eve?

            Like, I thought that was the point. You get articles written and insane amounts of isk for doing that, right?

          • Premium User Badge

            drewski says:

            I didn’t say anything about Eve, didn’t say the stereotype SA is known for is accurate, and at no stage defended the moderators on the RSI boards.

            Your persecution complex is showing, too.

            And my opinions on the notoriety of the Goons is based on plenty of personal experience in multiplayer games, so a little less of your ignorant condescension, thanks.

        • TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

          I’m saying that i want most of their worst crap out of the forums, pretty much.

      • TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

        I followed the forums pretty closely for over a year now, and i can’t even start counting all the insults thrown at moderators/developers/Ben Lesnick and so on by the Goons, i’ve seen them defending extremely legitimate bans by acting even worse, and in general this applies to ANY game they’ve been seen in.

        Mostly on the forums though, in game they suck well enough that nothing short of a total Zerg would pose an issue.

        • DatonKallandor says:

          That is probably the most predictable response. There’s always someone (who’s carrying a grudge from EVE) thinking goons are all EVE players and a clan. Then somewhere there’s the predictable, but pointless “goons have no skill, all they do is Zerg” dick-waving somewhere in there, because gaming prowess is how we measure worth on the internet.

          • TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

            Some people might want to measure their worth like that, but some others might be simply disturbed enough of goon hijacks that they can’t help but notice how they got overrun by a mass of idiots.

            Goons in EVE, Goons in Tera, Goons in SC and so on are all the same, no one gives a flying crap if they are different people as long as these “different” organizations still factually behave in the very same way.

            Try harder.

            Please stop playing the clichè and generalization card, i’m not accusing all members of being idiots, i’m merely discussing their stated goal and how “good” some of them are at pursuing it, often in the most unsavory ways, even more often in forums where they have it easier to harvest some tears.

            Try harder.

            There are good people, i know there are, but sadly they don’t really matter.

  6. jasta85 says:

    I don’t think it’s RSI’s responsibility to make a “safe place” for women. I do agree that more tools for organizations, including the option of having exclusive groups based on gender is absolutely fine. But there will forever be trolls and dicks on the internet and we’ll have solved world hunger and obtained global peace before we make the internet a friendly place for everyone. They can and should hand out bans to the worst of the lot who make everyone else miserable but that’s all they really can do.

    Overall I’ve found the RSI forums to be far more mature than most game forums, granted, that’s not a very high standard heh

    • Premium User Badge

      Joshua says:

      I disagree. RSI is offering a multiplayer service, it is their responsibility to ensure that this multiplayer service can be enjoyed by everyone, including (instert-often-picked-on-group-here). There are always trolls and dicks, but just saying “it is inevetable” and just giving up on the whole thing is going to make things a lot worse then taking active stances to cull these bastards.

      If they’d just say “it’s inevetable,” I don’t think I want to play Star Citizen

      • Trithne says:

        They’re providing a multiplayer platform, not a kindergarten. It’s their responsibility to ensure that the platform works, not to act as enforcers on the behalf of a subset of members. As long as they provide the tools within the platform that allow these subsets to create exclusive groups if they so wish, RSI have fulfilled their side of the bargain.

        • Premium User Badge

          Joshua says:

          Removing people who make haressfull comments is not for the behalf of a subset of members, it’s for the behalf of everyone.

          • Premium User Badge

            lurkalisk says:

            Yes, and jasta said as much.

          • Premium User Badge

            RaveTurned says:

            Exactly what Joshua said. No harassment to anyone, by anyone, period. This is to everyone’s benefit, not just whatever subsets may be frequent targets of harassment. “It’s the internet” is not an excuse to let bad behaviour go unchecked.

        • Premium User Badge

          Cinek says:

          “They’re providing a multiplayer platform, not a kindergarten.” – Multiplayer platform IS a kindergarden. Just read carefully what was written in a whole post from the super-mod. He basically admitted that what they have in there is nothing more than a kindergarden.

        • Horg says:

          I bet you don’t have an issue with people banning cheaters, and yet there will always be more people trying to cheat.

        • Captain Joyless says:

          “They’re providing a multiplayer platform, not a kindergarten.”

          There is no meaningful difference.

          • Premium User Badge

            jrodman says:

            People learn useful life skills in kindergarten.

          • P.Funk says:

            Except when someone ganks you on the playground your mommy can actually complain to the teacher.

    • Premium User Badge

      Vesuvius says:

      Let’s go for a couple analogies.

      You go to Disney World and within their gates find a very vocal group publicly calling for the princesses to all be in skimpy bikinis at all time because it’s good eye candy. They have placards showing examples of their favorite sex objects which should be used as models for this. Do you think Disney, owning the park, has any obligation to control this sort of speech there, or to think about how it affects the enjoyment of the park for at least half of their demographic?

      You are the dungeon master in a real world role playing game. You have a good sized group, with only one female member. The guys in the group start claiming that in the fantasy world, as they would like to see it, they should be able to rape women as much as they want. Even the woman character played by the female member. Some of them, it’s pretty clear, aren’t just into this for the sake of the game but are leering, they’re going into far more detail than is required. They would like to be able to derail the adventure and focus on this act. Should you, the dungeon master, intervene?

      Why doesn’t RSI have that obligation? These examples are ACTUAL conversation topics on the RSI forum.

  7. derbefrier says:

    yeah i saw the whole thing. It was just a misunderstanding caused by a couple bad assumptions on the forum moderators part. no big deal. When dealing with internet trolls sometimes you get a little friendly fire.

    • Premium User Badge

      Cinek says:

      RSI really, really needs to take a day or two and kick out some of the mods there.

      Seriously – moderators on RSI forums are one of the worse I’ve seen. And they’re forgiven of so many mistakes that it’s just ridiculous.

      • derbefrier says:

        Ehh everyone says that about any forum group that tries to actively moderate their forums. Also s part of their explanation that the person in question here had been put on probation in the past for trolling so I don’t think it was entirely unfair to assume this person was doing it again in this instance, specially considering the company she keeps. It was a mistake but an understandable one in my opinion. As the saying goes You are the Company you keep

        • TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

          A good troll is not an obvious one.

          The OP could still be legitimate, but it’s not something to be taken for granted. Eitherway the clan was more than ready and eager to participate in the way they are best equipped to.

          Ultimately, i don’t think the Goons are that scared about false positives from moderators, or they’d have a different stance.

          • pepperfez says:

            The best troll, and the most unforgivable, is the troll which so perfectly impersonates a non-troll as to be indistinguishable. Thus the first target of the truly wise moderator must be that post which is exemplary in its inoffensiveness, and its author must be purged without fail.

    • TreuloseTomate says:

      But there are women involved. So it’s a big deal.

  8. Karsus says:

    “On the greater subject of women in the Star Citizen universe, the answer is that yes we should go out of our way to create a safe space for them. Women online, and especially women in gaming, have it very, very tough in ways that men absolutely do not understand.”

    They’re so full of shit. No, we don’t have it any tougher than anyone else. That’s not a thing, just a popular opinion, and it’s popular to be seen to believe it if you’re not a woman now too. But no, it’s bullshit. You know who has it tough? Men, being subjected to this bullshit.

    • Premium User Badge

      RaveTurned says:

      Interesting. So, what do you make of the documented accounts of abuse on sites like http://fatuglyorslutty.com/ and it’s ilk?

      • froz says:

        While I believe the problem is real, that site doesn’t proof anything. As a man, I was insulted like that milions times in online games. I have no idea if woman are more often exposed to such idiots, but I suppose they are.

        Anyway, I think the problem is more general – there are trolls and stupid kids living out there and internet allows them to make other people (women and men) lives worse. I don’t think we should just agree to that.

        • Premium User Badge

          RaveTurned says:

          Agreed that harassment of any kind should not be tolerated. However, there does seem to be a subset of behaviour that’s used almost exclusively for harassing women – gendered insults, insinuations about a person’s looks or marital status, unsolicited sexual attention or threats of sexualised violence. I’ve been insulted on the internet many times, but I can’t remember the last time someone PMed me out of the blue asking to put their genitals on my face. I don’t know, maybe I just don’t visit the right places…

          • Lusketrollet says:

            Agreed that harassment of any kind should not be tolerated. However, there does seem to be a subset of behaviour that’s used almost exclusively for harassing women – gendered insults, insinuations about a person’s looks or marital status, unsolicited sexual attention or threats of sexualised violence. I’ve been insulted on the internet many times, but I can’t remember the last time someone PMed me out of the blue asking to put their genitals on my face. I don’t know, maybe I just don’t visit the right places…

            Harassment is still harassment, though.

      • cHeal says:

        Play online games with idiots. Receive abuse. It’s a national scandal!

        Men get abused just as much a women. Women tend to get the sexual abuse stuff, but that likely has more to do with it being so effective than anything else.

        D*cks on the internet are not a new thing (pretty much why I don’t do online game). Having said that, while I don’t agree with a “women only group” per’se I do think that group administrators should have the right of admission and if they want to only let women in, that’s cool. Just the same as they may only want to let straight white men in… See what I’m getting at?

        Instead what’s going to happen is that some forms of discrimination within groups will be allowed (even encouraged) while other forms will not. It’s a game, in the grand scheme of things it doesn’t really matter but it pains me to watch idiots being so self righteous about sh*t.

        • Lusketrollet says:

          Play online games with idiots. Receive abuse. It’s a national scandal!

          Men get abused just as much a women. Women tend to get the sexual abuse stuff, but that likely has more to do with it being so effective than anything else.

          Dicks on the internet are not a new thing (pretty much why I don’t do online game). Having said that, while I don’t agree with a “women only group” per’se I do think that group administrators should have the right of admission and if they want to only let women in, that’s cool. Just the same as they may only want to let straight white men in… See what I’m getting at?

          Instead what’s going to happen is that some forms of discrimination within groups will be allowed (even encouraged) while other forms will not. It’s a game, in the grand scheme of things it doesn’t really matter but it pains me to watch idiots being so self righteous about shit.

          Exactly. Yes.

          • Dances to Podcasts says:

            Could you please not quote the entire post you’re responding to? It’s right there. We can see it. I just read it. Twice.

            …Or am I being trolled? O.o

        • Syphus says:

          I think RaveTurned made the point that I am going to make, so I will just suggest reading his reply.

        • cpmartins says:

          Agreed 100%. In every computer gaming community I have elected to participate I have never, ever, seen any abuse towards women in particular. You know why that is? Because I’m not an idiot, therefore I have the capacity to distinguish between them.

    • Premium User Badge

      RedViv says:

      Personal experience does not invalidate the shared experience of others.

      • Premium User Badge

        Vesuvius says:

        This. The double standard going on with many of the topics involved here is quite evident. I’m glad it hasn’t personally been an issue for this poster, but I have many friends who have been made uncomfortable by this stuff, and it’s not exactly hidden. It’s readily apparent that it’s out there.

    • Lusketrollet says:

      They’re so full of shit. No, we don’t have it any tougher than anyone else. That’s not a thing, just a popular opinion, and it’s popular to be seen to believe it if you’re not a woman now too. But no, it’s bullshit.

      Indeed.

    • Premium User Badge

      unitled says:

      Man, you’re RIGHT, the real oppressed are actually straight white males! And have you noticed there’s no international MEN’S day, right? Or a white history month? I can’t believe these devs are continuing the oppression by giving the already hugely advantaged females their own little group in a make believe spaceship game.

      • Lusketrollet says:

        Man, you’re RIGHT, the real oppressed are actually straight white males! And have you noticed there’s no international MEN’S day, right? Or a white history month? I can’t believe these devs are continuing the oppression by giving the already hugely advantaged females their own little group in a make believe spaceship game.

        You can’t really say “sexism is acceptable, as long as it’s towards the majority”. That’s not how it works.

        • Premium User Badge

          unitled says:

          The majority is already well represented in the mainstream. I may be wrong, but I’d be willing to bet that many all male groups already exist in the game by virtue of the fact the vast majority of the players are male.

          By definition, the minorities are NOT well represented, and they may feel safer or happier banding together under a particular group. Why do you not want them to do this? All male groups exist, and I’m sure you could set one up if they don’t. How exactly is an all female (or all gay, black, whatever) hurting you?

          • Lusketrollet says:

            By definition, the minorities are NOT well represented, and they may feel safer or happier banding together under a particular group. Why do you not want them to do this? All male groups exist, and I’m sure you could set one up if they don’t. How exactly is an all female (or all gay, black, whatever) hurting you?

            How the fuck can you have read me saying that?

          • Distec says:

            Don’t you know? You’re the ENEMY. Might as well put a skull on your hat.

        • Premium User Badge

          Vesuvius says:

          Fun fact, no one said sexism is acceptable. Sometimes you have to acknowledge inequality in order to deal with it.

          Being able to notice a disparity empowers you to address it.

      • tormos says:

        Also there literally is an international men’s day. I think it’s mostly about prostate cancer though? Which to be fair is an issue which directly effects very few women

  9. SkittleDiddler says:

    Nathan, could you give us a clearer definition of “ugliness and vitriol”, possibly by providing some examples? I’m curious as to how reprehensible the backlash actually was. I’d check myself, but I’m assuming the offending threads/posts/whatever have been disappeared into the dark void of the internet.

    • Taidan says:

      As I witnessed when all of this was going on, the “ugliness and vitriol” that is described is as follows:

      1: A few female and male members of the forums politely stating that they didn’t feel the need for a special sanctuary, as they’d generally found most members of the Star Citizen community to be respectful, but wishing the original poster luck anyway.

      2: The original poster summoning backup from the Something Awful forums (Who openly admit to being specialists in trolling) and that group turning on group 1, trying to bait them into an argument.

      3: A new group of posters, who were familiar with the Something Awful crew, stating that they believed the whole thing was a attempt to troll the mods in retaliation for some supposed earlier drama during which a bunch of Something Awful members had been banned for trolling.

      4: The original poster (who already had been warned for trolling in the past) going nuclear and spamming the mods by individually reporting absolutely everybody in the thread, using extremely offensive and insulting language, getting an infraction on their account as a result, and as a result of the strikes system, an automatic temporary ban.

      (More details at https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/126424/regarding-female-gamers-group )

      5: The original poster putting up a blog about the whole thing, stating that she’d been a victim of rampant sexism, and putting the word out to the usual mindless sensationalist press who repeated these claims as fact without doing any actual fact-checking.

