GTFO: A Film About Women In Gaming Is Going Ahead

A useful warning: If you don’t like posts about issues related to women and gaming, don’t read this post, and maybe scroll to one of the 17,000 other articles on the site! Hope this helps. (Boy would you look silly if you commented about it now.)

The consequences of last year’s #1reasonwhy Twitter outpouring have been enormously productive. It feels as though a dam has been broken, and the negative treatment of women who game has a voice. After this year’s inspiring GDC panel, there’s a sense that it’s a voice that isn’t going to shut up until something changes. Another part of that voice is a film by Shannon Sun-Higginson called GTFO: A Film About Women In Gaming, and it’s cleared its Kickstarter funding goals.

Obviously there are a lot of people who don’t want this discussion to take place. There are those who simply don’t care, don’t harass women, and just want to get on with gaming. There are those who do not wish to be prevented from espousing their unpleasant attitudes. There are those that feel the peculiar, irrational sense of threat, that their safe space is being taken away from them. Unfortunately, all these attitudes only serve to sustain and endorse (tacitly or otherwise) a culture that deserves confrontation. The issue is real, no matter for what reason people may want to dismiss it.

Thence GTFO.

The KS page explains the scope of the film:

“GTFO will cover an array of topics, with trolling being just one of them. The film will also address: the portrayal of women in video games, the history of women in gaming, the experiences of women in the industry itself, the culture of games, the discouragement of young girls from participating, and more.”

Cheers to VG247 who spotted this one.


  1. hatseflats says:

    And then there are those who think subjective, n=1 experiences are hardly useful in improving our understanding of the real problem, by obfuscating the real issues and entrenching all involved.

    • GunnerMcCaffrey says:

      If only we could talk about women’s experiences without all these women talking about their experiences

      • Ritashi says:

        Thankfully, there actually *is* a solution to this age-old problem, namely statistics over scientific experiments designed to minimize noise and distinguish various competing models. Look at it this way. There are a lot of women in gaming. Assume, for a moment, that sexism was not a societal problem; discrimination just doesn’t happen. Even in this world, you’d still expect some women to run into assholes who say mean things, some of which would be related to gender. You would expect that these women would talk about it more than those who don’t. If you don’t have good data, you can’t easily argue that sexism is pervasive just because you have anecdotes. Look up “An Intuitive Explanation of Bayes Theorum” if you don’t follow the logic. (Note: I am aware that there is a large amount of additional evidence that there is a societal sexism problem in at least some areas. But anecdotes are not that evidence, in general, unless you’ve got a statistically significant number of them).

        A somewhat unrelated point, and one to which I’d appreciate a response from the author or someone else who is knowledgeable. I play games, a lot. I play LoL a lot, renowned for its shitty community. In League, even making some *very* generous assumptions (that women are around 9 times more likely to play in a group than men or similar), I should statistically see a woman in at least 1 of 10 games. I have played several hundred games in the past few months alone, when I have much better memory and was aware of this issue and paying attention. Not even one single time have I seen a directly sexist remark directed towards someone assumed female (there are the occasional generic “you’re a girl and that’s bad” style insults, which are sexist and a problem, but not quite what I’m looking for; hell sometimes the response is “ya I am, so what?” Which is followed by generic insults the vast majority of the time. I guess bitch could count as sexist but honestly I get that insult a fair bit, and it’s always seemed gender neutral in target). I play with women, some of whom have girly usernames, and I still don’t ever see it happen. I never hear the girls I play with report that it’s happened, although I haven’t asked (I’ll do that tonight). I have heard many people who I trust to be reliable on this sort of thing say that there is a problem in the specific area of girls trying to play games and getting constant abuse. And yet I just never see it. Not in a confirmation bias of “it seems really rare” where that’s just because I’m a guy and see it less often. I’m multiplying by several orders of magnitude to correct for statistical biases and I still am not seeing it in my experiences. Can someone tell me why that is?

        Note: again, I am aware that sexism is a problem, and I see the evidence in other areas. Degree and symmetry of the problem is still a bit uncertain, but I’m pretty confident it’s something worth talking about in terms of impact. I’m absolutely certain that standard gender roles are full of problems (anecdotes actually work for this one pretty reliably and I’ve seen several). In short, don’t yell at me because my question is an enemy soldier lined up to do battle. Policy debates are *never* one-sided; if you won’t even consider ceding ground on any issue (doesn’t have to be this one; I could be legitimately wrong, or a statistical anomaly, or maybe it only affects a few women but hurts them really badly, or whatever) then that’s good evidence that your beliefs aren’t entangled with reality. Please just engage the question, preferably with some form of evidence (whatever made you believe what you believe is the only evidence that counts, so just tell me that).

        • Vesuvius says:

          Okay, so where to begin. Every woman I’ve ever gamed with has SOME story like this, we have countless women who have been industry mainstays coming forward, and you’d have to have your head in the sand to act as though ‘get me a sandwich’ or sexual propositioning, or sexual assault / harassment, or things of that ilk don’t happen with regularity. Or the bullshit ‘nice guy’ version, which is an overwhelming amount of creepy ‘buddying up’ with any woman who pops into a game intending to just kill some zombies, but instead being inundated with friend requests and questions about where she lives, is she single, and compliments based on her having a vagina.

          This is an industry that was founded by teens (many of the 90s game companies had large contingents of high schoolers programming for them) and aimed at teens. This is an industry where boob physics are a huge and gratuitous thing, and where it’s clear to anyone who looks that male characters are (mostly) designed to be someone you want to be, and women are (mostly) designed to be someone you’d want to fuck. The men are more empowered, their bodies are strong, they don’t get damsel-in-distress-style captured, and they have more to say to the women then vapid flirting- which is OFTEN not the case in reverse.

          Look at the sketchy free hugs guys at cons, or the folks who went to cons and openly petitioned women to let accept being groped, because, so the argument went, it would be EMPOWERING and post-sexual somehow (I kid you not, this happened), or the sexual harassment by key enforcers at PAX. Look at the Super Street Fighter tourney with the woman being (ha ha jokingly) threatened with RAPE, and being told be her superior on the team that she’d also be punished with sexually demeaning outfits. Look at Tropes vs. Women and the literally hundreds if not thousands of men who came out of the woodwork to harass and shout her down, and threaten her.

          And getting back to your own anecdotal comments about how few women you see in-game. Do you know what a huge reason is for you not seeing them? Because in my experience, many women hide their gender as much as possible in gaming to avoid this sort of shit.

          Yeah there are exceptions, and yeah there are a few who see this messed up system and milk the attention- buying into it and trying to get something from it- but by and large this is the factual account of the gaming industry’s history.

          Strippers brought in ‘for research’ (3dRealms), Booth babes, Statues of women’s busts as incentives, Nude raider mods, Harem interactions in games where every woman wants to be your girlfriend and all you have to do is choose (Mass Effect anyone?).

          Are you really hiding behind ‘well we can’t acknowledge this is a problem without MATHS’ with that sort of publicly available history? So what, what if it’s a vocal minority (which is incredibly doubtful given both that there’s plenty of evidence that companies participate in this stuff, and in that you need only look at one of the youtube dogpiles to see thousands of posters getting involved in these habits).. but let’s pretend it was a vocal minority- wouldn’t that be reason enough to address this and address it now?

          What reasonable excuse is there to act so tepidly and to respond with denial rather than even the more reasonable compromise with your position of “Yeah, clearly there’s some things going wrong, what can we do to determine the real scope of this and plan an attack to deal with it”?

          • Ritashi says:

            90% of your post was irrelevant to what I asked, falling under the “additional evidence” for sexism in other ways. Yes, women on the Internet who talk about sexism tend to get a bunch of crap (more crap than men who talk about it). Yes, sexism exists is a bunch of various areas you pointed out. And you must have misunderstood me if you thought y position was one of denial (more likely, you saw that I questioned a part of your ideology and decided that I was an enemy because I disagreed on something). Of course it’s an issue, in various ways, I said that in the post. Now we should talk about scope and location, then strategy.

            Incidentally, you only insult your own intelligence by claiming that you don’t need “maths” to support a position. Just because you don’t always have to see direct statistics doesn’t mean you never have to; sometimes you can do the math in your head, intuitively, but not always. Some issues, like much of sexism, are not subject to selection bias because the total space is small and you can see enough to override a selection effect. Some issues in sexism, like the personal experiences of women, are heavily subject to a selection bias. Women don’t tend to speak up unless there’s a problem, so you only tend to hear about the problems, and only from the loudest and angriest people who do run into problems. This is not evidence *against* a wide-spread problem, but neither is it much evidence for one. Other evidence for one does exist, but anecdotes are not that evidence unless you have a very large number (and no, you don’t).

            Finally, you make 2 points relevant to my post. One, that women hide their gender. Technically this requires a scientific study to test, but honestly *everyone* on the Internet hides their gender. I rarely state that I’m male; it’s assumed sure, which is yet another point of sexism, but it just doesn’t come up. Expressing that you’re a girl in a random game when you’re not say in a guild and explicitly being social is usually attention-seeking behavior. You’d only say it if you wanted people to pay attention to the fact that you’re a girl. Just like no one ever says “I’m Hispanic” because that’s irrelevant most of the time.

            Second, that being creepy and super “nice” to girls is also sexist. This is true. I also don’t spot that behavior.

          • Onishi says:

            I would say one of the big issues in this topic, there’s no way to filter between whether the gaming community is filled with sexist people, or just assholes. Yup every female in gaming has no shortage of experience being called a slut, or having harrasing things said to them etc…

            Guess what, every guy on XBox live, has had someone call him gay (or some variant of), heard numerous comments of what was done to his mother, has had violence threatened against him etc…

            Anyone who plays games with voice chat involving your enemies, with an accent, has most likely been called the appropriate racial slurs for that race, no shortage of times in online games.

            In my opinion, it isn’t that there is sexism in the anonymous arena of gaming… it’s jerks.

            In my view, instead of focusing on “how do we protect women”, “how do we protect blacks” etc…. We need to shift the focus, instead of playing an always losing game of whack a mole on every seperate group, which only further is designed to emphasize and point out the insignificant differences, we need to instead change the goal “How can we get gamers to treat eachother like human beings”, and stop pretending like this is 500 different problems.

          • drvoke says:

            Why do we need a bunch of scientific studies in order to acknowledge a problem? You know what? I didn’t even think about this issue when I was first exposed to it, but now that I know that many women don’t feel included or feel excluded, I’ve decided to pay closer attention to my own actions and the actions of those I associate with in order to not be part of the problem. Strange that I never needed some complex study to justify being an empathetic human being… maybe there is something deeply wrong with me.

          • dbreed says:

            So it has to be an all or nothing approach, Onishi? Either we address all of the problems at once, or we address none of them?

          • bjohndooh says:

            “How can we get gamers to treat each other like human beings?”

            For one line, I think that about sums up my feelings.
            I know many people don’t even try to socialize while gaming, unless it’s within their clique.

            Any perceived abnormality is commonly faced with antagonistic behavior.
            I don’t think the online gaming community is actually the root cause here, but it is especially toxic.

          • Droopy The Dog says:

            @dbreed – You don’t address the problem, you address the cause. Hence why it’s important to differentiate between slurs caused by sexism and ones caused unrepentant douchebaggery. They are different causes which in turn require different reactions to correct.

          • dbreed says:

            And what might those different reactions be? I’m asking because, in my mind, an “unrepentant douchebag” and someone who makes demeaning sexist remarks are one and the same.

          • Tasloi says:

            @dbreed They are one and the same which is why Onishi is correct. It’s just one problem manifesting itself in various ways. Lifting out one of these ways (sexist remarks vs women) to deal with until it’s fixed and we can move on to the next one is pointless. Not to mention an approach like this breeds resentment (MRAs).

            I’ve been listening attentively to feminists saying how we should always strive to do better and how men’s issues are taken very seriously. With that in mind i’m surprised (not really) not more people have made the point Onishi made.

          • Droopy The Dog says:

            When someone saying “stupid bitch” is caused by firmly held sexist beliefs that women are inherently crueler or less intelligent it needs some form of education on how the grounds those beliefs are built upon are false, preferably without antagonizing them to the point that they disregard what you say.

            When someone says “stupid bitch” because they derive pleasure from hurting others and a have a general lack of empathy towards anyone (what I generally class as the “douche” cause)… Well, shit I’m not sure of how best to better a douche, especially an unrepentant one. I imagine it takes a lot to get to that point and it’ll take even more to get back, find one small thing they can empathize with and slowly try to build links from that to the rest of society? Point them towards a harmless outlet for their more malicious urges and hope they’re less of a dick and more willing to change once they’re spent?

            My best bet is engaging with people around you before they start acting like complete douches and steering them away as best you can, and hope that everyone else does the same.

            Telling them they’re being sexist and having a serious discussion about gender issues though? That probably just gives them a big red sign saying that sexist remarks are an extremely effective way to hurt people.

          • dbreed says:

            So we aren’t allowed to discuss sexism when we overhear someone call a girl a dirty slut online. Gotcha. I’ll also assume we aren’t allowed to discuss racism when we hear someone called a dumb nigger, and we also can’t discuss homophobia when we hear someone called a stupid fag. Because if we did, the people making those comments wouldn’t take us seriously, since no one on the Internet is really a racist or a sexist or a homophobe, they’re just a “douchebag”. Is that about right?

            Onishi is right in saying that the root cause of these problems is because of one reason: that people are not nice to each other. But guess what? You can say that about literally every single problem we face in the world today. Torture? If people were nice to each other, it wouldn’t happen. Starvation? If we were just nicer, it wouldn’t happen. Child poverty? If only we could be nice to each other, it wouldn’t exist. It’s a lovely sentiment, and it’s also a useless one because it doesn’t allow anything to get done.

            You know what’s helpful? Pointing out that people could be nicer to each other by refraining from doing certain things. Certain things like attacking people’s gender, or their sexual orientation, or their race. Droopy, you’ve made the point repeatedly that just using racist or sexist words doesn’t make you a racist or a sexist if the intent behind them isn’t racist or sexist. This argument is pure horseshit. Racism is attacking someone because of their race, so if you get angry and call someone a stupid beaner, then you just made a racist comment. I know your argument is that you were just using it to make someone angry, but the reason it would make someone angry is because it’s a racist remark. Also, you seem to be defining whether or not something is racist or sexist by the way the person using the word thinks about that word. But what about the person they’re attacking? Do they not get a say in whether or not what was said to them is more than just someone being a jerk? If a girl gets called a loose slut, is she not allowed to think that was a sexist remark and be upset about being attacked because of her gender? Your logic seems to give all of the power to the attacker and none to the victim.

            No one is suggesting that this is the only problem that we focus on right now. I’m sure that the people who are making this documentary don’t think that we should ignore the other problems that we face in the gaming community, or in the world at large. It’s just that this is the one issue that they’ve decided to tackle, because it’s more effective to focus on something specific than to just say we should all be nice to each other. If you feel that these other issues are a problem, then maybe you should follow the example of these people and do something to try and raise awareness. No one is going to stop you. No woman is going to come up to you and scream, “We can’t talk about homophobia right now! It’s all about women!” In fact, I’m sure you would receive support from other groups who are fighting for different cause, but who are all trying to reach the same goal, which is to get people to be nicer to each other. This tends to happen in the real world, like the AFL-CIO and the ABA supporting gay marriage in the US, even though those two organizations have nothing to do with gay marriage.

          • Droopy The Dog says:

            No, unfortunately that isn’t “about right” it’s so far from about right I’m struggling to understand how you got there. My entire point was not that you don’t ever talk about it, I even stated very clearly in the very first paragraph that when it’s sexism it’s best to discuss things. (Without being confrontational, hyperbolic, condescending or generally counter productive. A point I now believe is especially pertinent to you)

            You’ve adopted an overly simplistic view of one root cause, why I don’t know, perhaps not being able to adopt one stance on everything seemed like too much hard work for you. Sorry if that sounds like a rude assumption but if you had the time to write such a long sarcastic response without examining your own views even once, you’ve temporarily lost the respect required not to assume the worst of you. Regardless, it’s not one root cause. I’ve listed two quite distinct causes already. I’ll try to explain in more detail how I believe they’re distinct.

            There are a kind of people who genuinely believe gender comes tied with various other completely unrelated traits. People whom when given a male and female employee who by every available metric are equally talented will promote the male first because they have the idea that all women deal with pressure badly. They may even believe they have some anecdotal “evidence” from their past experiences with other women. They may be exceedingly kind to the female employee in question. But they still underestimated her because of her gender, despite evidence to the contrary. Which is what makes them sexist, even though they were “being nice to each other” as you put it. This is the kind of person who maybe if you present with the facts in a way more convincing than their own anecdotal experiences might change their ways.

            Then there is the kind of person in whom anonymity brings out utter misanthropy. Who hates people for insignificant reasons like someone beat them at a game, or disagreed with them. Whom by default adopts the position that other people don’t matter to them. Who if they’re annoyed and they find out someone’s a woman will spew gendered insults, if they find out someone’s gay will spew homophobic insults, and race will lead to racial epitaphs. They’re not doing it because they didn’t know they were wrong and hurtful things to say, they’re doing it because they know all too well that they are. They know and for whatever reason they enjoy the feeling of power over someone else’s emotions far more than they feel an remorse for malicious behaviour. Like I say, I don’t even know what a truly effective response to that is. I’ve never fully understood that kind of psyche but I do at least get that when someone has reached the point where they actively want to hurt someone, telling them what they’re doing is hurtful is no deterrent at all. So yeah “pointing out things are hurtful” isn’t actually always helpful, sometimes you’re just giving them tips on how to be more effectively malicious.

            Now for the second half, which seems to be a debate you’ve started up again because you were uncomfortable with the one at hand. Nothing about what I said even implied a “one issue at a time” approach, I just said if you go about misinterpreting the root causes of a behaviour then you’re going to approach the situation all wrong. As in treating a misanthrope as a sexist doesn’t work, nor does treating a sexist like a misanthrope. If you follow through, the actual implication of wanting both dealt with correctly is that I’d actually like all of the issues to receive the attention they deserve.

            As for the empowering the attacker not the victim stuff, that’s just nonsense. There’s no power being apportioned either way by accurately reflecting the intent behind the slur, if it was racially/gender/etc. motivated then it’s racist/sexist/etc. the attacker has absolutely no say in it either.

          • dbreed says:

            My point I was making about tackling more than one issue at a time was actually addressing a comment made earlier by Tasloi, not about anything you said. Sorry for the confusion.

            As to the rest of your post, your argument is still not convincing. You’re trying to make this artificial divide between a person who follows your definition of sexism and a person who’s just a “misanthrope”. In my mind, if a person gets angry at someone online, finds out she’s a girl, and calls her a bitch or a slut, that person is guilty of sexism. They are using words that are meant to demean and degrade her because of her gender. You say their intent was just to be mean, but I say that their intent to be mean is accomplished by being sexist. Someone doesn’t have to go around wearing a shirt that says I AM SEXIST on it to be seen as being sexist. Your actions and your words show you for what you are. The anonymity of the Internet doesn’t change any of this. In fact, I would say it puts your true feelings out on display since you can hide behind that anonymity without fear of reprisal.

            You say you don’t know what to do about these “misanthropes”, and I agree that it’s a difficult problem to solve. People have been treating each other like shit for as long as we’ve been around, but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible to do something about it. Discussions like the one being had in the gaming community right now about sexism are an important part of the solution, because it brings the problem to the fore and illuminates it for people who maybe weren’t aware of it, or who were aware but didn’t give it much thought. Once you do that, you can hopefully begin to change people’s attitudes and make them less tolerant of this kind of behavior. If you do that enough, then eventually you don’t have to change the minds of the “misanthropes”, because the community as a whole will be hostile to their behavior and will not let them participate. To try to use an analogy, racism in the US wasn’t eradicated by the Civil Rights movement by any means, but it certainly succeeded in making people more tolerant of one another and, for the most part, making overt racism socially unacceptable.

            As for your last paragraph, I would invite you to go up to a black person on the street, call them a nigger, and then explain that it wasn’t racially motivated. Please let me know how it works out.

          • Droopy The Dog says:

            Fair enough, we have different definitions of what constitutes sexist behaviour. I’m trying to base mine off the internal process of the perpetrator is, defining it as sexist only when motivated by a genuinely held false preconception about genders. It neatly divides people along the line of those who can be shown the error of their preconceptions and stop the behaviour and those who don’t care that it’s wrong or even what type of discrimination they employ, just that it hurts, so I find it useful.

            I’m thinking yours is any action that involves using gender as an implied insult or with negative connotations. I see no problem that we differ on that, I’m of the opinion that semantics isn’t important as long as everything is defined at some point.

            Thanks for a civil and reasonable response, I realise I stooped a bit below cordial in my own reply so I appreciate the effort remain calm in the face of that.

            Heh, as for the last experiment, that’s probably not the best way to open that debate with anyone. :P I do believe if I approached the subject more tactfully at first then argued that “if I called you nigger now, it might not be specifically racist, I might just be an all-round total asshole” at least someone would agree with that. Not everyone, people obviously define it differently and that’s not a problem.

          • Onishi says:

            I am not saying that we don’t ignore the individual issues seperately, but I do fully believe it is universal. Research needs to be done to get the issue as a whole. The problem IMO with the approach many feminists are using in relation to this subject in their “research” is that they are ignoring 80% of the picture.

            Out of 10,000 women we interviewed, all of them had been called a gender slur. Now are you going to bother having a comparison to find out if 10,000 guys have also been called names intended to be hateful as well? Nope, we are going to conclude this is a conspiracy by men to keep games an all boys club, we have all the data we need.

            Want a real study… start doing background checks on a few of the abusers. I would bet most of them, aren’t specifically targeting women, though they may have a preference towards the one around that they feel is most likely to be hurt by words. Which I suppose that assumption does fall into sexism, but if you ask me that is a stereotype this, the tropes project etc… are pushing themselves. Nothing draws trolls, jerks etc… faster than yelling out loud “PEOPLE ARE BEING MEAN TO ME ON THE INTERNET!!!”, and then when the harrasment doubles on you saying “See I knew it, they don’t want their conspiracy to keep it a boys club discovered so they are trying to harass me away”.

            It doesn’t matter who you are, what you stand for, what your gender, race, orientation etc… is. If you feed the trolls, they come back for more. If you feed the trolls, and then draw as much extra attention to your feeding of the trolls, you just drew more in.

            But the real thing is, if you want the root cause, if you want to understand the problem. The solution isn’t within the victims. The solution isn’t within people thowing hundreds of thousands of dollars into kickstarter “research” projects, that seem to do nothing but talk to more victims, and limit your victims to one tiny sect… You want to know why trolls like trolling… talk to the damn trolls, and stop assuming the silent 90% of guys, are working with the 10% or less that are this type.

        • dbreed says:

          First paragraph: “You can’t use anecdotes to prove that sexism in the gaming world is a problem.”

          Second paragraph: “Here are my anecdotes about why sexism in the gaming world isn’t a problem.”

        • Cranz Julian says:

          Well, well, well, if it isn’t Commander Data: Rape Apologist.

          • Droopy The Dog says:

            Shit, really? Damn, I loved Brent Spiner…

          • qinlaidan says:

            That’s a rather silly excuse. Such behaviour should not be regular for anyone. This is how these safe clubs are established in the first place – “if you don’t like it, get out, we have done this forever”.

        • GunnerMcCaffrey says:

          That was an awful lot of words to say “I don’t really trust women.”

        • Ritashi says:

          Seriously guys? I mean, seriously? I ask for an explanation for why my anecdotes don’t fit a model that mostly seems correct, and everyone straight up attacks me (even after I specifically warned against that exact failure mode in my post, alongside a paragraph about how I still agree the evidence is clear in other areas)? None of you want to bother to tell me why you believe what you believe. This isn’t a hard concept. Just realize that arguments are not soldiers and just because something supports your claim doesn’t make it true and something against it isn’t automatically false. Moreover, no side is ever 100% right in any discussion. (not even the Nazis were wrong about everything, and not every policy they enforced was evil. But that doesn’t mean that Nazis weren’t evil. Am I going to get called a holocaust-apologist now?) Hell, I even offered a fully general counter argument to my observations; statistical anomaly.

          And for those who think that using real data is evil when you can see that “evil thing x” is happening, how many of you have ever donated something to Africa? You figure you helped out, right? Odds are, if you didn’t do a lot of research first, you made things worse. Check out if you want to find truly effective charities. You can’t just rely on your intuitions; they’re usually wrong. Check out the book Heuristics and Biases for details on the science of how people make bad decisions systematically.

          Also, some of the responses are clear flaming and troll bait. Can we get some moderation to keep this civil?

          • Senethro says:

            You’re a statistical anomaly to the degree that people are concluding you are insincere or stupid. I hope that in itself is useful information to you.

          • zin33 says:

            i completely agree with your points and its clear some of the people that replied didnt even understand what you were saying
            its a topic thats very emotional for a lot of people so normally arguing here is not a productive endeavor :p

            but as youve said when it comes to gaming itself, on most online games you dont know / care about the other players gender so that goes unnoticed. and when that comes to light due to voice chat or something ive never seen any negative reaction towards that girl in particular
            obviously sometimes some guys will react to that but i believe thats mostly because of how rare girls are in most games

          • GunnerMcCaffrey says:

            Since it seems like you’re actually sincere, I’ll put aside a bit of exhaustion to say that while what you’ve written here all comes from a genuine place, it’s also something that happens again and again – “Let’s not act on sexism until there is DATA to PROVE it rather than all these EMOTIONS and STORIES” – that it’s basically a square an the anti-feminist Bingo card. I know you think you’re making original points, and certainly they feel original to you, but in aggregate these kinds of arguments and insistence on being more “rational” and methodical or what have you that come up again and again and again (and again and again) basically constitute a giant wall that wears down any attempts to address misogyny.

