Feminism Catch-All (with FAQ)

Jonman wrote:

However, am I to believe that every member of Sony's Playstation team are paragons of feminism? That there aren't just as many misogynistic morons working there too?

Neither the complaint nor the point being made.

Jonman wrote:

Or rather than Sony did a better job of managing which of their mouthpieces they put in front of the cameras?

Well this is the crux of it. Clearly Sony care enough not to deliberately set up a "hurr, hurr, girlz suck at gamez" bit in their press conference and they care enough for everyone to have enough PR training not to make rape jokes in public. Seemingly XBox, not so much.

The rape "gag" probably is a tasteless off the cuff remark that could be fixed with a reasonably apology. Orchestrating a bit where a guy beats an unprepped girl at some game while he trash talks her on stage was clearly premeditated.

Jonman wrote:
Seth wrote:

Yeah. That's the other side of it, Jonman, and why I would accept accusations of being called shallow. From one perspective, I feel like I'm punishing a whole lot of innocent people for the behavior of one moron. The other perspective is that other than withholding my dollars, I don't know how else to effectively communicate my feelings.

Yeah, that also occurred to me that "voting with your wallet" is the only vote you have.

Although that said, a letter like the one posted upthread would likely have a bigger impact that a lost sale, as there's no way for that lost sale to be detected, let alone traced back to this incident.

Either way, I wouldn't call it shallow by any stretch, just maybe an ineffective way to communicate what you want to the corporation.

That is my problem with vote with your wallet in general. There's no actual feedback so there's no clear lesson to learn.

To provide a little context for why I also like the letter, it seems to me that MS's message has been kind of aggressive and disrespectful to begin with. Things like "We already have an offline console, it's called the Xbox 360" and equating no-internet connection with being on a submarine (not to mention Adam Orth) paint a picture that MS doesn't really care about their customers. While there's obviously nothing sexist about those remarks, it makes things like the rape joke sting a little harder for me.

Out of interest, someone around here must have experience working for Microsoft? I assume they have fairly robust diversity, equality and anti-discrimination policies? It's something that I've been continually impressed with my own employer.

Can anyone chime in on that? Is the working environment at MS endemically misogynistic, a bit of a boys club?

Hmm. I disagree, Farscry. In fact, a feedback of -500.00 seems pretty loud. Much louder than a legion of Xbox 1 owners complaining about their flaw of choice in the console. I don't really view online complaints as useful, unless they're backed up with financial complaints. In other words, I don't care how much you hate me, so long as you keep paying me money.

Jonman's right that the message may be muddled: Microsoft won't know I'm not buying an Xbox because 1) I'm scared of an intelligent robotic camera eye watching me, 2) I am disgusted by their perpetuation of rape culture, or 3) I'm still mad at them for botching Windows 8. But in any case, withholding dollars seems almost infinitely more effective than tweeting my disappointment.

edit: Microsoft has an extremely progressive LGBT domestic benefits package, and the company regularly donates to marriage equality campaigns. So I'm aware of a nose --> face scenario going on here.

I touched on this in the MS conference thread, but I never feel comfortable with simply voting with my dollars when it comes to video game issues. Why? I'm usually not part of the "target demographic" in the first place. They're far more likely to take the message "oh, she was never interested in games in the first place" than "I am a serious gamer who was alienated by your policies."

I really need to start writing more letters to devs.

I agree voting with wallets is important, but like a few others have mentioned, I think it's often also important to make it clear why you've done so, as to help differentiate the wallet vote "Your policies have alienated me" from the wallet vote "I just don't feel like spending money right now."

Basically, what Demyx said, though with less of a personal onus, I guess.

Jonman wrote:

However, am I to believe that every member of Sony's Playstation team are paragons of feminism? That there aren't just as many misogynistic morons working there too? Or rather than Sony did a better job of managing which of their mouthpieces they put in front of the cameras?

A supposedly leaked PS4 commercial that features a girl that plays Killzone:

Doesn't mean much by itself but little things add up to a bigger impression of the companies, you know?

Jonman wrote:

Out of interest, someone around here must have experience working for Microsoft? I assume they have fairly robust diversity, equality and anti-discrimination policies? It's something that I've been continually impressed with my own employer.