      • Jenks says:

        It’s amazing how different the actual events sound from Nathan’s spin. It’s almost as if he has an agenda…

        • WhatAShamefulDisplay says:

          Don’t be silly, Kotaku writers don’t have agendas.

        • The Random One says:

          It’s a good thing we can have an unbiased, agenda-free report from that venerable bastion of journalistic integrity, Random Person on Comments.

          (Not that Nathan’s report is entirely beyond reproach; but to say it’s biased when some random person’s isn’t is utterly asinine, especially when the latter is so clearly an emotional personal account. Both are biased and have done some sort of “spin”, and claiming otherwise just exposed which bias are the ones you hold yourself. It’s nothing less than wishful thinking to act as if there was an objective recounting, let alone to identify one report as such, especially when a group who self-identify as trolls in involved.)

          • Taidan says:

            Hey there. Almost a fair assessment, but let’s clear up that “emotional” thing.

            Firstly, I fully supported Lauresh’s proposal in that thread. I didn’t like the way she went about trying to achieve that, but my voice is on record as giving her the benefit of the doubt, and calling for her to work with the Community Manager to make this thing happen, and happen in the right way.

            Secondly, is how farcical RPS’ coverage of this sort of thing has become:

            I knew for a fact, a full two days before this thread, that three things were going to happen. I saw the same predictions made on a few other forums around the net, too.

            1) Nathan Grayson was, with 100% certainty, going to cover this story. It’s his thing.

            2) Said story would garner thousands of hits, and gather hundreds of comments, mostly dividing the community in a brutal fashion, to the detriment of everybody except Nathan Grayson’s bank account.

            3) The Constructed Narrative of said story would be that of the poor, innocent female gamer, set about by hordes of brutal internet misogynists. The fact that only this narrative gets aired around these parts whenever these stories hit is a clear indicator of systematic bias.

            That’s how entirely predictable and shameful this particular brand of bullshit is. That we all knew, a full 48 hours in advance, exactly what was going to happen here, regardless of the facts.

            It’s kind of embarrassing how routine this entire circus has become at this point.

            . . . .

            Well, I guess embarrassment is an emotion. Score one for you, Random One Guy.

          • TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

            @The Random One

            There doesn’t have to necessarily be some agenda, though, it can just as well be a perfectly innocent report on news the way they are handed out, he could choose to report nothing in the doubt that the sources weren’t perfect, or still report with some benefit of the doubt.

            He chose the latter, he still sort of felt fair, but it doesn’t make the story less potentially wrong either.

            Though, this is still wishful thinking at best. RPS as a website is very transparent in it’s bias and very adamant in championing their cause, with a community so tight and so supportive it’s to be expected to get a certain way of reporting, as it’s what works and what floats the boat.

            I sadly have to agree, though, that it’s horribly easy to picture some articles in your mind before they are published and still manage to get it right everytime.

          • tormos says:

            The whole premise of RPS is that news can’t be provided in an unbiased way. Seriously, everybody, the New Games Journalism Manifesto is literally free and available on these very same internets: http://gillen.cream.org/wordpress_html/assorted-essays/the-new-games-journalism/

            THAT SAID
            Saying that this invalidates everything they have to say because “Constructed Narrative” or whatever is stupid. If RPS was really a cynical money ploy, they would have a lot more booth babe slide shows and coverage of COD trailers and a lot fewer posts that caused this much controversy (given the number of people who “leave RPS forever” every time RPS posts an article about the raging cesspit of misogyny that is gamer culture)

            also every time somebody brings up “clickbait” i wonder how often they think that this is actually the best way to bring in traffic (and that RPS’s “thing” is bringing in as much traffic as humanly possible), and how often they’re just being disingenuous

          • Premium User Badge

            frymaster says:

            my issue is the RPS reporting of RSI’s position is inaccurate. Whether you choose to take RSI at face value is a whole other issue, but RPS are implying RSI have admitted certain things that they very much haven’t, turning it from a he said / she said into a she said / he admitted fault.

            RSI are saying the ban was too long, because a previous, revoked, ban was incorrectly counted. RSI are in no way recanting that the ban was justified. RSI are standing by the reasons for locking the thread – that it had become toxic – but are choosing to unlock it because they felt the discussion was important enough to be worth the extra moderator burden. RSI still insist the thread was brigaded and trolled by goonswarm.

            Again, that’s just, like, their opinion, man. It’s not objective, it may not be accurate. But it’s a totally different thing from the narrative being presented here.

          • Taidan says:

            @tormos

            There’s “Bias”, and there’s “literally making crap up”. Even the most public, well-known details aren’t researched. Regardless of the incident in question, for example consider the fact that the company that are quoted several times, that being “RSI”, don’t even exist.

            Yes, Mr Grayson is routinely referring to a fictional company within the game-world every time he mentions RSI. The company responsible are Cloud Imperium Games, or CIG for short. A little basic journalism might have caught that one early.

            Likewise, 10 minutes of browsing the material in question could have led to a far more rounded story than what was printed here, if that was something he had the vaguest interest in.

            That’s what invalidates this story. The fact that the author isn’t trying even trying to represent something that actually happened in the real world. He’s just stirring crap at this point.

            I also find your other point disingenuous, as these types of incident happen regularly, and generate a lot more clicks than any of the things you mentioned would have, for the readers of this site.

      • Emeraude says:

        Interesting. Thanks for taking the time to post this. Will look into it.

      • Lonestar1771 says:

        I can confirm this summary. The OP in the thread attacked anyone that didn’t agree.

      • Hendrick Tallardar says:

        Hi,

        1 &2 – There were also a rash of impolite and insulting comments by sexists and trolls calling Lauresh out over the thread and claiming it’s somehow a “goonspiracy” solely due to her suggesting a social group for women. That’s, honestly, a bit tinfoil hattery. Lauresh never called for “backup” our members in Star Citizen (hereto mentioned as FLJK Goonrathi or just FLJK) saw the sexist comments and harassment and argued against their posts and content, not with the sole purpose of “trying to bait them into an argument.” When someone makes an asinine statement, you’re gonna get called out on it. That’s how life works. We’re also pretty bad with the whole “rally the troops thing.”

        3 – That’s a lot of assumptions and speculation made by people who have no real need to be calling a proposed women’s social group a troll. If anyone took less than five seconds to assume all Goons are trolls, they’d not SomethingAwful as a greater community is very much pro-feminist and equality. We don’t tolerate shit like “let’s make rape an in-game mechanic for immersion sake.” The thread, as you posit, had no affiliation to previous bans and the people making those claims were again, making assumptions and speculations based off faulty evidence to support such claims.

        4 – That’s an actually hyperbolic and spin of the issue. 30 posts were reported, one report each. Lauresh later admitted her language was due to being emotionally invested and having an adverse reaction to the sexist comments and trolls harassing her over it. That’s not “reporting absolutely everybody in the thread” like you’re claiming whatsoever, but hey gotta throw your hyperbole in. What about “this mother fucking troll” and “stop this fuck from shitting up the thread” is “extremely offensive” when compared to the numerous comments sexist, misogynistic, and personal attacks CIG have had to go in and delete on several occasions? As for the ban length, she was only supposed to receive a 24 hour ban if she were to receive one anyway due to a previous incident being stricken however that was ignored and the excessive time, despite what the community manager said she would actually be likely to receive in the past, was applied.

        5 – How exactly wasn’t there rampant sexism? CIG moderators and community management allowed a thread literally proposing that rape be an in-game mechanic to stay open for several days before locking it (not deleting it like they did to Lauresh’s thread) and the original poster not facing any reprimanding despite being flagged for pretty much what you’d expect it’d be flagged for. They then allowed a blatant “Aryan Social Group” (which if you’re not educated is “Whites Only”) troll/parody thread to exist in the aftermath which goes against the forum rules and moderation policies. Then that thread was locked with a moderator verbatim saying “I am temporarily closing this thread, not because there is necessarily anything wrong with the subject material” where as Lauresh’s proposed women’s social group thread is moved, deleted and she is banned. Temporarily closing a thread proposing a racist exclusionary group which is a parody of Lauresh’s thread, which by the way parody groups aren’t allowed per CIG rule policy which Ben Lesnick et al created. You tell me how that’s not biased in any capacity and that those who covered it in the media are “mindless” and sensationalizing the facts.

        • TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

          Goons damage control is legendary, just as much as their ability to create a victim out of thin air.

          There’s also a difference between “Bad Moderation” and “Biased Moderation”, it’s also worth pointing out that some goon infested threats are perfectly capable of drawing even more heat, page count, activity and personal insults to a level that makes them a higher priority for moderation than the rape-ramblings of some idiot that got shouted down and then died there.

          • Hendrick Tallardar says:

            “Goons damage control is legendary, just as much as their ability to create a victim out of thin air.”

            Considering that, for a moment, Ben admitted the actions taken were actually improper and Lauresh was a victim of poor moderation I’d argue that Goons didn’t “create a victim out of thin air” at all.

            “There’s also a difference between “Bad Moderation” and “Biased Moderation””

            Yes, but biased moderation is still bad moderation. The role of any moderator isn’t to allow their biases to affect their duties in maintaining civility and operation of their chosen forum. For example, if I were to be a moderator on RPS’s comment section and deleted anyone who had the same view as me, based off my own biased opinion on a matter, it’d be bad moderation. For a moderator to use their bias to then ban someone based on it, it shows a level of bad moderation ability. There’s an equilibrium that must be met, and presently there have been cases where that equilibrium is vastly skewed without rational reason.

            “it’s also worth pointing out that some goon infested threats are perfectly capable of drawing even more heat, page count, activity and personal insults to a level that makes them a higher priority for moderation than the rape-ramblings of some idiot that got shouted down and then died there.”

            What is threatening about the thread proposing a Female Gamers Group for social purposes? Is it solely because the OP was a Goon that makes it a threat? If so are you openly saying it’s ok to discriminate against people who have X logo or group affiliation outside of the actual game (used loosely as there currently is no game)? What makes that sort of action worth confronting as opposed to promoting the depiction of rape for “immersion” sake? I’m not following this line of thinking and would like for you to clarify.

          • TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

            First, you misread ( intentionally or not ).

            I don’t think they committed “biased moderation”, but “bad moderation” as in hasty, not that i was suggesting that the former is better than the latter.

            And about your rebuttal. No. There were people actually providing their own points in civilized form, while others didn’t just like normal. But the actions that were taken, hastily or not, wrong or not, were taken AFTER a lot of shitstorm with the usual suspects, and with the OP herself ( who had been on probation aswell ) losing it.

            You’re a good writer, but your best proficiency lies in context manipulation and click baiting titles it seems.

        • derbefrier says:

          On your number 5 I have to say your the one being hyperbolic now. I saw those threaads and while they were ridiculous the intent behind those threads were not “lol rape”. It was more precisely a conversation on how realistic to make star citizen in terms of the bad things that will invariably go on in space. Context is extremely important. These threads were not advocating rape or slavery just for the sake of it. These people thought it would make the universe more authentic for better or worse. This was just one of the many outlandish posts you see on that website. People speculating and posting every crazy idea they have because there is nithing else to do since we have no game to play. You make it sound as if these guys allow rampant sexism and mysogony go uncheck wich is a complete fucking lie. They tend to let conversations go on, even unpleasant ones as long as they think it stays within reason and they are also quite heavily moderated when things get out of hand.

          • Hendrick Tallardar says:

            “On your number 5…”

            I never implied the threads were “lol rape” as you seem to claim, nor do I buy the line about “they’re a conversation about how realistic to make star citizen in terms of the bad things” line either. For example, you have various games where you can play the villain. None of them have or support the concept of in-game mechanics like the one that thread proposed. I’m not really sure how going “this is an inevitable consequence of in-game pirates” makes promoting the depiction of rape any less toxic than it sounds. Please elaborate further.

            ” These people thought it would make the universe more authentic for better or worse.”

            Right, but considering for a moment that promoting the depiction of rape is a highly inflammatory thing to do which the OP, as a conscious human being in the 21st century is most certainly aware of, and blatantly there to “troll” as much as Lauresh’s thread was to “blatantly troll” you can see why it’s hypocritical to bannish one but not the other. Harping on things like “~my immersion~” doesn’t exclude you from sounding like a fuckwit when you ask about making it so you can rape a victim of your in-game piracy. Think about that for a moment and try to realize how utterly dumb that sounds overall. “I want to have an in-game mechanic that depicts rape so I can better enjoy a game.”

            “This was just one of the many outlandish…”

            I’m not sure how that excuses that sort of behavior whatsoever. Please educate me on how you feel it’s ok to excuse people going “wouldn’t it be cool if i could rape a dude for real, in game?” as I’m genuinely curious as to your line of thinking.

            “You make it sound… They tend to let conversations go on, even unpleasant ones as long as they think it stays within reason and they are also quite heavily moderated when things get out of hand.”

            I actually disagree with this part. It took less time for the Female Gamers Group to be deemed trolling and the user banned over it than it took for numerous other examples of trolling and harassment to go on. It’s a case of biased moderation that leads to the community coming across as one way or the other. When you ban someone because their proposal of a social group for women is “blatant” trolling, but not a guy advocating an “Aryan Social Group” immediately after, and simply lock the thread, it’s hypocritical.

          • Taidan says:

            The reason it took Lauresh’s thread less time to get closed than all of the others was because she personally put in 30 expletive-laden reports to the mods, essentially forcing their hand.

            If any of the people who keep bringing up that one ridiculously offensive “Rape” thread in her defence (out of the total eighty-thousand threads on that forum, I add.) had bothered putting in a quarter of that effort into complaining, it would have been closed twice as fast, I guarantee it.

            For some reason, none of those people seem to have reported the “Rape Thread” to the mods before this mess erupted, despite them apparently having seen and been offended by the thread at that time. Why is that, I wonder? I mean, I would have personally reported them in a heartbeat, had I been made aware of it before this mess.

          • Taidan says:

            Oh, and as for the so-called “sexist insults” that supposedly happened before Lauresh went off the rails…

            I saw the comments that were made by “that one person” who was called out publicly by Ben Lesnick in the pre-edited version of his statement. It was a poorly thought-out bit of satire about exclusion in the community with a stupid, immature double entendre about his cat avatar, (Yes, using the word “pussy”) but it was hardly “sexist”, and he got a fair temporary ban for the effort.

      • Carlos Danger says:

        Read the title then go to the comment section to see what really happened. It is the evolution of information age.

      • steviebops says:

        Thank you, there’s so many ‘feelings’ attached to this story, and even this thread is full of backbiting and snark.
        The article is quite poor, very biased and weak journalism.