            Anyway, I honestly don’t know what it is you’re proposing here, or what new information is supposed to be the result. “Scientific experiments” to establish the presence of sexism? Can you honestly not see how that came across as pure trolling?

            You’re probably getting a lot of sarcastic responses because a lot of people are, frankly, fucking exhausted of these kinds of privileged, lazy, self-congratulatory mental gymnastics. You say you agree sexism exists in one sentence but then devote four hundred more sentences to arguing why we need to move up the tech tree for a few dozen more turns before we act as if we know sexism exists.

            The stories of nearly every single woman I know plus a basic bloody awareness of the world around me has been enough to convince me misogyny is a genuine issue. “But wait have you asked Science,” however well-intentioned it might be, comes across as nothing but tiresome foot-dragging wrapped up in well-worn sophistry and liberal “Let’s hear both sides of the story” bullshit.

            It’s nothing personal. It’s what you’re saying that I find literally tiring because there is nothing new or helpful in it at all. Neutrality, moving train, etc.

          • Droopy The Dog says:

            I’m confused, the majority people are finally confident enough to say misogyny exists to some degree in some places. Hurrah, problem solved, lets go home?

            This isn’t a binary situation, at some point you need details: Where is it worst? Who is most easily influenced to act upon it? What preventative measures work best? It’s a simple premise that anecdotes can’t answer those questions accurately.

            I can get that you’re frustrated that arguments for more in depth study can seem to hold things up, and I’m not doubting your desire to help fix things. But claiming a desire for actual in depth analysis acts as a wall against eliminating misogyny is, well intentioned, but a recipe for long-term failure. It’s the first step in a truly effective solution. Studying the situation doesn’t preclude acting on it in the mean time, by all means take steps now whilst you’re gathering data and see how it pans out. Hell, that’s necessary in studying methods for fixing it. But taking blind stabs and never taking a moment to take a good look at things without the blinkers? That’s a bodge, and you can’t bodge it just because you’re pissed and you want it fixed next week. Quick fixes rarely last, and I’d rather start work on a more permanent solution before all the duct tape falls off than after. Hence why I can’t fathom why people are opposed to really investigating the numbers at the same time as fixing the easy, glaring cases.

            Also, kinda confrontational in your analysis there. You know what’s more lazy and privileged than discussing ideas for how to best fix things? Not saying anything because it’s not his problem, so don’t mislabel their intentions just because you’re too “fucking exhausted” to put yourself in their position/think of a better reason you don’t agree with them. I have a simple maxim I follow; if you’re too tired to be involved in a public debate 100%, don’t bother at all, because you won’t solve anything by phoning it in and the extra chaff only gets in the way of real discussion.

          • Fred S. says:

            OK, so what are we supposed to do? I’m an antisocial loner on the internet. I don’t participate in social crap anyway, so if you’re looking for guys who commit sexism you’ll have to look elsewhere. Must I atone for the behavior of people who aren’t me? Forget that.

          • Plint says:

            Well, hello there fellow Less Wrong reader. I’ve encountered so few! Let’s bask in the warm glow of group identity.

            You’re braver than me, trying to go out into the world and engage issues like this using the language of the Sequences. Which is admirable, but I would say, humbly (because I would say the same of myself), that you may not have a sufficiently complete understanding of the rationalist principles you are trying to apply here.

            It’s just that admonishing other participants in conversation for being unable to ” tell me why you believe what you believe” or to “realize that your arguments are not soldiers” are only really effective ways of calling attention to fallacious thinking when everyone knows those terms. You’re saying things that make sense internally, but not everyone’s read about the Fundamental Question of Rationality or Yudkowsky’s “Policy Debates Should Not Appear One-Sided” article. And honestly, I’m not certain that many of those principles are even very relevant here. As it is, you’re just saying “I’ve read this thing! This thing was right!”

            Which is basically, to use another LW term in response, a form of Guessing the Teacher’s Password. You have discovered a thing to say, which when said means you are Right. And it’s probably the most common failure mode of people trying to apply these rationalist ideas. Knowing About Biases Can Hurt People is the one to refer to here, I think. I believe it’s among the most important articles in the entire set. That doesn’t mean that the people criticizing your arguments are right, nor that they’re wrong, just that the very natural cognitive tendency that they seem to indicate (“If I put enough Science and Reason words in these posts, how could anyone object to them?”) is not going to be effective. Frankly, your post here sounds almost like parody: the term “failure mode” AND two paraphrased LW article titles in the space of three sentences? (notwithstanding how I’ve mentioned like, four of them…) And a defensive “why can’t you understand how inadequate your puny human psychology is?” tone? Ouch.

            Anyways, if I sound like, or am, a pretentious prick, I genuinely apologize. This sort of thing is hard. That’s kind of the point.

          • Senethro says:

            Thanks Plint, I was really puzzled by how he seemed to be investing greater meaning in some terms than I was familiar with, but I couldn’t work out where he was coming from.

        • ChiefInspectorLee says:

          But I *hate* science

        • Jayblanc says:

          “Policy debates are never one sided”?

          Seriously? No. Just no. That’s flat out wrong. This hasn’t been the case for every single civil rights equality issue. No progress was ever made in civil rights by compromising or conceding anything to those who didn’t want equality.

          Every. Single. Civil. Rights. Equality. Issue.

          There is no compromise. There is no looking at the “other point of view”. There is no conceding ground.

          Equality or F*** Off.

          • Plint says:

            I’m afraid this is a point of confusion. The text from which that phrase is lifted is not referring to the moral righteousness of each side of a debate, but to the fact that people feel a need to support all arguments that favor positions that they hold already, regardless of the quality of those arguments. It doesn’t mean that we have to say “well, maybe injustice is a little ok” just to be fair or something.

            The idea is that people think of arguments as “soldiers” they send into battle with the evil forces of their political adversaries. Agreeing with an “enemy” argument or criticizing a “friendly” one means betrayal. It’s explicitly about policy debates, not debates between proponents of different moral values.

            Sooo… It’s not really relevant in this conversation about sexism in games. Everyone who’s even remotely reasonable in this conversation is probably unlikely to say, at least not intentionally, “well, actually sexism is awesome! I do hate women!” Now, if we were talking about specific things we could make people do to make this situation better, through changing laws or social codes or whatever, it’d be a thing to keep in mind.

          • Droopy The Dog says:

            Yeah, you seem confused about what a “Policy debate” is. It’s not just a debate about deal with sexism vs. ignore sexism, which once you accept sexism is wrong boils down to one side. It’s also about how you best deal with it, to which there are many sides of differing opinions. That’s why the debate is there, to ostensibly figure out which one has the strongest rational backup.

            For example, Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. disagreed on many things about how the African-American civil rights movement should progress, but I’m going to go out on a limb here and say neither of them had “but think of the white supremacists” as a reason for disagreeing with the other.

            The idea that any kind of disagreement with an anti sexism opinion can only come from a pro sexism standpoint is exactly the entrenched ideology that Ritashi seems to be preemptively warning against. Sometimes when someone disagrees with a “sexism is bad, here’s how we fix it” they’re not disagreeing with the “sexism is bad” part, only the “here’s how we fix it”.

        • Alcator says:

          To respond to the discussion whether attacks against girls are sexism or just douchebaggery:

          Right now, the most popular online multiplayer games feature voice chat, and many of them rely on it heavily. Try playing left4dead without a mike and you will get votekicked in 5 seconds.
          Your voice reveals your gender in >95% of cases, therefore, whether you are a girl or a boy will be apparent very quickly. To a lesser extent, it reveals your nationality (at least in the “native speaker vs. non-native speaker” way), and, if you have an especially strongly race-colored voice, your race may also be revealed.

          Your sexual orientation is not revealed by voice-chat.

          The amount of animosity between competing players in the most popular game franchise is high and should be addressed in such a way that it, over time, reduces. However, question remains HOW to address it, because it is true that if we identify the root causes incorrectly, then the proposed solutions may not work efficiently.

          In football/soccer, there was a strong racism exhibited at international matches. A series of TV spots, plus some ceremonies at the stadiums, plus draconic punishments for those stadiums where racist behavior exceeding certain level, helped reduce the problem, or at least its public visibility.

          I wonder if online matches in all games should start with a white text on black background that will say “Treat your opponents respectfully. At a keyboard, mouse, or controller, we are all equal. let the best player win!”. I wonder if it will require Gabe Newell to publicly speak on this topic (he actually already went on record saying that jerks should pay double for their games, while well-behaving people who promote community and extend the lifetime of a game should get it cheaper), or if it will really take draconic global ban lists for jerks.

          It makes sense to focus on the topic of girls in games, because:
          1) they are 50% of the population and by fixing their position, the industry could experience a dramatic boost in sales, which is further beneficial for niche genres or game styles.
          2) the fact that they are girls is easiest to discover in mainstream games, so they are the easiest to target
          3) it might actually bring a much needed change in the content of the games that are being created (“damsel-in-distress” / “bit tits” characters), further benefiting the entire industry. God knows movie industry needs this too, but movies are screwed for entirely different reasons, which do not apply to gaming.

          TL;DR version: I wonder if online matches should start with

          Treat your opponents with respect. They are all using controllers just like you. Here, we are all equal. May the best player win!

  2. Mimiloki says:

    When a kid calling you a “fat slut” this is not about women. This is a stupid kid. I was like him when I was a kid. Stop listening kids.

    Sorry for bad english.

    • SanguineAngel says:

      Might there be a deeper societal problem that prompts children such as that to refer to women as “fat sluts”? because I cannot imagine that came out of thin air. If there is a deeper problem, then perhaps we should be addressing that on all fronts

      • Asherie says:

        From my experience, kids say whatever they know will offend you. They call every guy gay/homo/faggot/fat/wanker/ no-lifer/no girlfriend/I could go on… and any woman/girl fat/slut/virgin/lesbo (cuz anyone girl who doesnt wanna hook up with a 12 yr old boy is obviosly a lesbian…haha[sarcasm here guys])

        Representation of woman (and men to some extent) in videogames is just unacceptable right now, but things are looking up. The xbox live messages/steam messages etc will only change once parents/families/teachers all learn how to be good role models. It only takes one bad set of parents to produce a foul mouthed child and he then spreads his attitude to any kid that fears/respects him at school.
        ((or her*))

        [All my opinions, I produce no evidence or sources, and am open to debate]

        • jellydonut says:

          Kids are just assholes you can’t punch.

          • BooleanBob says:

            Hahahaha. So true.


            Wait, you can’t ? Shit, I gotta make some calls.

    • Apocalypse says:

      Actually it is. And until people realize this, we will have this problem. Discrimination is pattern that starts in our minds, and the little things that form our minds are important. The little things matter, which is unfortunate for us, but can not be changed.

      • Ricochet64 says:

        No. It’s not sexism, it’s a kid who knows what’s offensive and annoying. Taking them seriously will only make them do it more.

        • P.Funk says:

          So if I call a black guy the N word its not racist if I’m only trying to piss him off?

          • Fred S. says:

            Well, that depends. If you’re black yourself, then it’s just expressing the essential cameraderie of your shared hue. But if you’re white, then it’s racist even if you’re just a fan of rap music who is unaware of the Rules for Referring To Persons Of Color.

          • Droopy The Dog says:

            Well, yes. If you don’t actually believe there’s any kind of inherent stigma that comes with skin colour but you’re just doing it because you know the word causes anguish, then it’s not racism on your part. The word is hurtful because racism at large exists, but from you it’s whatever-made-you-want-to-hurt-them-ism or just general misanthropy. They’re still not good things but the best response is different from actual racism, where gaining their trust and educating them that people of any race are both wildly different and capable of anything can fix things.

            Oh, sorry, was that rhetorical? Did you think that was an indefensible position or something?

    • AndreTheTinny_withagiantdick says:


      (comment written by a male)

      • Mimiloki says:

        Go and eat soup

      • Arithon says:

        I think you mean “The Fat Slags” – the comic strip characters.
        If you want fatter than the USA, there’s only two countries in the world you’ll find them – Tonga and Micronesia. The UK only just makes the top ten. As mythical as the whole “bad teeth” nonsense or the Dick Van Dyke “English” accent….

        • nitehawk says:

          New slogan: “UK: Less Fat than USA”

          You know, that doesn’t really paint a flattering picture…

        • ucfalumknight says:

          OOOOOOOOOOOOO, itsa jawly hawlyday wit Mary!

          • Frisky Dingo says:

            I have to say I prefer Dick’s drawl over the real thing.

    • Focksbot says:

      “When a kid calling you a “fat slut” this is not about women. This is a stupid kid. ”

      Dude, it’s about the fact that we teach kids that there are special insults you can use specifically for women, and that being a ‘slut’ is shameful in the first place. Kids don’t go round trolling men by saying, “Ha ha I bet you have sex with a lot of girls, dontcha?”

      • povu says:

        No, they call the guys gay instead. Calling women lesbian isn’t an insult that is really common, so you get slut. Same idea though, kids using their limited vocabulary to insult people. Because they’re kids, so they’re stupid.

        • Focksbot says:

          If your point is we teach kids that being gay is shameful as well, then I agree.

          If your point is that men get it just as bad because we get called ‘gay’, then we’re talking at cross purposes.

      • WrenBoy says:

        Kids don’t go round trolling men by saying, “Ha ha I bet you have sex with a lot of girls, dontcha?”

        A simple case of supply and demand surely?

        (Edited for clarity)

      • Dan says:

        Yeah, it’s not having sex that’s shameful, it’s having sex with *men* that’s shameful, according to the juvenile mind. So, dudes are called faggot and women are called slut and lesbians … win? I think they win, the lucky slu– ah, shit, now I’m doing it, too.

      • Ricochet64 says:

        That issue is completely natural. In the wild, it’s best for men to fertilize as many women as possible, and for women to carefully decide which man is the best mate. That’s why it’s considered shameful for men to not have sex, or have sex with men, and for women to have sex with men without care for which is the best. This isn’t sexism. This is nature.

        • WrenBoy says:

          While I agree with you that the different standards result from differences in human biology there is nothing inherently foolish with people trying to change culture. Especially given the relative ease of modern family planning.

          • Kettelrino says:

            >”While I agree with you that the different standards result from differences in human biology there is nothing inherently foolish with people trying to change culture. Especially given the relative ease of modern family planning.”

            Biology =/= Culture

          • WrenBoy says:

            You seriously dont believe that culture can be linked to biology?

          • Kettelrino says:


            I believe that mainly it is biology that defines culture. The big underlying bases of it, at least.
            You can only change so much, and after decades or rather generations, have we seen big change in these deeprooted urges?
            And does it get more primal than sexual behaviour?
            I don’t believe women themselves feel like “sluts” (i.e. they perceive themselves as sexually irresponsible) because everyone tells them to.
            They just have inherently higher standards/requirements because they have so much more to lose biologically speaking.

          • WrenBoy says:


            Biology =/= Culture

            I believe that mainly it is biology that defines culture.

            Its almost as if the only common theme in your contradictory argument is that slut shaming should be just accepted.

        • Focksbot says:

          “That issue is completely natural. In the wild, it’s best for men to fertilize as many women as possible, and for women to carefully decide which man is the best mate.”

          That is some grade A horseshit. Kids are not born with some automatic understanding of prehistoric survival tactics. They get taught that women sleeping with multiple men is shameful by the culture around them, because it’s a culture that still wants to control women’s behaviour far more than it does men’s.

          • Kettelrino says:

            How the fuck do salmon know, where to swim for mating and dieing?

          • Canisa says:

            Salmon know where to go because they’ve been there before and they remember the directions. Also, comparing humans to salmon doesn’t particularly make sense.

          • Focksbot says:

            You cannot seriously be suggesting that a child born and raised in some remote tribe or even raised in the wild by wolves automatically knows to point at a woman who sleeps with multiple men and call her names.

            This is getting desperate.

          • jpvg says:

            Aha lets assume it is not a perception you’re born with through biology, why is she a slut in 99% of all human cultures? They didn’t originate from the same point after all?

            Fancy statement about your approach to logic.

        • Canisa says:

          It is not a natural issue at all. In Ancient Greece for example, women were perceived as desiring sex more than men, in a complete reversal of our current mores. In addition to this, ‘slut’ is a word used to shame any woman who acts on any sexual desire whatsoever, it does not just apply to promiscuous women, but also women who have the audacity to make the initial advances of a monogamous relationship.

          Assuming you’re correct about your “Men should sleep around, women should be selective” (You’re not. More on that later.) Then in the event that a woman makes her careful decision, she should then be able to make advances on the man she has selected in order to secure him, rather than just passively waiting in the hope he decides to make an advance on her. However, this is not the case, as she will be slut-shamed for doing that.

          Also, it is undesirable for a man to produce a lot of children with many different women, since those children will then become very difficult to support; see the many problems faced by single mothers when men walk out on them. While this one man seeks in vain to assist in the raising of his many children, the labour surplus of all the other men in the tribe is being wasted. Thus tribes that practice monogamous breeding will be more successful, as they make more efficient use of the energy of their members. Note that if it were preferable for one man to mate with many women, the gender balance would not be equal, rather it would match the optimum male/female breeding ratio.

          • Sirbolt says:

            This is just a little nitpick here, but generally the tribes I’ve read about with non-monogamous relationships, such as the Montagnais Indian (before the Jesuits got hold of them), are the ones where children are raised by the tribe, thus no resources get wasted.

        • Jupiah says:

          “In the wild?” I wasn’t aware that humans had become domesticated.

    • GSGregory says:

      Except it is not just the kid doing it but adults, employers, fellow employees.

    • whoistheprotagonistofthehalflifeseries says:

      The idea is correct but the point of view in this #reason discussion is just wrong. Gaming, especially online gaming, is a competition situation discouraging all things human to the outmost extreme.
      Without any real feedback channels that would allow for the development of empathy and insight within the competition situation you are completely socially detached from your opponent and your teammembers alike.

      It makes perfect sense to single out perceived weaknesses of your opponents. In case of women there’s a lot of negative things stacking up from a social science point of view.

      1. Gaming is in conflict with the still prevailing role model of a woman being modest, pretty and social. This conflict arises from the general publics idea of gaming being antisocial and competitional. This leads to peer pressure. i.e. women from the non gamer world frown upon gamergirls.
      Of course this is wrong and a sign of inequality and a conformist society that does not favor individualism.

      2. You can pick on women for not behaving like “they should” according to their rolemodel. Mostly due to the fact that women, taking a generally deeper interest in social conformity and most important – judging their peers. Whether that’s genetics or part of the role model is unknown.

      3. Everybody gets picked on in gaming because it is antisocial and competitive. I know we don’t like to think about it this way but it’s lacking so many of the traditional social channels that it is rather puzzling to see people apply rules of social conduct to this medium.

      4. Gaming is the kind of situation that makes calm, conscious and reflected people start wars. You don’t see the enemy, you don’t know the enemy, you don’t have any sympathy for the enemy because of the first two reasons and you feel carried and spurred by a social consensus of conformity and the sense to outcompete someone. Therefore you try to strike low and hard to show superiority. Doesn’t matter if it is a cruise missile into the frontyard or picking on gender, race, sexuality or subpar penile length.

      Bad english, sorry dafür

    • RedViv says:

      That’s a rather silly excuse. Such behaviour should not be regular for anyone. This is how these safe clubs are established in the first place – “if you don’t like it, get out, we have done this forever”.
      Especially excusing kids for not behaving all right, just because they’re kids. Just extend that line of logic and examine it. You should never shrug off any kind of possible improvement in a person’s behaviour, and it only gets more dangerous if you do so during that person’s formative periods (around 5 to 9, and then from puberty to settling of growth) when behaviour can become extremely deeply engrained.

  3. Saul says:

    Good stuff. I for one will be really interested to see how this turns out. I have no idea what the first couple of comments (above) are talking about.

    • Saul says:

      Oh, could you throw in a direct link to the KS, John?

    • analydilatedcorporatestyle says:

      To be fair not the sort of thing I’d actually watch or indeed back but never the less good luck to them. It will have Americans in it no doubt so will be ‘totes amazeballs’ to those who like to watch/listen to women talk about misogynistic teenage ingame chat rants. (I do hope it covers more than just sexism towards gamers and covers the disparity that exists in the industry. I know that John has put up stats that clearly show this disparity, well to me it was clear though to many others they were stats of ill repute!)

      • GSGregory says:

        You realize that your attitude is the problem, right?

        • analydilatedcorporatestyle says:

          Elucidate please.

          I take it by your use of the Zed or Zee to you you are of American descent.

          I am not a fan in general of the overly dramatic American documentary style. I was being flippant about the style likely to be implemented not the subject matter!

  4. vim says:

    Good, we need more movies about games and everything around them :).

  5. Mr. Mister says:

    It should be TOGTFO.

  6. Screamer says:

    $20 000 wasted imo. I’d be very surprised if anything objective comes from this. Look at Anita Sarkeesian’s $160 000 KS, almost a year later, its a 20 minutes episode of badly researched garbage.

    • John Walker says:

      Please lay out your plans for an objective film about human experiences!

      • Rapzid says:

        I’ll send a white woman from North Dallas to live in Compton for a month. It’ll be titled “Treatment of Women in The US”.

        • mouton says:

          That’s not how science works!

          • Rapzid says:

            Shush you! Agendas don’t need science, just advocates. A bit like the R word TBH.

        • John Walker says:

          Are you seriously saying that gaming is to women as Compton is to a white Southern woman?

          • GSGregory says:

            I second that thought.

          • zaphod42 says:

            Where’s the kickstarter about women in Compton?

            This would almost imply that gaming is *worse*. (Being facetious for the point of argument)

            I don’t disagree that there are major problems, but ugh, kickstarter has largely become a way for people to make money off issues that other people care about. I’d rather see something real, like a series of forum posts on major game developers websites in protest, a signed petition with tons of signatures, a grassroots campaign to bring people together and share awareness of the problem.

            Instead its just “give me money so I can do this for you”, I think that’s the problem people really have here. Its a great issue, but I’m not sure kickstarter is the answer.

            There’s dozens of other kickstarters out there like “give me money so I can honor the Boston massacre” which is pretty exploitative.

            This almost seems to be exploiting women’s gender issues in gaming for profit.

          • Rapzid says:

            Hey, this isn’t an SAT! Think of it as a Rorschach test.

          • Guvornator says:

            “This almost seems to be exploiting women’s gender issues in gaming for profit.”

            Tell you what. Go out and make a documentary for $20000 and then we’ll talk about profit. This is really shoe string film-making. Don’t smear someone just because you’ve no idea how the media works.

          • bombaythehardway says:

            I liked the Tropes video. The part about the Legend of Krystal made me angry because it would have been such a better game than the forced Starfox product we got. I think she would have become a very popular character.
            Despite this, I feel I need to play devil’s advocate with Guvornator. For the type of production that was produced, there is no justification for it costing more than a one-day equipment rental of a couple hundred dollars. The video quality, setup, editing style were all the same as her pre-kickstarter videos. If her post 20k product is the same as her 0$ project, then we know the money didn’t go into the production. However, I think she did buy an absolutely huge amount of games so at least some of it went to that. It’s possible that she could be using the money for a larger feature to be released later.

            edit: oops i put 200k instead of 20k

      • Screamer says:

        Easy, to start of with I’ll get a non-feminist to do it!

        • mouton says:

          How do you define a non-feminist? How do you make sure she isn’t anti-feminist either?

          • Dominare says:

            Kinda missing the joke. The point being made was that ALL human experiences are, by very definition, subjective and therefore it is an amusing contradiction in terms to ask for an objective film about human experience.

          • mouton says:


            I am afraid Screamer was not making a joke.

        • Focksbot says:

          “Easy, to start of with I’ll get a non-feminist to do it!”

          So someone opposed to gender equality. Gotcha.

          • WrenBoy says:

            I think it is incorrect to assume that anyone who isnt a feminist is opposed to gender equality. I would even go further and say that assuming that everyone who is a feminist supports gender equality is also wrong.

          • The Random One says:

            Since the definition of the word “feminist” is “one who supports gender equality”, I’ll make the bold claim that saying one is a feminist does indeed imply one supports gender equality.

          • WrenBoy says:

            @The Random One
            In order to show that not all feminists are in favour of gender equality I only need a single individual example from a recognised feminist, link to

            However I dont need to settle for being just technically correct as there are entire feminist ideologies which are not in favour of gender equality.
            link to

          • Focksbot says:

            Wrenboy, that is some seriously shoddy debating.

            The point is that anyone who supports gender equality is some kind of feminist, because the term ‘feminism’ incorporates the movement for gender equality.

            That doesn’t mean that you can’t have off-shoots of feminism which have decided to pursue more radical agendas. So your links – which teach me nothing I don’t already know – prove nothing.

            This is basic logic. I’m telling you apples are fruit, and your response is to link me to pictures of fruit which are not apples.

          • WrenBoy says:

            The links were for the benefit of The Random One who must have been unaware of them since he disagreed with what I felt was a fairly safe statement.

            I am not a feminist for example. I would describe myself as being anti-sexism in the same way I would describe myself as being anti-racism.

            One of the main issues I have with femism is that it is so broad it stands for too many things, some of them being themselves sexist and discriminatory, others being ridiculous and demonstrably incorrect.

            Obviously a lot of what is described as feminism falls under anti-sexism. Thats fine but you shouldnt assume that everyone who agrees with it is, or would have to be, a feminist.

            Edit: To explain my position using your own analogy, when you say that only feminists can be in favour of gender equality, you are essentially saying that only apples are fruit. It is therefore reasonable to show you a picture of an orange.