Can anyone chime in on that? Is the working environment at MS endemically misogynistic, a bit of a boys club?

Each team is its own fiefdom so my experience working on the Office365 team will be different with the Xbox team or any other team. You need to find someone on the Xbox team who is willing to talk about it.

That PS4 vid is neat.

One of the Battlefield 4 videos had a woman playing commander mode on a tablet as well. I know I shouldn't be impressed by a show of equality, but compared to most crap we see coming out of video game marketing, I can't help but cheer a little at every step forward. I doubt you'd see that in marketing for a Call of Duty game for example.

Guys that's...OMG BATTLEFIELD4

Must...resist...dropping another grand on a second computer! I played the hell out of 1-2-3. This will likely be no different.

Seth wrote:

Hmm. I disagree, Farscry.

...bwuh?

If that's the way the video sharing interface works, I'm actually pretty damn sold on it. That looks awesome, save for the apparent need for a real name social media identifier. That's not cool.

Not sure where to put this but thought that this thread might be appropriate

So... the Australian military has an ongoing issue with institutional sexism that came to a head a couple of years ago, currently there is a recent breaking scandal involving a number of officers and some highly degrading emails detailed a little here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia...

Their Chief of the Army then released this clear and unequivocal statement on the issue
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...

Apart from being a classic example of Australian straight talking and clear thinking this strikes me as entirely the kind of thing that we need if we are to address institutionalised sexism, it needs to be brought out in to the open, exposed and properly actioned. Exactly the opposite of what happened to the SWP party in the UK earlier this year (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...).

Jonman wrote:

Not to belittle the awesomeness of the letter, but I can't help but feel that tarring the entirety of the Xbox division because one employee was very publicly (and to be fair, completely unscripted-ly) a f***ing moron is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

But we must agree that the bathwater is at least a little bit poopy.

I saw a lot of gender diversity in my corner of EBU when I was a contractor there. But as Edwin notes, every little place is different, and if you have a misogynistic manager, he'll hire differently.

If anyone "rockin' two X chromosomes" would like the email of a woman working in the games division to get some perspective (I'd ask "How do we best communicate our upsetedness with Microsoft?"), PM me.

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:

If anyone "rockin' two X chromosomes" would like the email of a woman working in the games division to get some perspective (I'd ask "How do we best communicate our upsetedness with Microsoft?"), PM me.

Technically, you might to say that you are NOT rocking a Y chromosome, as XXYs occur, and they are physically male. Or, as the Cartoon Guide to Genetics put it, "It's the Y that makes the guy!"

He was quoting Cyn from the example above.

Anyone working a marketing strategy role ought to naturally check their stuff to make sure everyone's not one gender or race. That sort of thing ought to sit right beside proofreading marketing copy, in terms of obvious tasks.

Experiment: attend E3 as a woman. Walk into every first, second, third party and indie booth. Attempt to play a demo or ask questions. Observe how these company representatives (aka: individuals) treat you. Observe how they treat men who also take interest in their products. Report your findings here.

And... Go!

P.S. I'm waaaaaaay ahead of you.

I look forward to the report.

So, CFI finally made an official response the whole Women in Secularism CFI conference fiasco. Here's a breakdown of how their statement reads.

Hypatian wrote:

So, CFI finally made an official response the whole Women in Secularism CFI conference fiasco. Here's a breakdown of how their statement reads.

Yeah, I saw Rebecca Watson's reply to that earlier in the day. She's basically pulling her support for CFI, and, against her preference, boycotting the organization. It's a shame, but they're botching this response terribly, in about as alienating a way as possible to a constituency that's supposed to value reason and honesty.

What did Ron Lindsay do? All I can seem to find are angry parsings and responses to him. Might there be a video or audio?

The text of his talk is prefaced by a note, which makes this page somewhat confusing. But that's it.

In short: as the [em]keynote for a conference on feminism and secularism[/em] he did a bunch of mansplaining, misrepresented the idea of privilege, etc. Which is kind of weird and ooky, so a lot of people raised their eyebrows and were like "You don't have any background in gender studies, was it really appropriate for you to give this keynote speech?" And then he want off the rails at people who were criticizing him, to the extent of comparing Rebecca Watson (who was an invited speaker at the conference) to a North Korean propagandist.