        Proper clarification could clear it all up, but it’s more important to start yet another sexism flame war on RPS for the clicks apparently.

      • SkittleDiddler says:

        I suspected there was more to this story. Thank you for adding an opposing view on this subject.

        One-sided pieces like this article don’t really do the topic of sexism any favors, do they?

  10. mythiran says:

    I assume it’s all right to put a men only club together too? You could say a “Men’s club”.

    Or would that be sexist?

    • Lusketrollet says:

      I assume it’s all right to put a men only club together too? You could say a “Men’s club”. Or would that be sexist?

      Not only that, but I suspect RPS wouldn’t raise a finger in support if they were to be banned.

    • Premium User Badge

      RedViv says:

      Not at all, because of all the abuse men suffer online purely because of their gender and DARING to GAEM in OUR CLUB HOUSE. Right? Right?

      • Lusketrollet says:

        Not at all, because of all the abuse men suffer online purely because of their gender and DARING to GAEM in OUR CLUB HOUSE. Right? Right?

        Their hypothetical reason for wanting to create a male-only group isn’t really relevant, here. What *is* relevant, is the suspicion that RPS would be among the first to criticize them for it.

        • Premium User Badge

          RaveTurned says:

          The reason is absolutely relevant. If the stated reason to create a segregated group is bogus, then the segregation becomes discriminatory prejudicial by way of being unjustified.

          [late edit: swapped out imprecise language, and hopefully added some clarity]

          • Lusketrollet says:

            The reason is absolutely relevant. If the stated reason to create a segregated group is bogus, then the segregation becomes discriminatory.

            Entirely depends on what your personal definition of “bogus” happens to be.

          • Emeraude says:

            Segregation, by definition is discriminatory.

            The question is whether you think the context makes it an acceptable compromise or not.

            I wonder how the desire for a “black only” community would be met. Or Chinese, or Japanese only (to draw more from my actual online experience with FFXI).

          • Premium User Badge

            RaveTurned says:

            Emeraude: You’re right, in my struggle to avoid tautology (if there’s no good reason for segregation then you’re segregating for *no good reason*!), I used imprecise language and said “discriminatory” where I should have said “prejudicial”. Going back to fix this.

          • cHeal says:

            I don’t see what difference it makes really. It would offer no inherent advantage. As long as it were not undermining a fair (and fun) game world then it’s nobodies business tbh.

      • Awesumo says:

        ‘It’s okay because they aren’t widely discriminated against’ isn’t an argument for discriminating… Because you are advocating them being widely discriminated against.
        Equality means equal. It does not mean equal + Special accommodation… because that is NOT equal.

      • steviebops says:

        I’d like to create a group based on my ethnicity, so I no longer have to suffer insults over it.
        Is that ok?

        • pepperfez says:

          Sure, but be warned that if you are a white person in a majority-white country you will be mocked for that choice and you will deserve it.

    • Premium User Badge

      unitled says:

      Because, y know, most of the groups already formed AREN’T all male. Obviously.

      • cpmartins says:

        That’d be because they are 90%+ of the demographics. In fact, the whole of RSI community is a male group. Would I like more women to be involved? I don’t really care. Women could be 90%+ and still I wouldn’t care. The ONLY thing I care is that I’ll be blowing any reds to hell with missiles and lasers.

    • Pharos says:

      Instead of showing off to the RPS crowd how cynical and worldly you are, why not try it and find out?

      I suspect your biggest problem won’t be official (or unofficial) censure, but simply keeping members based on their gender alone. The girls-only club mentioned in the article has a unifying idea behind it. Even if you disagree with the necessity of that idea, it still gives its members a sense of identity.

      But your plan would be an interesting social experiment, so why not go ahead and try it out?

      • Lusketrollet says:

        I suspect your biggest problem won’t be official (or unofficial) censure, but simply keeping members based on their gender alone. The girls-only club mentioned in the article has a unifying idea behind it. Even if you disagree with the necessity of that idea, it still gives its members a sense of identity.

        No-one is talking about forming an actual male-only group. I’m saying that if someone were to consciously do this, I can’t imagine they’d get a shred of support from RPS.

      • Premium User Badge

        Cinek says:

        +1. Especially when females are less than 10% of SC community (I can’t recall exact number, they published an official survey while ago and the results were rather overwhelming… you know, the survey that got PvP vs PvE matter raised and it came out majority of people will play PvE despite of imaginations from PvP followers).

      • PsychoWedge says:

        I don’t think he needs to make such an experiment because it’s already been done. ^^

        For example male only clans/guilds were not that uncommon years and years ago when I played WoW. I always found it kinda strange when we ran across one of those though. Dunno how or why that came about but I always was in guilds where the male/female quota was something along the lines of 66%/33%, which is quite balanced I guess compared to the overall percentages back then.

        Over the years I spend my time mostly in DAoC, WoW and SWToR but the weirdness you could encounter game spanning was rather astonishing. There were guilds/raids where women/girls only were allowed to play healers and buffers, raids were female players had to have some kind of male… patron… for guidance and approval, clans/guilds where women/girls were only allowed if they were the girlfriend of a male member, raids that only allowed x women/girls at the same time because more would weaken the raid and shit like that on and on and on.

        The weirdest thing I ever experienced was in a pug in some instance (I think UBRS) which surprisingly was going quite well. We were hacking our way through the orcs until someone asked for a TS for shits ‘n giggles and after joining the TS our main tank turned out to be a woman playing a male character. Apparently the AUDACITY to play a male character was too much for one guy so he just left the group then and there and two others felt so betrayed by her that the unfolding discussion was one of the most surreal things that ever grazed my ears. Also a lot of dyke jokes were made.

        I’ve had female guildies who only spoke on our home TS and not anywhere else or who used voice changers because the hassle got to much.

        So that some women might want to have a female only clan/guild/community/whatever isn’t really that surprising I find. Surprising is the fact that women/girls put up with this shit for as long as they do. If someone would say to me “you’ve a cock and two balls thus all your testosterone is squeezed into your brain and disables you to anything but blind rage so you’re only allowed to play melee dds with two-handed weapons” I’d be out of there in a second…

        • Syiavri says:

          I am not sure. I was a raid leader in wow for 7 years. Often being the only woman in the raid. Two things stick in my mind, the first time someone said “What a girl is leading this? I’m not going to listen to a girl” and he left the raid, and the other was I was asked to help a friends guild get through a difficult achievement, and I watched them go through it, silent on vent because I wanted to see what they were doing wrong, and afterwards some guy complimented me saying I was the best healer he’d come across (I feel the need to say, when I was playing wow, I had characters of every class so I could raid lead effectively and switch out, either healing, dps’ing or main tanking), and what an amazing player I was. So I thanked him in vent, and the moment he realised I was a woman it went from “You’re the best player”.. to him whispering me “if you ever need help, or tips, or gear or anything let me know”. In that split second I went from being the best to now needing his help. It was interesting for me to see.

          In regards to playing online games as a woman, I’ve been playing games since Diablo, in 1996.. so almost 18 years of gaming, I’ve come across it all, from people stalking me, to harassment, to the “You must be a lesbian, ugly, on your male friends,brother,husbands account..” it’s tedious and annoying. However in the past few years I’ve calmed down on my need to specify I am a woman, and I’ve seen things change. I no longer feel nervous when people find out I am a lady, and I am thankful for that. But for anyone that says ‘it doesn’t exist, it’s just a popular idea that it happens’. It does happen.

          Oh, and for my two cents. If women are allowed to have an all woman group, then men should be allowed to exclude women in an all mens group.

          • PsychoWedge says:

            Well, I didn’t mean to say that all the guilds/raids I encountered were like that. The big majority really were not and I (or rather we, meaning my small circle of friends) was never really forced to join or run with them out of necessity or lack of alternatives. But they were numerable enough that after a year or so of WoW such things didn’t surprise us anymore and we shrugged it off.

            What I really noticed was the rise of female players over the years. In the beginning of WoW we were, as I said, roughly 66%/33% or maybe something between 66%/33% and 75%/25% and when I left WoW it was almost 50/50. Funnily enough I always had female raid leads or was doing co-lead with a woman. When I was involved in leading raids I never heard someone aspirant saying he wouldn’t listen to a girl though but then of course I don’t know what my co-leads got. But I do remember occasions where I got whispers seemingly out of nowhere from a guildy where she said she’s leaving now because she can’t stand the TS whispers and chat whispers any longer.

            But again, it’s not like the majority of our runs were like that. Maybe 10 out of a 100 or so. And it got less over the years.

            Also: Of course the guys should be able to make men only groups.

          • Damn Rookie says:

            Always good to hear some first hand accounts. Thanks.

  11. MobileAssaultDuck says:

    Has anyone noticed this odd phenomenon with these RPS posts.

    Everytime RPS posts about women’s issues, somehow the commenting section gets spliced into a second reality where white men don’t rule the world.

    We end up with these odd comments about male discrimination and female dominance, a total mirror to our own universe.

    Could it be that RPS has found a method of contacting the mirror universe?

    • froz says:

      I noticed it’s not just women. It’s also about race, sexual orientation and I guess we could also try with religion, but I don’t recall RPS ever trying that one.

      • MobileAssaultDuck says:

        I’ve actually noticed that any religious discussion ever manages to splice into a reality where Christians don’t outnumber everyone and where they’re being discriminated against the most.

        • Ravenholme says:

          Well, if you believe British Census data, they don’t actually outnumber everyone. Which makes Cameron’s comments calling us a Christian nation a bit of a lie, really. (Historically, sure, and our legal system is based on christian morality for those same historical reasons, but currently the vast majority identify as non-religious).

          Just a thought for the day. And, for example, Christians in China can claim to be oppressed because the government periodically has crackdowns on their meetings and churches because having a higher power than the state is a no-no there.

          • WhatAShamefulDisplay says:

            Not just historically, we have an established Church in the here and now. Trying to suggest otherwise is patently absurd.

          • Horg says:

            The modern Church of England, the least churchy church that ever churched, and we like it that way.

          • WhatAShamefulDisplay says:

            Didn’t one Victorian Liberal MP describe it “as the only Church in human history to care neither for its flock’s politics, nor for its religion?” It’s certainly doctrinally disparate, to say the least. I think, unlike the (admittedly mostly unjustified) stereotyping against the Catholic Church, most people maintain a fuzzy, ill-defined affection for the bumbling old CofE and its stoic determination to never get involved in anything controversial. It’s a small-c conservative Church for a small-c conservative nation.

          • MobileAssaultDuck says:

            I was more speaking globally, in which they are still the majority. Muslims will overtake them soon, but Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all effectively the same religion.

            For all intents and purposes. Christianity is Judaism 2.0 and Islam is Judaism 3.0.

            They all worship the same God but they begin to significantly diverge in their interpretation around Abraham (who the Muslims call Ibrahim)

            Religious scholars tend to refer to the whole mess as “Abrahamism”.

      • TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

        Different religions don’t matter, being religious at all is the actual problem.

        • Premium User Badge

          jrodman says:

          Yeah man, fuck those zen buddhists, always meditating at me and shit.

          • MobileAssaultDuck says:

            Here is the issue with the more benign religions:

            Think of it all like tumors. Some tumors are cancerous, some are benign, but when you go in to remove tumors you remove the benign ones when you’re in the area because you never know when they may become cancerous.

            An example of Buddhist violence can be seen in Burma where the Buddhist majority attacks and discriminates against a Muslim and Christian minority.

            When it comes time to cure the cancer, you got to cut out all the tumors, even the ones that appear harmless because they could become cancerous at any moment.

            Though the cancer isn’t religion as much as it is faith. Religion is a symptom of the faith disease.

          • Premium User Badge

            jrodman says:

            Note I said Zen Buddhists.

            Or are we now going to claim that Unitarian Universalists are terrible because the pope preaches no-condoms in high-aids population areas?

          • MobileAssaultDuck says:

            I understand you said Zen Buddhists, who are different from the variety found in Myanmar/Burma, but Zen Buddhists are examples of what I called benign tumors.

            Right now, they’re harmless, but a religion can go from zero to insane crusade at the drop of a hat, just like a benign tumor can become cancerous.

            If we only half-do the job and only remove the currently dangerous religions, we just have a bunch of landmines sitting around that are still potentially dangerous.

            You gotta remember, these people are not confined by evidence, they could begin believing any insane thing at any moment because they do not filter their viewpoint through a rational, empirical process.

            They’re like the schizophrenic guy who’s never had a violent episode… but he could, at any second.

          • Premium User Badge

            jrodman says:

            It’s a very instructive example of why referring to all religion as “cancer” is pretty ignorant and misguided.
            I find it a useful guiderail for when I start to drive off the road into the screechy tarpit of hatred of religion. I recommend that you reconsider your position, or that at least you do not share it in such a manner. It mimics the problem that goads you far too closely.

          • MobileAssaultDuck says:

            Actually if you reread one of my previous posts I corrected myself to say faith is the cancer, not religion. Religion is the symptom of the faith disease.

            The faith disease is the root of most issues in society. It is people believing stuff without evidence… that is insanity. Sometimes they even believe stuff inspite of evidence to the contrary, that’s double insanity.

            Really think about that. They just believe. There’s no evidence, no proof, nothing… but they believe. They look at a text that’s hundreds, sometimes thousands of years old and go “Yep, totally true.”

            Just think about Buddhism for a moment… their ultimate teacher, their idol of knowledge, is a dude who probably couldn’t perform a basic science experiment. There’s a chance the guy couldn’t even do more than the most basic math, and he is idolized and worshipped as a teacher.

            It’s fucking crazy.

            A high school student is likely far smarter than Buddha ever was and understands the universe far more, but he is worshipped by people as some sort of knowledgeable person.

            Every person in this thread surpassed Jesus of Nazareth’s understanding of the universe somewhere around the 4th grade yet he is worshipped as a teacher and mentor by over A BILLION FUCKING PEOPLE.

            It is utter insanity.

          • toxic avenger says:

            @ MobileAssaultDuck You realize even the smartest people, on a daily basis, believe things they absolutely have no evidence for? You don’t have to look to far back into history, either: the supremacy of one race over another, treating each gender/sex with the same rights and privileges, hell even the homely looking guy who thinks he’s the hottest guy in the world, when in reality he’s merely a 4, the belief in any one ideology so that said ideology forms the basis for all reason (ie: communism, existentialism, egoism) (you can also replace ideology with generalization for another effect). The vast majority of religious people, you might not want to read this else your head might explode, are good people, that want to do good things, and want to help those not as well off as themselves. It takes an extraordinarily large amount of egoism to declare, at once, that this never-ending fight to prove a segment of the population wrong at any cost as if it would make a fundamental change (for the good) in the world, or simply put: the only thing you will get out of relentlessly shouting down theists is the satisfaction that you are right. Which you are.