          • nanowired says:

            Feminism does not equate to equality amongst genders. There are branches amongst feminism….and none of the recent feminist trends(including those being espoused on this website) have anything to do with equality.

        • Foosnark says:

          So to Screamer, “objective” means “agrees with Screamer”.

          • Screamer says:

            No, to Screamer, “objective” means the whole issue, engraved in our society, not just show the obscene things women are called and yelling “Look male gamers are bigots!”

          • CutieKnucklePie says:

            Ok, what do you mean with that “engraved in society” thing? Because if you look at the issue of male gamer sexism as related to that in society.. it gets even worse and even more clear that there is a big problem. Sorry to break it to you but a lot (and I mean A LOT) of male gamers are quite sexist and unless this is brought up it will never get better. Maybe for you it’s not something that needs to get better and think the world is a meritocracy where everyone gets their just treatment based on their character and abilities alone, but just in case you do, let me tell you that it has never been the case without some struggle. If on the other hand you believe that sexism and female exclusion are *right*, well..

          • barney says:

            An interesting (horribly cutesily designed, but I guess whatever makes it less dry) survey conducted by Mortimer Spinks (a massive UK IT recruiter) and Computer Weekly has just been published: link to

            The tentative findings being that women working in IT largely felt discriminated against in the industry, but overwhelmingly would recommend it; and, significantly, women more than men only just reckoned this situation would improve with time. Weird huh?

            With games, of course, there’s the massive pop culture, fandom and gaming itself to consider, but I’m always more interested in the industry aspect. As a young programmer, I’ve worked with so few women (in my field) it’s ridiculous. I hate single-sex environments and that’s the regular thing. Every woman I have worked with has experienced sexism at work, and mild but pervasive sexism flourishes (you might say it’s self-perpetuating) in these overwhelmingly male cultures.

          • Shooop says:

            Most male gamers are bigots.

            And “the entire issue” would mean basically going over the unequal treatment of women in society everywhere, not just in the gaming world.

      • Vorphalack says:

        ”Please lay out your plans for an objective film about human experiences!”

        Very well. I will initiate a kickstarter campaign with the goal of building a small camera harness that can be worn by my cat. The cat will essentially have all creative control once the camera is active, and will film the subtle nuances of the human condition from the perspective of one foot above ground. The only bias present will be a drive to sleep, eat, cuddle, and play with a catnip filled toy mouse. £250 will be my initial target, with stretch goals up to and including the £2,000,000 tier, which will unlock full narration by Morgan Freeman.

        • The Random One says:

          I don’t know which point you’re trying to attack but I’d give you money to shoot that film. Can we have cameras mounted on dogs and squirrels as stretch goals?

          • WrenBoy says:

            As Orwell almost said, if you want a documentary representing human experience, imagine a dog licking his own crotch – forever.

    • Focksbot says:

      “$20 000 wasted imo.”

      I think what your heart wanted you to say was: “$20,000 wasted, I hope! Dear God, please let nothing objective come from this. I hate the idea of women getting better representation.”

      • NicoTn says:

        Maybe you should stop over dramatizing.

      • Screamer says:


        Where in my comment did you get that idea? Because IN MY OPINION this is a waste of time, and of other peoples money, I am a bigot/chauvinist?

        • The Random One says:

          Yes, as you have admited to have an opinion identical to a bigot’s/chauvinist’s.

          • Screamer says:

            You’re joking right? …..Right?

            I’m sticking to gaming post from now on, you people are MAD! :-D

        • CutieKnucklePie says:

          If you are opposed to women’s equality or cannot recognize that there is a problem of female exclusion and discrimination throughout society (the gaming world included).. yeah.

        • Focksbot says:

          “Where in my comment did you get that idea?”

          When people I don’t know choose to spend their money on something I’m not particularly interested in, I don’t scream, “Waste of money!” The very fact that you decided to show up here criticising the endeavour suggests you’re actively opposed to people making this film. As to why that is, I don’t think my guess is a particularly massive leap of logic.

          • quijote3000 says:

            And this ladies and gentlemen, is why Anita Sarkeesian can get away with releasing one single youtube video in one year for 160,000$. Because whoever makes any criticism about her is a chauvinist and she will be protected forever by the politically-correct police

          • CutieKnucklePie says:

            I think the issue of her productivity is one that Anita’s backers should be bringing up (i.e., the people that paid for it), not those who obviously didn’t. I have my issues with her approach to this series (for one, the total ignoring of PC) and her rate of release, Is that the extent of your criticism of her work, by the way? Her rate of video release? I doubt any one is going to confuse that criticism with one on the meat of her arguments. Now, as for the “politically correct police” thing.. don’t. It’s the kind of stuff douchebags who are blind to their privilege and don’t care who they hurt usually say.

          • quijote3000 says:

            Actually, some of her backers, already asked their money back. As far as I know, she hasn’t answered them.

        • Shooop says:

          Maybe if you’d have taken some time to elaborate why you think this is a waste of time instead of simply posting a comment that is identical to many those writing by people who are bigots/chauvinists…

      • Pliqu3011 says:

        Ah yes, because thats exactly what he said and implied.

        I don’t get it why no one can apparently look at this in a calm way, from a neutral standpoint.
        One side’s always screaming “Raah, there’s nothing wrong at all, you’re all just white-knighting!!1!”, and the other “You evil misogynistic bastards just want to keep your little “boys club” for yourself and keep women in the kitchen!1!!”.

        Can’t I be pro-equality AND not completely agree with everything Sarkeesian (for example) says?

        Sheesh people, just stay calm and rational. No need to ad hominem everyone in sight with a slightly different opinion.

        • Focksbot says:

          “Can’t I be pro-equality AND not completely agree with everything Sarkeesian (for example) says?”

          Yes, you can, and I would fall into that category myself.

          However, the poster above has decided that it’s appropriate to comment that people he doesn’t know spending their own money on something they want to make is a ‘waste of money’ and declare huffily that it won’t achieve anything. That screams to me that he’s actively opposed to this film being made.

          “Sheesh people, just stay calm and rational.”

          I’ll deal with calm and rational points clamly and rationally. But RPS’s articles on this topic tend to get inundated with utter mind-boring bollocks from hysterical nutjobs.

          • quijote3000 says:

            So, everybody is entitled to their own opinions. But if they say it aloud, it must mean they are bigots. Right? Cool. I love the defenders of free speech

            You know? People love to comment on everything, from cats to obvious cashgrabs. Welcome to 2013 and the internet. You don’t like it, go make your own website and start deleting comments.

          • WrenBoy says:


            So, everybody is entitled to their own opinions. But if they say it aloud, it must mean they are bigots. Right? Cool. I love the defenders of free speech

            Do you really mean to say that if you believe in free speech then you should not believe it possible to say something bigotted?

          • Focksbot says:

            “So, everybody is entitled to their own opinions. But if they say it aloud, it must mean they are bigots. Right? Cool. I love the defenders of free speech”

            Well done – that cluster of sentences manages to have nothing to do with what I said AND trot out a bunch of concepts you barely understand to no meaningful ends whatsoever.

      • Lemming says:

        Everything about this screams subjective, not objective.

    • thrawn says:

      But this is almost an inevitable catch 22 of social commentary. Anyone who cares enough to put significant effort into an issue is too emotionally invested to be considered “objective” by anyone who disagrees with any aspect of their thesis. This is not sufficient to detract from their statements by itself, of course, however it does tend to create opportunities for activists (of all kinds) to overstate their case. This is why I prefer taking arguments one at a time rather than evaluating a piece like this as a whole, but obviously this is time-consuming and impractical in a discussion space like a comments thread.

  7. Kettelrino says:

    A useful warning for angry online journalists: If you don’t like comments who criticise your way of writing about stuff and criticise the stuff you write about in a polite and troll-free manner, don’t read this comment, and maybe just disable the comments to this one like a lot of feminists do to ban their way to consensus. Hope this helps. (Boy would you look silly if you deleted this comment about it now.)

    This first girl feels like it is harder. She feels like it is twice the amount of pressure just because she is a girl.
    How would she know what it is like for a male pro-gamer? She does not. But of course her feelings are what it is important.

    The woman says that she gets a lot of criticism and a lot of hate.
    Well, I personall find everyone ridicoluos who makes playing videogames like this his profession.
    But that is just me and I just don’t care.
    I would highly doubt that she gets criticism and hate because she is a woman.
    Playing videogames for a living is just a reason for a lot of people to ridicule you.

    The woman who wants to make his project also seems to use the trolls in order to justify this Kickstarter.
    More and more it seems like people like Anita Sarkeesian and this one do not understand what the internet is. They realyl don’t.

    Eventually the first girl says that “there are not many girl gamers” which is A) not true. There are a ton.
    And B) haven’t we decided that the term “girl gamer” is something for attention seeking people?
    Just call yourself a gamer. Don’t even try in the slightest to draw attention to you because you are a girl who plays videogames.
    I have some women in my Steam friend’s list and for a long time I didn’t even know that they were women.

    And with all these biased articles who try to make us look like women hating bigots, I am dissappointed in RPS.
    They even try again to silence criticism for their way of writing about this by writing stuff like the first paragraph in this one.

    This is equally embarassing like Anita Sarkeesian writing Trigger Warning, because she knows that will enhance the trolling, so she can use that trolling as justification.

    Edit: I just read that RPS does not have a freedom of speech policy. Oh, boy. My opinion of this site sinks deeper and deeper. Too bad.

    • John Walker says:

      Hi. I just want to help you out with something.

      Saying, “I doubt it exists” to a problem being reported by thousands of people as existing isn’t criticism. It’s idiocy.

      Making stupid, ignorant accusations that people warning rape victims of potentially upsetting material are inciting trolls for attention makes you a colossal prick. And it also not criticism.

      Not wanting something to exist because it doesn’t fit in with your denial/bigotry is not criticism.

      I hope this has helped.

      • hatseflats says:

        “It exists” really doesn’t mean anything. We all know there is at least some sexism, somewhere. Subjective experiences show that.
        We all know that, so there is no need to try to show it again and again. What is useful is trying to determine how bad it really is. Is much of the sexism simply trolling with some mysogyny thrown in? Then “solving” sexism isn’t actually going to make the world or the industry a better place, and we probably should stop discussing it because it’s only making people angry and abusive where they would otherwise not be.
        However, if sexism is really bad (that is, not just some trolling or idiots saying dumb things which might be interpreted as sexism) then this is very much a worthy cause, and heated discussion is very much acceptable to try to handle this problem.

        Projects like this, #1reasonwhy, misused statistics about wage gaps &c. are, however, contributing absolutely nothing to finding out how bad it really is, by not providing useful information while entrenching people further, which makes communication and all possibility of actually getting somewhere break down completely.

        • analydilatedcorporatestyle says:

          There is obviously an appetite for this as seen by the pages of ‘verbals’ that follow any article on the subject.

          Page impressions means prizes for RPS, cater to your market and reap the rewards!

          • GunnerMcCaffrey says:

            Is there anything more corrupt than a man writing about something he is interested in, for readers who want to read it?

            Also have you noticed how many articles about video games there are on this site, lately? Seems like they’re pandering to gamers. Deep pockets, there. It’s disgusting. I miss the days when RPS was just randomized strings of ASCII characters that no one read. At least I think I do, I never read it back then, I didn’t want to encourage Walker’s corruption.

          • analydilatedcorporatestyle says:

            EH!!! RPS is a business and is writing about a topic that garners a lot of interest and responses. Is this a bad thing?, no!, did I infer it was a bad thing, err NO!

            Or are you saying they should write about stuff no one is interested in and go bust? You have me at a disadvantage as I don’t have the vaguest notion as to the meaning or indeed any subtext of your point!

          • Phendron says:

            Your point sounded derisive, you basically accused them of pandering.

            I guess it’s just semantics, but there is a pretty big difference between pandering and enthusiasm.

        • Kettelrino says:

          Wage Gap?
          Are they still on about this?
          We already know how these statistics get formed. We know women on average make less on average than men, because of their personal choices.

          What is next? How most victims of domestic violence are women?
          How Most rape victims are women?

          Personally, I find these manipulating evil, very evil.

          • RaveTurned says:

            Citation needed.

          • analydilatedcorporatestyle says:

            “We know women on average make less on average than men, because of their personal choices.”

            I feel embarrassed for you, crikey! It appears a woman has hurt you deeply in the past causing massive and deep psychological scars this doesn’t mean they are all bad, honestly take my word for it!

          • cunningmunki says:

            Wouldn’t it be funny if this moron turned out to be a woman. You’re not, are you?

          • Kettelrino says:

            @RaveTurned: link to

            Or just google Women’s Pay Gap myth.

            @analydilatedcorporatestyle: Really? That is your tactic?

            @cunningmunki: What is this comment even supposed to mean?

          • analydilatedcorporatestyle says:

            Aye, it’s glaring!

          • RaveTurned says:

            @Kettelrino – I was hoping you might have something a little more scientific or data-oriented. While the article points out a few reasons why the observed difference in pay may not be down to discrimination, it does not prove any of them or provide much in the way of evidence to back them up. Sweeping claims along the lines of “women and men tend to work in different areas” without the stats to back them up are just hand-waving. Even if there were truth to the statements, the next step would be to ask why those differences are there. Could the patriarchal idea that some jobs are more suitable for men than women be a factor in herding women into lower-paying professions? Food for thought.

            Until we can positively identify the root causes of the observed differences in pay, then chalking it up to “women’s personal choices” is just a form of baseless victim blaming.

          • Kettelrino says:

            @RaveTurned: Are you german? The lady mentioned the organizations where she did get the data for her claim. I can only direct you to the german sources that point out that it is the same in germany. Actually, there have been two studies like this. One biased ant claiming women make 22% less than men, and the other one was ignored, that resulted in a max gap of less than 2%.

          • GSGregory says:

            So of course your statistics are 100% correct and are not flawed or construed.

            How many women do you know that get underpaid at work when they are more experienced than there male boss?[aka there boss does not have the qualifications to even do their job much less give orders involving it] I know quite a few.

          • Kettelrino says:


            Because he is in a hierarchically higher position?
            You said so yourself. The person is the boss.
            In which company does a person in a hierarchically lower position get more paid?
            How did this person get this boss-position? I don’t know.
            Maybe he had relationships higher up.
            Or maybe he took more of a stance in the negotiations.
            Women tend to view their job as less important and therefore others do so, as well.
            Women also tend to choose more free-time over work-time. But maybe this very well was not the case in your example.
            And eventuallly women tend to be less insisting in pay- and promotion-negotiations.
            Go ask these quite a few women for all the details involved in their carreer.
            Maybe then we can dissect whether it is based on their personal choices or sexism.

          • analydilatedcorporatestyle says:

            “…how many women do you know…” a salient point and I’d wager the answer exacerbates his apparent perspicacity of the sexism debate.

          • Kettelrino says:

            @GSGregory: I could say the same thing about studies and statistics that claim women get paid less for equal experience and equal work. What is your point?

          • realmenhuntinpacks says:

            ‘Women also tend to choose more free-time over work-time. But maybe this very well was not the case in your example.
            And eventuallly women tend to be less insisting in pay- and promotion-negotiations.’

            Sheer bullshit. Muppet. Go and do some more googling, Professor Internet.

          • analydilatedcorporatestyle says:

            When the Editor of a website takes time out of his busy schedule to call you a ‘colossal prick’ with well reasoned arguments for this assertion it’s fair to say ‘there is a rabbit off’.

            I will add to this and agree that Kettelrino is indeed a COLOSSAL PRICK!

          • Synesthesia says:

            “Women tend to view their job as less important and therefore others do so, as well.
            Women also tend to choose more free-time over work-time. But maybe this very well was not the case in your example.And eventuallly women tend to be less insisting in pay- and promotion-negotiations.”
            Well, holy fucking shit. This is too much. I need to stop reading these comment threads.

          • harbinger says:

            I’m personally rather partial to this deconstruction of that particular myth: link to

        • uh20 says:

          so first off, theres this marco-polo thing going on.

          ladies rep – nice speech
          commenters – everything between not caring and hate
          ladies rep – wants to reply to a lot of messages about nonsence, who would blame her, im doing the same thing
          RPS commenters – blame her for using the commenters as justice for the original speech

          next, it’s apparently its bad for girls to try and grab attention EXACTLY how guys (like you, right now) manage to.

          AND then there’s some insult by referencing GTFO to what other girl-empowering groups did in which they apparently used bad facts, so the entire discussion and other facts regarding that bit are assumed as fake.

          *just summarized nearly 17 posts above and below me, look at the floor, now at the me-monitor. who do you think you are, smarty.

      • NikRichards says:

        Got to say John, that’s a pretty weak argument.

        Thousands of people believe in Scientology, but it’s still horseshit.

        • mouton says:

          I reeeally don’t think what he talks about is on the same factual level as scientology.

          • NikRichards says:

            Of course not, but saying it’s true because of lots of people say it’s true will always be a poor argument for anything.

          • GSGregory says:

            So child abuse, rape ect never happens. Because of course its only kids saying it is.

          • NikRichards says:

            It doesn’t matter what the context.

            The only way to know if a claim is true there needs to be evidence.

        • Dominare says:

          That’s a very dishonest analogy you’re making. Assertions about rampant misogyny on xbox live (for example) are things that can be easily verified with the mountains of video and audio evidence available. Mr. Hubbard’s quasi-religious claims are – like many religions – difficult to prove one way or the other.

          • analydilatedcorporatestyle says:

            Ha’way man, he can debunk reality by comparing it to an existential matter, well in his mind maybe!

          • NikRichards says:

            It’s an accurate analogy of the argument John is presenting.

            And personally I’d be really interested to read an article looking at and hopefully evaluating that kind of evidence.

          • analydilatedcorporatestyle says:

            Ah! OK!

        • cunningmunki says:

          It’s not belief or hearsay to state that it’s “a problem being reported”. He means it’s being factually reported. With, you know, facts, and evidence, and proof. And facts. Demonstrable, verifiable, provable, irrefutable, incontrovertible, FACTS.

          Do Scientologists, or any other idealistic religion or belief based on nothing but faith have any of those? No, they don’t. Think about your comparisons first, please, before trying to make a counter-argument. Just a tiny little bit.

          • NikRichards says:

            I wasn’t aware that someone had done this kind of research, do you have a link?

          • Spoon Of Doom says:

            link to is a starting point for harassment on Xbox Live and such getting reported many, many times including screenshots and whatnots. Also, about 7-8 out of 10 times (from personal experience, exact numbers may vary) when in an online shooter people notice from voice chat that one player is a girl (or know it any other way, from the chat maybe) there is at least(!) one guy who will instantly start talking sexist bullshit. Sometimes they first hit on her, and only when she doesn’t instantly reply with naked pictures or agreeing to blow him, then they start talking shit.

            None of the mentioned things is a very rare thing to happen, just as much as people know that you will get insulted often if you are on in voice chat in LoL or Xbox Live – I can talk about that without presenting studies and evidence because it’s not exactly a hidden or unknown fact. Thus, it’s presumed kind of common knowledge, but proof in form of screenshots, chat logs and videos is very easily found and very widespread.

            Not believing that girls and women are bombarded with that kind of stuff very often without aksing for studies and articles being done on that seem like you either
            a) lived a very sheltered (online) existance until now, managing not to notice this
            b) are willfully blocking discussion about this.

          • NikRichards says:

            I certainly not saying women don’t get abuse online, I know they do. But then so do men.

            I’m asking if there’s actually been research into this behavior. I’d like to know if this the action of a minority of repeat offenders, or a larger amount of single time offenders? Do these offenders target women in the majority, or are they assholes to everyone? Are these the actions of Woman hating adult men, or teens lashing out at everything just because they can?

            Don’t get me wong, without doubt the type of comments made on that site are vile and unacceptable. But at the moment I can’t say if it’s an issue of gender, or an issue of the internet allowing assholes to be assholes freely.

        • Geewhizbatman says:

          You would be correct–it is always a terrible argument. It falls under emotional rhetoric and, while convincing, is not a powerful point to stand on.

          However, as you’ve seen, people will use the apples to oranges argument in return. We accept majority rule as an effective argument these days. Sorry about that, but the argument you’re making is only important in a logic class. People don’t want to hear it these days.

          Your call further down for actual studies is an important one, but wanting a study that proves it happens would really be more of an academic debate than something the majority of people, researchers included, would be interested in. It would basically be a study showing conclusively that “Yes, Sexism exist. Also, so does Gravity, Oxygen, and Fingernails.” We’ve moved past the argument that sexism is a reality. It was kind of the point of the feminist movement. What most people are interested in now is in exploration and refining of the specifics in relation to sexism. Why does it happen, where is it most prevalent, what are the most common thought processes behind it? Questions of that nature.

          Again, you’re not wrong. The majority of people saying, doing, or believing in something is a terrible argument, but you might want to get on board with it being common practice these days. Terrible arguments are also not indicators of falsehood.

      • Kalain says:

        So, does that mean when Feminists say that woman don’t verbally abuse/physically abuse men, it doesn’t exists? Or when women say there is no sexism towards men in female dominated businesses/areas it doesn’t exist? Doesn’t that fit in with the ideology that it’s men who are the violent/abusive ones whilst ignoring all other opinions/research into the subjects?

        I’m sorry, but you have to look at both sides of the argument before you can even comment on such subjects. And since most people will sit on one side and not listen to anything or anyone else, you’re never going to get any decent discussions on the subject.

        Yes, the guy you replied too was a bit of loon in his reply, but I’ve heard and read women say far worse things than that..

        • cunningmunki says:

          ‘Feminists’ say this do they? Where and when?

          You’re right when you say “you have to look at both sides of the argument before you can even comment on such subjects”, that’s very true. But there’s also the not-being-allowed-to-just-make-stuff-up rule.

          • harbinger says:

            That has been true since the 1970s, there’s a book about it called “This Way to the Revolution” and Erin Pizzey, the writer and a feminist in the 70s, also founder of the first women’s refuges/shelters both throughout Europe, in the UK and the US was pretty much “shunned” from the movement by saying that Domestic violence is a reciprocal thing between both men and women and she also had the numbers to prove it. There was a Reddit AmA with her a mere few days ago about this very topic: link to

            There’s also a great video interview with her about the topic and a few several other things here: link to

        • Focksbot says:

          “So, does that mean when Feminists say that woman don’t verbally abuse/physically abuse men …”

          This has never happened.

          It only strengthens the feminist argument even more when people blatantly attempt to misrepresent it.

      • lordcooper says:

        “Saying, “I doubt it exists” to a problem being reported by thousands of people as existing isn’t criticism. It’s idiocy.”

        Gotta call you out on that one. Think of how many of your political opposites report problems with evolution being taught in schools, gun control, police having too few powers etc etc

        Not saying I disagree with your overall message, but iffy logic isn’t helping you convince anyone.

      • Tinarg says:

        You’re a stupid, ignorant, bigoted prick!

        What a classy response John, this will teach him some fucking manners!

        • sweetjer says:

          To be fair, the message he was replying to was formed from the kind of rhetoric that can only be described accurately as “douchey.” not just the opinion but the actual rhetoric itself. In other words, if it looks and quacks and walks like a prick is it wrong to shout “prick!” at it? If you need further proof, read any other comment by this guy. And John, kudos for calling it like it is.

          • Zepp says:

            If so they are both on the same level now.

          • sweetjer says:

            @ Zepp Welp, that’s hardly accurate. Or fair. Or logical. But hey, let’s leave it at that, right? /s I think it’s ok for John to respond in any way he likes to this type of comment. I mean, for christ’s sake, the guy was not only warned before he wrote it…he petulantly complained about the warning while he did it. Despite his rhetorical posturing, Kett is neither looking for nor willing to accept a logical reply. He just wants to argue his (horribly illl-informed) position. And John already said in aforementioned warning: don’t do that.

          • nanowired says:


            It always makes me smile when people paint individuals who are using logic as “Not interested in logic”.

          • sweetjer says:

            @nano and you know what makes me smile? it’s when people use passive-aggressive constructions instead of direct responses. And I like it when said constructions contain absolutely no content. Kudos to you. See what I did there? I can be a douche just like you and our buddy Kett up there. It’s not difficult, and it doesn’t make you look smarter than anyone. And where was that logic again? Cause I missed it. The point is John doesn’t care about winning over this idiot. He just wants him to go away. And I’m all for that. p.s. Proceed to your crappy post below for a lil lesson in logic.

      • nanowired says:

        Thought experiment time. We have Nasty Person B. B likes to verbally abuse people over the internet. Next, we have B`s targets, 1 2 and 3.
        As of this moment, everyone is gender neutral.

        Case A:
        Person B insults all three targets. No sexism here, just blatant abuse.

        Case B:
        Person B is suddenly male. He turns towards the still genderless individuals and hurls his insults!
        Still no sexism! for simplicity, Case B also applies to when person B is female.

        Case C:
        Suddenly, the victims are all male… is there sexism if B is male? what if B is female?

        Case D:
        Suddenly, Victim 2 is female!
        If Person B is male, is it sexism? What if person B is female? Is she being sexist towards 1 and 3?

        At the end of the day, most modern feminists(And dare I say white knights) will only see cases of sexism where B is male and at least one of the victims is female. When the rolls are reversed, they will simply shrug and say, `thats the internet!`. The reality of it though is that neither position is sexism – It:s simply verbal abuse. Most of us who support equal rights actually view the situation as case A.

        This is by no means saying that sexism doesn`t exist. I`ve done a lot of work in real life protecting the rights of women as a manager of a charitable organization, and through this organization I have seen the face of sexism and rape culture… And boy, some pixels on a screen just isn`t it. There are real battles out there to fight, ones where this sort of effort is actually needed.