This summarizes pretty well why people complained about the "keynote".

that summary wrote:

And this particular straw feminist is one of the most commonly-used ones by the most hostile opponents of feminism. This is one of the chief anti-feminist talking points: that feminists are hostile to all men, that we’re uninterested in the experiences of any man, that we think everything men say about feminism is wrong, that we don’t think sexism affects men or that feminism has anything to do with them. This image of the ball-busting, man-hating feminist is one of the primary ways that feminists get demonized, marginalized, trivialized, and ignored.

To hear it coming out of the mouth of the person hosting the Women in Secularism conference, in his welcoming speech to the conference’s speakers and attendees and financial supporters… it was appalling. It was reprehensible. It treated us with contempt. (More about this in my piece about Context.)

And the other part of the summary, about context, is also important. I had no idea about this part, which is just... odious:

And all of this unfolded while one of the primary anti-feminist harassers was sitting there in the audience. All of this unfolded while a person who has been invading and disrupting the Twitter feeds of conferences he thinks are too feminist, a person who has defended the misogynistic online harassment and the use of hate speech against feminist women in the atheist movement, a person who has written for, and done a recent interview with, a misogynist, rape apologist website that’s being monitored by the Southern Poverty Law Center (the organization that monitors hate groups), a person who has said, “I fail to see how refusing to believe in God leads to the ‘logical conclusion’ of abandoning the belief that women exist to serve men,” a person who dealt with a dispute by posting someone’s home address on the Internet, was sitting in the room. The fact that Justin Vacula was attending this conference had many people on edge: nobody knew if he was planning in-person confrontations, or continued online harassment, or what. Many of the people Vacula has personally targeted with harassment were in that room with him. For Lindsay to give that particular opening talk in that loaded environment — and for him to then make a point of going up to Vacula and personally welcoming him to the conference — showed a level of contempt for the speakers and attendees of that conference that is shocking… and that is entirely unacceptable.

(Emphasis mine. Wow, holy sh*t.)

Aside from that, the conference was apparently pretty amazingly awesome.

For some people foot and mouth is not an excuse. I gotta say that CEO of the Center for Inquiry is one such person. In an opening speech for a CFI event, the plausibility is less so.

I think there is a reason why I prefer James Randi, the JREF, and TAM.

As an atheist and a free thinker. My observation is that the main reason religion is harmful is when people take it too damn seriously. When you start taking atheism too damn seriously, you get the same problem. And frankly, as an alternative to religion, don't say something that I would expect to come from Pat Robertson.

I sent a polite, encouraging tweet to Rebecca Watson earlier today; about half an hour ago it was retweeted by one of these MRA groups, and I've already gotten one delusional tweet about how the hordes of oppressed men have fought back against Watson.

I don't know whom she might have oppressed. Did her ex husband make any sort of statement?

This is neither appropriate nor sensitive, but watching Arrested Development has made it impossible for me to read "MRA" without thinking "Mentally Retarded Adult."

So. Yeah.

While I fully believe there are problems in the industry, I just can't get worked up over that comment. I just didn't take it that way. I'm sure someone will say that means I'm part of the problem. I did watch it with a very close member of my family who had the act supposedly being threatened happen to her and she also did not take it that way. Beats me.

Just wanted to add. I'm not saying anyone is wrong for being offended. If you were, please let them know.

obirano wrote:

While I fully believe there are problems in the industry, I just can't get worked up over that comment. I just didn't take it that way. I'm sure someone will say that means I'm part of the problem. I did watch it with a very close member of my family who had the act supposedly being threatened happen to her and she also did not take it that way. Beats me.

Just wanted to add. I'm not saying anyone is wrong for being offended. If you were, please let them know.

Is this pertaining to the Killer Instinct play where the dude said "it will be all over soon"? Because I hear that damn near any time something unpleasant happens to me-tooth filling, vasectomy. The vasectomy was not over soon enough, and was weird.

There is plenty of much more blatant misogyny going on at E3 and other events to address, without getting into the finer points of intention in that one statement.

Can we not just let people decide what is and isn't important to them?