            Your energy should instead be focused on more important things, like people who take advantage of the system, fundamentalist or lay person, to make other lives a living hell that aren’t their own. Most believers believe in God for the comfort it brings them, knowing that someone is by their side and can guide their way when all hope is lost, regardless if said “God” is real or not. Ignore the fact for a moment that the Catholic Church stateside is the largest philanthropic organization in the States, if not the world. All you can reasonably do is take humans on a case by case basis, else you run the risk looking pompous.

          • MobileAssaultDuck says:

            @toxic avenger

            You said >”You realize even the smartest people, on a daily basis, believe things they absolutely have no evidence for? You don’t have to look to far back into history, either: the supremacy of one race over another, treating each gender/sex with the same rights and privileges”

            Which is exactly why I amended my statement earlier and said >”The faith disease is the root of most issues in society. It is people believing stuff without evidence… that is insanity.”

            All the things you described are symptoms of faith. Faith the enemy. Faith must be stamped out.

            If you remove faith most of the other shitty stuff goes with it. Religion, nationalism, patriotism, racism, sexism… it’s all faith’s fault.

            It’s all based in the problem of believing stuff without evidence. One should never believe ANYTHING without evidence.

          • Alfrederique says:

            But even science rely on some basic “faith-like” assumptions, your ideal of a thinking relying only on proven arguments is quite silly. I mean even metaphysical solipsism rely on some basic non-proven assumptions. And on an other hand, a lot of nationalistic ideas come with their baggage of evidence (fake or not) to justify themselves.

            I am discussing this random point to avoid discussing the ridiculously silly “god feminism is so bad it destroy mens because women wants to be special snowflakes” point that is discussed in the rest of the comments :D

          • hotmaildidntwork says:

            The key difference between (good) science and religion isn’t necessarily in the willingness to believe without evidence but rather the willingness to change beliefs when better evidence presents itself. Ultimately the process of experimentation is making an assumption about something you don’t understand and then trying to tear apart that assumption in an extremely well documented manner.

            Faith believes with all its heart. Science has yet to find a better explanation.

            My compliments on your good taste in ultimately pointless comments exchanges.

          • Premium User Badge

            Fiyenyaa says:

            I remember when I used to think like MobileAssaultDuck.
            I was 17, all my friends were irreligious and broadly of the same opinions as me, I loved to argue with religious people online, and I knew I was fighting the good fight because religion was a disease and faith was a curse, and organised churches were the cause of the worlds evils. Wouldn’t we all be living in a utopia if it weren’t for all that?

            Then I got a job, got to know people who didn’t share the exact same opinions, and saw a bit more from life.
            People who are religious or spiritual or whatever, they aren’t all Westboro Baptist Church or Al-Qaeda. I honestly cannot fathom why I ever thought that religion was something to be universally condemned – it’s freaking crazy. Some peoples faith gives them immense hope and purpose in life; it can save people from depression, it can give family comfort in times of hardship. It can do all sorts of bad things as well, there’s no doubt, but to just say “faith is poison, stamp it out”? I don’t want to be a part of that. I may be an atheist, but you can keep your Richard Dawkins away from me.

        • WhatAShamefulDisplay says:

          You forgot to use the phrase “invisible friend in the sky”. I think your argument is seriously weakened without that all-important line.

        • toxic avenger says:

          So, if all religions were, at once, banished from existence, we would see a dramatic shift down in terms of world violence? Thankfully, you don’t know what you’re talking about, else I’d ask you for evidence that tells you what you said was true. Sure, religions have done bad things throughout history, but at the heart of every religion, there are people, with free will (YMMV), who have competing desires, who use religion as an excuse to do horrible things. Hate to break it to you, but the world wouldn’t become suddenly tolerant of homosexuals if religion was completely forgotten tomorrow, they would just find another excuse to back their claim of “Eww, that’s icky.”

          • TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

            I think the thread structure created a misunderstanding in respect to where i decided to put my own reply.

            My point was meant to be provocative, i admit that, but i didn’t intend to have it sound related to violence or anything else.

            What i actually meant is one thing only: i can’t respect “faith” as another good poster above put it, i simply desire that we all evolve above this.

            Which also means that i’m not speculating about the possible repercussion of the removal of religion. I don’t want it “removed”, i want it to be considered a stupid belief of the past ( and political tool ) and nothing else.

            I think people would be different, at this point. Maybe they’d be worse, as you’re speculating, but i’d still like to see this.

    • mythiran says:

      Or, could it be that discrimination based on sexuality really does happen *sometimes* to both men and women?!

      It’s just that when one type is reported, it’s hailed as righteous and brave. When another type is reported, the victim is called a misogynist supporter of the patriarchy, is blocked, banned, shouted down, and told that they not only don’t suffer sexism, but that they also help to support the suffering of the opposite sex.

      Wouldn’t it be nice if there was a gender-neutral equality movement which actually treated both sexes equally?

      • Premium User Badge

        Hanban says:

        One already exists! It’s called feminism! The movement fights for my right to paternity leave, my right to not have to be a macho asshole and many more things! It’s good stuff!

        • MobileAssaultDuck says:

          A lot of men don’t understand that feminism is as much about equalizing women as it is about redefining masculinity to be more inclusive of all males.

          • Lusketrollet says:

            One already exists! It’s called feminism! The movement fights for my right to paternity leave, my right to not have to be a macho asshole and many more things! It’s good stuff!

            A lot of men don’t understand that feminism is as much about equalizing women as it is about redefining masculinity to be more inclusive of all males.

            Not in practice, though.

          • MobileAssaultDuck says:

            It is in the practice of every feminist I personally know, including my singificant other who has spoken at feminism symposiums and her own father who wrote his thesis on pro-radical feminism in the 80s.

            You MRA types have created a strawman of feminism that doesn’t actually exist.

            You’ve created this like all female illuminati concept in your minds and it has you all terrified that somehow woman are somehow going to steal all your rights.

          • Lusketrollet says:

            It is in the practice of every feminist I personally know, including my singificant other who has spoken at feminism symposiums and her own father who wrote his thesis on pro-radical feminism in the 80s.

            If we’re already treating sole personal experience as legitimate proof of anything, (which we shouldn’t.), then I can come up with an equal number of cases where the exact opposite was in effect.

            You MRA types have created a strawman of feminism that doesn’t actually exist.

            Again; I wish that was the case.

            You’ve created this like all female illuminati concept in your minds and it has you all terrified that somehow woman are somehow going to steal all your rights.

            Oh, wow. Now who’s harboring irrational, hysterical notions towards a movement?

          • TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

            Sadly you’re wrong, no matter your high definition of feminism, the adoption is what matters.

            I’d love for everyone to stick to your definition though, truly.

          • dE says:

            Oh, it does exist. But like anything social, there’s never such a thing as a unified hivemind. And with the internet’s very weird obsession to ALWAYS argue against the hivemind, these things look like lunatics barking at each other in the moonlight.
            Consider, both of you, for one second that you’re projecting the actions of a few obnoxious mad hatters onto a group as a whole and assume everyone agrees with it. Then realize just how bloody stupid that concept is. Always argue with the individual and the views they’ve explicitely written. Not what you assume their views to be. Unlesss you don’t give a fuck about making progress. In that case keep arguing with hiveminds and drawing lines and being angry.

      • Lusketrollet says:

        Or, could it be that discrimination based on sexuality really does happen *sometimes* to both men and women?!

        It’s just that when one type is reported, it’s hailed as righteous and brave. When another type is reported, the victim is called a misogynist supporter of the patriarchy, is blocked, banned, shouted down, and told that they not only don’t suffer sexism, but that they also help to support the suffering of the opposite sex.

        Wouldn’t it be nice if there was a gender-neutral equality movement which actually treated both sexes equally?

        My point, exactly. I don’t tolerate sexism of any kind, but that also extends to sexism towards my own gender. My problem is that this is infinitely much more widely accepted, among both men and women.

      • MobileAssaultDuck says:

        “Wouldn’t it be nice if there was a gender-neutral equality movement which actually treated both sexes equally?”

        There is, it’s called feminism.

        Feminism attempts to both elevate women to a point of equality and also tries to free men from all the ra-ra, alpha male, fire-in-the-belly bullshit. It attempts to broaden masculinity so as to include all males within its borders.

        The most limp-wristed twink and the most muscle bound, bearded lumberjack are equally male and hence should be considered equally masculine. Currently our patriarchal definition of masculinity does not include the limp-wristed twink and that needs to change.

        Feminism is as much for those of us with a penis as it is for those of them with a vagina.

        • Lusketrollet says:

          Feminism is as much for those of us with a penis as it is for those of them with a vagina.

          Ah. So that’s what they’re saying, now.

          Oh, wow.

          • toxic avenger says:

            What’s it like? Being that ignorant? I’d rather get a lobotomy then wake up being that much more stupid tomorrow morning and not know it.

        • newguy2012 says:

          Feminism is obsolete. It had its role in history, today it divides more than anything else. If women playing Star Citizen need protection this must be done with good moderators and enforced rules, not feminism. The ideology is to fractured and full of all kinds of crazy ideas to be taken seriously today.

          • Premium User Badge

            Harlander says:

            All ideologies are fractured and struck through crazy ideas like the writing through a stick of rock – that doesn’t make discarding the whole thing the optimum course in every case.

          • Lusketrollet says:

            Feminism is obsolete. It had its role in history, today it divides more than anything else. If women playing Star Citizen need protection this must be done with good moderators and enforced rules, not feminism. The ideology is to fractured and full of all kinds of crazy ideas to be taken seriously today.

            That’s why I try and classify myself as being “egalitarian”, or something of the sort. If this was in the 20s-50s, I would have labeled myself a Feminist. But not in 2014. There is so much unpleasantness going on in that name these days, that I would not feel comfortable associating myself with this movement.

          • toxic avenger says:

            You realize what you just described IS feminism? You know, enforcing rules so no one shits on the chest of anyone else based on a person’s physical characteristics? THAT’S feminism. I’m sorry if people perverted the word for you in the past, or if a girl broke up with you and for some reason you blame feminism (messing up causation with correlation), but that’s the reality of life. Not only life but the written word of philosophers for 200 years that have discussed the topic. Do some reading, it won’t hurt you.

          • Alfrederique says:

            What kind of crazy ideas? I am just curious to be honest, and I like to learn :)

          • newguy2012 says:

            - What I described is sensible moderation in any online service regardless of who gets harassed.

            – Feminism had good ideas in the past. Goals that are now reached, equal pay, access to education, right to vote and so on. These things are no longer “feminism” but basic human rights. As for what I consider crazy ideas it’s the general sentiment of present day feminists. The general blaming of men, tumbler warriors and special privileges for their particular group. Myths presented as facts and repeated until people start believing them. As for concrete examples, google it, I do not have the time or stats at the ready for that kind of debate ;)

        • joa says:

          Do you honestly believe this stuff?

          Feminism is for improving women’s lot. That’s not a bad thing, but often it does involve making things worse for men, which is basically unavoidable because masculinity and femininity are opposed.
          Improving things for men naturally involves making things worse for women, for the same reason. The trick is to strike a balance, and of course nobody agrees on where that balance is.

          Also, what’s the point of broadening masculinity to “include all males within its borders”? Concepts of masculinity and what makes a man are fundamental biological things. Broadening them is just political correctness – it doesn’t have any basis in reality.

          • MobileAssaultDuck says:

            If a man does something, that action is inherently masculine because a man did it.

            Similar to if humans do something, that thing is inherently natural because humans are natural.

            A man fucking another man in the butt is a masculine activity, two males are performing the act and hence, automatically, it is masculine.

            We define masculinity, not the other way around. It is not some inherent trait. If it was inherent, all males would automatically feel it. If one male does not feel it, it means it is not inherent. Millions of males don’t feel it, it’s not inherent.

          • Pharos says:

            Life is only a zero-sum game if you want it to be.

          • Lusketrollet says:

            We define masculinity, not the other way around. It is not some inherent trait.

            Surely you’re not saying that the only difference between men and women are our physical appearances, and in no way in how we think?

          • MobileAssaultDuck says:

            That’s not what I said, I said WE DEFINE masculinity.

            If a male does something, it is inherently masculine. All males are masculine. Masculinity is defined as the full breadth of all male personalities. The feather-boa wearing, over-the-top drag queen is as masculine as bear grylls. They are men, they are masculine automatically.

            If your definition of masculine does not include some male activities, then your definition is incomplete.

            If a woman does something, it is inherently feminine.

            There is cross over where an activity can be both masculine and feminine,

          • joa says:

            It seems like you want to remove all definition from masculinity, MobileAssaultDuck. If you were to have your way, we would simply need to invent a new word for what masculinity was before.

            Your logic makes no sense either. Masculinity is an inherent thing, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that all males are the pinnacle of masculinity themselves. All males feel masculine to varying degrees, but there is definitely something to it. We look up to men that embody masculinity, and we feel bad about aspects of ourselves where we lack it.

          • MobileAssaultDuck says:

            I am not removing any definition, I am giving you the definition.

            Masculinity is the full breadth of male personalities. That is what it is. All males are masculine, they can’t not be masculine, it would be impossible.

            If they do something that no man has ever done before, they just increased the breadth of masculinity.

            And it is impossible to lack masculinity as a male.

            I am a pinnacle of masculinity, as are you, every moment of every day in every activity we perform.

          • Volcanu says:

            @ Mobile Assault Duck

            Of course the word masculine doesn’t just mean “relating to men” it more commonly refers to “having qualities or appearance traditionally associated with men”. Look it up in any dictionary.

            So what you are arguing is that only the first definition should apply and not the second. Fair enough, but it’s generally quite difficult to redefine the usage or meaning of a given word.

            This isn’t an attack on you, and I’m not necessarily saying that the generally accepted concept of masculinity isn’t burdensome to many men – just more narrowly, you are being rather blinkered if you try to deny that ‘masculinity’ is defined beyond the confines of purely relating to everything with a Y chromosome. Its most common and widespread usage clearly relates to a traditional concept of idealised characteristics.

          • joa says:

            That sounds like my definition of the word “male”.