        There is no need to make victims out of people who are not. Walk not down the path which treats all women as victims, for it leads only to demeaning women.

        Also, I hate to draw this type of connection to art and all, but after generations of acceptable art containing naked women I can only agree with what was said on Penny Arcade. Of course, I could be misquoting them… “Creators will Create.” It was either that, or “Dicks.”

        • sweetjer says:

          Wrong, just wrong. Actually, it’s practically drivel. The nature of the abuse is also relevant in all of the cases you provided to determine whether sexism, misogyny or the like has taken place. It’s like you said “Here let me boil it down for you.” And then all that was left was the pot.

          ” Most of us who support equal rights”
          Are you in some kind of special club? Can I get a citation on this? Most of us… someone never took lessons on how to form verifiable arguments that aren’t riddled with holes.

          The rest of your argument equates to “because this really abusive thing exists something less abusive doesn’t” and we could parse your logic out to “because there’s murder, white collar crimes aren’t worth prosecuting” or something equally as stupid. Because rape happens doesn’t mean misogyny on the internet as a societal ill is irrelevant. Talk about not using logic to form arguments. Now you’re making *me* smile. And thus ends my lesson on how to form direct responses on the internet rather than passive-aggressive winking one-line bullshit that only serves to tickle yourself. It might pass for clever on Twitter or /vg/ or reddit or whatever internet hole you come from, but this is RPS comments, baby. Show Me Your Well-Reasoned Response or GTFO.

          • nanowired says:


            So where is that logic you were promising above? I mean really, not only did you not provide a cohesive argument but your reply to me is filled with Rhetoric and pointless attacks. Your smug attempt only shows you as who you really are: A pointless boor who is part of the problem and not part of the solution. Away with ye, attack dog.

      • Incision says:

        Please provide evidence of these “thousands of people” you are claiming are complaining about a problem.

        Now provide an objective assessment in what’s going on in each case instead of simply presuming “A person with a vagina = an automatic insightful truth-teller”.

        What’s that? You can’t do either?

        I thought not. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

    • Prime says:

      And with all these biased articles who try to make us look like women hating bigots

      The only people looking like woman-hating bigots are the people writing comments like yours. “Women don’t understand the Internet” and “They use trolls to justify their work” are textbook examples of woman-hating bigotry. Stop blaming RPS for making you look bad – you’re doing that all by yourself.

      • Kettelrino says:

        I did not say that women do not undertand the internet.
        Don’t try to put words into my mouth.

        • nil says:

          >[RPS] does not have a freedom of speech policy.
          >My opinion of this site sinks deeper and deeper.
          you, sir, do not understand the internet.

        • Prime says:

          Okay, my apologies. That was too generalised. The line I reacted to was this one:

          More and more it seems like people like Anita Sarkeesian and this one do not understand what the internet is. They realyl don’t (sic)

          So you’re saying that “people like Anita Sarkeesian and this one” don’t understand the internet. Better, but not by much.

          • Kettelrino says:

            Yes, they don’t.
            Trolling has been a phenomena for a long time, and the problem is not sexism. The problem is human nature.
            All kidns of people get told exactly that thing that will make them feel the worst by trolls.
            First you would have do abolish anonymity. But do you realyl want that?

          • Prime says:

            Abolish anonymity?

            Completely? I doubt anyone wants that. It has been suggested that using real names would cut down the amount of jerks online but that’s a looooong way from “abolishing anonymity”.

            Further, I don’t think the problem is “Human nature”. I’m human and I can converse quite well without trolling. The problem is people not knowing how to control themselves or how to stop indulging the ego part of their personalities. It can be done, as you can see happening all around you, so please stop trying to convince everyone that this is a problem that can’t be solved and just has to be lived with.

          • Terragot says:

            Yeah, I’ve requested deletion, this whole arguement is stupd.

            I hope the film is good.

          • Prime says:

            Absolutely agreed, Terragot. Thank you.

        • Focksbot says:

          But his point is right. It’s your post makes you look like a women-hating idiot. You might think you’re being reasonable, but what comes across loud and clear is: “I don’t want to have to pay attention to women’s opinions or feelings – I wish they’d just shut up and pretend they don’t exist or at least never talk about anything that makes me feel uncomfortable.”

          I’m not saying you said that directly; I’m saying that’s the very clear subtext.

          • Kettelrino says:

            I want everything like this to start from a neutral position.
            Anita Sarkeesian and this woman already have an opinion and they are specifically looking for evidence to support this.

            I would rather have something like: The State of Both (or more, if you want to be politically über-correct) Genders In Videogames.

          • GSGregory says:

            So. Child abuse/rape ect. You want a neutral video on that making it fair for both sides. Right? My point is in the case of things like abuse, bullying, sex trafficking, sexism, racism ect there simply is not a neutral way to argue it because it is not a neutral relationship between the doer and the victim.

          • Focksbot says:

            “I would rather have something like: The State of Both (or more, if you want to be politically über-correct) Genders In Videogames.”

            Right, I get it – you dislike the idea of something which isn’t about you.

      • Rapzid says:

        He never said that. You’re using a classic straw man.

        • Prime says:

          I don’t even know what a “classic straw man” is, let alone how to use one. It’s one of those terms bandied about by Internet Debaters to make themselves sound like they know what they’re talking about. In my experience this is rarely the case. This was a simple mistake, as I’ve apologised for above.

    • analydilatedcorporatestyle says:

      I don’t get your point! Maybe she is happy being a girl and doesn’t feel the need to disguise the fact. People’s automatic assumption is that gamers are teenage boys, maybe she doesn’t want to be perceived as a pubescent male. She wants a strong identity and part of that identity is the fact she is female and is happy with the fact. Good on the girl!

    • Rapzid says:

      You’re on the right track. Nearly 50 percent of gamers are female. So, there are either LOTS of female gamers or VERY FEW female gamers depending on the argument being made.

      • phelix says:

        nearly 50% of gamers are women

        Citation, please?

        • Kettelrino says:

          The Entertainment Software Association of Canada says that by now at least 46% of canadian people who play videogames are female.
          And I doubt that it is much different elsewhere. It isn’t in germany.

    • icedon says:

      you sound an awful lot like people who deny racism by telling everyone thats ist pepoples own fault if they get trolled/hated/discrimated by other pepole for the color of their skin..

      there is a problem with discrimation of women (gamer). your rant tells me that even you might have a problem.

      • Kettelrino says:

        I hope you are not putting sexism on the same level as racism.
        But you probably also believe that there is no discrimination/sexism against men.

        • Dominare says:

          You hope that why, exactly? If the comparison makes you uncomfortable, perhaps a little introspection is in order? You’re so close

          • Kettelrino says:

            This tactic seems to appear again and again on this site.

        • RaveTurned says:

          I hope you’re not implying that there are different levels of discrimination; that some types of prejudice are somehow more acceptable than others.

          • nanowired says:

            In the history of the united states, there has yet to be a public lynching of a woman simply because she was a woman. Aside from religious extremists who bring their barbarism with them.

        • Surlywombat says:

          I hope you are not putting sexism on the same level as racism.

          That says more about you than anything else you have written.

          • analydilatedcorporatestyle says:

            Wise words Sir, wise words!

          • Kettelrino says:

            Really? What does it say about me?
            So, what are some products of racism?
            Slavery, obviously.
            We (I am from europea, but I will use the word “We” as a whole word for white humans) have exploited people of different races for cheap labor and let them do a lot of dangerous work.
            Have we done this to white women? No. We always tried to save them from hard and dangerous work that grinds your body down.

            Have we sent (white) women to war? Have we exploited them like we did people of other races?
            Have we?

            I believe the primary kind of sexism against women we had was benevolent sexism.
            We tried to protect them, wherever possible.

          • realmenhuntinpacks says:

            Yo, Kettle. Sexism is the oldest and most consistent form of discrimination in the history of humanity. Your history knowledge is clearly not worth the sugar paper you’ve scrawled it on with a wax crayon.

          • realmenhuntinpacks says:

            Haha, missed this: ‘Have we exploited them like we did people of other races?’ You are one special little soldier, amigo. If you gave even one tiny shit about anything other than yourself, you’d be smashing your own head against your crumb-strewn keyboard with shame. I’m sorry to stoop to this, but you stupid, stupid, stupid prick.

          • Kettelrino says:

            @realmenhuntinpacks: And here he is, getting personal and plain insulting, withotu even explaining why I am wrong and not backign up his claim. Sad stuff.

          • realmenhuntinpacks says:

            Yes, and with a qualified apology, I am getting insulting. Why? Ahem:
            ‘ Have we sent (white) women to war? Have we exploited them like we did people of other races?
            Have we?

            I believe the primary kind of sexism against women we had was benevolent sexism.
            We tried to protect them, wherever possible.’

            Vile. Yes, friendo. The world has, and continues to do so. This ‘benevolence’ you mention. Protecting ‘them’. I am sorry for slinging base words your way, but your unreconstructed worldview actually gives me the chills. I hope to christ that no sister, daughter or friend of mine ever has to deal with a bumblefuck spectrum-defying maniac like you.

          • Kaira- says:


            Even in a golden cage one is still a prisoner.

          • sweetjer says:

            Benevolent sexism? You are absolutely mad. The point of these discussions is that there are people out there who think there is a difference between “just trolling” and “actual sexism”.. There’s a direct correlation. Maybe #1reason and the sarkeesian videos aren’t *for* you but they are exactly because of you. Maybe you’re not a rapist, but your absurd worldview is detrimental toward equality. And by the way googling “wage gap myth” is the exact kind of confirmation bias rendering idiocy you purport to oppose.

          • analydilatedcorporatestyle says:

            ‘The rule of thumb’ a saying derived from the law that a man could legally beat his wife as long as the stick was no thicker than his thumb. I fear that Kettelrino has a wistful tear in his myopic eyes when he thinks about this law being repealed! The dedication show in trying to dismiss any claim of sexism is indicative in my opinion of someone with
            a) an agenda against feminism
            b) a dislike/mistrust of females
            c) Histrionic personality disorder, lacking in self confidence and fishing for bites to get attention

          • Foosnark says:

            “Benevolent sexism” is it? Please explain how the following examples of sexism are beneficial to women:

            — marital rape, legal in most of the world until LESS THAN TEN YEARS AGO

            — paying women considerably less than men for the same job\

            — the reinforcement of the trope that women aren’t as good at math and sciences as men, leading to lower quality education for women

            — double standards of sexual behavior (men having sex with lots of women = good, women having sex with lots of men = bad)

            — victim-blaming when women are raped

            — almost entirely male legislative bodies ruling on abortion, birth control, etc.

            — denying womens’ right to vote

            — denying womens’ right to own property

            — the dowry system (aka selling your daughter to her future husband)

            Please come up with ONE reason why any of these things makes it better to be a woman than a man, in any society in human history.

          • Kettelrino says:

            @sweetjer: Okay, dismiss logic and facts. Okay. Your choice.

            @analydilatedcorporatestyle: This just plainly never existed. It is a myth. Next.


            >”— marital rape, legal in most of the world until LESS THAN TEN YEARS AGO”

            Point me to the laws, if you say most of the world.

            >”— paying women considerably less than men for the same job”
            Work hours, experience, negotiation insistence, part time job choices, etc.
            There has been a law under Obama where you could sue a company if you think they are paying you less for the same experience, hours, etc. just because of your sex.
            Since its introduction in 2009 only 30 reported lawsuits have come up. And these are just the lawsuits, ignoring whether it was true or not.

            >”— the reinforcement of the trope that women aren’t as good at math and sciences as men, leading to lower quality education for women”
            Look at all these campagins that advocate women in math and sciences. So much encouragement, and still women tend to choose social fields.
            Because of some role model they perceive? Nobody knows.

            >”— double standards of sexual behavior (men having sex with lots of women = good, women having sex with lots of men = bad)”
            This is an unfair double standard, but it is unlikely to go way.
            Before our modern civilization it was good for a men to have sex with as much women as possible. He needed to spread his genes.
            The perceived quality of the women did not matter. He could just walk away. His risks were low.
            Women, on the other hand, had a lot of lose. They needed to chose their sexual partner wisely because they risked to invest a lot of time and energy
            to give birth to a child that based on its father might not turn out as optimal, i.e. fit for survival.
            Even women say that they are likely to feel like a slut if they “give it away to easy”.
            Because of some role model they perceive? Nobody knows for sure. More likely it is their instinct/genes trying to protect them from a bad investment.
            Nature does not know about birth control, etc.

            >”— victim-blaming when women are raped”
            Are you talking about arguments like “she shouldn’t have asked for it by dressing like that” and stupid shit like the slut-walk, where women walk around in “slutty” clothing, saying “Still not asking for it?”
            Only very few people have ever said that a woman asks to be raped with the clothing she is wearing.
            But a lot of people use this and make it seem like this is common behaviour.

            And people who get really drunk in an environment where there are a lot of strangers and drugs involved? I don’t care about these people.
            There are a lot of women who claim rape, even though they can not remember a thing. Or a women feels regret afterwards and claims rape to save her face.

            But it seems like a lot of people like to take responsibility away from women and treat them like low-IQ imbecils, because they can do whatever they want whereever they want.

            >”— almost entirely male legislative bodies ruling on abortion, birth control, etc.”
            I am not sure what you mean, english is not my first language, but let me say that the birth control pill was developed by men for women.
            Women have most of the reproductive rights.
            A women can get pregnant intentionally against a man’s will, and he is completely powerless.
            If she wants to keep it, he has to pay.
            If a man would poke holes into this condoms or would render the birth control pills of the woman useless, he would go to jail.
            But a woman can just enslave a man like that.
            I don’t see much effort going into developing a male birth control pill.

            >”— denying womens’ right to vote”
            Most people throughout most of history weren’t allowed to vote.
            In most western societies you had to have land and be of certain age.
            Most people did not have this.
            And why did then only men have land and therefore the right to vote? Because men worked and bought the land to live there with their family, i.e. they also did it for their women.
            But very quickly after these conditions were abolished, also whatever laws there were to prevent women from voting were abolished as well, and these periods did not last hundreds of years.

            >”— denying womens’ right to own property”
            See above.
            Property was expensive and men were supposed to work for that so he could live there with this wife and family.

            >”— the dowry system (aka selling your daughter to her future husband)”
            The cultures you are talking about had arranged marriages. Neither male or female had any personal say about who they would marry.
            You married what would benefit your family the most.

          • analydilatedcorporatestyle says:

            I can’t decide if his intolerance is based on mental frailty or cultural/religious indoctrination.

            Oh and by the way Kettelrino you missed this in your internet trawl to try and substantiate your odious beliefs

            There was an 1868 case, State v. Rhodes, where a husband was found innocent because, the judge said, “the defendent had a right to whip his wife with a switch no larger than his thumb,” link to

          • sweetjer says:

            Kett, we can go all day just saying the other one is illogical and rejecting established facts. That doesn’t get us anywhere. But since I have nowhere to go, I’m going to quip back that you are willfully ignorant and your argument is wholly subjective. Reject consensus all you want, but I’m right–you’re wrong. See? I can do it, too.

            Also I went and checked out that “wage gap myth” article from Forbes you posted…so is this the kind of unattributed nonsense we’re supposed to take as fact these days? : “Most fundamentally, men and women tend to gravitate toward different industries. Feminists may charge that women are socialized into lower-paying sectors of the economy. But women considering the decisions they’ve made likely have a different view. Women tend to seek jobs with regular hours, more comfortable conditions, little travel, and greater personal fulfillment. Often times, women are willing to trade higher pay for jobs with other characteristics that they find attractive.” Good grief. Next you’re going to tell me that “some people say” blah blah blah nonsense garbage.

          • Sian says:


            “Really? What does it say about me? So, what are some products of racism? Slavery, obviously. We (I am from europea, but I will use the word “We” as a whole word for white humans) have exploited people of different races for cheap labor and let them do a lot of dangerous work. Have we done this to white women? No. We always tried to save them from hard and dangerous work that grinds your body down.”

            Actually, we have. It’s ridiculous to think that slavery was only ever restricted to other races. In the middle ages, various peoples used and sold people from their neighbouring countries as slaves. Do you really think they’d have made an exception for women?
            Also, during and after the industrial revolution, the factory workers were practically slaves, and there were a lot of women among them, working themselves to death.

            “Have we sent (white) women to war? Have we exploited them like we did people of other races? Have we?”

            We exploited them alright. Probably not in war, but in many other ways. Others have pointed out marital rape.

            “I believe the primary kind of sexism against women we had was benevolent sexism. We tried to protect them, wherever possible.”

            Wrong. You can’t seriously be thinking that in the history of white people we were always chivalrous gentlemen, can you? That actually only came up in the middle and late middle ages, and then it mostly pertained to how noblemen treated noblewomen – female peasants were still just peasants and the common man on the street felt about the same obligation to honour women of his or lower standing as the thug at the corner does nowadays. Women of higher standing were treated with respect because they were of higher standing, not because they were women.

        • Paul Saunders says:

          “I hope you are not putting sexism on the same level as racism.”

          Hahaha, priceless. You asshole.

    • JehuGarroutte says:

      “How would she know what it is like for a male pro-gamer?” Countless interviews, endless coverage, a demonstrable forgiveness-threshold for failure that isn’t extended to female gamers. Bit of a silly question.

      “Well, I personall find everyone ridicoluos who makes playing videogames like this his profession” But of course your feelings are important.

      “More and more it seems like people like Anita Sarkeesian and this one do not understand what the internet is. They realyl don’t.” I think they understand quite well that it’s, in a lot of ways, a horrid place. Which is why they want to change it. It’s a noble goal to change a vile thing, and profoundly cowardly to say that a vile thing shouldn’t be changed because it’s always been vile.

      “haven’t we decided that the term “girl gamer” is something for attention seeking people?” Nope! Also, who’s “we?”

      “I have some women in my Steam friend’s list and for a long time I didn’t even know that they were women.” Do you maybe see the fact that people have to keep entire aspects of their being secret and unmentioned in order to get by as problematic? Like, you’re literally saying it’s a good thing that they kept parts of their identity under wraps because it made them more palatable to you. That’s… That’s not great.

      “They even try again to silence criticism for their way of writing about this by writing stuff like the first paragraph in this one.” Nooooope. I am really, really unconvinced that you know how to use the verb “silence” properly.

      I also find it troublesome that you claim to be polite and troll-free, but use “feminist” as a pejorative, accuse the staff of practices you’ve seen on other blogs, claim that you will be criticizing the writing when actually you criticize (poorly) the video, and then slap a random attack against yet another third party in at the very end. None of that is polite, constructive, nor troll-free.

      • Kettelrino says:

        That is still something objectively not measurable.

        Fair enough, my opinion of people who play videogames for a living is non-important.

        You can not change human nature. The internet is a place where people show all kinds of different faces of them.
        And some will sometimes say the most disgusting, hateful thing can come up with just to get this reaction from you. If you are an overweight boy in youtube-videos, they will go for the fact that you are overweight, if they see that they can get to you this way.
        The only way to change this is to abolish anonymity, because then people could be held responsible for everything they do.

        Well, allright. You have not decided that calling yourself a girl gamer is not that. But amongst my group of videogamer friends we have. (Yes, also women.)

        The fact that this did not come up for a long time is because sometimes it was text-based communication and we never talked about anything that would hint that they were. They didn’t hide anything. The just played.
        And a lot of them are sick and tired of “girl gamers” who come into a lobby and draw attention to the fact that they are female.
        Not representative of most of the female gaming population.
        I do not define myself in an online videogame space through my gender. And they don’t, as well.
        Most people have gender-neutral nicks.

        I do not know how to use the word silence properly? Please, explain.

        RPS already has deleted comments. Granted, I did not all of them related to these topics, so I don’t know how valid and contributing these were, but they do admit that they are willing to delete comments based on their own opinion.
        And this is what I have seen a lot of other blogs and youtube channels do, which talk about these kinds of topics.
        If you think my use of the word “feminist” is pejorative, I would like to know how you draw that conclusion.
        (Ignoring that feminism in my opinion is a bad thing, but that does not equal woman-hating.)
        Otherwise, it is fair to say, I would assume, that the staff behind RPS are feminists. At least the one person who wrote this article.

        • Kaira- says:

          “You can not change human nature”

          But you can, and it has, and it will continue to change. To claim otherwise is such a defeatist and fatalist attitude – “nothing ever changes, so why bother?”

          • Dominare says:

            No he’s right, you can’t change human nature. That’s why we all eat our meat raw and sleep in a tree.

            (with apologies to terry pratchett for larceny)

          • analydilatedcorporatestyle says:

            More the case of not wanting it to change with this individual I believe!

          • Kettelrino says:


            >”No he’s right, you can’t change human nature. That’s why we all eat our meat raw and sleep in a tree.”

            Okay, I will quickly address the food part.
            Our modern way of eating makes us sick. It makes us unhealthy. We get cancer, we get tired, because we eat things nature did not intend us to eat.
            We get more and more bowel cancer because our food is too processed, too clean.
            This is why I – for example – have adopted a Paleo diet and ever since I have been much better.

            Also, why do you think we get haemorrhoids so much in the western world?
            Because of our modern toilet seats. Nature did not intend for us to shit like that.

          • Focksbot says:

            “Okay, I will quickly address the food part.
            Our modern way of eating makes us sick. It makes us unhealthy.”

            And yet we have far longer life expectancy and spend far less time dying of food poisoning.

            It’s impressive how you can be so wrong about so many things in one tiny section of the internet.

          • Kaira- says:


            And yet life expectancy has doubled in modern world. We get less and less sick. I wonder how profound your wrongness can be.

          • Kettelrino says:



            Being sick is not coupled to life expectancy.
            Yes, we live longer, but we have more sicknesses.
            We have more depression. More diabetes. More obesity.
            It gets more every generation.
            (No, obesity is not simply related to just eating too much.)

            Medicine is keeping us alive, where elsewhere we would die.
            Keep in mind that thousands of years ago one of the main things that killed us were our teeth that rarely fit perfectly in our jaws and over time killed us, before we knew how to (properly) pull them out.

          • realmenhuntinpacks says:

            Bloody hell, K, you really know how to push my buttons. Quite apart from your misanthropic blatherings, now you’re mangling prehistory. As an equality-minded archaeologist, I have to wonder if you were sent here to test me. I’ll never yield, Satan, damn you!

          • Kaira- says:

            @ Kettelrino

            We have more of those, true. Though in case of depression I doubt the amount of depression has increased, only that we’ve got better at detecting it (yay, medicine!). On the other hand, we have less of:

            polio, malnutrition, whooping cough, malaria, hell, smallpox et cetera – many diseases that were fatal can now be rendered next to nothing. We are not getting more and more sick – we are getting more and more healthy, day by day!

          • analydilatedcorporatestyle says:

            Take your Histrionic personality disorder medicine and remember to NOT wash you hands after shitting in the bushes Kettelrino old chap!

        • WhatKateDoes says:

          Once again someone ignorantly or wilfully abuses the term “feminism/feminist” bastardizing it to mean something which it is not.

          link to

          “f you believe that women and men should have equal rights, you are a feminist. there’s nothing “extreme” about it.”

          Many argue against the inclusion of “fem” in the word to represent equality, but until the balance is redressed I’m afraid we need that extra little reminder in the defininition.

          • Kettelrino says:

            >“f you believe that women and men should have equal rights, you are a feminist. there’s nothing “extreme” about it.”

            You can not just say this.
            It is already in the word.

            Otherwise, you would be an Egalitarian, a Humanist or an Equal Right’s Activist.

            And so far I have not seen feminists who want equal punishment for equal crime.
            Or who want the father’s after divorce’s to have equal custody over the children.

            In England men go into pension after 65. Women after 60. And women live much longer than men.
            I see none of these old feminist organizations rallying against that.

          • WhatKateDoes says:

            Well, here you go. Here’s an official statement from a Feminist. I’m all for equal punishment, equal retirement, equal pay, equal parental condition, and equal military choices. In short, I’m all for equality between the genders.

            You’re welcome.

          • Focksbot says:

            “Otherwise, you would be an Egalitarian, a Humanist or an Equal Right’s Activist.”

            Or you can be a feminist.

            Most feminists have no problem admitting that there a few areas of life where men are also hamstrung by gender expectations – the retirement age, seeing children – and most feminists would want to change that too. But anyone with a functioning brain can work out that the areas where women lose out vastly outweigh those where men lose out, and so proportionately, a lot more time should be spent discussing that.

          • Kettelrino says:


            No, feminist organizations are not for that.
            Female/Feminist politicians are not for that.
            Feminist magazines/media are not for that.

            They are nowhere advocating for that.

            >”But anyone with a functioning brain can work out that the areas where women lose out vastly outweigh those where men lose out, and so proportionately, a lot more time should be spent discussing that.”

            So why do we keep discussing women in school, when already more than 60% of academics are women? We are not supporting boys in school. We changed the educational system in favour women. And only women.

          • WhatKateDoes says:

            [insert evidence / citation here]

          • Kettelrino says:


            Evidence? How can I have evidence. The whole point is that feminist organizations and such are not supporting men.

            And the other thing? In USA, Germany, England, etc. more women are graduating with higher educations.
            You want me to link numerous statistics to that?

          • Focksbot says:

            “So why do we keep discussing women in school, when already more than 60% of academics are women? We are not supporting boys in school.”

            Where on earth have you read that?

            Feminist organisations will cite their *main* agendas, not every single thing they ever want to accomplish. As far as I’m concerned, they do stand for changes which rectify anything which stigmatises men, because their members explicitly say so. They just don’t talk about it much because it’s a relatively minor area compared to those areas where women get the short end of the stick.

