This is the segment where I scour my favorite forums around the internet and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs told in the words from some of my favorite human beings.
In this edition we return to our old friend Jessica Valenti, who has decided to write a piece about 'Gamergate', something that she clearly has no idea about.
_________________________________________________________________________
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/21/gamergate-angry-men-harassing-women?CMP=twt_gu
_________________________________________________________________________
Gamergate is loud, dangerous and a last grasp at cultural dominance by angry white men
This article is a strange one. I have seen many arguments bought up around 'Gamergate' in the past few weeks, but now our very well informed journalist here is suggesting that the situation may have come from cultural dominance. Not about ethics or gaming, no this issue is clearly based around cultural dominance. This means she is comparing 'Gamergate' to the eradication of Native American society, since that's probably the best example of a dominant culture becoming prevalent throughout history. That resulted in the social decay of American society and the destruction of a significant culture, I'm not really seeing those issues with 'Gamergate', it's just a few winy feminists getting some backlash, which to be fair was always going to happen.
It's instantly clear that this article has nothing to do with the issues surrounding 'Gamergate', it's just another excuse for Valenti to bang on about how she hates the generalized view of white male society, and so she of course makes it clear that women who aren't even journalists are the completely innocent victims here. But she is a journalist, so even her own rules don't apply to this rant. We've already lost the idea of cultural dominance in the introduction, this point is based on targeting outspoken women, which when I last checked wasn't a culture. This might actually be a more appropriate argument than cultural dominance, since the 'Gamergate' movement is clearly targeting outspoken women, and not a stereotyped race and gender. I also love the "unwelcoming future" part. It seems Mystic Meg here can see through time itself, to a time when all men bow down to the power of radical feminism, but then it might just be her talking utter bullshit. Although time travel might be a more valid point than anything else on this article.
Just how very dare you label 'Gamergate' a gaming problem, I mean what's the logic in that, there is absolutely zero chance that it has anything to do with games. Which of course it does, you can't get away from that, and attaching a hashtag to something makes no difference on the actual subject. I'm still not scared about Ebola, even after the many hashtags that have been circulating the internet, and the same can be applied to the issues in this argument. I also love the "toxic" misinformation line, because there is zero misinformation in this article. Even in the previous paragraph Valenti mentioned how Anita Sarkeesian was "forced" to cancel a talk recently despite the fact that the local police said there was "no risks to students." (http://www.usu.edu/ust/index.cfm?article=54179) I don't know who to believe here, Valenti, who made a point lacking any context, or the police, who actually handled the situation first hand. But then maybe classing this article as information may be going a step too far, being as most of it is just wild generalization. At the end of this paragraph we even discover that the defining feature of a white male is threatening behavior and harassment, which I surprisingly couldn't find any evidence for on the internet. So how Valenti can argue that misinformation pollutes society is beyond belief.
Apparently it's now even "a dangerous time for women", as opposed to the middle ages when the threat of the black death and the occasional witch trial would ensure your safety. It seems to Valenti that no matter how much her life improves it still isn't enough. A women's life has probably improved by a factor of about a million times in the last hundred years, but Valenti wants all the power instantly, especially if it means taking down that evil patriarchy. But what is she going to do about it? Nothing. Not once throughout this whole article does she ever contemplate a solution, she just tries to find the faults in her usual fashion, which doesn't help the situation in the slightest. For once why not actually do something beneficial, then maybe you will get support from men. I've been around long enough to know that if you treat someone like crap, they're not going to bend over backwards for you, so it comes as no surprise that men do hate these very informative articles on the internet, that are written so lovingly by some of the world's top unbiased journalists.
But there is no denying that Valenti is linked with 'Gamergate', why in 2007 she even wrote an article about the generic term of misogyny, and this piece has absolutely nothing to do with video games or ethics. It even came years before 'Gamergate', so how she can claim it is in some way related to video games is ludicrous. For that matter what has this paragraph, and the rest of the article for that matter, got to do with the original topic. I don't care how many unbiased and unrelated sources you throw at me, it still doesn't get away from the fact that you haven't a clue what you're talking about, and one persons ramblings isn't going to change my view on the subject. Valenti even has the cheek to put a quote based on "judging each other based on gender or race" in her article, which is pretty rich coming from somebody who's been doing that for the last five paragraphs. It seems that Valenti is just as bad as the people in question. It's not about justice or equality, it's about cultural dominance, the very thing she hopes to eradicate.
We did eventually get to that conclusion, although what that has to do with the issue of ethics in video games is another question. We seem to be getting the same argument of female oppression that we always get with Valenti's articles, just this time with a different title and a weak link to current affairs. The rest, well it's just crap that is unbelievably manipulative and opinionated, and to be honest I'm amazed this piece of drivel even gets past publishing. I don't know what the purpose of this article is, and targeting one subculture isn't going to achieve anything. I just wish she would stop it, for the good of everyone.
No comments:
Post a Comment