            What now should we use to name the qualities that heterosexual men are generally prized for? The qualities that evolution has selected for, that make us more attractive to heterosexual women, and that other men respect us for? The qualities that determine who gets far in life and who doesn’t?

            When someone says “be a man”, they don’t mean “be male”.

          • MobileAssaultDuck says:

            @Volcanu

            Traditional according to what society?

            In Turkey one of the most manly activities they do is olive oil wrestling. They get almost completely naked, oil themselves up, and wrestle and this is the PEAK of masculinity in Turkey.

            In Afghanistan it is a very manly activity to have a young boy dress up like a girl and dance for older men, who will often then buy a night with the boy and rape him. This is considered a wholly masculine act in Afghanistan and even the suggestion it is feminine or homosexual in nature will anger the fuck out of Afghani.

            In some cultures, crying is manly, in some, crying is not manly.

            In Latin cultures, flamboyant and colourful dress is considered the pinnacle of “machismo”, yet here colourful dress is often called “faggy”.

            In ancient Sparta butt fucking your comrades was the height of manly activities.

            What you people do not seem to get is that masculinity is ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE. It’s not some physical force or particle, it’s just an invented definition that changes from society to society.

          • Lusketrollet says:

            What you people do not seem to get is that masculinity is ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE.

            Absolutely not.

          • Volcanu says:

            Did you actually read my post before putting words in my mouth or not?

            OF COURSE I’m referring to masculinity as a CONCEPT. And nowhere did I say that concepts of masculinity don’t vary depending on cultures. But what you have been trying to argue is that masculinity simply refers to something being “male”.

            My point was that masculinity is actually more often about concepts of manliness. The precise definition as to what is considered “manly” will vary depending on society and culture. However it will always cover a certain set of characteristics or traits at the expense of some others (not necessarily the same across cultures). What it doesnt mean is ‘anything relating to a man, anywhere, ever’

            You clearly don’t like the fact that “masculinity” in common usage refers to a select set of so called male traits. But that is what the word means. It doesn’t mean “relating to something male” alone. Which you tried to claim. If you want to know where my definition came from? The Oxford English dictionary.

            What I said in my post was that whether or not you think the concept of (in this instance) Western masculinity is harmful or not, to pretend that masculinity as a word only carries the definition YOU would like it to is simply wrong.

          • MobileAssaultDuck says:

            @Volcanu

            I apologize for not finishing my thought.

            The reason I was pointing out that the concept is subjective is this:

            If something can be proven to be subjective, any definition of that thing now becomes valid. My definition of the word masculine is as valid as any definition because it is subjective.

            It’s like a holy book… the moment someone “interprets” a holy book, they invalidate the entire book because now ANYONE can interpret it however they please.

            Similarly, because masculinity is a subjective concept, any definition of masculinity is accurate.

            Unless it has a force, or a particle, or an element, or something physical, it’s just made up by us to fit some loose idea we have.

            Good, evil, right, wrong, masculine, feminine, terrorist, freedom fighter… they’re all malleable.

            Feminisms definition of masculinity is one that is inclusive to all males, the definition being defended on this forum is one that is exclusive. Many males do not and cannot fit into it.

            So being that any definition is equally accurate, I choose the inclusive one.

          • Premium User Badge

            jrodman says:

            “masculinity and femininity are opposed”.

            WAT?

          • Alfrederique says:

            So if I don’t feel ashamed while wearing a skirt, am I doing masculinity wrong?
            (not a fake exemple, I do think I look really cool in a skirt)

          • joa says:

            MobileAssaultDuck: concepts of masculinity aren’t subjective though. Males have evolved a set of traits that are supposed to make it easier to survive in the world — to help them gain resources and attract a mate. Regardless of the rituals used to express this in various cultures, the basic traits of “manliness” are still there. Thus the more you embody these traits, the more masculine you are.

            Yes, this might be harmful to males who don’t live up to those ideals, but that fact doesn’t change biological reality.

            jrodman: by opposed I mean opposite – at two different ends of a spectrum. I hope that is not too controversial?

            Alfrederique: I would say the opposite is the case. The most masculine man is probably so secure and confident that wearing a skirt would not bother him.

          • Afred says:

            Cool, to now celebrate my regained masculinity, I’m gonna party in east London wearing skirt and lipstick :)
            With a female friend doing the same, so I am just gonna assume that her skirt is a symbol of masculinity too.

    • trooperwally says:

      It is odd. And sad. Very sad.

      On a much more juvenile note, I mis-read your name. I read the U in duck as an I. That put a whole other complexion on your comment!

    • Emeraude says:

      The issue is that… well white men taken as individuals don’t rule the world.

      In same way, you can say – I don’t know – that women are the base currency of society, and their trading ensure the buying of the cattle that are men.

      That’s true on a societal level. That can be and (thankfully) generally is mostly insignificant on an individual, inter-personal basis. So it’s hard to reconcile the two for people.

    • steviebops says:

      Yes, I love being in charge of everything! It’s so great !

      Jesus the tone of your posts is consistent with some of the worst Ive seen.

  12. Eight Rooks says:

    Absolutely no problem with Star Citizen trying to do the right thing/wanting to accommodate her, any other women or any other groups wanting their own space (within reason, I guess?) etc., etc. but

    A pretty gross assumption given the subject matter

    raised an eyebrow. Nitpicking, maybe, but… what, trolls can’t masquerade as supporters of a serious issue?

    • P.Funk says:

      With the assumption being “This member of SA is trying to create a group for women. This MUST be a troll.” then I can agree with that line in the story.

  13. HumpX says:

    Something about the analogy of a chick being shunted out the airlock into space is hysterical.

  14. mindypnightart says:

    Spend More Time With Your Children
    It does not matter if you work full time or part time. Maybe you stay at home with your children but you are working from home. Even if you stay home with your children, you are busy trying to get everything done. No matter who you are, you probably think that you are not spending enough time with your children. Quality time, that is. There are many ways to spend more time with your children.
    Your children do not need to play every sport or do every extracurricular activity out there. You could spend all of your time running your children from one practice to another. Pick just one or two activities that your children love and stick with them.
    Plan family dinners where everyone sits at the table, eats, and talks about their day.
    Make dinners special so everyone likes to spend time together while eating.
    Let your children help when you are working on things.
    They can help fix dinner, clean, and fix things. Children learn by watching and doing. Chores can turn into time together so that they are much more enjoyable.
    Do things that your children want to do.
    It is hard when the house is a mess but get on the floor and play with your children. Play games that they enjoy. Have a movie night and watch their favorite movie.
    Find things that you enjoy doing together.
    Arts and crafts can be a big hit. NightArt is helping bring parents and children together. You can design a drawing and watch it light up together.
    No one feels like they spend enough time with their children. However, you need to make the most of time spent together, instead of worrying if you are spending enough time together. Find things that you enjoy doing together, like NightArt. Check it out at http://www.nightart.org/fundus. It will bring out the artist in everyone, bringing families together.

    • pepperfez says:

      They can’t spend time with their children, you monster, feminists divorced them all and denied them custody.

  15. Red Machine D says:

    It’s not the first place they’ve done it either. Reddit’s been a battleground between earnest misogynists calling themselves Mens’ Rights Advocates and an ever-growing army of trolls from SA currently squatting in the subreddit ShitRedditSays. It’s just an endless slapfight of accusations, doxxes, and general idiocy that could only come from the purple area of the Reddit/Something Awful Venn diagram.

    • Senethro says:

      I’d take trolls for a good cause over earnest bigots any day.

      • Lusketrollet says:

        Reddit’s been a battleground between earnest misogynists calling themselves Mens’ Rights Advocates…

        I can’t believe you would defend Feminists when they’re being accused of all being a misandrists, but with the same breath would be the first to accuse all Men’s Rights Advocates of all being misogynists.

        You are not a better person.

        • MobileAssaultDuck says:

          It is hard not to call them misogynists when they attack women for their problems when ALL MRA issues are caused by males and the patriarchy.

          Let us look at a few MRA issues:

          Male rape. Male’s who have been raped often complain about it being hard to come forward and how they are ignored. Now, who are they being ignored by? The authorities, who are male. Why are they being ignored, because of the MISOGYNISTIC concept that women are too weak to rape men. Hence the problem of Male rape is MISOGYNY.

          Children custody. Men fathers find it near impossible to get fair custody of their children even when they’re the objectively superior parent. So, why is this? Well, the courts sent a precedent over a century ago, when women couldn’t even vote, that said women are the caregiver and men suck at it. So men’s children custody issues… caused by MISOGYNY.

          Divorce/Alimony issues. Many men feel they unfairly have to pay their divorced spouse where as women rarely have to do the same. Why is this? Because of the MISOGYNISTIC CONCEPT that males are the bread winner and a woman can’t take care of herself.

          All of the issues that MR advocates fight against are caused by the patriarchy and misogyny but the MRA guys attack women and feminism.

          They’re not trying to fix the problem, they’re angry and want to lash out. If they wanted to fix the problem, they’d be on the same side as the feminists.

          I want to be a stay at home dad and feminism wants to help create a society where that is totally normal.

          • Lusketrollet says:

            Male rape. Male’s who have been raped often complain about it being hard to come forward and how they are ignored. Now, who are they being ignored by? The authorities, who are male. Why are they being ignored, because of the MISOGYNISTIC concept that women are too weak to rape men. Hence the problem of Male rape is MISOGYNY.

            I hate unfair gender roles as much as anyone, but the sole sum of that isn’t just “Misogyny”. Hell; there are many women who share the same attitude you just described.

            Children custody. Men fathers find it near impossible to get fair custody of their children even when they’re the objectively superior parent. So, why is this? Well, the courts sent a precedent over a century ago, when women couldn’t even vote, that said women are the caregiver and men suck at it. So men’s children custody issues… caused by MISOGYNY.

            Unfair gender roles do not automatically boil down to misogyny-only.

            Divorce/Alimony issues. Many men feel they unfairly have to pay their divorced spouse where as women rarely have to do the same. Why is this? Because of the MISOGYNISTIC CONCEPT that males are the bread winner and a woman can’t take care of herself.

            Again; gender roles.

            All of the issues that MR advocates fight against are caused by the patriarchy and misogyny…

            No.

            They’re not trying to fix the problem…

            Yes.

            I want to be a stay at home dad and feminism wants to help create a society where that is totally normal.

            So does the MRA.

          • MobileAssaultDuck says:

            You missed the point.

            The unfair gender roles were CREATED BY THE PATRIARCHY, not by women.

            Every unfair gender role out there was created with misogynistic ideals.

            Males created the concept that men can’t be raped.

            Males created the concept that women raise children better.

            Males created the concept that we’re all uncontrollable sex machines (the exact argument used in Muslim countries to cover up their females, a wholly misogynistic argument calling all males rapists)

            Males created the concept that women need our money to survive.

            Most of the ideals are so old they come from a time where women were still fucking property, so women definitely didn’t invent these concepts.

          • Emeraude says:

            There is no patriarchy. This is not the Illuminati for fuck’s sake (pardon my French).

            There is society. And women are a part of it, and they have as much responsibility as men in the end result of what the social body happens to be like.

            Unless you happen to believe that women are poor powerless things that can only be acted upon, and men are the ones who can do all the acting.

          • Lusketrollet says:

            MobileAssaultDuck, you can’t seriously believe that absolutely all these gender roles are created and maintained by men, only. That’s giving men way too much credit, and women way too little. It’s simplified and unrealistic.

          • MobileAssaultDuck says:

            Did I say ALL gender roles?

            No, I said all the negative gender roles that MRA fight against.

            Plenty of gender roles were not created by misogyny, but the male rape one, male custody one, male alimony one, etc WERE created by misogyny.

            Right now on /r/MRA there is a story about a 6’8 man getting hit by his wife and he went to jail because of his size. That wasn’t caused by feminism, that’s caused by the misogynistic ideal that women are too weak to beat a man.

            There is a story about a young boy who broke up a fight between two girls and then was tazed. Feminism didn’t create the concept that teenage boys are sex crazed and trying to cop a feel, that has been a running narrative about males for hundreds of years created by us males.

            All of these ideas predate feminism by centuries, how did feminism create them?

          • Lusketrollet says:

            No, I said all the negative gender roles that MRA fight against.

            And I’m saying that you’re wrong.

            Plenty of gender roles were not created by misogyny, but the male rape one, male custody one, male alimony one, etc WERE created by misogyny.

            Right now on /r/MRA there is a story about a 6’8 man getting hit by his wife and he went to jail because of his size. That wasn’t caused by feminism, that’s caused by the misogynistic ideal that women are too weak to beat a man.

            There is a story about a young boy who broke up a fight between two girls and then was tazed. Feminism didn’t create the concept that teenage boys are sex crazed and trying to cop a feel, that has been a running narrative about males for hundreds of years created by us males.

            Again; you seem to be working from this notion that all these male-oppressing attitudes were invented and is being maintained purely by men.

          • hatseflats says:

            Ugh, I’m getting really tired of buzzwords like “patriarchy”. Now, I’m no MRA guy, but incorrect logic gets me (same for MRA, btw, but their views are generally not considered to be valid).


            Children custody. Men fathers find it near impossible to get fair custody of their children even when they’re the objectively superior parent. So, why is this? Well, the courts sent a precedent over a century ago, when women couldn’t even vote, that said women are the caregiver and men suck at it. So men’s children custody issues… caused by MISOGYNY.

            This “voting” thing is a very clear example of one of the logical flaws often heard when people speak of gender issues. To take the Netherlands, women got the right to vote only in 1919, whereas men had been allowed to vote since 1848. But only some men. In fact, only a very select group of men who paid taxes (which was far less common back then). Suffrage for men was only introduced in 1917, only two years earlier than for women. Yes, some men had been allowed to vote before that time. But in a situation where less than 20% of adult males were allowed to vote, the important distinction is between the wealthy and the rest of the population, not between men and women.

            This whole paragraph doesn’t really hold to scrutiny. How is thinking that women make better parents misogyny? Not any perceived gender difference is misogyny, the word has a clear definition, which is “hatred or distrust of women”. Thinking that women are better at something does not imply hatred or distrust.

            You seem to think that this custody issue is reason for concern, which is also what MRA guys seem to think (though I’m not even sure there is truly a bias there; there may also be a factor of which side actually requests custody), so where is your disagreement there? Your inane focus on misogyny means the solution to these problems gets limited to feminism, whereas in reality any group striving for equality could help to solve these issues.