        • sweetjer says:

          “there’s more of this now” and “more of that” kett talk about objectively not measurable. Go ahead. Google “more sickness in modern times” for more of that super objective research you obviously hold so dear (lol). Later I’m going to google “hitler was Jesus” and use whatever comes up to support a ridiculous opinion as fact.

        • Ergates_Antius says:

          “Ignoring that feminism in my opinion is a bad thing, but that does not equal woman-hating”

          How can anyone think that fighting for gender equality is a bad thing?

          • Kettelrino says:

            >”How can anyone think that fighting for gender equality is a bad thing?”

            Because they are not fighting for gender equality.

          • WhatKateDoes says:

            THEM. THEY.

            Remind me who’s making straw caricatures again?

      • Viod says:

        I agree with JehuGarroutte.
        All this sexism stuff on RPS is just annoying.
        You are just feeding the trolls, because it looks like you care so much about them, and at the same time you are annoying your readers with this stuff.
        Because we don’t care, we don’t care at all.

        I’m a gamer, I don’t insult people, I don’t insult girls. If others do, they are just kids or stupid and we all know this kind of stuff. We always play with someone who starts to insult us for any reason. It’s just the way things are on internet, expecially on online gaming. There is no sexism involved in this, just huge stupidity. You are making sex a problem here, with these articles and feeding the trolls, but I reapeat, we don’t care about sex genders while we play.

        I also know that women have their problems, due to our crappy cultural inheritance and centuries of male dominance, but the way out of this IS NOT feminism. How hard is that to understand?
        We need to teach people to be educated, polite, to treat women with the same dignity, not to put them over a pedestal because of gender and pity.

        • John Walker says:

          Please stop speaking for “the readers”. You haven’t been appointed as a spokesperson, and your views are not shared by everyone else.

          And it’s precisely because of attitudes like “I don’t care” that we will keep posting.

          • Viod says:

            I said “I don’t care” not because I tollerate violence on women, but because I don’t care about sex genders. That was the meaning, obviously. And you are getting a lot of complains from “the readers”, so you are right saying this is just my personal opinion, but please don’t stab your eyes with a knife.
            I understand what are you doing, but I repeat, feminism is not the way out of this.
            With this kind of articles, you are doing sexism in the first place.
            I know, for a good cause, but still sexism and still a good way to feed the trolls and generate even more hate.

            I don’t dislike RPS or anything. I’m just saying this kind of stuff is annoying, only because I think it makes things worse, but if you don’t, please continue and have a nice day. :)

          • JamesTheNumberless says:

            You know what I find annoying? Bikes. I never learned to ride a bike when I was a kid as I spent all my time indoors playing on, and programming computers, and making up stories. Even now I can barely ride a bike… Going in a straight line is ok but attempting to turn is impossible without the overwhelming sense that I’m going to fall off. As a consequence, cyclists annoy me an unreasonable amount and I (un)secretly wish they’d all die under big trucks – especially when they’re allover MY pavement.

            I wish RPS wouldn’t write about bike games, it’s just encouraging more people to be obnoxious cyclists.

          • bit_crusherrr says:

            Surprised you haven’t told anyone to fuck off yet.

          • Foosnark says:

            only because I think it makes things worse

            Darn that Martin Luther King Jr. for talking about civil rights and making things worse.

          • Sian says:

            “And you are getting a lot of complains from “the readers”, so you are right saying this is just my personal opinion, but please don’t stab your eyes with a knife.”

            They are getting a lot of complaints from a vocal minority of their readers. The majority is silent and quite a few readers speak out against people who share your opinion.

          • Vesuvius says:

            Hey, I’m a reader and as long as this stuff is a part of the reality of gaming, I think it’s relevant and I’m glad that RPS is willing to go to bat on it- as with other tough topics.

            There’s not enough real journalism in gaming, and this is part of what makes RPS appealing, the willingness to not just do what’s easy.

          • Fluka says:

            I like John’s articles and I vote read RPS!

        • JehuGarroutte says:

          Whoa, what? I’m not the one you agree with.

          I think these articles are incredibly important, and I’m a very vocal supporter of them. Please don’t use my name to support your apathy.

        • Prime says:

          Because we don’t care, we don’t care at all.

          …but you care enough to post a comment therefore you must care a little bit.

          We need to teach people to be educated, polite, to treat women with the same dignity, not to put them over a pedestal because of gender and pity.

          Way to totally misunderstand what Feminism actually is! It has nothing to do with pedestals: it’s trying to get exactly what you describe! Women don’t want pitied, FFS! They want the same as we have, the same opportunities and respect, which they are telling us – and which decades of research has proven – they either don’t have or have to fight to get!

          • Incision says:

            “Decades of research” has proven nothing of the sort. In fact, you’ll find feminism is quite averse to letting facts get in the way of a good narrative.

          • Prime says:

            I’ll find nothing of the sort, Incision. Your warped views on Feminism rely on an outright denial of fact that is breathtaking in scope, like denying the existence of the sun. To describe Feminism as ignoring facts is hypocrisy of the highest order.

          • Incision says:

            Prime, not only are you a moron, you’re an ignorant moron who needs to educate themselves.

            Every time feminist myths are opposed with evidence, feminists engage in blanket denial of fact. For example:

            Fact: The gender wage gap is a myth. Women don’t do the dangerous jobs and women choose conditions over pay.

            Fact: Domestic violence is not a gendered problem, it is in fact MEN who are more likely to be unilaterally assaulted by their female partners than the other way around.

            Fact: The workplace death gap is >90%. Men die more than women, but apparently the “gender wage gap” has nothing to do with the fact that men take the dangerous jobs which pay better.

            Fact: You are an uninformed moron or a liar. Anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty can see feminist diatribe for the dishonest bullshit that it is.

          • Guvornator says:

            FACT: A fact isn’t a fact just because you put the word “fact” in front of it in big letters.

            Here’s the thing. Whilst obviously abhorrent, I can understand racism – people are threatened by the unknown and if your only previous interaction with, say, Muslims is through popular culture I can understand why someone may not be thrilled by them moving into a previously white area. It’s ignorant and stupid, but understandable.

            Male Rights activists, on the other hand, are willing to stamp on the hands of their own grandmothers, mothers, sisters and (potentially) unborn daughters just to selfishly maintain their prevailed position in the world, spouting half truths and lies yet claiming all opposition is a “Feminist myth”. It’s utterly disgusting. As a man who (as my internet history shows) is no feminist let me say this – you don’t speak for us.

          • Prime says:

            Well that didn’t take long, did it, Incision? Thankfully I have no need to retaliate in the belittling contest you’ve started – you’ve just done a fine job of showing RPS exactly what kind of person you are.

          • Incision says:

            Guvornator: So, basically your response to facts is a bunch of ad-hominem. Sounds like classic feminist inability to think and reason to me.

            Prime: Get back in fucking kitchen.

        • Focksbot says:

          “…. at the same time you are annoying your readers with this stuff.
          Because we don’t care, we don’t care at all.”

          Yeah, we do. Frankly, I think anyone ‘annoyed’ by it is a twat.

          • Viod says:

            I said “we don’t care” meaning about sex genders, not about violence on women.
            Come on people…

          • realmenhuntinpacks says:

            I’m with focksbot.

          • CitizenDickbag says:

            As a reader I think the only thing John’s doing wrong is not taking a firmer stance on banning sexist assholes from the comments.

          • Focksbot says:

            “I said “we don’t care” meaning about sex genders …”

            I know, and we do care.

        • Vorphalack says:

          @ Vlod

          ”you are annoying your readers”

          You don’t speak for me. Fuck off with your generalising.

        • emertonom says:

          “It’s just the way things are on internet.”

          This is precisely the problem. If the way things are is problematic, then trying to change that is worthwhile.

        • Matt_W says:

          This reader: NOT annoyed. Speak for your own goddamn self.

    • bricewgilbert says:

      lol in what world do you live in where there is an expectation of “freedom of speech” on websites? No one is required to provide you with a soapbox.

      • Kettelrino says:

        RPS is standing on the soapbox.
        I am a bystander, listening, and responding. If not to the one on the soapbox, than to other bystanders.
        But of course they can do whatever they want to do.

        • Focksbot says:

          Yes, because it’s their website! They pay for it. You start your own gaming news website and post your weird theories about how cooking meat is bad for us and men have it worse because the official state retirement age is later. See how many people give a shit.

          • Kettelrino says:


            And number of people who give a shit or who reat or buy something means who is right?

            And I never said cooking meat is bad, are you insane?

          • WrenBoy says:

            Step away from the computer a bit. Youre embarrassing yourself.

          • Kettelrino says:

            @WrenBoy: What? Elaborate, please.

          • WrenBoy says:

            Ranting about women, seguing into ranting about toilet seats.

            Arguing in favour of eating meat raw when you feel it advances your point then forgetting you ever said it.

            Basically saying any irrational nonsense that enters your head in a misguided effort to advance your unpleasant ideas.

    • realmenhuntinpacks says:

      How would she know what it is like for a male pro-gamer? How would she know what it is like for a male pro-gamer? How would she know what it is like for a male pro-gamer? How would she know what it is like for a male pro-gamer? You are astonishing, please report to the central testing facility for weaponisation of your ignorance. The procedure, unfortunately, is highly excruciating.

      • Kettelrino says:

        Oh, I’m sorry, does she have a device through which she can experience the world with the mind of a male pro-gamer?

        • Guvornator says:

          Yes. It’s called the Oculus Dick. Experience what being a man is like in lifelike 3d!

        • realmenhuntinpacks says:

          It’s called the human brain, bucko. If you’re going to shoot back with some ill-thought out vomit that reveals you don’t believe in the concept of empathy – well, just don’t.

          • analydilatedcorporatestyle says:

            I think he feels that being the subject of sexism is a personal choice by women from what I can gather!

        • Brigand says:

          May your flawed Cartesian thinking be damned! The mind is not one place but innumerable places which the working of the minds observably occur! You can clearly see the mind of a male gamer through the acts that they perform. Obvz.

        • Low Life says:

          Ok, this might sound crazy (like, really wild), but hear me out. Could it be possible that this person has somehow found a way to communicate with male pro-gamers? I know, intersexual communication seems like something out of a sci-fi movie, but maybe she’s cracked the secret?

          • Ovno says:

            Doesn’t sound likely to me it would involve male gamers not turning bright red, giggling like a school boy and running off the moment a girl tries to talk to them ;)

          • JamesTheNumberless says:

            If only we could talk to the females

    • mouton says:

      and maybe just disable the comments to this one like a lot of feminists do to ban their way to consensus.

      You obviously haven’t seen the comments they get en masse. Death and rape threats to you and your relatives get kind of stale after a while and comment section dominated by those is of no use to anybody.

      • Fred S. says:

        You think that’s unique to women? I follow a number of popular game streamers in the Starcraft community and I can tell you that the same kinds of comments show up in every open chat log. Most streamers appoint moderators to try to keep it to a minimum.

        • sweetjer says:

          what part of mouton’s comment implies that there is only one reason people get death threats on the internet?

  8. Arglebargle says:

    She just realized there was a problem a year ago? Wow.

    • Kobest says:

      Not only that, but a friend told her about this.

    • Runs With Foxes says:

      That’s probably the case for many people who don’t play games much. It’s probably an advantage in some ways that an ‘outsider’ is researching this.

      • khomotso says:

        I’m afraid it’s not. It means we’re likely to get a recycling of easy answers and sloganeering, and not a deep dive into unique issues of gaming as such.

        cf. violence in games

    • Donjo says:

      Shannon Sun-Higginson describes herself as a film maker, not a gamer, so she might not have been aware of all the ins and outs of gaming before.

  9. lizzardborn says:

    This leaves me rather indifferent – maybe because I play in environment where there are plenty of girls, and none of them complaints about harassment. And we are talking LoL and MMOs here.

    The problem is that this film will be preaching to the choir – I feel doubts they will be able to reach to non believers.

    • SanguineAngel says:

      That’s a really problem I think, in any politcally charged debate. Really, people very change their minds as a result of debate because no matter how hard we try, if someone attempts to change our minds, it can feel as if our beliefs or our intelligence are being attacked and so we become defensive and entrenched in our point of view, rather than open to others.

      I guess the solution achieved by preaching to the choir is to amplify the positive attitude in those who hold it and as we bring up new generations we may phase out the negative attitudes as our children pick up on new attitudes from society.

    • John Walker says:

      Two things:

      1) The notion of “preaching to the choir” is a very strange and insular one. You may well be part of the choir, but since obviously so many of the unpleasant commenters on such articles so vehemently disagree, they’re not. And indeed the idea that anyone has any concept of the demographic of a readership is a bit strange.

      2) Encouraging the choir to sing louder is often very effective.

      • SanguineAngel says:

        Hi John, I think they mean that the only people who are going to pay any attention (in a positive way) are those who are already convinced by the argument. I think that’s a real problem because I can’t help but notice that debate frequently degenerates rapidly into a kind of competition between the two points of view and it becomes less about determining the truth and more about about winning the argument.

        Whilst I agree that encouraging the choir to sing louder is going to have a noticeable affect, and may help influence those who do not already have deep seated opinions ingrained, I do think it would be great if we could also find a way of engaging with people in a way that will encourage them to consider opinions counter to their own. Although I have no idea how we might do that beyond a 1 to 1 sit down in a calm, respectful and considerate manner. Which won’t often work anyway

        • mouton says:

          It is a problem with any debate, really, internet or otherwise – very rarely does anyone actually change their opinion and even more rare is when a vocal opponent does. The point is, there are also many other people who are not taking active part and might be more or less undecided on the matter. Thus, by causing discussion and providing sound arguments you do influence the general discourse in a positive way, even if your direct interlocutor is irredeemable. There is always a chance that even he/she shifts their opinion over time – after tempers cool – although it does depend on how open they are.

        • MajorManiac says:

          That gives me an idea. You may think this silly, but I’d like to see an article on great contributions by women to computer games in general.

          Maybe along the lines of what we have now thanks to early pioneers, and the sort of things we can look forward to in the future.

          It would be nice to have some positive themed articles on this topic. As someone commented below, the more the merrier.

        • Incision says:

          Dude, don’t try and put logic in the way of his white-knighting. Women are fragile special creatures who have been held back by the evil mens and need special consideration for their fragile nature to allow them to thrive.

          Oh… but… women can do anything the mens can do.

          Unless we don’t give them special consideration and support and shit.

          See what I mean about logic? There isn’t any on the white-knight side of the debate. No wonder feminism is trying to co-opt these fuckers. They can barely think once they get within 10 feet of a pair of tits.

      • Matt_W says:

        As a happy, card-carrying member of the choir, I promise to sing louder if you promise to keep preaching Mr. Walker. I slipped over to the KS for the movie and threw $10 in the bin. Articles like this are why RPS is the first site I visit everyday, and why I’ve subscribed (even though the website STILL refuses to save my login.) Please keep it up!

  10. Utsunomiya says:

    I hope this one will be as well researched as that last kickstarter shtick.
    I love propaganda!

    • John Walker says:

      Just out of interest, what is being propagandised, and to whose advantage?

      • Utsunomiya says:

        >what is being propagandised
        Typical Bolshevik rhetoric with a good dose of emotional blackmail. The best stuff!
        >to whose advantage?
        I wonder who got all the monies!

        • John Walker says:

          Um, huh?

          They’re propagandising the concept of propaganda?! Gosh, how meta of them.

          And, they’re propagandising for the cause of having some money with which to make a 90 minute film?

          Well thank goodness you were here!

          • Utsunomiya says:

            Please, educate yourself, you look mighty silly right now.

          • Guvornator says:

            Shit, we’ve been rumbled, Comrade!

          • Focksbot says:

            “Please, educate yourself, you look mighty silly right now.”

            Anyone who uses the phrase “typical Bolshevik rhetoric” about civil rights activism is in no position to tell anyone else to educate themselves.

          • Jayblanc says:

            Just to give this some context, and explain what this weird Bolshevik statement is about…

            Trotskyists, of the ‘Socialist Worker Party’ kind, believe that Feminism is a counter-revolutionary ‘distraction’ created to undermine ‘social order’ and engage in ‘seperatisim’. A concept that the SWP Trotskyists invented to paint all Feminists as those who want women to hate men.

            Of course it’s absurd, and completely bat-****-insane. But frankly, so is the Socialist Worker Party. And I say that as someone who’s supported socialism all my life.

        • mouton says:

          “Bolshevik rhetoric”? Grandpa, I told you not to comment on sites I read. Also, how many times do I have to tell you the war is over?

          • Gap Gen says:

            It’s those damn Cathars and their heresy that are ruining this generation, I tell you.

        • Brigand says:

          “Typical Bolshevik rhetoric with a good dose of emotional blackmail”
          Haha, that’s actually brilliant. I think I’m going to start using that to dismiss every argument I can. Actually “Typical Bolshevik rhetoric” would make a great RPS site tagline, in my humble opinion.

          • Guvornator says:

            Me and all the other workers in the commune give this a thumbs up. Of course they have too what with the block vote and all…

          • Synesthesia says:

            oo, yes, site tagline! I’m up with that. What the hell was that comment even trying to be?

            Edit: Haha! It made it! I’m a happy man right now.

        • sweetjer says:

          you’ve gone so far off the rails, the rails are now irrelevant.

    • Gap Gen says:

      Geese in top hats are the best.

    • Voronwer says:

      Thank you, I was getting depressed by some of the arguments here. This thread at least made me laugh out loud.

    • Captain Kirk says:

      I came to echo that statement. This is one of the funniest things I have read in the comment sections in a long time. RPS should make a commenter hall of fame, and copy some of these gems over to it.

  11. Neo says:

    This looks a little more down to earth than Tropes vs. Women, I hope it stays that way and takes a look at these matters objectively.

    PS: John, implying that everyone who doesn’t like social justice articles, like this one, is an “angry man” is probably not the best thing to do if you want the subject to be taken seriously.

    • John Walker says:

      For someone who has the energy to read, then complain about having read, an article on social justice, “angry man” is a very polite term from the available list.

    • SanguineAngel says:

      I suspect he was rather talking to those people who read social justice pieces and then complain angrily about having just read a social justice piece, despite knowing beforehand that they were about to read a social justice piece.

      • The Greatness says:

        These fucking people. I think ‘scum of the earth’ is a more accurate description of these people than ‘angry men.’

  12. strange_headache says:

    Interesting, although I would have wished for a better movie title. Like “GTFI” (Get The Fuck IN). This would be more in line of what the movie intends to do. Create a conscience for sexism in the video game world, resulting in a healthier environment for our female (and male) compatriots.

    Criticizing is necessary, but aren’t there ANY gamers, game studios or game developers who are treating women right? Maybe adding a focus on the more positive trends towards gender equality would actually help attracting female gamers instead of repelling them.

    Put those people in the spotlight that are working towards a sexism-free environment and give those a boost who are, in fact, NOT contributing to the stereotyping of male and female role models. Maybe, just maybe, many women refuse to be part of the video game world BECAUSE they only see the abundant sexism and discrimination instead of the more positive examples.

    In fact, where ARE those positive examples? Please don’t tell me that there aren’t any. That would be depressing.

    • lizzardborn says:

      Well don’t know about any, but the amount of girls you can talk with about Fallout, Legacy of Kain, God of war, Vampire:Bloodlines and Tomb raider is amazing. It is just the competitive multiplayer where stuff is toxic.

      • Fred S. says:

        Competitive multiplayer chat logs are full of all kinds of trolling and trash talk. Watch any game streamer’s chat for a while and you’ll see every sort of offensive nonsense trolls. Or better yet, don’t, it’s ridiculous and juvenile. To single out the sexist comments and make a big thing out of them as opposed to the other more generally insulting trolls is a clear case of confirmation bias in action. The problem isn’t sexism, it’s general juvenile assholism.

        Some gamers appoint moderators who aggressively delete offensive posts and other rule-breakers. But it’s all just noisy kids trying to get attention. Ignore it. It won’t go away, and trying to make it go away just exposes you to even more egregious examples since the trolls now know what gets under your sking.

        • sweetjer says:

          You already said that, and it was wrong the first time. Don’t ignore it. Talk about it. Tear it apart. Shine light under the troll’s bridge. Make him stare at his vile hatred. Run him out with torches. Do anything but ignore it.

          • Chainrxn says:

            Unfortunately, that assumes there are social repercussions for behavior. Unfortunately there are not, due to the anonymity that the internet provides. That is the real problem. What you describe will likely only cause the trolls to increase their efforts and abusive behavior, because they know its effective and that it is getting the response they desire.

            If you could somehow remove the anonymity then I would agree wholeheartedly. Until that happens, the best solution is to ignore them so they do not get the attention they desire.

          • sweetjer says:

            I think a valid solution is to tell them they’re vile and ban them. I mute trolls, for sure, but I promote bans where appropriate. My point, though, isn’t really re: what you should do in the moment when you’re being trolled by a bigot. “ignore it” also sounds like we should just sweep it under the rug as a societal problem. I think efforts to illuminate the problem are important, whether or not said efforts trigger a terrible person’s attention-seeking response or whatnot.

          • Chainrxn says:

            A ban is only a temporary solution and does nothing to change the troll’s behavior.

            I’m not saying your solution isn’t right, just that it wont be effective in an environment that fosters anonymity. We need to remove the anonymity first, then we can shame/reveal the troll. In the case we cant remove anonymity, they we need to come up with another solution. I propose ignoring the trolls.

            That’s not to say I suggest ignoring the problem. I will discuss this problem rationally with any number of non-trolls but i will never directly acknowledge a troll by responding to their posts or even acknowledging they exist. The reason is twofold: first its exactly what they want and second it engages them on their terms.

          • Chainrxn says:

            Put another way, shining a light on a problem is not always the right answer. Especially if the problem is attention seeking behavior.

            There was a rash of people running onto fields during American sporting events a few years ago. They solved it (not completely, but to a large degree) by turning the cameras away when it was occurring, ensuring that the idiot did not get what he wanted…attention. Showing people being tackled on the field, arrested, and going to jail only increased the occurrences.

    • randomkeyhits says:

      Unfortunately many good examples are not newsworthy or even reportable.

      Suppose you go and visit an online community which has no sexism issues. All you can really do is report in the negative, that you did not see between others or experience for yourself any such event. Even then all you can actually say is that while you were examining the community that you perceived no such event. Five minutes later? Who knows.

      Also the ideal situation, not just for sexism but for almost all forms of intolerance is simply to be able to say nothing to see here, move along. As a fact and not as a cover up.

      For me its where the PC brigade always fall down, by shouting so loud they can often intensify a situation, not diffuse it and god forbid they actually address it.

  13. Draelo says:

    I barely, if at all, post in comments but I’d just like to say I no longer will be visiting Rock paper shotgun. It used to be one of my most enjoyable gaming sites to visit but after this constant political stand on girls in gaming has been constantly forced down my throat as a visitor I simply can’t stand it anymore. Racism and minorities have been treated much worse then women in gaming for a much longer time now and yet I don’t see Rock paper shotgun addressing those issues with such aggression.

    I understand that at times women are treated poorly in gaming but I don’t come here to be constantly bombarded as a gamer and made to feel like I’m part of some group of enthusiast that belittle women. I come here for gaming news. Obviously it’s RPS’s choice as to whatever they want to publish but this constant bombardment is just too much and makes me sick to be honest. How about you share equal time to the other minorities in gaming if you are as noble as you present yourself to be.

    I’ve tried to hold my tongue on the subject but this has become such a frustrating thing I can’t help but finally pull the plug on RPS. Yes I am but one person but you as a reporters have lost a reader pushing your own opinions into a gaming news site and in my opinion that is not professional.

      • Draelo says:

        Wow RPS has really gone down the drain. I offered a respectful disagreement with content on the site and you behind your keyboard of my a smart ass ‘bye’. Point in case RPS showing no professionalism what so ever. No respect for its readers. Oh unless they agree with you

        • Alec Meer says:

          No, it was petulant, ignorant and intellectually lazy. Also: when someone says they’re leaving, it’s generally the done thing to actually leave. As opposed to hanging around for a response so you can have the last word again.

          • Draelo says:

            Oh god forbid someone take a stance on something and stay to discuss it. Obviously you enjoy RPS’s stance of ‘If you don’t agree with me leave!’ like a child you refuse to actually have dialogue with someone who has a different opinion on the matter.

          • Alec Meer says:

            Hmm, I notice you still haven’t left, despite clearly and repeatedly stating that to be your intention? Presumably you’re experiencing a technical issue – let me help you with that.

          • Guvornator says:

            Um…YOU said you were leaving. Just saying…

            Have fun doing men’s stuff.

          • John Walker says:

            “That’s it, I’m leaving!”


            Doo, doo dee doo.



          • Peptidix says:

            Nice flounce.

            If you are that disappointed you can really just leave.

          • SkittleDiddler says:

            Where are the articles about racism in gaming, Alec? It would be nice to see some coverage on that.

          • Incision says:

            No Alec. Intellectually lazy is repeating feminist propaganda without having done any kind of research yourself. Intellectually lazy is accepting feminist assumptions at face value without subjecting them to the searing light of reason.

            Intellectually lazy is playing turn-coat on your own gender because you mistakenly think it’ll score you points with women and get you closer to a set of tits. I bet in your heart of hearts you’re thinking you’re a shoo-in to get laid sometime this decade.

          • Ergates_Antius says:

            Intellectually lazy is playing turn-coat on your own gender because you mistakenly think it’ll score you points with women and get you closer to a set of tits.
            My god. You really do need to be killed don’t you. Kindly fuck off and die in a fire you subhuman filth.

          • Incision says:

            My god. You really do need to be killed don’t you. Kindly fuck off and die in a fire you subhuman filth. Ah yes. There we go kiddies – the real face of feminism hiding behind the pair of tits. Let me guess – you think Valerie Solanas is a feminist icon.

        • Mordsung says:

          Respect is earned, not given, and your comments have shown you someone not deserving of respect.

          You have to be a respectable human being to receive respect, you understand that concept do you not?

          You do not simply receive respect by being a breathing sack of meat.

          Be the kind of human worthy of respect and you’ll find it comes your way.

          • stiaros says:

            So, people that disagree with you, are not respect worthy. Got it.

          • RaveTurned says:

            Specifically people who ramp up the melodrama saying “I don’t agree with all these articles on your site, so I’m leaving, HUMPH!”, then stick around to insult the authors, and then complain that no-one’s engaging with them in spite of having said almost nothing worth engaging with, and shrouding what little there was in a shower of bad manners.

            No, those people are doing a bad job of earning respect.

          • Mordsung says:

            People who disagree with me with well thought out opinions that don’t fly in the face of reality are worthy of respect.

            This guy’s intellectual floundering is not.

            For example, I am an atheist and I can respect a deist. I think they’re wrong, but we have a slight disagreement on whether to put a hat on the question mark before the big bang. I can respect a “follower of Christ” who believes the teachings of Christ were sound but that he was simply a mortal man. But I cannot respect a Young Earth Creationist because their opinion is literally pulled out of their ass.

            3 opinions different than my own, 2 I can respect, 1 I will not.

          • deadrody says:

            Oh really ? His comments were not incendiary in any way. The only reason you can’t “respect” them is because you DISAGREE with them. That seems to be quite a popular approach on this issue.

        • Gap Gen says:

          Wait, did you forget your hat and have to come back to sheepishly retrieve it before leaving forever again? That happens to me, too.

          Wait, come back, here’s your scarf! You forgot your scarf!

        • John Walker says:

          Firstly, you said you wouldn’t be reading any more. So, er.

          Secondly, I have no respect for *your opinion*, because you’ve written utter nonsense like “constantly” and “forced down my throat” about what makes up less than 1% of the content on the site.

          So off you pop.

          • Vorphalack says:

            That’s not even the worst of his reasoning. You should give some serious consideration to writing counter article to the fallacy that because you are covering feminism, you are somehow morally obliged to cover every social justice issue that exists with equal weight. I don’t think Johns previous article really covered that, and it’s one common rebuttal attempt that keeps being thrown back in your face. It’s partner in crime tends to be people questioning why you cover feminism ”when [insert issue here] is far more important”. Those lines of reasoning need to die.

        • haowan says:

          Wow, you said you were leaving, he said bye, seems fair

        • Synesthesia says:

          oh, that felt good. I needed at least one of these idiots to get booted. I’m mentally making him all of them. Specially the idiot that said women earn less because they dont want to. Fuck’s sake.

      • Jams O'Donnell says:

        I wish that had been “GTFO” instead of “bye.” I wish that so much.

    • Prime says:

      “Forced down your throat”? I didn’t realise RPS were coming to your house and physically making you click on these articles. You poor soul: those horrible beasts.

      • Crosmando says:

        Is it too much to come here and expect ehhh… video games?

        Holy shit who plays games, or comes to gaming related sites, to have political activism shoved in their face. This article has nothing about video games nothing, you could replace “games” with any other hobby/interest and copypaste it.

        RPS is driving people away with this incessant political messages.

        • Alec Meer says:

          I would encourage you to arrange an appointment with your optician.

          • Sumanai says:

            I don’t see how that would help if their browser doesn’t allow scrolling. And somehow filters out all non-social justice posts.

            Now installing a browser that does allow viewing the actual site in full, that would help.

            Edit: However I would suggest they hire an Igor to get them a new brain.

        • Prime says:

          From the article above:

          If you don’t like posts about issues related to women and gaming, don’t read this post, and maybe scroll to one of the 17,000 other articles on the site!

          The games are there. You’ve just ignored them to come and comment that there are no discussions about games.

          Also, RPS is not driving anyone away. They’re just being themselves. If people don’t like that then the responsibility for that lies with the person who doesn’t like it, not RPS.

        • Guvornator says:

          That’s right, I just want to read about games, Godammit!!! And when I say about games, I mean a very, very narrow section of games criticism, limited only to whether game A is good or not and doesn’t challenge my personal views or beliefs in anyway. Fuck you, broadminded-ness!

      • Draelo says:

        If an add is constantly in between your favourite tv show do you consider it to be forced upon you? Jog on.

        • analydilatedcorporatestyle says:

          Jog on? You sir are a man of little honour. Please stick to your word and stop frequenting RPS! i.e. JOG ON!!

        • Gap Gen says:

          Adverts about arithmetic! Now there’s an idea.

          But yes, the difference I suppose is that adverts between TV shows are usually unskippable, whereas I regularly skim past articles on RPS that don’t interest me. I probably only read 10% of the site’s output these days. So it’s sort of silly to complain that you’re forced to read any given article. Granted, you’re forced to *see* the headline if you want to browse the site, but being offended by headlines is a different argument to “RPS should post about games, not social issues”. Unless that argument is just code for “I dislike gender equality/liberty/apple pie, and am offended when a site about games promotes it.”

          Then again, as for your TV example, the medium is traditionally unskippable, so you are usually only given a choice to watch what is currently streaming to your TV rather than choosing what you watch and when.

        • sweetjer says:

          I mute the TV during ads and read an article on RPS instead.

    • analydilatedcorporatestyle says:

      Don’t let the door hit your arse on the way out, see ya!!

    • bokkibear says:

      “you as a reporters have lost a reader pushing your own opinions into a gaming news site”

      If it weren’t for the opinions of the writers, this site would be a pretty bland regurgitation of dull marketroid press releases, just like lots of other sites. The very reason I come here is for the opinions and viewpoints of the writers.

      I don’t hear anyone protesting that “Wot I Think” articles are “pushing their own opinions”.

    • Saul says:

      In a similar vein, being bombarded with nonsense like this in the comments threads of this and other games sites makes me feel sick to the point that I consider quitting the games industry entirely. And then I remember that I can just stop reading stuff that I don’t like. And also that nothing will ever change if the only people who stick around are fools.

    • Gap Gen says:

      The author does make one interesting point – I *would* be interested in reading more articles about race, sexuality, etc, in gaming. It’s certainly true that homophobia is a problem in our culture, and racism is an extant issue in much of the Western world. I remember reading an article where religious extremists in the US are funding homphobic movements in the developing world as part of the spill-over from the failure of their campaigns in the west (in the Economist, I think). Plus I was pretty disgusted that Mass Effect 3’s skin colour selector only went from albino to slightly tanned. So I would really like it if RPS wrote more about these issues.

    • Fenix says:

      “How about you share equal time to the other minorities in gaming if you are as noble as you present yourself to be.”
      It’s about relevance, dude. Half the population of the earth is Female. So mistreatment of women in the games industry affects quite a huge number of people. Which is why it’s deemed important and many articles are devoted to it. But (and I use this as an example because it is relevant to me) writing about the irrationally and politically-stained negative portrayal of Iranians and Iran in videogames would be relevant to only a small portion of people.

    • The Greatness says:

      ‘constantly forced down my throat’

      Occasional articles.

      With descriptive titles.

      And warnings at the top.

      I don’t get it.

    • Voronwer says:

      I actually wouldn’t mind seeing some articles on racism and minorities in gaming, but I’m grateful that RPS is not backing down on this subject.

      Still, I’m trying to understand something here: “but I don’t come here to be constantly bombarded as a gamer and made to feel like I’m part of some group of enthusiast that belittle women”.

      Why would you feel like that? If you know about yourself that you haven’t been belittling women, then why would an article speaking out against this make you feel like you have? Wouldn’t this actually make you feel good to not be part of that problem and to be someone who can make women feel welcome? (Though, admittedly, I can see how these articles aren’t a happy news show and some of the things I read depress me more than anything.)

  14. MajorManiac says:

    Its good to see more sources / viewpoints on this topic. I really like the idea of this being spread out to many documentary makers. Thus removing the ‘Michael Moore Syndrome’ where if you disagree with a particular film makers style, you’re presumed to disagree with what they are fighting for.

    One thing I personally find distasteful is how some panellists assume fat is the opposite of hot. It looks a little stupid fighting for your own equality whist openly stifling others.

    • Kettelrino says:

      I dislike her style, as well.

      She alreday declared that she has an opinion that she will support, whatever it takes.
      She will look for evidence.
      Based on other people’s opinion, mostly, it seems, that are not even first hand.

      Instead, she should have asked the question in the beginning:
      Are women disadvantaged in the gaming industry (as players and developers)?
      What are the exact figures of men and women playing videogames and the ones who make them?
      Is online trolling something exclusive to female videogamers or is it a egalitarian phenomena?

      You know? Like a professional would.

      • jimbobjunior says:

        Egalitarian: That word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

      • Reapy says:

        Literally the first time I enabled Xbox live gold was for dark souls, and post the first invasion I received my first, ‘you are a fucking asshole faggot!!!’ message. If my name sounded female, that insult would be female oriented, if I had a hispanic name, a Russian name, a Chinese, a black sounding name etc it would be oriented on my race.

        Little kids take the easiest attack vector, pick the most obviouse feature to attack broadly. An insult is meant to be insulting. Is it a targeted series of attacks by men to exclude women, or an observation of many people picking the easiest hurtful thing to say to their target?

  15. Taidan says:

    I’m sure there are legions of disabled homosexual ethnic-minority gamers out there who can’t wait to see this one.

  16. Mordsung says:

    The nice thing about these articles is they allow you to identify those not worth conversing with and also cause many of these undesirables to vacate the site of their own volition.

    Women are still not treated equally in society and just because it is not the mountain of injustice it was 50 years ago does not mean the injustice does not still exist.

    If we stop pushing for equality when we’ve already got one toe over the finish line, that would be just pathetic.

    If we assist our society in maturing to the point of full equality, then we never have to discuss the issue again.

    So you people who do not want to read these articles, assist in the equalization of society and you never will need to read articles like this for the rest of time.

    I am a straight, white, male and it is as much my job as anyone else to fight for equality. Because at one point I wouldn’t have been considered white, I would have been considered Irish and I would not have had the same rights as other white people, and if I do not fight for equality now any of us, current majority or not, could find ourselves being discriminated against.

    • Draelo says:

      Where is the fight for all the other minorities in gaming then? If we are about equality where is the equality in the fight for all minorities not just women? It’s a political stance and RPS is the vehicle.

      • Snids says:

        “If you can’t change the entire world, why bother even trying?”
        – you

      • Mordsung says:

        Did you miss their articles fighting for disabled gamers and the companies that help them?

        Did you miss the article on Borderlands 2 and the hooplah about the character that was being perceived as a racist insult toward urban blacks?

        Are you willfully ignorant or just blind? I am curious.

      • SpiceTheCat says:

        For someone who flounced away from RPS forever on page 1 of the comments, you’re sure talking a lot.

        Also, not being to change everything is no reason not to try changing something. Yes, that makes sense.

      • ocelotwildly says:

        Please, please don’t try and pretend that if RPS broadened their coverage of social justice issues you would accept it and be happier that injustice of all flavours was finally being exposed in the gaming world. You would whinge and bitch and moan and flounce even more, for fear that legions of pansexual anarcho-syndicalist vegans will descend upon you and demand that you rescind your copies of ‘BigTits Shooter IV – Mammary Meltdown’, and ‘Captain DeathHunk – Space Bastard’ for immediate immolation in the Babelplatz.

    • Kettelrino says:

      >”Women are still not treated equally in society and just because it is not the mountain of injustice it was 50 years ago does not mean the injustice does not still exist.”

      You realize that man and women are not treated equally in society because they are not the same?
      You talk about injustice? But you only mean the injustice against men.
      And you completely ignore how men are more and more the disadvantaged people. Hell, even boys.
      There is a whole cultural war going on against boys.
      Look at the suicide statistics. Look at the education level statistics. Look at the custody right statistics.

      • Mordsung says:

        And those are all valid concerns, but they are not relevant to the world of gaming.

        RPS is a gaming site and when they discuss discrimination they discuss it in the context of games.

        Gaming is a boys club right now, we are in control, we are not being discriminated against at all in the realm of gaming.

        Do you understand the difference and why RPS would not be reporting on male parental rights?

        If you really need me to I could whip up a diagram in MS Paint.

        • Kettelrino says:

          Fair enough, but I think I remember where they extrapolated beyond the realm of gaming.

          Ignoring online gaming and the treatment of players, for a moment:

          I want to point to Anita Sarkeesian again, who, in her very Kickstarter video, started with the phrase:
          “Have you ever noticed, that, with a few notable exceptions, basically all female characters in videogames fall into a small hand full of cliché and stereotypes.”

          It is the same with men. With a few notable exceptions, basically all male characters in videogames fall into a small hand full of cliché and stereotypes.

          But RPS never covered this, really, except when they criticise the lack of innovation in videogames or how more and more videogames are blatan shooters.

          P.S.: Did you really need to be condescending in the end with that comment?

          • Mordsung says:

            In a case like this, yes, I did need to be condescending because people like you are a real danger. I am going to be vitriolic to anyone even approaching misogyny apologetics, whether intentional or not.

            And yes, the male heroes are also stereotypes, but almost always universally cool or desirable. We get heroes we want to be, females often get heroes they hate. And then we also get awesome examples like Max Payne, an aging alcoholic with a gut. Do women ever get to play an ugly middle age wine-swilling divorcee? We get way more outs than they do in the stereotype department.

            Both suffer from stereotypes, but one suffers from an overwhelming number of NEGATIVE stereotypes while the other does not.


          • Kettelrino says:


            Because most women do not desire to be beautiful, desirable and loved by a lot of people?
            Since when is being an alcoholic whose family got killed awesome?

            Funny, to say that I am a danger. I am being treated like that in this comment section a lot.
            The danger of fats and logic, perhaps?
            Yes, that is a threat to feminist ideology and their political agenda.

            You don’t seem to be interested in reasonable debate, but seem to focus on feelings and subjective points of view.
            This is what truly is scary to me.

          • Mordsung says:

            Not every woman wants or cares about being beautiful and liked by people just like every man wants or cares about being ripped and liked by people.

            You don’t even realize how one dimensional your view of females are.

            And Max Payne is an example of a strong, heroic character who is ugly and has had terrible things happen in his life. Female gamers have no equivalent. All their heroes are attractive, all of them are young or abnormally young looking for their supposed age. Hell, almost all female villains in games are attractive.

            Women deserve to have their Maxine Payne, overweight divorced and drunk. Woman deserve to have heroes that fit all the same stereotypes our heroes do, and we also deserve to have the same. They deserve to have their Rochard, an overweight space trucker, they deserve to have alien races where the females aren’t all oddly attractive and human-like, they deserve to have a female hero who uses and abuses men as she please just like we have womanizers like Duke Nukem.

            Anything we have they should have, and the same is true for us. We should have more weak male heroes, we should have transexual heroes and homosexual heroes and every bloody colour of the gender/sex rainbow and every possible combination.

            Do you know why Alien had such a strong female character in Ellen Ripley? When the script was written, no character was ever given a gender and all were refered to only by their last name. It was left to the casting department to choose who was male and who was female based entirely on the character writing.

            That kind of writing should be the norm.

        • Kettelrino says:

          Max Payne is hardly ugly.
          He is rough, tall, strong, deep voice and active/dominant.
          Exactly the kind of man men and women like to see often in their advertisements.

          Anyway, we are more accepting of bad-looking male hereos because masculinity is not primarly defined by the looks.
          Their attractiveness can highly be elevated the way they dress, walk, talk and what they do.
          Femininity is primarly defined by the looks.
          Why? Because in every mammal species pretty much all the females reproduce, but only a fraction of males.
          In no other species do so many males reproduce as in mankind.
          Men are supposed to be the performers in nature.
          They are supposed to proof they are worthy of reproduction.
          Women have an inherent value just because they are women. They have an uterus.

          And we as a whole prefer to see attractive characters, if they resemble humans.

          And yes, even female villains are very often beautiful. Strange, but a fact.

          Side note: I find it funny how every one of the Beauty and the Beast characters in MGS4 were beautiful tortured women. As soon as we hear their backstories, we feel sorry for them. We excuse women fare more often when it comes to crimes. And it is easier for us psychologically when the woman is beautiful.

          Do make those games, please.
          I don’t really mind about gender in heros (unless it becomes ridicolous and unrepresentative of reality, when it tries to emulate reality. I.e. there are few female soldiers)
          I loved Beyond Good and evil or Syberia.
          That’s what Anita Sarkessian should have done with that 160,000$ minus Taxes anyway. Make a game.
          Like Gears of War, Max Payne or Call of Duty and all these other games are not being bought by women.

          • MobileAssaultDuck says:

            The entire point is that we are trying to change what is “traditionally masculine” and “traditionally feminine” because those traditions are outdated and those traditions were created in a world where men dominated.

            Do you not understand that the way things were is not good? Almost all traditions are just stupid old ways stupid old people used to do things. We are a socially evolving species, time to kill the traditional definitions because they no longer fit a large swath of the human race.

            We should be actively trying to destroy tradition at all times.

          • Kettelrino says:


            I wish I could ignore millions of years of evolution and psychology and biology.

            This is why communism failed. Because it is against human nature.
            We can only change this if we completely understand DNA and how it defines everything in a living organism.
            And then we would have to intervene. But the funny thing is, that is something most feminists I encountered also don’t want.
            Or we could organize our reproduction, generation after generation, only let these reproduce who move away from our inherent behaviour.
            But the funny thing is, that is something most feminists I encountered also don’t want.

            I will never read this site again. The author of this article described MRAs (Men’s Rights Activists) as morons.
            That is enough.

          • Synesthesia says:

            Finally! I was wondering when you would leave. Until never again! G’bye!

          • MobileAssaultDuck says:

            Our views on femininity are not the effect of biology, they have been shaped by a dominant patriarchal culture.

            A girl doesn’t pick up a doll instinctively or desire pink instinctively, these were decided on by our human culture.

            Our views on what is male and female are not natural biology and never have been. If they had been, every culture would have evolved the same opinions about women and many cultures evolved without our ideals of gender.

            We’ve been socially engineered for centuries by people in power wanting to remain in power, and those people are mostly men, hence we have ended up with a patriarchy.

            Traditions aren’t biological.

          • harbinger says:

            @MobileAssaultDuck: Uhm, I’m sorry but you are wrong, and possibly delusional.
            See: link to

  17. Prime says:

    Excellent. The more the message gets around, the better. :)

  18. stiaros says:

    Someone should define the expression “women in gaming”.

    Gaming is a form of entertainment, like watching TV or reading a book. Why not make a documentary about women that read books?

    • SanguineAngel says:

      Women were previously not able to attend school and learn to read and generally educate themselves instead having to remain in the home, learning “womanly” pass times (not trades, there was only one trade they were allowed to do, which would of course segregate them from society as well) such as sowing, painted flower arranging, baking etc.

      These things changed because they were addressed by society. Women in gaming is a thing because women are discriminated against within gaming culture – both as gamers and as professionals. That is not the only place they are discriminated against, but as gamers ourselves it is one where we might reasonably take an interest in redressing the balance.

    • Mordsung says:

      Do you think there was not a lot of controversy surrounding the first women authors?

      Do you think it wasn’t a struggle for ancient women to be allowed to learn to read in some cultures? I mean, fuck, there are Christian denominations in the US right now that would prefer their women couldn’t read.

      That battle was fought decades before we were born, this is a new battle, do keep up.

    • rabish12 says:

      EDIT: Whoopsie daisy, didn’t mean this to be a reply.

  19. MarcP says:

    It’s a bit confusing as to how speaking up until you’re heard will change anything if you encourage people who disagree with you not to listen to you. If everyone who agreed with you had their way, women in gaming wouldn’t have any problem, now would they?

    Likewise, if people don’t want to have this discussion there should be little need to beg them not to talk at all. For a discussion to exist there has to be at least two distinct ideas, two distinct point of views, otherwise this is just called a speech.

    The amount of moon logic it takes to write that disclaimer, write that article, put the two together and not see anything wrong with it is just staggering.

    • Prime says:

      Moon logic? That’s a narrow and severe interpretation of John’s opening comments.

      You choose your audience, basically. There are those who just don’t want to listen but to proselytise their opposing viewpoints and insult the editorial staff. It’s to those people to whom the comment was addressed. Anyone able to hold an opposing view and is able to express it without insult or belittlement of either RPS or their fellow commenters will still be heartily welcomed. RPS is attempting to cut away the noise and maintain a higher, more productive level of discourse than waste time defending themselves against the same old crap.

    • Surlywombat says:

      The disclaimer is there for those people who think the article shouldn’t be on RPS at all, not those who disagree with the arguments made in the article.

      There are those who seem to be believe they have some sort of editorial control over RPS and it shouldn’t do articles on this subject at all. Those people are wrong because RPS owners and staff have editorial control and therefore anything RPS decides should be on RPS, should be on RPS.

  20. Oisin says:

    My personal view has never been biased in gender or sexual orientation. The more the merrier and diversity offers the greatest choice of games for players.

    I won’t watch this movie or follow women in gaming for the same reasons I don’t subscribe to a gay rights blog. It isn’t close to heart yet I welcome all to share what joy we can find through recreations like gaming.

  21. Nevard says:

    This article is far from the worst offender but I’m always amazed how the comments on any piece about sexism always end up justifying the fact that it needed to be written.

    • Snids says:

      A good point, well made.

    • Rapzid says:

      It could change, but I’ve yet to see sexism in the comments.

    • phoenixdk says:

      Thank you! Point well made before I even got here :)

    • mike2R says:

      “This article is far from the worst offender but I’m always amazed how the comments on any piece about sexism always end up justifying the fact that it needed to be written.”

      Bang on. Recent RPS coverage of this issue has changed my opinions considerably. Not by their arguments, but by the undeniable sexism displayed by some* of the people making the points I’d initially thought of making. I really hadn’t realised how entrenched an issue it is.

      *Please note the qualifying “some” there.

    • The Greatness says:

      Also MRAs. Thousands of them. Where do they all crawl from?

      • Kamos says:

        Yep, you’re either on team misandry, or you’re against equality.

  22. Snids says:

    Honestly John, it’s like you’re not even trying to win the war of boys against girls!

  23. Faxanadu says:

    “There are those that feel the peculiar, irrational sense of threat,”

    Me, me! That’s me! Irrational? Yeah, right, because it’s not like 9/10 times something actually gets done it’s done by banning and censoring, instead of “talking about it and getting people to understand”. Hah!

  24. Aysir says:

    I still don’t get why so many comments here claim not to be interested in this matter, and still click the link and read the article. I love RPS’ stance on this matter and their willingness to stand up for what they believe – and especially John’s zeal on the subject :) long may it continue.
    If you’re not interested, don’t click, read and comment. There are other articles out today.

    • Kettelrino says:

      It goes back to the 1960s , 1970s with the feminist slogan “Ther Personal Is Political – The Political is Personal”

      This opens the door for damaged, personally afflicted individuals to claim that their singular experience is representative for most people.
      “If I have been mistreated in online videogames because of my gender, it matters to everyone to the same degree, and most likely everyone was treated this way.”

      • Gap Gen says:

        Well, politics *is* about the interactions between people, after all. Plus it’s much easier to reform legal institutions in a Western democracy than it is to reform pervasive social ideas.

        But this is part of the #1reasonwhy movement’s rationale – providing a wealth of personal experience and anecdotes so that discussion of the issue transcends discussion of single examples.

      • JehuGarroutte says:

        You keep letting us all know how opposed to articles like this you are, as filtered through your own views of what feminism means, and how unimportant this issue is. And yet one of your main, recurring “criticisms” is that subjectivity and personal views are irrelevant in a discussion such as this.

        Essentially, you say that feelings have no place in this discussion, then make comment after comment about how this discussion makes you feel.

      • dE says:

        You throw that “slogan” around, but show no sign of knowing what it actually refers to. It means how we understand ourselves is based upon social and cultural influences, which in turn are the result of political decisions and the struggle for power. Curiously enough it is not about the individual, it’s about power in relation to others.

      • Ralphomon says:

        As much as the statement ‘the plural of anecdote is not data’ is usually true, at some point the sheer overwhelming amount of anecdotal evidence from the #1ReasonWhy becomes a pretty clear indication that something is fundamentally wrong with game culture. The other explanations are that all of these are coincidentally all non-gender-motivated incident (which is possible but extremely – impossibly – unlikely) or all women are lying and there’s a huge conspiracy to make men feel bad about themselves when women actually feel completely fine about the state of the universe (which is not only utterly, completely batshit tinfoil-hat-wearing crazy, it’s manifestly not working, because a lot of male gamers refuse to feel bad about the treatment of women).

        I don’t really know where I was going with this. Ah well, yay RPS for writing this! You keep preaching, I’ll keep singing.

  25. Jimbo says:

    Somebody with a megaphone telling everybody who disagrees with them to shut up isn’t really a discussion is it? Problem is, all that’ll leave you with is an audience of people who already agreed with you in the first place.

    So has a dam really been broken, or does it only feel like that because you’ve made sure the only people left in the conversation are those who already think exactly as you do? Hopefully the former but I expect the latter. The intentions are good (for the most part), but I suspect the approach so far has been counter-productive if anything. What use is this new found ‘voice’ if the people who need to hear it have already basically been told to fuck off? Right now you’re off in your own group convincing yourselves of something you already know, which is exactly where you’ve chosen to be.