            Divorce/Alimony issues. Many men feel they unfairly have to pay their divorced spouse where as women rarely have to do the same. Why is this? Because of the MISOGYNISTIC CONCEPT that males are the bread winner and a woman can’t take care of herself.

            I think this illustrates one problem of modern feminism. Women, fortunately, have the same institutional rights as men. Any disadvantages to being a woman, any sexism, is due to prejudice. But prejudice is something which affects every single individual and group in society. Men face the prejudice that they are responsible for providing the household with income. Women face the prejudice that they should take care of children. One is not more hurtful than the other, they are different prejudices. But they can hardly be separated. And I think this is why feminism has not made much progress in tackling these prejudices while making great progress elsewhere.

            It has become generally accepted that women work, so the feminist movement slayed that prejudice. But feminism is concerned with women, and although feminists like to say that feminism creates equality (with the underlying idea that the groups of men and women are mutually exclusive, ignoring all gender neutral people for the moment), in any case where there is no perfect symmetry, this is not true. Of course, contrary to what MRA guys like to pretend, it is completely valid for feminists not to want more women in dangerous and/or low-paying jobs or to face lethal violence more often, so as to make women more equal to men in those respects. After all, we don’t want anyone to face violence or danger! But this takes away the symmetry, and hence feminism does not necessarily generate equality, and this can bite feminism in the butt.

            To come back to the example of income and taking care of children: feminists have fought for the right to work for women, but not for the duty to provide the family income. But in turn, this means men have not been relieved of their social duty to provide the family income, which in turn means – assuming it is not socially accepted that both parents work when they have young children – that it falls on the shoulders of women to take care of the children. Just trying to fight the latter prejudice will not sort any effect unless men are specifically relieved of their social obligation to provide the family income. But the feminist movement, by the very fact that it is the feminist movement rather than an equality movement, is not much concerned with the obligations of or prejudices against men, and in fact quite a few feminists are outright hostile (like you) when anyone raises the issue of prejudice against males.

            But this is part of the key to removing sexism from society. And this is why we need a broad equality movement instead of a feminist movement which has achieved some incredible social change but has reached the limits of its capabilities by being limited to fighting for women’s rights.

          • MobileAssaultDuck says:

            @hatseflats

            Misogyny’s definition has expanded far beyond its etymological roots. It directly means “hated of women” but it’s definition includes several forms of sexism that aren’t direct hatred.

            Words change. For example, the word inaugurate, as in “To inaugurate the president” means, etymologically “To make someone a seer capable of discerning the future using birds.”

            Now I am pretty sure neither of us use inaugurate that way and we both us its new definition.

            How about the word atheist. Atheist, etymologically, means “not a theist”. It means anyone who does not believe in a personal god is an atheist, this includes Buddhists, agnostics, and a variety of other groups most people wouldn’t call atheists because the word atheism evolved.

            So misogyny may directly translate to “hatred of women” but that is no longer its sole definition.

          • Lusketrollet says:

            But the feminist movement, by the very fact that it is the feminist movement rather than an equality movement, is not much concerned with the obligations of or prejudices against men, and in fact quite a few feminists are outright hostile (like you) when anyone raises the issue of prejudice against males.

            But this is part of the key to removing sexism from society. And this is why we need a broad equality movement instead of a feminist movement which has achieved some incredible social change but has reached the limits of its capabilities by being limited to fighting for women’s rights.

            Thank you. You put it forth much better than I ever could.

    • steviebops says:

      So a Men’s Rights Activist is automatically a misogynist?

      This tumblr bulllshit has got to stop.

      • pepperfez says:

        If you’re arguing for things like prosecuting rapists more aggressively, reducing the prison population, stopping men from bearing the whole burden of fighting in wars, etc., but think of feminists as your opponents, then yeah, you’re a misogynist. If you call yourself an MRA you’re stuck with all the baggage that label has earned.

  16. Distec says:

    grr goons and all that

  17. Artist says:

    Goon-Master Mittani jumps in for defense of his fellow, female goon:
    http://themittani.com/news/sc-user-banned-over-proposing-female-social-group

    • Premium User Badge

      Cinek says:

      lol@comments under that article.

    • Hendrick Tallardar says:

      Actually The Mittani (the actual person) is in Iceland on vacation what with EVE Fanfest ending on Sunday.

      I’m the writer of that article, and not some sort of “Goon master” nor did I have any talk with Mittens over running it. Please though, tell me you’re being facetious in assuming it’s some conspiracy.

      • Premium User Badge

        Cinek says:

        Sir, you should be ashamed of your clickbait headline that got NOTHING to deal with a reality of what really happened there any why author was banned.

        I guess that’s inline with a new trend in EVE community – doing everything possible to make Star Citizen look bad in order to stop exodus of players…

        • Hendrick Tallardar says:

          Considering I contacted Ben prior to even starting the draft through numerous venues about the reasoning behind the ban, with the evidence pointed to the cause of the ban coming from that reason, and got minimal replies? Sure you could call it a bad headline after the fact. Hindsight is 20/20 for obvious reasons. At the time of the writing, prior to Ben’s clarification, that was the rationale based off the evidence available. If you read the update you’d know the clarification was explained. When Lauresh is told her is banned for a “troll thread”, and that thread is about proposing a social group for women in the SC community, then yes she’s banned for proposing a female social group based off the provided evidence by CIG or their moderators. When the community manager is unresponsive to requests for comment, the piece went out and an update was made to reflect any subsequent afterthoughts/commentary.

          I understand you’re upset that it’s what you deem as “clickbait” but that’s the reality of the context of the story when it was published. If you feel the need to throw ad hominem at me and accuse me of some ulterior motive simply because I play EVE Online, and write about EVE and other games such as Star Citizen for an EVE based gaming news site that’s your prerogative. I would point out that I have a long line of being neutral regarding a story, so accusations of me trying to “bury Star Citizen” are simply false and provable through my coverage. I would hope people like you, and others, would be able to look past your biases and making accusations based of zero evidence. Please read our coverage of Star Citizen, it dates back to 2012 and we’ve been cautiously optimistic both in our jabber channel and in our writing as we love space games and want only the best for the developers involved. We talk to the real people, in person, not through a message board and we know the reality of some of the situations they are in. We’re not out to “kill a game” we deem a “threat” to EVE, after all more competition is good for everyone involved and is the nature of capitalism, however our goal is to provide relevant coverage of our chosen focus. In this case, the evidence lead people to believe that Lauresh was banned solely for making a fame gamer groups thread. That’s a big problem as it deals with hypocrisy, misogyny and a plethora of other topics that are relevant. You’ll note last year during the summer CCP Games have been called out in just as similar of a fashion.

          If, for whatever reason, you feel there is an attempt to make Star Citizen look bad from those writing at TheMittani.com then you can simply choose to not visit our site and we won’t see the number we see that keep us going. I can’t really do much else to explain how your assumptions and claims are, sadly, not as accurate as you may think. However you are also always entitled to your opinion, even if I have evidence proving it to not be accurate, and I will support your right to it.

          • TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

            You thought what you thought because you considered what you considered, you can’t even remotely claim that this was universally the perceived truth before Ben’s clarification.

  18. Awesumo says:

    Can’t help but find the irony in feminists spending decades ending ‘men only’ clubs – then for them to turn around and create women only clubs.

    • Premium User Badge

      Hanban says:

      Do you really not see the difference between ‘men only’ clubs and a separate forum for women who want a safe space online?

      • Trithne says:

        Do elaborate

        • Premium User Badge

          Hanban says:

          ‘Men only’ clubs have in many cases been places where rich people meet and make important decisions. This is problematic, though not necessarily from a sexism point of view. A forum where you can discuss without having to deal with sexist jerks is another thing.

          Edit: I realize I may have misunderstood what was meant by ‘men only’ clubs.

      • WhatAShamefulDisplay says:

        No, this is doublethink of the most blatant kind.

    • MobileAssaultDuck says:

      Slight difference, and here is why:

      First, we’re talking about the internet specifically and the gaming part of the internet.

      Now, you and I as males are 100% safe on the gaming internet 100% of the time.

      Woman, on the other hand, on THE GAMING INTERNET (not talking about real life, talking about gaming specifically) get rape threats a few times a day, if they speak on VOIP there’s a good chance someone is going to creep out on them, they try to make new male friends online only for that male friend to turn into a total creep a week later and start demanding tit pics.

      I had no idea how bad it was until I began living with my gaming girlfriend. The shit people say and do to her online blows my mind. The gaming internet is like a warzone for their gender.

      We never needed men’s clubs, we’ve always been the dominate, controlling force in society, especially those of us both white and male, but woman on the internet need a hiding place occasionally.

      • Emeraude says:

        Now, you and I as males are 100% safe on the gaming internet 100% of the time.

        That is one hell of a ludicrous proposition. Men get insulted, dealt with in sociopathic, socially repugnant ways constantly online.

        What I notice is, that when it happens to them, no one seem to really cares that much. It’s business as usual. When it happens to women though ? Can’t tolerate that, need exceptional, exemplary measures.

        Which is terribly sexist if you ask me.

        • Dawngreeter says:

          “Men get insulted, dealt with in sociopathic, socially repugnant ways constantly online.”

          They do. But not BECAUSE they are men.

          • Emeraude says:

            Only thing bad I’ve had to dealt with I can for sure put on me being a woman is being hit on.

            All the rest though ? You’ll have to present some backing to the claim, because all I personally see is insults tailored to who I am – the same way that racially-tailored specific insults are. The purpose of insulting is to hurt, to diminish, and one obvious strategy is to try and brand what one believes to be essential qualities, defining elements of the one being insulted.
            That’s part of the normal process, not some special treatment imposed on women.

          • Dawngreeter says:

            You’re right. That’s what usually happens. You’re also wrong. Because being male isn’t among the qualifiers for “personally tailored insults”. I can get insulted based on my country of origin, philosophical viewpoints, haircut, interests… but not because I’m male. I have never, ever in my 33 years seen a person be called out for being male. And I’ve seen people insulted for not being drug addicts.

            Does every insult directed at the female gender necessarily mean the person doing the insulting actually and truly hates women? No, that’d be silly. But insulting women on the basis of them being woman is a clear sign that the person doing this is channeling something that is already present in our culture. And this means that we really, truly need an effort to remove or at least lessen that part of our culture. Because as long as that doesn’t happen, people will continue with misogyny just for the sake of being sociable. That’s what guys do! Really! Look how well I fit in with all the other dudes as we hate on some bitches, man!

          • Emeraude says:

            Because being male isn’t among the qualifiers for “personally tailored insults”

            Of course it is. Why do you think males are insulted as being “bitches” ? It’s their manliness as an essential quality that is being put in question. The insult only is traded because the victim is male.
            Addressed to a woman, it would have a completely different sense. And be sued in a completely different context.

          • MobileAssaultDuck says:

            … did you really just say that calling a man a bitch is a tailored sexual insult toward males?

            You’re actually saying that being called female is a tailored insult to males.

            That’s like saying that a white person being called black is a tailored insult against their whiteness.

            My fuck, you guys are oblivious.

          • Dawngreeter says:

            So, telling a male person that they are female, and doing this as an insult, is something you do not perceive as prat of the problem of female-ness being treated as something insulting? “You aren’t male enough” isn’t derogatory towards men. It implies that the person in question should be insulted because he is too much like a woman.

            Out of curiosity, what’s the male equivalent of the term “bitch”? Please, be as broad as you’d like.

          • joa says:

            The insult comes from telling someone they are acting like the opposite gender (stereotypically) acts – you can insult a man by calling him a woman; you can insult a woman by calling her a man.

          • Emeraude says:

            You’re actually saying that being called female is a tailored insult to males.

            Yes, and the fact that you happen to be unable to understand is quite staggering from where I stand.

            Let me repeat that conclusion of socio-anthropology in all its sobering reciprocal violence: women are the base currency of society, and their trading ensures the buying of the cattle that are men.

            Women have innate (trading) value. Men have none but the one they can deride from dominance status hierarchies.

            Denying a man his manhood (calling him a woman by any other name, a sissy, a faggot) is denying him his belonging in the dominance hierarchies – that is, all that he can be worth.
            Denying a woman of her womanhood, though diminishing her, is also, by attacking the currency on which they are founded, undermining the value of the dominance social hierarchies themselves.

            Which is why, though you definitely happen to see both, one is prevalent – common, and the other isn’t from a male speaker.

          • Dawngreeter says:

            I am saddened that you think it is more acceptable if you repeat what I said, but with more anthropology-ness (new word!).

          • Emeraude says:

            We’re not saying the same thing though.

        • MobileAssaultDuck says:

          This is because no one is going to try and stalk us on Facebook and find naked pictures of us.

          We’re safe. Let’s say some kid throws some horrible insult at me… so? I’m a white, western, male… I’m fucking invincible. I have blue eyes and blonde hair, I won the western social genetic lottery.

          Women don’t have that advantage.

          If a picture of my dick gets on the internet, it isn’t going to really ruin my life because perceptions of male sexuality are different. If a woman’s tits get online, that can change entire perceptions about her.

          It’s like the age-old issue of if I fuck 20 girls I am a stud, if she fucks 20 guys she’s a slut.

          If I pass out at a party, I get a dick drawn on my face. If she passes out at a party, there’s a chance she gets a dick.

          We’re the masters of the world, so you have two choices: stand on top of the mountain being white and male and not helping shit, or you can not be an asshole and reach down and give a hand.

          I’m not going to be ashamed of my genetics, but I am going to use the advantage the random dice roll gave me to help others to the top of the Western social mountain.

          Because if you help, everyone gets to be on the mountain, if you fight, you may get pushed off the other side.

          • Wang Tang says:

            “We’re the masters of the world, so you have two choices: stand on top of the mountain being white and male and not helping shit, or you can not be an asshole and reach down and give a hand.”

            Or you could become Bob the Builder, building a platform on which everyone could stand. A mountain top is tiny and lonely, build something where is enough space for everyone. Holding the door for everyone, not just for women.

          • MobileAssaultDuck says:

            Which is effectively what I said.

            I said directly “I’m not going to be ashamed of my genetics, but I am going to use the advantage the random dice roll gave me to help others to the top of the Western social mountain.” notice OTHERS.

            Not females. Others. Anyone not already on the top of the perceived social ladder. My kind are already here, white, straight males are done, we now have to help females, non-white males, non straight males, etc.

            If we end up slipping off the other side, then we need to work on white, straight males… at the moment, we’re the top of the social heap and require no assistance. I want a world where everyone has the opportunities I have.