    • Matt_W says:

      How strange it is that yours and many many other dissenting voices continue to exist in this and other comment threads on similar articles. Perhaps you are just completely and utterly full of shit. I’m not sure what you expect: that you make a comment and then collect back-slaps and high-fives in the replies? Do you think it’s censorship when people vociferously disagree with you? It does appear that truly objectionable content — blatant misogyny/racism/homophobia, rape threats, etc — is removed, but the curation here still seems to leave plenty of room for dissent.

      • deadrody says:

        Hey, Matt, way to make Jimbo’s point for him! Bravo! Again, another “dissenting voice” does not say anything incendiary, yet he is attacked just for disagreeing. AND, I should point out, not even for disagreeing about the substance of the argument, but only on a tangential point.

        And yet, BASH BASH BASH. Funny how the liberals are always the ones with such rigid ideologies. You SHALL fall in line with our opinion exactly or else you are a dangerous misogynist. So unbelievably ridiculous.

    • Kamos says:

      I imagine at least a few of the people who can read graphs (a.k.a. “sexist scum”) decided to follow the recommendation in the italicized text and read the other posts.

  26. dE says:

    I much appreciate the current choice of words and stance on the subject. Thank you for the article.

  27. Glottis1 says:

    Time to look in the mirror. Who is the angry men here? That first paragraph tells everything you need to know. That first paragrap is like hitting RPS readers in face and saying, if you hit back you are idiot. Yes, there are some idiots, but most readers just want honest discusion which is not allowed now.

    • Prime says:

      Oh stop whining. You can have intelligent discussion. Just stop crying about freedom of speech and, y’ know, say something vaguely intelligent about the subject without being horrible to anyone.


    • dE says:

      No. I disagree. Articles in the past occasionally had some attacks on readers in them. This one? It’s essentially “don’t care? don’t read” in a non hostile way.

    • Entitled says:

      I bet you are the kind of person who reads a novel with an ugly, miserable, child-molesting, terrorist with a small penis appearing in it as a negative side character, and recognizes it as the slanderous caricature of himself, and calls it “a slap in the face to all readers of the story”.

      – The top commentary specifically called out the kind of people who go to social justice articles, just to complain about how they don’t want to see social justice articles on this site.

      If you recognize youself in these kind of “angry men”, that’s your problem.

      • Glottis1 says:

        @Entitled: Is this directed to me? I have no idea what you are trying to say with that story.

        For who is RPS directing these articles? and why? For people who agree with them? It seems to be so. Why not make honest and well written articles and maybe convince some of these angry men?

        • Entitled says:

          You commented that the first paragraph feels like “hitting RPS readers in face”.

          All that the first paragraph says, is that if you don’t like posts about women or gaming, don’t need to read this one and then comment on how you didn’t want to read posts about women and gaming. And insultingly called those who still feel an urge to do so, as “angry men”, and “silly”.

          If you feel insulted by that phrase, maybe you should question why the hell did you identify with it to begin with?

          Are you actually feeling an urge to read posts that you don’t care about, and then comlain about how you didn’t want to read them? If yes, you DESERVE to get called much worse than an angry man and silly.

          And if no, you have no reason to feel like being “hit in the face”.

          That’s what my analogy wanted to semonstrate: if you feel offended by the presence of slander against certain despicable people, you might first want to think about why you felt like it’s about you to begin with?

      • deadrody says:

        Wow, such informed, relevant commentary.

    • RedViv says:

      No, that is not at all what it says. It says that if you have for some reason a problem with the inclusion of posts on one certain gaming-related topic on this blog, then you can just look at the rest of the topics and leave this alone, and not instantly start an argument with the creators of this very site on how they should do things differently over and over and over and over again.

  28. WarderDragon says:

    Much <3 to RPS. Don't stop writing about this stuff until the day it's no longer necessary. Even then I hope you write some more about it just to drive the point home. The sooner the stupid is taken out of my Internets, the better.

  29. Kuroko says:

    So, trolling is not a problem until the target happens to be a woman?

    I must thank John Walker, as his articles made me realize how ignored men’s issues are in today’s society, and how feminism is infecting and ruining everything. I wouldn’t have realized it without you.

    • Guvornator says:

      True, plus if women get on top who is going to do the dishes? They won’t clean themselves you know…

    • Mordsung says:

      Trolling someone is perfectly acceptable until the subject matter turns to their race, sexuality, gender, etc.

      These are things they cannot change, they were born that way, and to troll or insult them for it is unfair.

      It is perfectly acceptable to troll someone based on their beliefs, political leanings, or skill at the game.

      This is a very easy distinction to make, you should not need to think very hard about it.

      • Kettelrino says:

        >”Trolling someone is perfectly acceptable until the subject matter turns to their race, sexuality, gender, etc.”
        >”These are things they cannot change, they were born that way, and to troll or insult them for it is unfair.”

        Do you know what trolling is?

        >”It is perfectly acceptable to troll someone based on their beliefs, political leanings, or skill at the game.”

        The troll does not think in terms of acceptable or unacceptable. He just trolls. They have no rules. They just say the most vile thing that will upset you the most.

        • Mordsung says:

          Ah, see, you have fallen for the trick.

          Those trolls who “do not care for what is acceptable or not” are not actually trolls, they’re people who get called out for their malformed and stupid opinions and then hide behind the title of troll.

          You can see this diagram here to help you understand link to

          True trolling is an art form, and you must find the sorest spot in the target’s armor. They will be somewhat steeled against assaults toward gender, sex (and yes, those are different things), race, etc.

          Their opinions, their view of the world, that is the sore spot and a true troll stalks their victim in a community, gathers intel, and then strikes with a blade right in the soft spot.

          And the truest trolls are the ones who do it to those with opinions who deserve to get trolled.

          For example, this article trolled the shit out of a lot of people with very malformed and stupid opinions. They wrote angry diatribes about leaving RPS in a huff and then stayed to defend themselves showing that they got trolled hook-line-and-sinker.

          This was actually a masterful hero troll maneuver.

      • Llamageddon says:

        “Trolling someone is perfectly acceptable…” ? I kind of feel like this attitude is the root cause of all real and perceived discrimination in games and points to wider internet culture being the catalyst for the problem. If people can casually bully or insult people based on their beliefs and that is considered OK how is a hypothetical 14 year old internet troll supposed to know that he should draw the line at insults based on race, gender or sexuality. More to the point the majority of trolls are simply trolling for it’s own sake (and are probably not 14), it is a form of entertainment for them at the expense of others.

        I know that negative attitudes towards women in gaming are not purely expressed and demonstrated through internet sub-culture, but this project seems to be mostly focussed on “pro-gamer-girls” and if you are only looking at competitive online gaming then I think the wider attitudes of internet society are 90% of the cause of all the ill feeling.

        To at last get to my point; analysing negative attitudes towards women from a top down perspective is a very skewed approach that in the end won’t achieve much except increase the cacophony of “discussion” from all corners of the debate. The comments section of every article about women in games on this site is testament to that. If people really want to change negative attitudes in gaming towards any section of society, they really need to analyse the deeper cause of the problem and that is quite neatly summed up by the attitude that “Trolling someone is perfectly acceptable.”

        Obviously this is a different subject for discussion but I mention it because although I wholeheartedly support the cause, I too feel like RPS are overly promoting this specific issue relating to women, at the expense of other equally worthy causes about discrimination in gaming. If I was a cynic… (oh wait I am) I would suggest that RPS like pushing this specific issue over other precisely because all of us muppets scramble to the comments section and help foster the wider RPS community and excise out a few bad eggs from the community for them. Maybe this isn’t the case but I do get the feeling RPS’s coverage of this issue isn’t as altruistic and pious as they themselves believe.

        I’m not asking for less articles about women in gaming, I’m asking for more articles about discrimination of anyone in gaming, the gaming industry badly needs to grow up and letting one issue begin to eclipse others that are just as worrying is not helping that cause. I’d really like to see something written up about the casual pejorative use of words like “fag”, “bitch” and a specific anagram of “ginger” and the attitudes behind them. Please do, this would do just as much for improving attitudes towards women in gaming as for every other section of the gaming community, also I think it would be interesting to your readers and start engaging some of these “angry men” constructively into a wider debate.

        Oh and maybe John could try and sound just a little bit more objective and slightly less pious, just a bit. I like his writing and opinions but I think these issues deserve to be treated with slightly less ham-fistedness and just a touch more decorum. The “angry men” comment in the post was pure comment bait ;).

        TLDR: I want more articles about all kinds of discrimination in gaming or a par with the coverage this issue is receiving.

    • Schiraman says:

      Gosh! Infecting and ruining everything! That does sound bad!

      I didn’t realise that women who want to be treated fairly and equally were causing so many problems – thanks for bringing that to our attention.

      • Kettelrino says:

        In the case of trolling you can only be treated failry i.e. find a way to disable all the trolls

        or equally (to men. I guess that is what you meant.)
        and by being treated equally you would have to put up with nasty comments of online trolls like most people seem to do.
        Just ignore it or trash talk back.

        • Schiraman says:

          Thanks for the advice, I guess – but I’m not actually a woman, apologies for my confusing wording there. Still, um, if I ever get trolled about being a male gamer then I’ll definitely bear what you’re saying in mind ;)

          Personally I’m not a fan of trolling, but I agree that it’s inevitable. The issue here isn’t that women are occasionally its victims, just as men are, the issue is that when women try to discuss sexism (in gaming, or in any other area) they receive a huge amount of extremely unpleasant responses, far in excess of normal internet bickering/bullying/trolling.

          Anyway, the point I was trying to make through my oh-so-clever use of sarcasm was that actually I don’t think feminism is infecting and destroying everything. What do you think? Is feminism the ultimate evil and destroyer of worlds?

          • Kamos says:

            I grew up without ever hearing about feminism. I did learn a lot about equality though, and I think it is generally just common sense that people should be respected and not discriminated for gender, race, belief, etc.

            So I come to the internet and find out I’m scum, since I’m white, straight and male. Not only that, there is a lot of talk about all the “privilege” I have, and how much of a vile bastard I am for not recognizing it. Which again, makes no sense to me, since it is the denial of this “privilege” to others that seems strange to me. And then I meet the so-called “feminists” that think men can’t suffer abuse, or that it is not so bad when it happens to men.

            And then I finally recognize the great indoctrination I suffered, that girls are more intelligent, more sensible, more mature, better multi-taskers, and so on, while men are just generally dumb and aggressive, potential rapists, etc.

            And finally, once upon a while I come upon places like RPS, where someone pointing out that the information in a graph is being interpreted incorrectly gets labeled “sexist”. Or god forbid, holding the opinion that the only thing wrong with the female zombie torso is that there isn’t a male version of it. No, unless you agree that it is evil incarnate, you’re scum.

            Kinda reminds me of the people discussing the movie “The Hobbit” on the bechdel test website, complaining that there aren’t female, black and asian dwarves in it.

    • Gap Gen says:

      While I agree that there are men’s issues, such as parental rights, say, I don’t see how a general fight to end discrimination and promote personal freedom and equality is a bad thing (unless you hate liberty, I suppose). Granted, there may well be self-proclaimed feminists who view the movement as a war against men, but we shouldn’t allow this to poison the fight for equality, which is presumably what the majority want. Personally, I’m for the death of gender as a socially relevant concept, but I know that to do this we have to accept the issues that affect people by the implied link between a person’s sex and their social role.

      • Fred S. says:

        If only it were a general fight to end discrimination. But when I read phrases like “male privilege” I know right away that it’s all about the good old class warfare with new classes.

        • cjlr says:


        • Gap Gen says:

          I’m not sure we’re using the same definition of privilege. By privilege I mean stuff like “I never have to worry about being raped at all.” That sort of thing. It’s not a *bad* thing to have social privilege (it’s quite hard, if possible, to stop being a man) but it’s sort of the polite thing to do to be aware that you have it.

        • Matt_W says:

          Decrying class warfare is the last gasp of the pampered, indolent dilettante just before the guillotine blade falls.

  30. khomotso says:

    As with politics, I have some interest in this set of concerns and reading more about them, but the polarized sides whipping each other up is wringing the life out of that interest. I don’t know if it’s avoidable, but the flip side of a stance like RPS’ seems to be a defensive crouch that makes it hard to engage in a thoughtful way. We’re in that stage of ‘for us or against us.’

    Maybe when the dust clears.

    I found this rant from a female IT VP interesting: link to Issues in gaming are different, but I take the point about nastiness in techie communities, and that gender is one kind of ammunition that will be leveled against you, but it might be best understood against that backdrop.

  31. Cheradanine Zakalwe says:

    The thing that I want RPS to take from this is the last line of the video – “The more discussion we can promote, the better it will be”.

    Contrast that with the RPS stance – “There are those who do not wish to be prevented from espousing their unpleasant attitudes.”

    There is currently an absolute refusal to acknowledge that people are significantly upset and annoyed by the way feminism has manifested itself in the past couple of years. These people are not, as it is implied, all trolls, bigots or worse.

    The way to progress is through discussion and empathy of one anothers viewpoints, not the prevention of discussion. If you argue for empathy you need to argue for it both ways, not just that men should understand women. Currently, sites like RPS do not have any empathy for viewpoints not their own.

    What I would ask RPS to do is to read some of the detailed and insightful comments presented by its readers. There are a lot of them that intelligently discuss the issue at hand. So far, unforunately, the RPS writers seem to only want to respond to those espousing unintelligent one liners. There should be engagement and there should be discussion because the issue is not as simple as you wish to portray it.

    • khomotso says:

      “The more discussion we can promote, the better it will be”

      I’m wondering if RPS is actually engaged in a bit of satire theatre designed to explode that tired bromide. Subversive!

    • Schiraman says:

      That’s an interesting point, but I think it would be stronger if you provided some explanation as to why you think ‘people’ are annoyed about “the way feminism has manifested itself in the past couple of years”.

      You say these people aren’t trolls, bigots or worse. But of course some of them clearly are. The many vile responses to Anita Sarkeesian’s kickstarter proved that beyond doubt.

      Still, I’m happy to assume that not everyone who is angry about feminism falls into that camp, so perhaps you could explain what rational, not bigoted reason there is to be upset and annoyed about recent manifestations of feminism?

      • Cheradanine Zakalwe says:

        I want to preface this by saying I don’t fully understand feminism. In fact, I find it one of the most complex subjects to understand.

        The first wave stuff seems pretty straightforward. Equality under the law and protection from discrimination in the industry. I don’t see anyone not agreeing with that and would be happy to dismiss those who disagree as bigots. Of course there are exceptions like the military and when its correct to use something like affirmative action, but broadly there’s a consensus there. There’s still room for discussion though on things like the wage gap between men and women and why this is or whether affirmative action is the correct response in order to address the number of males/females or if we should continue to select entirely based on ability regardless of gender.

        The second wave stuff is the notion that society in every (well, most) way/s is shaped by men. So social norms for men and women are solely determined by men. This is more related to that whole tropes v women thing. So, games are a construction that aim to depict men and women in certain ways that are favourable to men.

        I don’t think there’s any doubt that games targeted a male demographic first and foremost for a very long time and still do to a large degree. The real discussion question is whether this is a problem, how it is a problem and why it is a problem. Some might say, for example, that the existence of a videogame where you shoot dudes and there are good looking women aplenty is no different from many action movies, which are allowed to exist with none of the criticism that games seem to be receiving nowadays. I think there’s room for debate on exactly how its a problem – is the issue particular games or is it the fact that there isn’t a more broad spectrum? Why is it a problem is another question – are these men who make the games intentionally sexist? Or was mario’s ‘story’ just a spur of the moment thing so the player would have a rough motivation while actually enjoying the gameplay?

        Then there’s the far more complex issue of what we do about it. If we simply discuss it to its extremes, will it resolve itself? Do we need to actively censor games (to a certain degree) because its blatant sexism?

        Listen, I can go on. The point I’m trying to make is that I think there’s a lot of room for discussion, debate and empathy on both sides. I gladly put my hand up as someone who wishes to participate in these discussions to get a better understanding of the various points of view. I’m just saddened that I seem to get grouped in as a bigot because I find feminism and its numerous different strains difficult to understand and reconcile.

        • Schiraman says:

          Well, I think everything you say there sounds reasonable, and that’s the kind of stuff that I think most people who’re interested in the issue would be happy to discuss.

          My take on this is that individual games are largely fine and the problem is more the overall trend – where female characters in games are almost always powerless and peripheral. And of course there’s a vocal minority of male gamers who are horrifically sexist, which doesn’t help matters.

          What I don’t see here is any reason to be ‘angry and upset’ about feminism.

          • Cheradanine Zakalwe says:

            But its not discussed. At all. And its portrayed as a two dimensional issue. Either we agree with John or we are bigots. There is no middle ground presented and no reason for discussion presented.

            That is why I’m personally annoyed. I feel threatened not because I don’t want to be exposed to new ideas, but because I feel like a viewpoint is being forced upon me without the issue being discussed in full. We need to get rid of the snide, superior tone just as we need to get rid of the trolling – so we can get into the discussions that matter.

          • Muzman says:

            This is not in evidence at all. You’re taking some hyper defensive position based on some prejudice about the way you think journalists ought to talk to make you feel good about yourself.

          • Cheradanine Zakalwe says:

            Rather than calling me hyper defensive and claim I’m trying to feel good about myself, how about we have a substantive discussion?

            Allow me to explain how exactly a multi-dimensional idea has been presented in a binary way. Then you can respond to THAT instead of spewing character attacks at me.

            “Obviously there are a lot of people who don’t want this discussion to take place. There are those who simply don’t care, don’t harass women, and just want to get on with gaming. There are those who do not wish to be prevented from espousing their unpleasant attitudes. There are those that feel the peculiar, irrational sense of threat, that their safe space is being taken away from them. Unfortunately, all these attitudes only serve to sustain and endorse (tacitly or otherwise) a culture that deserves confrontation”

            So I am either trying to suppress discussion, apathetic,a bigot or feel personally threatened. These are the terms by which I can be referred if I take exception to the RPS blog post. There is, apparently, no reasonable position to hold apart from the one RPS espouses.

            Now, allow me to propose an opinion (that I don’t necessarily hold, this shit is confusing and complicated and I’m trying to see both sides) that I believe is a well rounded, non-bigoted opinion that still contradicts with what the RPS blog post.

            I believe in feminism as a movement and equality under the law, but don’t think this extends to affirmative action. I don’t have a problem with most of the industry being men as I believe men can deliver a well written, non-sexist story even when not working with women. That’s not to say that women couldn’t and shouldn’t be welcomed provided they have the ability, but women do not need to be part of a given team to deliver an excellent product and nor should they be given special treatment for this reason. Gaming and programming being male dominated areas are not a bad thing provided there are no legal barriers to entry on the basis of sex.

            Instead of engaging with this opinion, instead of reaching out and having a discussion with me, John has decided to label me a bigot, effectively ending the discussion there and then. Sure, that example is definitely up for contention – but its something constructive and concrete which you can actually engage with intellectually. I’m sure there’s plenty of people who hold similar opinions on a wide range of issues in relation to sexism that don’t enjoy being labelled a particular way and dismissed just because they don’t agree with a given blog post.

            Now I understand this is just a blog. Opinion is fine – this isn’t a newspaper. But I believe the best bit about places like this is the fostering of discussion of various points of view which leads to better understanding and hopefully an eventual consensus (or at least clearly defined and clearly understood viewpoints). Right now though, its too aggressive. I think the targets need to be shrunk to those who yell stupid oneliners/trolls and the ilk and bring in everyone else by trying to empathise with their point of view.

            EDIT: spelling.

          • Muzman says:

            A perfect illustration of what I mean. There is absolutely nothing in that passage you quote that implies the binary terms that you have imposed on it. It is merely a good summary of a number of dissenting opinions that invariably appear when this topic comes up; “Don’t talk about this; It doesn’t matter; The problem doesn’t exist; There’s nothing we can do”.
            You’ve amply shown the passage doesn’t apply to you. And it doesn’t. Why are you still wrestling with it as if it does?

        • Matt_W says:

          “no different from many action movies, which are allowed to exist with none of the criticism that games seem to be receiving nowadays”

          Have you not heard of the Bechdel Test? There is a whole field of feminist film criticism (link to; people make careers out of it. In fact, Anita Sarkeesian’s videos, prior to her video game project, were mostly film and television criticism.

    • Gap Gen says:

      Yes, I’d sort of disagree that absolute freedom of speech will remove the poison of conservatism from society any time soon. Granted, a liberal society needs to tolerate bigotry to a certain extent, but it also reserves the right to ignore or even hurt people who get in its way. I recently read a book that notes that democracy and liberalism aren’t necessarily linked, and that a liberal democrat, when faced with a popular movement that is non-liberal, will need to choose between popular government and a government that enforces personal rights and liberties. Even modern democracies are structured in such a way that limits the ability for extremists of any flavour to influence the political process.

      Personally, I only value dialogue if it promotes liberalism. If someone insists on using homophobic slurs in online games and won’t ever change, I’d rather just ban them. Granted, aggression isn’t always the best way to achieve change, and can be counterproductive if it makes people defensive. But this is politics, and the loudest, best-organised groups in politics win. So as a liberal, I’d rather erode the ability of hardcore bigots to influence the debate, rather than promote their viewpoint equally in a public discussion.

      • Cheradanine Zakalwe says:

        I’m not trying to say that slurs should be tolerated. I’m trying to say there’s room for discussion here that isn’t being acknowledged. Lets take, for example, the pro gamer example.

        We could discuss the affirmative action that occurs in a lot of pro gaming circuits in the form of all women teams or show matches between women teams. I’m not saying they’re bad or good, but I think reasonable arguments could be made either way.

        We could try and figure out if women as a whole are actually interested in becoming pro gamers versus males. Perhaps (its unlikely, surely) they’re relatively well represented given the ‘hardcore’ demographics of many professional based games like counter-strike.(EDIT: And then we could further explore whether games like counter strike being pro and others not is a good or bad thing and so on and so forth)

        We could look at whether men are simply better than women on average and at the top of the pro circuit due to biological reasons. I don’t know the science of pro gaming versus something like the ability to throw a shotput, but perhaps it has some impact? Maybe men are better biologically, giving them the edge? Maybe women should compete in a different league to men because we recognise ourselves are biologically different?

        Now all of that, to my knowledge, is not bigoted. Perhaps I’m being a bigot unintentionally in raising these as potential discussion points – feel free to call me out on that if its the case. If I’m not a bigot though, it raises a whole bunch of interesting questions and complicates the issue far, far beyond the ideas expressed in the teaser video or the above article. I want to have this discussion! I want to learn! But its constantly portrayed as a two dimensional issue.

        • Gap Gen says:

          Oh, absolutely! Part of the problem is that the angriest people tend to be the loudest, which drowns out actual discussion. But I’ve tried to be reasonable when there’s a decent discussion to be had, and am happy to respond politely when politeness is warranted. I’m not convinced that a comments thread is the best place to discuss this – they tend to sink quite fast, so don’t lend themselves to long-term discussions. Perhaps the forums would be a better place, but I suspect such a thread would have to be very carefully moderated to prevent it being dragged into a flame war. But in any case, by all means start such a discussion – part of the thing is that you have the ability to define your little corner of the debate if you want.

      • deadrody says:

        The “poison” of conservatism ? Really ?

        What an outstanding way to welcome dissenting opinion to the discussion.

    • JehuGarroutte says:

      People were upset about how women’s suffrage “manifested itself,” people were upset about how civil rights “manifested itself,” people are currently upset about how gay rights are “manifesting themselves,” People in the position of privilege are always rather put out by those in the weaker position speaking up and taking some of the precious power. Those in the position of privilege always make (what they claim) are well-reasoned, civil arguments, but it’s always in service of maintaining the status quo. That makes it really hard to “empathize” with said arguments – the world has already been shaped by those arguments, and the people making them won. The people without the privilege have spent their whole LIVES listening to those arguments. They’ve spent their lives RULED by those arguments.

      To say that they’re not hearing them is not just disingenuous, it’s expressing a profound lack of understanding of the real issue.

      • Dominare says:

        I couldn’t have expressed this better myself. +1 internets for you.

      • Fred S. says:

        People were also upset about how Temperance movements manifested themselves. People were also upset about how Eugenics movements manifested themselves. Not every idealist prescription for humanity is automatically right, and even the ones that are generally right can fall to wrong-headed implementation. Maybe if you weren’t in such a hurry to dismiss everybody who doesn’t toe your ideological line 110% you would realize that we generally support your general goals but have reservations about how you go about accomplishing them.

        • JehuGarroutte says:

          I provided three examples of rights-based movements, drawing a line between them and a push for equality. And you counter with… temperance and eugenics?

          I provide three examples of groups pushing for more rights, drawing a line between them and a push for greater representation in a public sphere. And you counter with examples of rights being stripped away.

          I’m, uh, not really sure what you’re going for here.

          • Fred S. says:

            Just because a movement has laudable goals doesn’t mean that their methods are necessarily good.

            I support the goal of equal rights. But you won’t get there with the rhetoric of class warfare. Pretending that there is some “privileged group” that must be suppressed in order to make everybody equal is just fooling yourself.

          • JehuGarroutte says:

            Who on earth is being suppressed by gaming becoming a more welcoming place?

            I legitimately have no idea what you’re on about.

          • Gap Gen says:

            A cinema is unfriendly to black people – they are allowed to enter, but when it becomes evident that the patrons are black, abuse is hurled at them. White clients note that that they are not being racist because they hurl the same racist epithets at other white patrons. Eventually, the management cracks down on racial abuse and ejects anyone who continues to treat its black patrons with disdain. How is this action at the expense of the white patrons? How do the white patrons who treat the black patrons with respect and dignity lose?

            My point is that eliminating prejudice and inequality does not lead to the “privileged” group losing – rather, their experience is enhanced because the community is larger, more vibrant and more friendly. The only people who lose are those that are opposed to equality in the first place, and I don’t give two shits about those people.