          • Wang Tang says:

            I wrote a long post here, very contradicting, and scrapped it all. To simplify:
            You are right in your fight against sexism.
            You come across as very agressive in your other posts, which doesn’t help your cause.
            Dividing between “them” (all others) and “us” (“straight, white males”) does not help your cause.
            My point was to flatten the mountain top for a longterm solution vs your point to help others up and when others fall down, help them up, etc.

      • Awesumo says:

        “Now, you and I as males are 100% safe on the gaming internet 100% of the time”
        Please excuse me while I laugh in your face.

      • Kalain says:

        So what are you going to do when it turns out those trolls are women? How do you know they are male if you can’t hear their voices? I’ve no doubt in my mind that there are women gamers who troll males gamers.

        So, unless you can confirm their gender, of which I would be impressed if you could do that by mere text, then you are just spouting rubbish. You see what your girlfriend gets and therefore you tar an entire section of the gaming community. Well done!!

        Also, my wife plays several games online and has not really had any harassment. The most severe one was from a female member of the same guild she was in spreading lies about her because my wife won an item from a raid. We know it was a female because she was speaking on TS…

        • MobileAssaultDuck says:

          Text?

          Have you entered some time warp to 1999? People talk on voip now, it’s quite easy to tell genders. Especially on Xbox, where my gf plays, where people pretty much exclusively use voice.

          • iseemonkeys says:

            You may want go back and read what he said hint “How do you know they are male if you can’t hear their voices”. People don’t use voip on forum(what hes talking about) nor do they use it all the time in games. He did go on to give a example of telling a sex by VoIP in game. Work on your comprehension skills.

      • steviebops says:

        ‘Now, you and I as males are 100% safe on the gaming internet 100% of the time.’
        ‘My kind are already here, white, straight males are done’

        You might want to read up on actual social inequality. You have no idea of the real world, I wish I could live in your sheltered wonderland.

    • tormos says:

      I know, right? Isn’t it racist how black people want their own MONTH to talk about their histories? I mean it’s like jeez, black people, we stopped legally enslaving you after only like 400 years, and stopped openly legally discriminating against you only 100 more after that. So you’re probably the racist ones here

      (N.B. this was satire which normally I wouldn’t feel the need to point out, but, you know, internet)

  19. Premium User Badge

    Philopoemen says:

    how, especially on an internet forum catered to fulfilling a sci-fi fans fantasies, can you prove gender?

    I can understand the want to form a female-only forum, but how are they going to enforce the female-only part?

    • Premium User Badge

      Cinek says:

      Teamspeak / skype.

    • Premium User Badge

      Hanban says:

      Is this really a problem in practice? The idea, so far as I understand, is to create a safe space, not about meticolously checking biology. I would hope that trans women are included into the supposed forum, and that it’s thus less about enforcing a certain biology, but more about working for a certain type of space.

      • trjp says:

        Then the problem is that they’ve chosen the wrong name for it.

        How about “Chromosome-agnostic group” or “People who don’t care about gender group” or “No sexist assholes group”

        They’re all fine because they about a choice – “Women only” isn’t and isn’t.

        • Geebs says:

          That is, however, Nathan’s wording from the article; dunno whether it was actually put in those terms.

          I agree with the general principle of calling a group “no assholes”; would also seem to sort out the problem of identification since the one thing people do really well online is to out themselves as jerks :)

        • Premium User Badge

          Cinek says:

          And how are you going to prove that all of the members are not a sexist assholes? ;)

          • trjp says:

            You can detect assholes quite easily – they behave like assholes – you remove them from the group

            No hard, that one…

        • Premium User Badge

          Hanban says:

          I’m discussing this under the assumption that the “women only” forum would be a safe place to discuss matters that relate to being a woman in the game and on the internet. Thus a “no assholes” forum would probably not be suffice as people might not be comfortable discussing certain things with men reading.

          Also being trans-exclusive is super lame.

          • trjp says:

            “Being a woman in the game” – I’m not really sure what that means – it’s a space game with limited need to discuss gender-specific issues – and even if it did, specific to your gender (actual or chosen) or your in-game character’s????

            “Being a woman on the internet/in the world” – there are many places to discuss that – the forums/community of a space game are not one of them – at least they shouldn’t be…

          • Premium User Badge

            Hanban says:

            One might, for example, want to discuss sexism in SC and share experiences from the game, in a forum dedicated to SC without fear of being harassed for it. This might as well happen on a forum provided by RSI.

            Related to your second paragraph, RPS has an off-topic forum despite of being a gaming blog. It’s weird given how you could easily discuss things like politics on forums dedicated to politics, but there you go.

          • trjp says:

            Just to be clear – you want to create something sexist to discuss issues of sexism!?

            With genes like yours, our species is doomed…

            Yes, many places have ‘off topic’ forums but you’re really asking for ‘sexist off-topic’ forums – or “a forum where I get to say what people say and who says it” which isn’t something we should be seeking to do.

            As I’ve said a few times now – I’m not against forming the group they want to form but they need to define it better. “Women only” isn’t acceptable and isn’t really what they want I’m sure. There will be men that have something to offer – there will be women who do not – I agree there’s an issue but labelling the solution ‘Women Only’ isn’t the it.

          • Afred says:

            I like how in one comment you criticised someone genes then said you know what those girls wants better than them
            It makes me feel better about myself :)

    • Geebs says:

      Note from your doctor

  20. trjp says:

    I like to think I’m fair-minded and really try not to single-people-out for things they have no control over.

    I’m not ‘defending’ anyone – I just try to judge people on what they can choose to do/not do and not on things they cannot change (such as gender, race, sexual orientation and so on)

    On that basis, a “women only” group, to me, is wrong. I accept that there are issues but I do not accept that putting “Women Only” on the door is a solution to them.

    Instead, you need to define what it is you actually want to limited your group to including instead of lazily bracketing (and being unable to enforce) it as ‘Women Only’.

    Stick to things people have a choice over AND which can be moderated online

    e.g.
    “Group for people who can leave judgement of gender at the door”

    We won’t solve disciminatory attitudes by creating more of them…

  21. Deano2099 says:

    “But statement of intent is just a start. Now it’s time to see if RSI will follow through.”

    That’s a line that should be at the end of every Star Citizen article!

  22. rockman29 says:

    I think it’s a great idea and it will help this specific game, and hopefully gaming in general, slowly become a more welcoming place for the most ignored gender in gaming.

    Good on RSI!

  23. SuicideKing says:

    Congratulations to all those on RPS who make me feel sick to the stomach every time something like this is posted.

    I’m talking about those who will defend misogyny wearing the mask of ignorant innocence and “good and honest intentions”.

    It’s because of YOU that people have (unfairly) labeled the entire community sexist.

    I think i’m going to stop reading the comments section from now on, on these articles.

    • WhatAShamefulDisplay says:

      I’ve just realised, your morality is objectively right! Guess there was no need for the debate, sorry for wasting your time.

    • Premium User Badge

      Cinek says:

      “It’s because of YOU that people have (unfairly) labeled the entire community sexist.”

      How long you’re a member of SC community? I happen to watch whole project since before crowdfunding even begun (yep, I’m one of few people with gold ticket) and read forums quite regularly, more so with the old forums, but I still pop now and then to take a look on what’s going on.

      And, sir, you’re talking out of your ass. Star Citizen community is and was sexist since very beginning. I challenge you to find the original, first ever live stream from CIG, watch it, and tell me that it’s otherwise (and that doesn’t even include full transcript of chat during that event… omg… that chat… what a pile of idiots were there… since that live stream I stopped visiting chat room – community out there is full of people who are nothing more than a horny teenagers deeply inside).

      Sorry, but people from community make me ashamed of being a male player.

      • almostDead says:

        Don’t mess with people’s assumptions. It’s the only thing most people have.

    • Shooop says:

      Oh no! How dare a journalist reveal a moderator for a game made an absolutely bone-headed decision that couldn’t have been taken as anything but an attack on a person’s gender! How dare they give the incident exposure that could possibly prevent this sort of thing from happening again!

      All that’s missing in your post is “#MensRights”. Get the fuck out of here and take your lotion and socks with you.

  24. Kalain says:

    Why should they create a safe space for women? Why segregate them from the rest of the community? Isn’t this, in itself, sexist? Everyone has to deal with trolls, people who threaten to stab you, insult you, shag your mum, eat your dog etc etc. Why should women have a space where they are protected from this?

    What happens when it’s the women who are doing the abusing, trolling, do we men get a safe space from them?

    Pointless. It’ll just cascade down and down into a male only and female only communities because some little flower doesn’t want to have to deal with a random troll.

    • Creeping Death says:

      Yeah, when I read that first line I thought it was a bit condescending. Like “we’re going to cordon of this corner of the community for you. Don’t worry, all the corners have been covered in bubblewrap because we dont trust you to look after yourself. It’s a nice, safe environment!”

      I dunno, I feel highly against any kind of group that excludes anyone that doesn’t fall into their category. Be it an all girl clan, a gay gamers only convention, or a straight while male only server. It all just serves to compound the problem even more.

      Stop trying to carve out your own little corner of the internet that conforms to your narrow view on life and start trying to get along with each other.

    • Premium User Badge

      Bradamantium says:

      Oh yes, won’t someone PLEASE think of the men, who are so regularly trolled and victimized by the massive communities of women gamers. What’s basically institutionalized misogyny is not the same as your every day trolling, and the implication isn’t that they can’t deal with that, it’s that they want a space where they don’t have to because they shouldn’t. Really, point out to me any time when male gamers are terrorized half as much as women, as personally and violently. You can’t, because such times don’t exist.

      • WhatAShamefulDisplay says:

        I imagine homosexual male gamers might take exception to being angrily called a “faggot” by a ten year old on Xbox live.

        • Premium User Badge

          jrodman says:

          It does get old, although I find that when I tell people that I am gay and that it’s offensive, they usually stop, while when people find out that a gamer is a woman, they start.

          • Premium User Badge

            Cinek says:

            Should have said they’re a transvestite girls.

          • WhatAShamefulDisplay says:

            I’m not disagreeing with you, but that is pretty anecdotal as a piece of evidence. We’re never going to get hard numbers, but I know women who are on Live all the time and deflect criticism in much the same way as you described. At the end of the day, I’m not trying to score points between homosexual men vs women in the oppression league, I just thought that it was a good example that gender or sexuality based discrimination is not limited to misogyny.

          • Premium User Badge

            jrodman says:

            The comment you were replying to was an overstatement, but your response read as misdirection. I responded with my real experiences (about both) in an attempt to head towards useful ground.

            “anecdotes are anecdotes” is true, but they’re a big improvement for the thread.

          • Premium User Badge

            Vesuvius says:

            Shamefuldisplay, I think we can all get a good sense of what is the norm here by looking at discussions like those that took place on the RSI forums, or looking at youtube comments for women gamers- both those discussing gender and just those being themselves. While we may not be able to get exact figures, to act like this isn’t very common would be willful ignorance.

        • Premium User Badge

          Bradamantium says:

          Which is exactly why there are also a good number of LGBT+ exclusive groups, up to and including whole conventions.

    • Premium User Badge

      Vesuvius says:

      To answer your question, no.

      That’s it, no.

      One of the most tried and true ways for underrepresented or unequal groups to be able to preserve dignity, group identity, and combat mistreatment is for them to be able to make common cause.

      That’s not ‘reverse bigotry’, it’s a way of starting to remedy an inequality.

    • Shooop says:

      Let’s not stop there, isn’t creating an in-game group in general exclusionary and unfair then? No more clans and guilds! Tear down these virtual walls!

  25. Premium User Badge

    Bluerps says:

    Good! I hope they stick to these words – if not, I would really regret that I gave them money.

  26. WhatAShamefulDisplay says:

    Before this thread escalates into another 1000 post jobbie, may I take the time to thank John and the rest of the RPS staff for remaining detached in this particular comments section? It may be hard to believe for readers who are just joining this latest installment of RPS socio-political posts, but in my view this particular comments thread is one of the more civilised we have had in a while. Pondering this, I think it is because the debate has structured itself into “Group A vs Group B” rather than “John and Friends vs everyone else”. Where both groups feel they can be heard without necessarily having to either kow-tow or point-by-point demolish a “party-line”, if you will, the posting is much more interesting.

    I know this post contributed nothing to the debate, but just something I thought needed to be said. Carry on!

    • Premium User Badge

      jrodman says:

      It’s a theory.

      I’m looking forward to being convinced over time.

      • WhatAShamefulDisplay says:

        No-one has to convince anybody of anything, it’s the constant screaming of “I’M RIGHT!” “NO, I’M RIGHT”, “NO, I’M RIGHT YOU’RE LITERALLY WORSE THAN HITLER” “THAT’S RICH FROM SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC MARK TWO!!!” that always blights these threads, and so long as that stops I’m a happy reader.

        • Premium User Badge

          jrodman says:

          What I meant by that was “I hope you’re right.”

          • WhatAShamefulDisplay says:

            Oh I see, sorry. I’ve been scarred by the word “convince”, you see! :D

    • dsch says:

      It might possibly have to do with the original article not being written by JW and does not polarise the debate by presuming the absolute correctness of one side in advance.

  27. Premium User Badge

    frymaster says:

    I’m not sure I like RPS’s characterisation of what happened. The statement on the forums doesn’t say anything like the OP’s ban was a “huge mistake”, and instead presents it as an overly-harsh reaction to genuine bad behaviour by the OP. The story presented here implies RSI are disavowing their reasons for the ban and endorsing the OP, when in fact the ban length was reduced because it was incorrectly treated as her second ban, not her first. Regardless of whether you believe them or not, it puts quite a different spin on things.

    Personally, I think companies should endeavour to make sure than no one is the subject of abuse; that necessarily covers sexist abuse automatically. In regards to “women-only” groups… there’s a continuum here and I don’t know at what point the line is drawn. I, personally, don’t see what the logical difference between saying “you can only join if you’re a woman” and saying “you can only join if you’re white” is, but I’m not sure I’d want the second group around. (On the other hand, chances are the second group would likely find itself infringing other rules anyway)

    That being said, I wouldn’t feel uncomfortable with groups that stated you have to be of a certain nationality to join (national teams etc.), yet I can’t think what the logical difference is, which also worries me.

    • Premium User Badge

      jrodman says:

      Context. Humans are crazy good at set-association games, and linking a pattern of behavior with past behavior with the same context is what you do pretty much automatically.

      It can lead you astray at times, but for these kinds of situations it’s really a matter of what’s going on in your head is what’s going on in their head. White-only you associate with white-power and racism. So do they. Luxembourg-only you don’t associate with any sort of aggression because Luxembourg has not been an aggressor in many hundreds of years. USA-only or Russia-only would sound a bit wonkier because of their behavior in global politics and history of a sense of exceptionalism.

      This stuff isn’t really hard to spot, it just doesn’t fit into neat logical boxes.

  28. adscott says:

    It’s not our fault gaming communities are dominated by men. Most women don’t enjoy games that much, they lack the competitive compulsion that many men have. There are evolutionary reasons for this that are well documented, one source:

    http://www.nber.org/digest/feb06/w11474.html

    The nature of a game is typically a competition, either against live opponents or against the computer. Unlike a film or a book which is a passive experience.

    Given that many women are naturally averse to competition, “creating safe environments” for women in gaming will have little effect, since this is not the problem.

    • WhatAShamefulDisplay says:

      This is the worst attempt at concern trolling I have ever seen. You should be very ashamed.

      • pepperfez says:

        I kinda wish you used that handle only for telling people they ought to be ashamed.

    • Premium User Badge

      jrodman says:

      The part that annoyed me the most is insisting that games have to be competitive.

      • cpmartins says:

        Interesting. with the intention to find if that is indeed the case, I went through my 250+ library and tried to find one that was not about competition. I found 1, Stanley’s Parable, which I don’t qualify as a game but a very good piece of interactive fiction.
        But that must be because I’m biased towards competitive games. So I went through This link’s games:
        http://community.futuremark.com/forum/showthread.php?171001-PC-Games-of-2013-Release-Calendar
        and found one: Take on Mars
        I guess games in fact are about competition, either active (the great majority) or passive (puzzle games for example. You are competing against the puzzle creator).

        • Premium User Badge

          Vesuvius says:

          A challenge is not the same as a competition. It’s not back and forth, the creator won’t feel like they’ve “lost” because you “get it”. It’s a thought exercise.

          • cpmartins says:

            If I loose a challenge in a game, I feel the loss. I competed against the rules. and the rules beat me.

          • WhatAShamefulDisplay says:

            The Bobby Kotick Four: I fought the rules and the rules won?

        • Premium User Badge

          jrodman says:

          Either you have very selective purchase decisions or you definitions of competition is wrong. I have about 4 games that are about competition out of around 250.

    • Shooop says:

      Good thing that’s not the issue that’s been brought up here then and the real issue is why should a woman who wants to try out multiplayer games have to deal with a flood of misogynist fuckwads?

      No one of any importance has ever decried the industry and community for being male-dominated for that reason alone – they decry how it treats the female minority that does get into it and they have every reason to.

  29. Capt. Raven says:

    Okay, these are my 2 cents:
    Fuck those people who say this is boring news and we don’t need to talk about wimmen and feminism isn’t needed. The reactions towards a female group of Star Citizen players is living proof that we need feminism.

    But I really don’t like the ever condescending tones in this article. A person was banned from the forum by fault, RSI owned up to it. But apparently this is not enough. That RSI is more than open to players and groups of every facon is apparently not enough. And in a way, no it really isn’t enough. But it’s a damn good start and we should appreciate this. Maybe I am reading way too much into this article but I got the feeling that RSI is being accused of … not doing enough for womens rights? Last time I checked, though, they were a game development team. And in their boundaries they are doing good things for equality. But still it isn’t their job to educate their community. That is the job of society – and that is why its important to talk about feminism. But please, RPS, don’t look for culprits where there are none.

    • pepperfez says:

      Honestly, I had stopped paying attention to this story after “Woman requests women-only groups, gets flamed, gets banned” and concluded that RSI were just the worst. So I appreciate RPS reporting that they’re just sloppy moderators.

      • Capt. Raven says:

        Read my comment again, I am not complaining that RPS is reporting about this, not in the slightest. I just have a bit of a problem with the tone of the article. And it might very well be that I’m reading things into the article because I’m in a mood today.

        • pepperfez says:

          Sorry, I got what you meant, I was just obscure in my reply. I meant that even a hostile report on what happened left me with a better feeling about RSI than I had in the first place, to emphasize how disgusted I was in the first place. Your comment probably wasn’t the most on-point for me to reply to, and I was also totally unclear in my writing.

  30. Laurentius says:

    I do love my space sims but the moment I discovered that Star Citizen is going to has MMO on-line component my hopes had faded away and I didn’t back it. Good riddance for everyone who are still planing to fly this one, what a great time you will have…

    • WhatAShamefulDisplay says:

      Sorry, but what’s your point here? It’s not clear at all. I detect bitterness, but not a root cause for it.

      • Laurentius says:

        Game is not even out yet and there are already communities dramas aplenty. Not my idea of spending leisure time. I have not even considerd for second of playing EVE for a reason.

    • cpmartins says:

      They will have a SP campaign, Squadron 42 which ,as Roberts said, will be bigger than any Wing Commander game ever made.

  31. lukelarris says:

    Ben Lesnik is the community manager, not a “developer”, RPS. Unless he got silently promoted recently.

    • DatonKallandor says:

      He’s in charge of the Inventory Tetris system, that makes him a dev.

  32. steviebops says:

    So the game’s not even out and this is the state of the community? Doesn’t bode well.
    Personally, I don’t care for exclusionary groups.

    Also, could someone actually clarify, was this an attempt to troll? I’ve heard that Lauresh was clearly trolling, attacking the Mod and others, but there’s no concrete proof.

    • WhatAShamefulDisplay says:

      All groups are inherently exclusionary. Even if you say “no assholes”, in the final analysis that’s just showing intolerance for people you consider assholes. Better to just *not prohibit* any group from forming, which is I guess the message of this debacle in general.

      • Afred says:

        The thing is, a group being exclusionary is not necessary a bad thing in itself. A female social group wanting to discriminate against men to avoid the misogyny that can happen in a an open social group by not including them is completely fine by me.
        To quote a white american male quite fond of wearing bandanas : “it’s the same thing that happened with “discrimination”, which started as a good and valuable word, but now no one can even hear it without seeming to lose their mind.”
        Double standards ftw

        • steviebops says:

          ‘A female social group wanting to discriminate against men to avoid the misogyny that can happen in a an open social group by not including them is completely fine by me.’

          But it’s still discrimination, coupled with, in your example, prejudice.

          • Afred says:

            (that’s kinda what I said, although I wouldn’t go as far as prejudice)
            (and it’s still super fine with me yay)

        • P.Funk says:

          I don’t agree that its fine, even if it doesn’t bother some people. I really don’t see why they have to exclude men as a rule. Are we just going to assume that all women speak of a common voice and can tolerate one another? Discriminating by gender is just a bad idea. What if I wanted to create a group for only educated white males because I really just find intercity Ebonics speech obnoxious? That’d be bad right? I mean lets just put aside the whole racist factor for a moment and just evaluate the fact that I assumed all black people speak like they’re cast in a Krunk music video. That’s not even logical. Would it make sense that when Barack Obama came to join my club I told him that he couldn’t because we didn’t want any people who spoke like Lil’ Jon and that our criteria for excluding such people was his racial background?

          I just don’t buy it.

          • Afred says:

            Yeah, if you would do that, that would be extremely racist
            so don’t do it
            problem solved :)

  33. lautalocos says:

    it seems that it was just a misunderstanding, but that aside, is a gender specific (edit) guild (end of edit) a good idea?

    dont get me wrong, i understand why they want to do it, but i persoanlly think that it would be better to just kick people from the clan that make any kind of misogynistic comment rather that just say “no boys allowed”

    i personally see it as silly as a men only guild

  34. Arglebargle says:

    A friend of mine who worked at Origin Systems told me once that she decided not to sign on with Roberts’ group because of the mandatory team meetings at strip clubs. You go Chris!

  35. Nouser says:

    Honestly, I don’t see why this should even be a piece of news. Since the beginning of internet virtual communities has tended to anonymity ¿why? Because the moment you associate yourself with a certain social group, being it “women”, “men”, “white race people”, “black race people”, having certain age or being from certain country, you’ll find that there is someone somewhere who dislikes those of your kind. Because internet isn’t an isolated place, it’s filled with real people, and real people tend to be assholes.

    Of course, the immediate side effect is that as soon as a virtual community is formed, someone try to form a subcommunity inside with those who are part of the same social community or try to ban everyone who isn’t part of it. This as well has the side effect of ending in plain censorship, because for most people there is no difference between assholes and those who merely has different ideas.

    So, in the end the question is not how RSI is going to deal with discrimination against women inside Star Citizen, but how are they going to deal with any kind of verbal attack or harassment against social or political minorities inside their player community and how are their going to manage the existence of sub-communities and their desire of isolate themselves from the rest of the community.

  36. pepperfez says:

    This has been easily the most surreal gender-thread blowups I’ve encountered here. I’ve never seen feminism decried as a Something Awful trolling scheme before, so I guess today has been instructional.

  37. thehollowman says:

    I mean, people should be able to create whatever clubs they so desire. Ideally we wouldn’t need female only clubs, but getting to the ideal where they don’t exist is pretty difficult. I don’t see why anyone should have to languish in a community they don’t like, waiting while we slowly may or may not be fixing it. I’m sure if all you ever heard was “LOL GO MAKE ME A SANDWICH” and “HAHA RAPE JOKES”, you’d want to make a space without them though

    I do think a “No assholes” guild would be better though, personally, seeking to exclude misogynists, rather than just labelling everyone who identifies as men as anathema to a safe space. I understand why they might do this though, it probably seems like a quick and easy shortcut, but it does end in people getting butthurt.

    I’d still support a women only group, or even a black only group. People have a right to choose their friends, and who they hang out with. White only or male only though, and I get uncomfortable, because of the power differential. A woman only group comes from a desire to just play a video game without hearing rape jokes. A man only group would probably come from a darker desire.

    Ultimately though, I would see things like this as a stop gap solution, and not a complete one. I don’t think anyone who would be interested in a women’s only group would believe that was the ideal solution, and that all their problems were over. Just a safe place for now, and a reminder that we all need to work harder on making things better. And maybe in the future we’ll have communities that automatically shout down anyone who says “lol go make me a sandwich” and kicks them out, without any fuss.

    • P.Funk says:

      “I’d still support a women only group, or even a black only group. People have a right to choose their friends, and who they hang out with. White only or male only though, and I get uncomfortable, because of the power differential. A woman only group comes from a desire to just play a video game without hearing rape jokes. A man only group would probably come from a darker desire.”

      Thats so screwed up though. We’re basically saying its okay to have messed up groups that exclude people generally for unfair reasons because we want people we perceive to be mistreated to feel better. Its a double standard because we’re very hyper sensitive about not supporting all male or all white groups because of the powerful history there is behind that idea.

      In the end all these ideas are just plain fucked up. Women only groups to discuss rape and the experience of it and healing from it obviously is a good reason to have women only. Gaming however is not a powerful female experience that men cannot understand. Same would be true with being black. How the fuck would slavery affect gaming? “You can’t game with me because you don’t now what my people have been through”. Its idiotic.

      I would amend you first sentence to the following: “I support the right for people to create women only groups, even if I don’t support their existence” People have a right to be idiots and form cohorts of idiots for idiotic reasons, but I’m not gonna let someone guilt trip me into agreeing into some bullshit thats just counter productive and encouraging of modes of thought that do not ultimately erode inequality.

  38. borkbork says:

    Just to clarify, Cloud Imperium Games is the developer, not Robert Space Industries. RSI is part of the in-game fiction, and doesn’t exist in the real world.

  39. Megakoresh says:

    A load of bullshit this is. Just a load of bullshit. At least 5 years now, I have been in many communities with plenty of female gamers, and have never seen ANY immature or offensive attitude towards them. None. And I am pretty damn active gamer.

    • P.Funk says:

      That is of course an enormous fallacy. The “I haven’t experienced it ergo its not real” concept is just not logical. Unless your group is thousands of gamers large its hardly representative of a normal sample of the population.

      I run an Arma clan and we have no douche bags and we have a female member. Does that mean that nobody on the internet treats women poorly for being women? Obviously not. It does however for me pose a problem with gender exclusive organizations as a solution to misogyny, ie. that why don’t these annoyed women simply find groups of men whom they are not constantly being harassed by?

      The only thing a gender exclusive organization does is create a sense of us vs. them, but its not even an accurate us vs. them.

      • Megakoresh says:

        If that’s the case, then men are also treated poorly and have a “very hard time” on the internet. Because at some time somewhere on the internet a bunch of feminists are screaming about how bad all men are. That logic is ridiculous, we are talking about the overall picture here, primarily focusing on the western internet. And in this medium, the vast majority has completely grown over gender bullying and other crap like that. Unless you call “Daymn, some nice titties!” in response to a female photo avatar, as “Gender bullying” or “misogyny”. At this point it’s the people who preach about this shit who need to grow up, it’s getting really annoying.

        If the girl just wanted to create a “lady club”, it’s absolutely alright. But if anyone is making some sort of clan focused around “We are the best because we are women, and all men are assholes’, and vice versa idea, they definitely deserve a ban, as with any offensive or inflammatory content. And it has zero to do with being a man or a woman and everything to do with just being a jerk. And jerks will always be jerks, no matter what topic they pick.

  40. Sacarathe says:

    Making a women’s only group is patently wrong, as is men’s only. Compromise should be a zero tolerance to sexism/jerks group.

  41. Ahtaps says:

    While I completely support equality for women and wholly believe that they do have it tough in a lot of ways some of us can’t understand, it always annoys and saddens me when the “Men don’t ever have to deal with this. Men don’t have any problems.” defense starts getting used. Males have their own set of stigmas and unfair societal expectations that they have to put up with and there are many out there that have a harder time with it than others.

    Despite how it sounds, I’m not trying to bring down the argument that women have it tough, I really cannot understand some of the utter filth and verminous comments of people out there that would try and rip another human to shreds because of a difference like biological gender. My point is, you can’t go around saying stuff that isn’t true to try and support your argument because it’s just going to weaken it and cause an even greater rift.

  42. El_Emmental says:

    He he, Goons reading RPS and trying to troll here too, bringing hundreds of their members there to copy-paste anti-sexism rants. It’s like the 2000s never ended, people still trying to make SA/4chan relevant.

    (if only they knew their trolling is nothing compared to John Walker, the best of the best of RPS)