          • Fred S. says:

            And so we burn down the theater because of “white privilege” and now everybody’s equal.

          • Gap Gen says:

            No, of course not. Go for a walk, take a bath, get rid of some of that anger. It’s helping you none.

        • JehuGarroutte says:

          Also, how on earth do you know what my goals are? You don’t know a thing about me, you silly goose.

    • Kettelrino says:

      Feminism has established a multi billion dollar industry.
      The get millions and millions for all kinds of women’s projects.
      And they are very protective of that money. They do not want to share this money with men’s projects.

        • Kettelrino says:

          It sounds unbelievable, I know.

          link to

          • Kaira- says:

            That link had nothing to do with what you said.

          • Kettelrino says:

            Read again.
            These men don’t get help, while the women get a lot of help.
            And the organizations who have a lot of money to help the women, refuse to help the men.
            They are even preventing the promotion of the information.

          • analydilatedcorporatestyle says:

            So WOMEN set up groups to help WOMEN with issues they encounter in society. These WOMEN’S groups don’t help MEN. God the injustice of it all.

            Maybe you could get these WOMEN organised like only a MAN of your beliefs can. These WOMEN under your jurisdiction can then run a group dealing with issues MEN encounter in society!

          • Kettelrino says:


            And yet many people in this comment section claim feminists stand up for equality. Funny.

            And I don’t even know why you are writing Man and Woman in capital letters. Why is that?

            These organizations for women see a threat of declining funding when they aknowledge male victims and gender symmetry in violence, etc.
            Do you really believe that if we would start the exact same kinds of organizations with that kind of funding, we would have the money?
            The money for organization for men would come from the money for the organization for women. And they do not want this.

      • Ergates_Antius says:

        Wow! Of all the stupid things you’ve posted in this thread, that really takes the biscuit.

        Are you smoking crack?

        • Kettelrino says:

          Getting personal.
          The last resort to silence people.

          • Ergates_Antius says:

            You have amply demonstrated you are so monumentally stupid that trying to reason with you would be pointless.

            Are you in some kind of competition with Incision as to who can be the most repugnant and least deserving of continued existance?

      • The Greatness says:

        Money for women not going to men? Next you’ll be telling me that money to improve conditions in Africa isn’t being spent in Europe!

    • Fluka says:

      I’m pretty sure John’s disclaimer is directed towards people who *don’t even want the conversation about women in games to happen in the first place*, not towards those who have constructive, well-considered objections. People who see an article on the topic and shove their fingers in their ears and start shouting “WHEN DID RPS STOP COVERING GAMES?!” and making a big post about leaving the site (and then don’t) and generally try to tell RPS exactly what they should do with their blogspace (usually while complaining about the violation of their own freedom of speech). Which was a similar theme in the Sarkeesian incident, for instance. I don’t care about the people who have problems with her argument – I care about the people who tried to stop her talking in the first place when she even proposed the video series, though DDOS attacks, spam complaints, rape threats, etc.

      If you’re not telling John to stop talking about women’s issues altogether? Then hey, it’s not about you. Don’t feel you need to lump yourself in with a bunch of idiots. Then keep repeating to yourself: i’s not about you it’s not about you it’s not about you.

      • The Greatness says:

        This is exactly what most people complaining here don’t seem to understand! How could this message possibly be made clearer for them? There’s even a disclaimer at the top of this article saying *exactly that.*

  32. Hazzard65 says:

    I hear/ see racism, sexism, agism and just about any other ism you can imagine thrown around video games. It’s so flippant and throw away that I hardly even notice. I’ve been called things before, mainly because I revealed information about myself.

    In my humble opinion, the way to solve all of these problems is with tools built into games. Mute people, hide their chat from your stream. Cater the communication to your needs and you don’t have a problem. A lot of this abusive behavior is simply attention seeking. If nobody is listening, what’s the point?

    I think this goes beyond women and their experience in games. It’s simply about humans being jerks, and jumping on whatever topic they believe is taboo enough to get a rise out of the person they are trying to bother.

    I know one thing for absolute certain – this hostile video game environment sits extremely low on societal issues I am willing to concern myself with. Sexism, racism etc etc… yes these are behavioral traits we don’t wish to encourage, but I have found in my life that ignoring these people really does work especially on the internet where you can erect barriers against said abuse extremely easily with out infringing the abusers experience. You can’t ask for more. You can try to make some political point and ban them, globally mute them etc…. but all you do is martyr that person.

    Just provide a mute/ block button – it’s really that simple. Oh also another lesson my parents taught me growing up – GROW SOME SKIN.

    These are all my own personal opinions.

    • Gap Gen says:

      I slightly worry that companies aren’t more muscular about their banning policy in online games for fear of losing a large fraction of their userbase, assuming that there’s a number of people in games who are either bigoted or don’t care about social equality. I suppose that continued pressure from organised groups and the media might eventually effect change, or perhaps threat of legal action if they can be seen as protecting people who disseminate hate speech.

  33. Runs With Foxes says:

    The only issue is that this line in the article

    The consequences of last year’s #1reasonwhy Twitter outpouring have been enormously productive.

    seems to be crediting the hashtag with the existence of this documentary. The kickstarter page says the filmmaker started researching and filming this ‘about a year ago’, well before the hashtag appeared. Give some credit to the filmmaker instead of the twitterati.

  34. finalfanatik says:

    Don’t stop writing these articles. If nothing else, it’s clearing out the bad apples, and surely improves your already fantastic community.
    You’ll always have an audience from me!

  35. andycheese says:

    … Steps up to Soap Box…

    There are clearly gender issues at play in both the gaming industry and the larger gaming community. These issues may well be caused by the fact that the very act of gaming involves active participation in a fantasy. Gamers are asked not only to passively suspend their disbelief but to directly engage their own imaginations in the gaming process. Some people’s imaginations are rather limited and inevitably fall back upon age old gender stereotypes; hence bare chested muscle-ball men and scantily clad large breasted women. This is not an issue in itself, these are valid fantasies, and have their place. It is the all pervading nature of these archetypes that is often seen as the ‘problem’; a problem gaming shares with society writ-large (just look at any mainstream lads’ mag). However, that is not the real issue. The real issue lies in the fact that an increasingly vocal minority choose identify with and perpetuate a ‘gaming culture’ which fails to separate the fantasy of play with the reality of life, or at least fails to respect the boundaries between the two. These people have become so caught up in the fantasy that they often fail to recognize that comments or statements, made during and after play, can have a real-world emotional impact. In all likelihood, many of these individuals wouldn’t dream of saying such things out loud in a real-world environment. Sadly though, in the fantasy realm of online gaming, it would seem that anything goes.

  36. Martel says:

    Thanks for the article John.

  37. Branthog says:

    Cue the sickening hateful comments on the kickstarter project from internet trolls that troll on everything that’ll get them attention that every gamer and the entire industry will be blamed for.

    That said, I think a lot of people are open to a documentary about women in gaming, if approached sanely. It could be compelling… Not a task I’d want to undertake though. To do it properly seems like an enormous fucking effort. I have no idea how you’d make it compelling for people who are already familiar with/bombarded by discussion of these issues yet also find a way to appeal to those whom it’d most need to reach yet are most venomous about it.

  38. Mimiloki says:

    I believe if adult called women a “slut” because she is a woman than this adult just an idiot.

  39. mraston says:

    Looking at all those kids (male and female) hooked up to the same game in neverending rows of presumededly sponspor provided PC’s, repetitively punching the same buttons with a blank look on their faces highlights another issue with the gaming industry for me.

    Competitive gaming is quite literally terrifying and is sucking “play” out of the industry and replacing it with competition, aggression and marketing fodder for keyboards. Maybe if the game industry wasn’t so quick to try and emulate the pre-existing world of hyper-masculine professional sports in a soulless attempt at monetization this problem wouldn’t be so pronounced. If game’s were more about collaboratively building a new experience not possible in the real world, rather than just beating the shit out of your opponents, things wouldn’t be so bad.

    • HisMastersVoice says:

      E-sports became highly competitive because the players wanted them to be like that. The current state of competitive gaming is just a natural consequence of that.

      • mraston says:

        I get that? How could something called “e-sports” be anything but competitive? What I’m saying is it’s disappointing and problematic how large this sector of our little dorky hobby has got.

        • Dominare says:

          How so, do you think? I mean, Dota 2 and Starcraft 2 are both major games in the world of e-sports, and I still feel able to enjoy both of them even though I suck. In what way do you believe e-sports is harming gaming in general? I’m honestly curious.

          • mraston says:

            Well it was those images flashing of kids sitting in rows and rows all playing the same game, the same map, the same repeated keystrokes with the same thought processes over and over again that got me thinking. It’s a sport, its a competition, its rigidity, its enforcing through adoption the pre-existing concepts and the language of competition. And on top of all that it’s devolving to a marketing exercise for computer components and gamer consumer “culture”, just like real world sports do for sporting equipment and cultural “truths”.

    • deadrody says:

      I hate to break it to you, but in general humans happen to BE competitive. Hence the advent of competitions. As someone else in the thread already posted, gaming became professionally competitive because that’s what the players wanted.

      Its not lost on me that many of the people decrying the sexism on display in professional gaming also have a problem with the competitiveness, which happens to be traditionally a male trait.

      I get the distinct feeling that a lot of people in this thread would feel much better if all the men in gaming would just be more like women.

  40. sirdavies says:

    I’m pretty sure the color of the movie’s title is reinforcing female color stereotypes. Just saying.

  41. RobinOttens says:

    Wow, so much angry in these comments.

    I backed Sarkeesian’s videos, don’t know if I’ll back this one. There’s some things about this one that don’t sit quite right with me. But it’s good that they’re making this I guess.

    I like the friendly tone of this Shannon Sun-Higginson, but then the title ‘GTFO’ is super-angry and antagonistic again. I like that she’s interviewing people to find out where the issue originates, and isn’t just collecting anecdotes, but then the tone of the documentary makes it out like this issue is something specific to that strange, scary world of videogaming. She as a gamer hasn’t personally experienced these problems and was unaware of them until they were pointed out? She sounds like she’s on the outside looking in, which I can relate to, but it feels off. I don’t know, it’s hard to articulate.

    Anyway, go equality and all that jazz!

    This whole debate feels more like a shouting match than a discussion though, maybe it’s necessary to get antagonistic about this stuff, but it’s repelling me from participating. I’d love it if there was a scene at some point in this movie where some ‘girl gamers’ sat around a table with some ‘angry teenage boys’ and had a nice friendly chat about the whole issue. That’s probably me being horribly naive.

    • rabish12 says:

      The problem is that it’s not a debate. On one side, you have people consistently arguing that the issue doesn’t even exist. On the other you’ve got John Walker, who seems ready to dismiss any argument that doesn’t wholly support any and all talking points in favor of misogyny in the games industry being the issue that it is as being the results of immature and sexist “angry men”. Neither side really furthers the discussion in any way, and in the long run all we’re ending up with is the illusion of consensus as anyone with a moderate or opposing viewpoint is either directly driven out or loses interest in the unevenness of the whole situation here. In the long run, all that’ll be left are trolls espousing the most extreme of views and people so easily offended by those views that they can’t help but respond.

      • derbefrier says:

        I think you’ve just described debating on the internet, or rather what happens when an attempt at a debate is made on the internet. People don’t want to discuss an issue they are just waiting for their turn to come up with a witty passive aggressive remark about your intelligence and some dismissive comment about your point or anything they can think of to avoid actually thinking about what you’ve said and then patiently wait for like minded people to rally around you in the same self important arrogance that leads to the same close mindedness you’ve ironically set out to destroy.

        • rabish12 says:

          Oh, I’m aware that most arguments on the internet are like that. That’s besides the point, though. John is a journalist – his job is to report on the fact that things like this exist, and to give us context for them. Yes, to some degree that’s going to include his personal views and opinions, but opening up a post like this with the paragraph that he did closes off any and all discussion before it even has the chance to exist. He should be providing us with something like this in a way that allows those of us who aren’t slavering idiots to have a decent discussion around it, but instead he puts it out here in a borderline hostile way that makes all of that impossible.

          Yes, most arguments on the internet are just two sides refusing to accept any opposition… but there are still discussions on the internet that aren’t, and Walker’s approach to articles like these ensures that those discussions can’t find their way here.

    • MajorManiac says:

      What I like the most about this new documentary is the idea that it is the beginning of many more to follow.

      I really like the idea of having lots of introspective films on our hobby. Some looking at negatives that need addressing and some looking at positives that have been created.

    • Fluka says:

      Actually, I believe she wasn’t even a gamer in the first place (besides the usual “casual games” qualifier, etc.). Which I actually think is a good thing. “Games culture” could use some scrutiny from outside observers who haven’t bought into the idea that “Well, that’s just how gaming is.”

  42. RobertJSullivan says:

    Is this issue being picked up by other sites than British and American ones ?
    I’m French so I often visit gaming websites of my language (the two biggest ones actually) and nobody talks about it, it’s really weird because I also visit english sites and forums as well and this topic is getting a lot of exposure on them.
    I’m just being curious by the way, english isn’t my native language so sorry if my message somehow implied that I was trying to argue or being sarcastic or trying to make a point or whatever.


    • harbinger says:

      Nope, it’s mostly a circlejerk initiated by a few English-speaking sites even in the English media. The main ones are especially Kotaku (they largely do it for hits), RPS (because John Walker and Nathan Grayson cry themselves to sleep every night knowing that there are still games displaying vile breasts out there), The Escapist (which usually reports on most of these and throws some passive-agressive videos and comics in) as well as Penny Arcade and a few Forbes writers to a certain extent.
      Sites like IGN, G4, Joystiq, 1Up and so on hardly concern themselves with any of this or might just report on the “big topics” because they’ve been boiled up to be an “issue” by these sites before.
      It’s then especially funny to see them claiming that there is some sort of consensus even though not even their readers can agree with them.

      I haven’t really seen this discussed in any Eastern or even Western European countries like Germany, Italy, Poland, Romania and so on, let alone Asiatic countries like Japan or China since people don’t seem to care much.

      John Walker has unfortunately mostly destroyed this Blog that was about PC gaming and discovering cool Indie games by hijacking it to be increasingly more about pushing his own political agenda.

  43. rabish12 says:

    I know people have tried to make this sort of comment already, but I feel like most of them have been sort of childish or, at the very least, poorly written. This still needs to be said, though:

    Sexism is definitely an issue in virtually every form of media, and especially in video games. A lot of gamers are assholes who use their anonymity to get away with behavior that would be absolutely unacceptable face-to-face, and that behavior seems to be amplified tenfold when women are involved. Even beyond that, there’s a definite issue with the way women are treated as employees within the industry and how they’re portrayed as characters to gamers. Anyone claiming that sexism isn’t a problem in this industry, and one worth talking about, is absolutely full of shit.

    That said, there are still a fair number of people who don’t complain about your posts because they don’t like posts related to issues about women and gaming, John. They complain about your posts because you don’t seem to fully understand the issues you’re trying to talk about, and because you take your side of the discussion to a harmful extreme. The fact that these issues exist doesn’t mean that every single woman being wronged is an example of misogyny, nor does it mean that every female voice on the topic is one that deserves to be heard. Anita Sarkeesian’s a good example – yes, people who were threatening or insulting her before the first video was even put out there were quite flatly in the wrong, but that doesn’t change the fact that the video she produced is a poorly-researched and poorly-argued product that fails to actually examine many real gender biases within the current industry.

    Basically, the fact that we’ve reached a point where you feel that you have to start your articles with a sarcastic disclaimer to try and avoid negative responses is a good indication that you should be looking at just what it is you’re choosing to report on and how you’re choosing to report on it. In this case it’s certainly something worth covering, but the way you try to champion female rights in the industry smacks of guilt and shame over your gender more than of an earnest need to fight for equality.

    TL;DR: John Walker, sexism is a horribly rampant issue in the industry, and it needs to be spotlighted and talked about. That said, you are absolutely not the right person to do that, and getting upset because people repeatedly tell you just that (albeit in much cruder or more insulting ways) won’t change it.

    • JehuGarroutte says:

      John Walker isn’t behind or involved in GTFO, which this post is about. So maybe this comment is a little misplaced?

      • rabish12 says:

        My comment wasn’t about GTFO, it was about the way John opened this post and the way he’s generally been approaching the issue of sexism within this industry. A project like GTFO is something that should get at least some exposure, but John is the last person who should be providing it – he does far more harm than good for the movement he’s trying to support.

        • JehuGarroutte says:

          In the immortal words of The Dude: That’s just, like, your opinion, man.

          I think he’s done a fine job, and exposed me to dozens of amazing, insightful pieces. He’s introduced me to speakers I wouldn’t have otherwise found, articles I wouldn’t have otherwise read, projects I wouldn’t have stumbled upon on my own. I admire his passion, his dedication, and his ability to scour the web for stuff wot I think is mighty compelling.

          If you find him personally off-putting, I think that’s a shame. But blanket statements about how others interpret his work is stone-cold silly goosery.

          • rabish12 says:

            But this is my problem: I think these sorts of things need exposure. They need to be reported on. They need to be discussed. That said, all of that needs to be done by someone who isn’t John Walker. We need to be able to talk about the need for projects like this without being unable to accept it when people point out that projects like Tropes vs Women fail. You can’t further a person’s understanding of an issue like this without discussion, and John is clearly uninterested in discussing. He’s only interested in stating his point of view and shunning others.

    • realmenhuntinpacks says:

      Hey dude, you seem like a reasonable chap so no offence intended, but I don’t understand your argument – as to why an individual is’ the wrong person’ to be raising an issue. If a brotha cares, let a brotha speak.

      • rabish12 says:

        It’s pretty simple. Say we were talking about racism. Would you want the person championing the fight against racism to be a white man who immediately calls anyone who so much as uses the word “black” in reference to a person an ignorant white supremacist? No. Why? Because rather than fostering discussion and furthering their point of view, they end up making their entire side of the debate seem like frantic and illogical asshats.

        Now, I’m not saying that John’s nearly as bad as that, but he’s along the same lines: he doesn’t seem to be legitimately interested in DISCUSSING this issue, but rather solely in promoting his wholly established viewpoint and accusing anyone who disagrees with anything he says or does of being a misogynist. That doesn’t help fight sexism, it helps paint those trying to fight it in a negative light.

        EDIT: I guess the best way to put it is that John provides the absolute perfect strawman for those opposing his side of the debate. He’s not extreme enough to make for a clearly non-representative member of his side, but at the same time he’s still closed-minded and dismissive enough to provide a simple brush to paint across anyone arguing that this is an issue.

        • Muzman says:

          Curious what you expect him to do or say. This article was written in a fairly detached and reasonable manner (with a touch of the usual RPS-ish persona), yet all the supposed moderates are quite determined to take what he said as referring to them and take offense.
          If you’re not trying to tell RPS you can’t talk about this on a games site, if you’re not saying we can’t talk about this because the problem doesn’t exist, then the message isn’t directed at you is it.
          So many fussing over John’s fussing over tone are just fussing over tone right back.

  44. HisMastersVoice says:

    This could turn out okay. The idea that gaming industry on in itself is somehow more sexists than any other is unsupported at best, but it doesn’t seem like that’s the core subject here, so I’m not going to hold it against the author.

    I can get behind a decently documented portrayal of women issues in gaming, though I wish someone would actually do a proper gender study on the subject.

  45. DancDanc says:

    I’d like to ask a few critical questions, so please excuse the scatter-shotting of my thoughts. First off, why do these (not sure what to call them) studies seem to be made in a vacuum of sorts? If you’re a female working in any sort of high-tech industry you’re probably subjected to this sort of abuse fairly often, not just specific to women working and/or playing video games. It seems to be a singling out of a problem that is way more widespread than games.

    I don’t mean that in any sort of defense of the video gaming industry and culture but more so in the sense that the answer to this problem isn’t specific to video gaming, but just our society in general. There also seem to be no real digging into (going by the current description) WHY people do this. You know what’d be great? Track down the people who do this and ask them why?

    Lastly, has she ever encountered any trolls online? Or, you know, life in general? Trolls aren’t some specific gaming phenomenon, they exist everywhere online. Why does this article seem so hostile btw?

  46. harbinger says:

    You know what? This would actually be a good idea if the director hadn’t already made up her mind as to the conclusion of said issue and the sole purpose of this thing wasn’t trying to “prove” and reinforce that notion.

    You can already see this solely by the articles embedded below the KickStarter.
    A link to “Fat, Ugly, or Slutty”, a link to “Not In the Kitchen Anymore”, two links to “sexual harassment” articles. I’m sure you could take pretty much any industry, point to a few feministic Blogs as well as feminists complaining and point out sexual harassment, which exists in pretty much every facet of society and come to the same conclusion.

    What this movie will be about is finding even more people with the same experiences, no matter how many or few of them there are and painting the entire issue as this “huge, industry-wide problem”, because that is what it set out to do.
    I can almost guarantee you right now that there won’t be any sort of dissenting voice or opinion explored or any sort of positive examples deepened because that is not the narrative that this movie is trying to go for, and the conclusion was already set before the filming has started.
    It’ll be another in a high amount of existing productions and websites about said topic that the choir will possibly watch and nod in agreement to, as well as point towards it for undeniable proof that they were right. It’s like going to FOX News for “fair and balanced” news reporting and reinforcing already pre-existing opinions.

    The same way that John Walker wouldn’t try to find or interview any women that very much enjoy games with sexualized characters and mainly play these sorts of Korean MMOs like Lineage, TERA or Scarlet Blade or enjoy Anime games with similar depictions in general or Cosplayers that of their own free will show a lot of skin because they enjoy doing that. Maybe he could even interview a few of these “booth babes” (which is a derogatory term in its own) and get a few opinions on what they think about banning a job opportunity. But there will never be such articles, because it wouldn’t fit in well with his pre-determined world view of the evil patriarchy and a clear enemy to point out that there isn’t a singular opinion within the female population of gamers or working in games.

    • Muzman says:

      So much crying about the appearance of neutrality from someone who’s already made up their mind about what the film will contain

  47. Vinraith says:

    One doesn’t properly appreciate how much sexism still exists in the world, and just how hateful it really is, until one reads a comment thread like this. Again, keep it up RPS, these bile-spewing morons in the comments are making your point better than anything you could ever say yourselves.

  48. frightlever says:

    If you don’t want people to comment, you don’t tell them not to comment. You recognise that it’s a hot button topic and close comments altogether. But… that doesn’t make for page views so I’m going to assume this is more link bait. with a deliberately provocative opening paragraph. It’s just more Daily Mail, “the sky is falling” agitation and thoroughly self-serving.

    Statistically there are more males abusing other males during gaming sessions. There may be some small subset of guys who are cordial and polite UNTIL a girl appears but I think it’s a problem that comes down to a lack of good manners, not discrimination. Every time LoL is mentioned plenty of men say they won’t play it because of the toxic community while plenty of female LoL players say suck it up, it’s only a game. There’s your equality.

    • JehuGarroutte says:

      Lock comments and it’s “censorship.” Allow comments and it’s “link-baiting.”

      Ya just can’t win on the internet.

    • Dominare says:

      If you look again, you’ll notice that there is no instruction regarding posts that disagree with the topic. What he’s trying to do is head off one particular type of response; the one that goes “I come to this site to read about games and this is about sexism and waahh waaah waaah.”, or of course the always comical “I am not interested in these articles” posted in the comments of the article clicked on in the first place.

      The point is, agree, fine. Disagree, fine. But don’t try to attack the very fact that the debate is happening in the first place.

    • Focksbot says:

      “If you don’t want people to comment, you don’t tell them not to comment. ”

      No one’s telling anyone not to comment – they’re advising you not to waste your time looking like a bunch of fucking morons by clicking on an article about a topic you’re not interested in, reading it and then whining about the fact that it was posted in the first place.

  49. tellrov says:

    The problem I have with the current trend of sexism in video games talk is much the same as the current neo-atheism that’s also everywhere on the internet nowadays. Which is to say that it’s not as much about debating or discussing the matter at hand, but simply an attempt at portraying themselves as smart and open-minded. And you know, I can understand I guess. No one wants to look like a douche. But for me and for a lot of ‘haters’ it gets a bit annoying, always reading those condensing comments just because someone doesn’t agree.

    As for the issue itself, I compare it to when Jaws came out. Some people said it portrayed the great white as a monster, while it’s really just an animal, an endagered one at that, and films like that wouldn’t help in preserving it. So we all said “Yeah, you’re right. It’s not a monster” and moved on.

    But they still make shark monster movies. And that’s fine.

    You should strive for a better environment for women, as you should for everyone. You can bring attention to that in relation to your hobby, being the game industry. And we’ll all say “you know what, you’re right”. And some people will take note and move it in the right direction. That doesn’t mean you should crucify the creators of Dragon’s Crown for putting a big breasted character in it. It’s not a sign of the patriarchy. It’s not the director that hates women.

    Also one more thing about the twitter hashtag. That doesn’t mean a whole lot really. I can get #Ilovecookies shared plenty by the end of the day. It just leaves me wondering how much support it would garner if it involved more than copying a tag.

    • bladedsmoke says:

      I think the flaw in your analogy – and I’m aware that this is an easy point to overlook – is that sharks aren’t human beings.

  50. datom says:

    If RPS ever use comments per story to sell advertising, the manrage is probably having the opposite effect from that intended. KUTGW, gentlemen!

    It’s funny people raging at an article about a documentary about women and gaming, because actually much more subversive is that RPS regularly comments on women and gaming issues within their reviews of games (and could do with doing this more, in my opinion). Perhaps they are bottling up their RAGE and storing it for particular issue threads?